7 ms·

Snowden's choice of Hong Kong as a hiding spot becomes more and more interesting. I suspect the timing of this particular revelation is timed deliberately just

by cletus 13y ago

Snowden's choice of Hong Kong as a hiding spot becomes more and more interesting. I suspect the timing of this particular revelation is timed deliberately just after the US files charges against him seeking his arrest by Hong Kong authorities. A recent article suggested that China was already inclined to "solve" this problem (from a diplomatic and political standpoint) by doing what it does best: simply dragging its feet. This seems incredibly easy to do when the Hong Kong legal system is inclined to move slowly anyway, any extradition will go through a number of appeals and the process for applying for asylum is being revamped putting all such cases on hold (not that Snowden has applied for asylum yet). It is an somewhere between widely suspected and an open secret that China engages in concerted intelligence efforts against the US government and US corporations. Many cyberattacks originate in China (and there is strong evidence that at least some are state-sponsored). And China is widely believed to have stolen nuclear secrets [1]. But this revelation goes the other way. I really can't predict how China will take this. I suspect they'll be more disinclined to hand Snowden over (or at least do it in any kind of timely fashion). To paraphrase Ned Flanders "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? Well maybe not that far but it's really not that far off. The war for intellectual property, Federal prosecutorial overreach (eg the Y12 "terrorists", Aaron Swartz), the relentless pursuit of whistleblowers and the end-run around the Fourth Amendment are simply stunning, particularly from an allegedly Democratic administration. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/06/world/breach-los-alamos-special-report-china-stole-nuclear-secrets-for-bombs-us-aides.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/06/world/breach-los-alamos-sp...

downandout 13y ago
>Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? I only wish that Snowden would have been in a position to leak this stuff about a week before Obama was reelected. At least then voters would have been able to make an informed decision. Romney may have been equally as evil as Obama in terms of surveillance ambitions and disregard for the constitution, but the difference is that part of Obama's election pitch was that he was going to get rid of these types of programs, while Romney never said anything of the sort. I don't like the fact that a man who clearly lied about his fundamental political views just to get elected is sitting in the Oval Office right now. Bush, and all Presidents before him, may have lied about many things, but at least you knew where most of them stood politically.
- untog 13y ago
  I don't like people that would lie about their fundamental political views just to get elected sitting in he Oval Office. A more charitable reading is that Obama didn't lie, he was just an idealist and changed position when he was confronted with the realities of being President. That's not to defend it, but I don't think Obama knowingly and cynically lied his way into office.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    A much more charitable reading is that Obama is a patsy and the President isn't really in charge. Far-fetched? No President could unseat Hoover. Why would any intelligence and surveillance apparatus be any less self-preserving?
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      >No President could unseat Hoover. This, despite Hoover's lifestyle (not that there's anything wrong with it, but there was then). Why do so many people scoff at the notion that the intelligence agencies of the US could be up to no good? I mean, it isn't disputed that Hoover was an SOB, a scoundrel who used his office's resources to extort basically anyone he could. That's conspiracy fact. And it went on for years.
      - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
        Hoover was also incredibly effective, at least earlier on...so he had a lot of political support within the government and within congress. The president is only one chamber of power, people tend to forget that. Its nice to fixate on Obama, but the whole government is in on this...congress, judges, state government, local government, and even...I dare say...much of the citizenry.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    I agree with you, but keep in mind that nobody likes to think that they were duped, myself included. And we may look for support for the notion that we aren't dupes, even if we are.
diminoten 13y ago
> But this revelation goes the other way. That's not what this is saying. China hacks US and other foreign corporations for specific and exclusive economic gains. They steal intellectual property and pass that IP onto Chinese competing companies. The US hacking into China is state run spycraft. Maybe it's not good, but it's not "the other way", because that implies the US government is taking intellectual property from Chinese companies and passing it on to US companies. There is NO evidence that such a thing is happening at a scale anywhere approaching Chinese activities.
SmokyBorbon 13y ago
> Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? Republicans.
Havoc 13y ago
>But this revelation goes the other way. I really can't predict how China will take this. Super pissed and not at all inclined to play ball with the US. They probably knew/suspected anyway, but this just plays into their hand so they won't let such minor details interfere. I sure hope China refuses to hand him over. The US intelligence has overplay its hand & they could do with a trashing or two.
rapind 13y ago
"Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush?" C'mon man, why does everything have to be partisan? Can't you just admit that both of your major parties are douches and do something about it, instead of arguing about who's worse? It ends up hijacking the entire thread. The whole republican v.s. democrat thing is just a tired facade... Kind of obvious by now isn't it?
- steve19 13y ago
  I don't think he was saying that Bush or Republicans are better, rather the opposite. Back when GWB was in power he was widely deride as a tyrant (especially online) and the worst thing to happen to American foreign relations ever. Yet it would not be hard to make an argument that Obama has been worse with regards to civil liberties and foreign relations. Different guy, different party, same (or worse) policies. Also remember Obama was (re)elected only some months ago.
  - rapind 13y ago
    OK, I get it, however I just don't think it's productive to argue over who's the bigger tyrant. It's a fixation that tends to drown out all other potentially meaningful and / or productive conversation.
    - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
      I think you missed the point. He was basically saying that Obama and Bush are the same.
- lallysingh 13y ago
  IMHO the problem lies in the winner-take-all voting system. A vote for a third party just counts "against" the primary one you would've voted for if the 3rd wasn't there.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
brown9-2 13y ago
Wait, do you really think that the USG only started hacking Chinese communications, or collecting intel on foreign governments and countries, on or after Jan 20, 2009?

