4 ms·

I agree with the sentiment, but this is an important development. If whistle-blowers get protection, we will likely see more of them. I'm OK with some news ab

by gasull 13y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but this is an important development. If whistle-blowers get protection, we will likely see more of them. I'm OK with some news about Snowden from time to time as long as the number of stories about surveillance largely outnumber the ones about Snowden. I think HN has a healthy ratio.

threeseed 13y ago
You serious ? It should be clear that if you have information to share you should do so quietly without making yourself the target. Where would Snowden be without the legal and financial assistance of the Wikileaks team ? Likely rotting away for the rest of his life in a US jail. Furthermore since Snowden's revelations has resulted in basically zero change to the status quo (no legislation, no change in policies, no change in diplomatic relations, no mass uprising by the public) you have to imagine he's wondering what the whole point of it was.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  no legislation, no change in policies, no change in diplomatic relations, no mass uprising by the public It's only been 5-6 weeks, how fast were you expecting things to happen? The Watergate scandal took over two years to unfold even though many of the major revelations took place during a general election campaign.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Watergate involved criminal activity. Everything the NSA has done is completely legal and vetted. Also the majority of the public support the policies, the protests have been weak to say the least and the EU is not going to do anything to upset the EU-US FTA. So it's hard to see where the drivers of change are going to come from. I actually think the problem is the messaging. Rather than argue specific policy changes e.g. "ban monitoring of social media" or "transparent FISA courts" opponents have opted for the vague and somewhat vapid "restore the fourth".
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      My point was that even with pretty obvious criminal activity in the Watergate scandal, it still took a long time for it to reach crisis point, so it's a bit early to judge how the NSA thing might play out. I agree with you about the messaging, and don't think the fourth amendment has ever supplied the broad privacy protection that its boosters seem to imagine. I think we need a more explicit privacy amendment, but haven't really thought about how to effectively promote this idea so far.
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        There is always the Communications Act of 1934.
    - tmzt 13y ago
      I find it very hard to argue that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (business records exceptions notwithstanding) in a public Twitter or Facebook feed. You could possibly allow for it in tightly restricted Twitter or Facebook feeds where a small number of users are allowed access, such as Close Friends in the case of Facebook. Sometimes getting the public to accept a particular argument is not the hard part, it's laying out the alternatives factually in a way that shows the public how they contrast. I find it very difficult to argue positions that take extremes of the type you laid out. I would also agree that vague notions are a waste of time. Even with the revelations in 2004 and '05, it was clear that the focus of the program was traffic analysis by completely automated means, and we should have been willing to legislate the extent to which we will allow that activity in public laws in the public domain. The role of the FISC should be to allow for warrants in very uncommon cases of foreign espionage or international terrorism, not as a general mechanism to allow the presentation and consideration of secret evidence. And it doesn't end with that court, the state secret privilege has been used commonly and repeatedly (see the work of Steven Aftergood for more details) to quash cases that the government considers inconvenient, and the Congress has essentially wiped away the complicity of common carriers in violating their implied assurance of the privacy of voice communication. The President called, after these revelations, but nonetheless, for a renewed and expanded debate of these tradeoffs. Do we consider this over now that the broadcast and print media (of all political stripes) have left it alone? Have we now decided that the American people have accepted this as the new normal and moved on? At every opportunity we conflate the mostly benign traffic analysis and ignore the very real threat (by those we call government) of a persistent and permanent archive of all of our most private conversations. These tools in the wrong hands would be devastating to any free people, placing so many of us in deadly danger of a government that may take our past words as proof of our treason. This is not theory, this is history. (The traffic analysis would also contribute to the ends of such a government, where guilt by association may be sufficient for punishment.)
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I have the exact opposite conclusion. I think sharing such information secretly exposes you to approximately the same risk of detection by the NSA, but much is much more dangerous since the public won't notice or care when you are arrested and held without trial.
laureny 13y ago
> I agree with the sentiment, but this is an important development. If whistle-blowers get protection, we will likely see more of them. There has never been any doubt that whistle blowers can seek refuge in countries that are enemies of the United States.
- pavs 13y ago
  To state the obvious. Enemy of the USA is not the same as being enemy of the people of the USA, its more like being enemy of the government of the USA. What constitues a country to be an enemy of the USA, and who gets to decide who is the enemy of the USA? On one side, 15 individual from Saudi Arabia was involved with 9/11, 2 from UAE, one from lebanon and one from Egypt. One could argue that so many of the terrorists and their organization originated from Saudi Arabia, they should be considered as the enemy of the people of USA. Yet they are not. To the best of my knowledge, they received no rebuffs from the USA government. Why is Venezuela and other so called socialist latin american countries enemy of the USA? What did they do to harm the people of the USA? Nothing, yet they are considered the enemy of the USA. On the contrary USA over many decades wreaked havoc in latin america, caused many economical, political and human misery.
  - cema 13y ago
    No, they are not considered enemies. Simply not friends, but that is obvious, just listen to their leaders.
    - gasull 13y ago
      Venezuela sells oil to the US. There isn't an embargo like with Cuba.
      - cema 13y ago
        Exactly! The rhetoric is there, of course. Actions are somewhat different.

