9 ms·

Edward Snowden responds to release of e-mail by U.S. officials

109 points by ChrisAntaki 12y ago

dueprocess 12y ago
The fact Snowden had the conviction and courage to challenge the NSA on fundamental issues, both verbally and in writing, is remarkable. This was Snowden's employer and the source of his income. Evidently, the preservation of civil liberties was more important to him.
- gahahaha 12y ago
  He risked much more than his income - he risked (and is risking) his life.
  - Bluestrike2 12y ago
    I think he means before he decided to leak information, when he was just voicing his concerns to his superiors.
  - Istof 12y ago
    maybe one day he will be considered a hero (anyways, I think that he should be)
- noorie 12y ago
  Risky man indeed :)
joejohnson 12y ago
So yet again we have reason to trust Snowden's word and to further doubt official statements from the NSA.
- ChrisAntaki 12y ago
  > The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers - after more than a year of denying any such contact existed - raises serious concerns. ^ Something Snowden says, at the start of the article
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  As he said in the article they continue to contradict themselves. They said no communications existed - and now suddenly they have one. Why should we believe them when they say they don't have any more when they've already lied about it once?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > They said no communications existed - and now suddenly they have one. There's no contradiction at all. He said he sent emails of a certain category. NSA still says they have no emails of that category—but they do have an email of a different sort, asking a procedural question. NSA probably has lots of emails from Snowden on file, after all. What they've said (and continue to maintain) is that they don't have any reflecting a concern (edit: typo fix) over these programs. The email they released from him certainly doesn't show any concern. Seriously, read the actual question: "I am not entirely certain, but this does not seem correct, as it seems to imply that Executive Orders have the same precedence as law." This is hardly anything even approaching a hard charge of misconduct being done. Especially so given that the General Counsel announced that they agreed with Snowden's interpretation, "That said, you are correct that E.O.s cannot override a statute."
sixQuarks 12y ago
On the Washington Post comments section, I feel that users "still here" and ".Morti" are shills from the NSA. One of Snowden's leaks confirmed that they do try to change viewpoints on online discussions.
- ChrisAntaki 12y ago
  Who are the shills on HN? ;)
  - EC1 12y ago
    pg
  - sitkack 12y ago
    I have watched some accounts on HN gain over 1000 karma in less than 80 days. They appear to be using machine learning techniques to pump links into the site. They made no comments for days until their karma was high enough.
    - rthomas6 12y ago
      Well, why not name names?
      - sitkack 12y ago
        Because w/o damning evidence of any wrongdoing at this point I don't want to turn it into a witch hunt. Watching.
        sixQuarks 12y ago
        You're like the Paul Revere of HN.
        sitkack 12y ago
        More like that other guy no one can remember. ;) It is interesting to watch the ebb and flow of political opinion on discussion forums. And it would be extremely interesting to have logs of HN or Reddit to do shill and multiple account detection.
rdtsc 12y ago
"No we never got any concerns from Snowden"... (months later) "Oh here it is, an email from Snowden"... "So how do you explain that you lied before?" (silence) Is NSA just lying because it hopes the problem will go away? I guess that is not unreasonable. Public has a pretty short attention span. So rather than trying to engage just brush off and deny everything. Was anyone at the NSA ever punished for lying to the public or Congress? If not they have exactly 0 incentive for not doing it. The part of "Oh yeah here is the email" and the follow up question of "Why were you lying?" quite often never comes. Everyone just moves on. Looking at the organization as a whole and comparing to a person, NSA acts like a psychopath that climbed its way up to into a power position. Lying through its teeth. Engaging in illegal activities. Every time they are caught, telling lies, they follow up with more lies. Spy on Congress members and judges. Presumably to be able to manipulate them. This is a person you'd want to run away from in real life as fast as possible. They are dangerous because they have power and they have no morals.
- jonnybgood 12y ago
  Well, from the looks of it Snowden was asking a procedural question, not outlying any concerns. He also received a response. I have to wonder if you actually read the email.
  - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
    You've missed the point. If that's all there is, why lie about it. Their lying is becoming obsessive. They have no credibility to believe that there are no more Snowdon emails. The content of this one email isn't relevant.
    - jonnybgood 12y ago
      What was the lie exactly? Snowden asked the General Counsel a procedural question. As far as we know, Snowden never brought any legal concerns to superiors or otherwise concerning the classified programs of the NSA. And in that regard, the NSA may not be lying. Simply put, if the NSA did not receive concerns from Snowden on the legality of the classified programs, then the NSA is not lying.
argumentum 12y ago
How can the supposedly most capable "intelligence" organization in the world be so dumb at understanding public opinion in the internet age? It's like they are operating out of a 1930s propaganda playbook .. Especially when Snowden, Greenwald et al appear to be masterminds at the same task. Of course, it helps to have the truth on your side, but considering that they are up against the most powerful people on the planet .. very impressive.
- Terr_ 12y ago
  Two possibilities: 1. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Replace "understand" with "acknowledge" as necessary. 2. They know they only need to worry about the opinions of certain key players, not the public in general.