by cletus 13y ago

downandout 13y ago

>Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? I only wish that Snowden would have been in a position to leak this stuff about a week before Obama was reelected. At least then voters would have been able to make an informed decision. Romney may have been equally as evil as Obama in terms of surveillance ambitions and disregard for the constitution, but the difference is that part of Obama's election pitch was that he was going to get rid of these types of programs, while Romney never said anything of the sort. I don't like the fact that a man who clearly lied about his fundamental political views just to get elected is sitting in the Oval Office right now. Bush, and all Presidents before him, may have lied about many things, but at least you knew where most of them stood politically.

untog 13y ago
I don't like people that would lie about their fundamental political views just to get elected sitting in he Oval Office. A more charitable reading is that Obama didn't lie, he was just an idealist and changed position when he was confronted with the realities of being President. That's not to defend it, but I don't think Obama knowingly and cynically lied his way into office.
- philwelch 13y ago
  A much more charitable reading is that Obama is a patsy and the President isn't really in charge. Far-fetched? No President could unseat Hoover. Why would any intelligence and surveillance apparatus be any less self-preserving?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >No President could unseat Hoover. This, despite Hoover's lifestyle (not that there's anything wrong with it, but there was then). Why do so many people scoff at the notion that the intelligence agencies of the US could be up to no good? I mean, it isn't disputed that Hoover was an SOB, a scoundrel who used his office's resources to extort basically anyone he could. That's conspiracy fact. And it went on for years.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Hoover was also incredibly effective, at least earlier on...so he had a lot of political support within the government and within congress. The president is only one chamber of power, people tend to forget that. Its nice to fixate on Obama, but the whole government is in on this...congress, judges, state government, local government, and even...I dare say...much of the citizenry.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I agree with you, but keep in mind that nobody likes to think that they were duped, myself included. And we may look for support for the notion that we aren't dupes, even if we are.

diminoten 13y ago

> But this revelation goes the other way. That's not what this is saying. China hacks US and other foreign corporations for specific and exclusive economic gains. They steal intellectual property and pass that IP onto Chinese competing companies. The US hacking into China is state run spycraft. Maybe it's not good, but it's not "the other way", because that implies the US government is taking intellectual property from Chinese companies and passing it on to US companies. There is NO evidence that such a thing is happening at a scale anywhere approaching Chinese activities.

SmokyBorbon 13y ago

> Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? Republicans.

Havoc 13y ago

>But this revelation goes the other way. I really can't predict how China will take this. Super pissed and not at all inclined to play ball with the US. They probably knew/suspected anyway, but this just plays into their hand so they won't let such minor details interfere. I sure hope China refuses to hand him over. The US intelligence has overplay its hand & they could do with a trashing or two.

rapind 13y ago

"Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush?" C'mon man, why does everything have to be partisan? Can't you just admit that both of your major parties are douches and do something about it, instead of arguing about who's worse? It ends up hijacking the entire thread. The whole republican v.s. democrat thing is just a tired facade... Kind of obvious by now isn't it?

steve19 13y ago
I don't think he was saying that Bush or Republicans are better, rather the opposite. Back when GWB was in power he was widely deride as a tyrant (especially online) and the worst thing to happen to American foreign relations ever. Yet it would not be hard to make an argument that Obama has been worse with regards to civil liberties and foreign relations. Different guy, different party, same (or worse) policies. Also remember Obama was (re)elected only some months ago.
- rapind 13y ago
  OK, I get it, however I just don't think it's productive to argue over who's the bigger tyrant. It's a fixation that tends to drown out all other potentially meaningful and / or productive conversation.
  - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
    I think you missed the point. He was basically saying that Obama and Bush are the same.
lallysingh 13y ago
IMHO the problem lies in the winner-take-all voting system. A vote for a third party just counts "against" the primary one you would've voted for if the 3rd wasn't there.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago

brown9-2 13y ago

Wait, do you really think that the USG only started hacking Chinese communications, or collecting intel on foreign governments and countries, on or after Jan 20, 2009?