by gasull 13y ago

threeseed 13y ago

You serious ? It should be clear that if you have information to share you should do so quietly without making yourself the target. Where would Snowden be without the legal and financial assistance of the Wikileaks team ? Likely rotting away for the rest of his life in a US jail. Furthermore since Snowden's revelations has resulted in basically zero change to the status quo (no legislation, no change in policies, no change in diplomatic relations, no mass uprising by the public) you have to imagine he's wondering what the whole point of it was.

anigbrowl 13y ago
no legislation, no change in policies, no change in diplomatic relations, no mass uprising by the public It's only been 5-6 weeks, how fast were you expecting things to happen? The Watergate scandal took over two years to unfold even though many of the major revelations took place during a general election campaign.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Watergate involved criminal activity. Everything the NSA has done is completely legal and vetted. Also the majority of the public support the policies, the protests have been weak to say the least and the EU is not going to do anything to upset the EU-US FTA. So it's hard to see where the drivers of change are going to come from. I actually think the problem is the messaging. Rather than argue specific policy changes e.g. "ban monitoring of social media" or "transparent FISA courts" opponents have opted for the vague and somewhat vapid "restore the fourth".
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    My point was that even with pretty obvious criminal activity in the Watergate scandal, it still took a long time for it to reach crisis point, so it's a bit early to judge how the NSA thing might play out. I agree with you about the messaging, and don't think the fourth amendment has ever supplied the broad privacy protection that its boosters seem to imagine. I think we need a more explicit privacy amendment, but haven't really thought about how to effectively promote this idea so far.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      There is always the Communications Act of 1934.
  - tmzt 13y ago
    I find it very hard to argue that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (business records exceptions notwithstanding) in a public Twitter or Facebook feed. You could possibly allow for it in tightly restricted Twitter or Facebook feeds where a small number of users are allowed access, such as Close Friends in the case of Facebook. Sometimes getting the public to accept a particular argument is not the hard part, it's laying out the alternatives factually in a way that shows the public how they contrast. I find it very difficult to argue positions that take extremes of the type you laid out. I would also agree that vague notions are a waste of time. Even with the revelations in 2004 and '05, it was clear that the focus of the program was traffic analysis by completely automated means, and we should have been willing to legislate the extent to which we will allow that activity in public laws in the public domain. The role of the FISC should be to allow for warrants in very uncommon cases of foreign espionage or international terrorism, not as a general mechanism to allow the presentation and consideration of secret evidence. And it doesn't end with that court, the state secret privilege has been used commonly and repeatedly (see the work of Steven Aftergood for more details) to quash cases that the government considers inconvenient, and the Congress has essentially wiped away the complicity of common carriers in violating their implied assurance of the privacy of voice communication. The President called, after these revelations, but nonetheless, for a renewed and expanded debate of these tradeoffs. Do we consider this over now that the broadcast and print media (of all political stripes) have left it alone? Have we now decided that the American people have accepted this as the new normal and moved on? At every opportunity we conflate the mostly benign traffic analysis and ignore the very real threat (by those we call government) of a persistent and permanent archive of all of our most private conversations. These tools in the wrong hands would be devastating to any free people, placing so many of us in deadly danger of a government that may take our past words as proof of our treason. This is not theory, this is history. (The traffic analysis would also contribute to the ends of such a government, where guilt by association may be sufficient for punishment.)
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I have the exact opposite conclusion. I think sharing such information secretly exposes you to approximately the same risk of detection by the NSA, but much is much more dangerous since the public won't notice or care when you are arrested and held without trial.

laureny 13y ago

> I agree with the sentiment, but this is an important development. If whistle-blowers get protection, we will likely see more of them. There has never been any doubt that whistle blowers can seek refuge in countries that are enemies of the United States.

pavs 13y ago
To state the obvious. Enemy of the USA is not the same as being enemy of the people of the USA, its more like being enemy of the government of the USA. What constitues a country to be an enemy of the USA, and who gets to decide who is the enemy of the USA? On one side, 15 individual from Saudi Arabia was involved with 9/11, 2 from UAE, one from lebanon and one from Egypt. One could argue that so many of the terrorists and their organization originated from Saudi Arabia, they should be considered as the enemy of the people of USA. Yet they are not. To the best of my knowledge, they received no rebuffs from the USA government. Why is Venezuela and other so called socialist latin american countries enemy of the USA? What did they do to harm the people of the USA? Nothing, yet they are considered the enemy of the USA. On the contrary USA over many decades wreaked havoc in latin america, caused many economical, political and human misery.
- cema 13y ago
  No, they are not considered enemies. Simply not friends, but that is obvious, just listen to their leaders.
  - gasull 13y ago
    Venezuela sells oil to the US. There isn't an embargo like with Cuba.
    - cema 13y ago
      Exactly! The rhetoric is there, of course. Actions are somewhat different.