109 points by ChrisAntaki 12y ago

The fact Snowden had the conviction and courage to challenge the NSA on fundamental issues, both verbally and in writing, is remarkable. This was Snowden's employer and the source of his income. Evidently, the preservation of civil liberties was more important to him.

gahahaha 12y ago
He risked much more than his income - he risked (and is risking) his life.
- Bluestrike2 12y ago
  I think he means before he decided to leak information, when he was just voicing his concerns to his superiors.
- Istof 12y ago
  maybe one day he will be considered a hero (anyways, I think that he should be)
noorie 12y ago
Risky man indeed :)

joejohnson 12y ago

So yet again we have reason to trust Snowden's word and to further doubt official statements from the NSA.

ChrisAntaki 12y ago
> The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers - after more than a year of denying any such contact existed - raises serious concerns. ^ Something Snowden says, at the start of the article
k-mcgrady 12y ago
As he said in the article they continue to contradict themselves. They said no communications existed - and now suddenly they have one. Why should we believe them when they say they don't have any more when they've already lied about it once?
- mpyne 12y ago
  > They said no communications existed - and now suddenly they have one. There's no contradiction at all. He said he sent emails of a certain category. NSA still says they have no emails of that category—but they do have an email of a different sort, asking a procedural question. NSA probably has lots of emails from Snowden on file, after all. What they've said (and continue to maintain) is that they don't have any reflecting a concern (edit: typo fix) over these programs. The email they released from him certainly doesn't show any concern. Seriously, read the actual question: "I am not entirely certain, but this does not seem correct, as it seems to imply that Executive Orders have the same precedence as law." This is hardly anything even approaching a hard charge of misconduct being done. Especially so given that the General Counsel announced that they agreed with Snowden's interpretation, "That said, you are correct that E.O.s cannot override a statute."

sixQuarks 12y ago

On the Washington Post comments section, I feel that users "still here" and ".Morti" are shills from the NSA. One of Snowden's leaks confirmed that they do try to change viewpoints on online discussions.

ChrisAntaki 12y ago
Who are the shills on HN? ;)
- EC1 12y ago
  pg
- sitkack 12y ago
  I have watched some accounts on HN gain over 1000 karma in less than 80 days. They appear to be using machine learning techniques to pump links into the site. They made no comments for days until their karma was high enough.
  - rthomas6 12y ago
    Well, why not name names?
    - sitkack 12y ago
      Because w/o damning evidence of any wrongdoing at this point I don't want to turn it into a witch hunt. Watching.
      - sixQuarks 12y ago
        You're like the Paul Revere of HN.
        sitkack 12y ago
        More like that other guy no one can remember. ;) It is interesting to watch the ebb and flow of political opinion on discussion forums. And it would be extremely interesting to have logs of HN or Reddit to do shill and multiple account detection.

rdtsc 12y ago

"No we never got any concerns from Snowden"... (months later) "Oh here it is, an email from Snowden"... "So how do you explain that you lied before?" (silence) Is NSA just lying because it hopes the problem will go away? I guess that is not unreasonable. Public has a pretty short attention span. So rather than trying to engage just brush off and deny everything. Was anyone at the NSA ever punished for lying to the public or Congress? If not they have exactly 0 incentive for not doing it. The part of "Oh yeah here is the email" and the follow up question of "Why were you lying?" quite often never comes. Everyone just moves on. Looking at the organization as a whole and comparing to a person, NSA acts like a psychopath that climbed its way up to into a power position. Lying through its teeth. Engaging in illegal activities. Every time they are caught, telling lies, they follow up with more lies. Spy on Congress members and judges. Presumably to be able to manipulate them. This is a person you'd want to run away from in real life as fast as possible. They are dangerous because they have power and they have no morals.

jonnybgood 12y ago
Well, from the looks of it Snowden was asking a procedural question, not outlying any concerns. He also received a response. I have to wonder if you actually read the email.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  You've missed the point. If that's all there is, why lie about it. Their lying is becoming obsessive. They have no credibility to believe that there are no more Snowdon emails. The content of this one email isn't relevant.
  - jonnybgood 12y ago
    What was the lie exactly? Snowden asked the General Counsel a procedural question. As far as we know, Snowden never brought any legal concerns to superiors or otherwise concerning the classified programs of the NSA. And in that regard, the NSA may not be lying. Simply put, if the NSA did not receive concerns from Snowden on the legality of the classified programs, then the NSA is not lying.

argumentum 12y ago

How can the supposedly most capable "intelligence" organization in the world be so dumb at understanding public opinion in the internet age? It's like they are operating out of a 1930s propaganda playbook .. Especially when Snowden, Greenwald et al appear to be masterminds at the same task. Of course, it helps to have the truth on your side, but considering that they are up against the most powerful people on the planet .. very impressive.

Terr_ 12y ago
Two possibilities: 1. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Replace "understand" with "acknowledge" as necessary. 2. They know they only need to worry about the opinions of certain key players, not the public in general.