3 ms·

That's a very optimistic view of the US justice system's treatment of whistleblowers (surely they would contend that all of their programs were legal), but now

by maxbond 11d ago

That's a very optimistic view of the US justice system's treatment of whistleblowers (surely they would contend that all of their programs were legal), but now his being granted asylum by Russia isn't evidence but a new incongruous fact we need to explain since the hypothesis is now apparently that he is a Chinese turncoat. So I don't see how this helps the case.

mannanj 11d ago
I once publicly stated here that I think some accounts are astroturfers, and I think some are deep state too. I am not making specific accusations.
- tosapple 11d ago
  i just had that conversation about 'industrial' effort and 'actors', we have recent examples of monetary corruption in the sacklers.
- MSFT_Edging 11d ago
  For some reason people think psychological operations are some kind of urban legend.
- linkregister 11d ago
  If a commenter posts a thing that I disagree with, then their motives are bad. Whereas all opinions of mine are pure and in good faith.
lern_too_spel 11d ago
> now his being granted asylum by Russia isn't evidence but a new incongruous fact we need to explain since the hypothesis is now apparently that he is a Chinese turncoat. Putin wanted him in Russia, and Snowden happened to be passing through. Simple as that. I already explained the clear evidence (from Snowden's own mouth) that Snowden initially wanted to gain asylum in Hong Kong by leaking hacks of Chinese infrastructure in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49784968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49784968. Snowden didn't grow up wanting to be Chinese. He simply misread the PRISM documents and imagined a USA that completely ignored the 4th Amendment. Somebody in such a state could easily imagine a USA that would ignore the 8th Amendment, and so he had to flee in order to get the news out about the former, which he talked about nonstop the moment he got journalists' ears. It turned out that he was wrong about PRISM, and he was wrong about the government ignoring the 4th Amendment because the only extant program that might have been in violation was shut down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785016 The lesson in all this? Stay in school.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11d ago
  >and imagined a USA that completely ignored the 4th Amendment. Haha. Tell us another one. I don't have enough comedy in my life.
  - lern_too_spel 11d ago
    He said so himself. I take him at his word. Meanwhile, the actual USA stopped doing the one extant program in his leaks that was ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 11d ago
      >the actual USA stopped doing the one extant program in his leaks that was ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment. To move it to another program, classified and unreported, under which it could hide again. Don't be naive.
      - lern_too_spel 11d ago
        > To move it to another program, classified and unreported, under which it could hide again. Don't be naive. Why? They first made a more limited program to comply with the law and then shut that down because the data wasn't useful. If they made another program, the SSCI would shut it down, or a whistleblower would come out and point out a program that they know to be clearly illegal, whereas the original program was arguably legal, with the government's justification in the leaks. After the ruling, the government would not be able to provide justification for obtaining that data from the telcos with their old legal argument because it is invalidated by precedent.

by maxbond 11d ago

mannanj 11d ago

I once publicly stated here that I think some accounts are astroturfers, and I think some are deep state too. I am not making specific accusations.

tosapple 11d ago
i just had that conversation about 'industrial' effort and 'actors', we have recent examples of monetary corruption in the sacklers.
MSFT_Edging 11d ago
For some reason people think psychological operations are some kind of urban legend.
linkregister 11d ago
If a commenter posts a thing that I disagree with, then their motives are bad. Whereas all opinions of mine are pure and in good faith.

lern_too_spel 11d ago

> now his being granted asylum by Russia isn't evidence but a new incongruous fact we need to explain since the hypothesis is now apparently that he is a Chinese turncoat. Putin wanted him in Russia, and Snowden happened to be passing through. Simple as that. I already explained the clear evidence (from Snowden's own mouth) that Snowden initially wanted to gain asylum in Hong Kong by leaking hacks of Chinese infrastructure in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49784968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49784968. Snowden didn't grow up wanting to be Chinese. He simply misread the PRISM documents and imagined a USA that completely ignored the 4th Amendment. Somebody in such a state could easily imagine a USA that would ignore the 8th Amendment, and so he had to flee in order to get the news out about the former, which he talked about nonstop the moment he got journalists' ears. It turned out that he was wrong about PRISM, and he was wrong about the government ignoring the 4th Amendment because the only extant program that might have been in violation was shut down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785016 The lesson in all this? Stay in school.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11d ago
>and imagined a USA that completely ignored the 4th Amendment. Haha. Tell us another one. I don't have enough comedy in my life.
- lern_too_spel 11d ago
  He said so himself. I take him at his word. Meanwhile, the actual USA stopped doing the one extant program in his leaks that was ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 11d ago
    >the actual USA stopped doing the one extant program in his leaks that was ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment. To move it to another program, classified and unreported, under which it could hide again. Don't be naive.
    - lern_too_spel 11d ago
      > To move it to another program, classified and unreported, under which it could hide again. Don't be naive. Why? They first made a more limited program to comply with the law and then shut that down because the data wasn't useful. If they made another program, the SSCI would shut it down, or a whistleblower would come out and point out a program that they know to be clearly illegal, whereas the original program was arguably legal, with the government's justification in the leaks. After the ruling, the government would not be able to provide justification for obtaining that data from the telcos with their old legal argument because it is invalidated by precedent.