4 ms·

Interesting how hypothetical we have to be for snowden to not be a hero and equally hypothetical in degree for the CIA,NSA,FBI to be "actually no longer the bad

by harry8 3y ago

Interesting how hypothetical we have to be for snowden to not be a hero and equally hypothetical in degree for the CIA,NSA,FBI to be "actually no longer the bad guys we know they were despite zero accountability for it" Each of those things isn't impossible, right? It'd be nice if the latter could be made true because accountability actually existed for brazen criminality.

keepamovin 3y ago
I don't think it's a huge "hypothetical" distance to cover for an intelligence organization, perceiving itself to be existentially threatened, to resort to the types of operations it is known for in order to protect itself. Your second point tho I don't understand, 'hypothetical in degree for the CIA,NSA,FBI to be "actually no longer the bad guys we know they were despite zero accountability for it" Each of those things isn't impossible, right? It'd be nice if the latter could be made true because accountability actually existed for brazen criminality.' Can you explain more? How are CIA, FBI related to this? Also, it seems you mean it could have been a factional thing: some faction wanted to shake things up because they weren't happy with the criminality (except the criminality was not the spying on the public type, but much worse), and this was their lever? I think if it was factional, a more banal reason is more likely, e.g: General A didn't like that General B's division was going to get funding for Project Y instead of General A's Project X, so A organized this leak to make General B's division look like klutzes, and ensure General A would get the funds for her project. But it just seems a bit over the top for people in the shadows to blow their whole modus operandi with a public expose for some factional thing. I think it's more likely it was very much sanctioned from the top and "whole of agency" in essence. But maybe that's not what you mean! :)
- harry8 3y ago
  It's a huge hypothetical when you imagine the possibility of something that has zero evidence and in truth seems pretty unlikely. Snowdon not a hero. Whatever your prior, it has been updated with a lot of data none yet pointing that direction. CIA,NSA,FBI the good guys now. Left as an exercise as to what should be necessary to update a view based on the clear evidence we actually have about those institutions, however long it took to come out.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    I’m sorry, I can’t understand your English. Would it be a terrible idea if you really spelled it out for me what you’re saying or used your native language and I’ll Google Translate it. Thanks! :)
    - harry8 3y ago
      I think it's your english that is at issue here today. Try a little harder. :)
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        So I need to pay the price for your poor communication skills? No.
        harry8 3y ago
        No. You need pay nothing nor indeed take part in intellectual life at all. But at least your abuse made for a change from the usual "this is Markov chain authored" in response when someone rightly abuses the CIA which really seems to need reform. That might well be coincidence, of course.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        So if someone says they can’t understand your English, and then you’re rude, and they then say you have poor communication skills, you’re being abused, is that right? And if anyone disagrees they're just missing out on your brilliance?
        harry8 3y ago
        You're pretty new at HN judging by your account. It's clear to me in numbers that other people understood that post I wrote in plain english, as they have what I write for years here. You didn't? And you were pretty rude about it. I've noticed this exact pattern happens often when someone picks up on smears of Snowden, or Assange or criticizes the CIA, NSA & FBI. Maybe that is simply a coincidence. Disagree all you like, that is encouraged around here. Make pretend Snowden is a crook with zero evidence to back it, you'll get picked up on the point. Enough of us have followed the story. Best of luck.

by harry8 3y ago

keepamovin 3y ago

I don't think it's a huge "hypothetical" distance to cover for an intelligence organization, perceiving itself to be existentially threatened, to resort to the types of operations it is known for in order to protect itself. Your second point tho I don't understand, 'hypothetical in degree for the CIA,NSA,FBI to be "actually no longer the bad guys we know they were despite zero accountability for it" Each of those things isn't impossible, right? It'd be nice if the latter could be made true because accountability actually existed for brazen criminality.' Can you explain more? How are CIA, FBI related to this? Also, it seems you mean it could have been a factional thing: some faction wanted to shake things up because they weren't happy with the criminality (except the criminality was not the spying on the public type, but much worse), and this was their lever? I think if it was factional, a more banal reason is more likely, e.g: General A didn't like that General B's division was going to get funding for Project Y instead of General A's Project X, so A organized this leak to make General B's division look like klutzes, and ensure General A would get the funds for her project. But it just seems a bit over the top for people in the shadows to blow their whole modus operandi with a public expose for some factional thing. I think it's more likely it was very much sanctioned from the top and "whole of agency" in essence. But maybe that's not what you mean! :)

harry8 3y ago
It's a huge hypothetical when you imagine the possibility of something that has zero evidence and in truth seems pretty unlikely. Snowdon not a hero. Whatever your prior, it has been updated with a lot of data none yet pointing that direction. CIA,NSA,FBI the good guys now. Left as an exercise as to what should be necessary to update a view based on the clear evidence we actually have about those institutions, however long it took to come out.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  I’m sorry, I can’t understand your English. Would it be a terrible idea if you really spelled it out for me what you’re saying or used your native language and I’ll Google Translate it. Thanks! :)
  - harry8 3y ago
    I think it's your english that is at issue here today. Try a little harder. :)
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      So I need to pay the price for your poor communication skills? No.
      - harry8 3y ago
        No. You need pay nothing nor indeed take part in intellectual life at all. But at least your abuse made for a change from the usual "this is Markov chain authored" in response when someone rightly abuses the CIA which really seems to need reform. That might well be coincidence, of course.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        So if someone says they can’t understand your English, and then you’re rude, and they then say you have poor communication skills, you’re being abused, is that right? And if anyone disagrees they're just missing out on your brilliance?
        harry8 3y ago
        You're pretty new at HN judging by your account. It's clear to me in numbers that other people understood that post I wrote in plain english, as they have what I write for years here. You didn't? And you were pretty rude about it. I've noticed this exact pattern happens often when someone picks up on smears of Snowden, or Assange or criticizes the CIA, NSA & FBI. Maybe that is simply a coincidence. Disagree all you like, that is encouraged around here. Make pretend Snowden is a crook with zero evidence to back it, you'll get picked up on the point. Enough of us have followed the story. Best of luck.