7 ms·

Things I have learned from Marc Andreessen: he thinks Snowden is a traitor. And blames Snowden for causing problems for US companies to sell overseas.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Yes, I never expected Marc Andreessen to flip his own bozo bit, but that quote did the trick. Andreessen took the concept of "shooting the messenger" to new depths of stupidity when he said that. Still, this link is well worth the few minutes it takes to read. His blog has a lot of "Things I've learned from" entries from various people.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > Andreessen took the concept of "shooting the messenger" to new depths of stupidity when he said that. And yet, not really. With the exception of RSA, American tech. companies are being hammered for the actions of NSA, not for their own "crimes". Even German companies obey German legal directives after all, and Vodafone made clear the other day the extent of government monitoring of networks around the world. To the extent that Snowden has made clear the reality that government (and not just criminals) can take advantage of the jurisdictional problems of an open Internet, that's not the fault of the U.S. tech sector either. After all, some of the most successful NSA programs are really liaisons with European security agencies that run the actual intake work, not conspiracies with Silicon Valley. The correct solution for Europe if they want to be free of the possibility of other nations (incl. the USA) doing targeted operations in their networks is to completely balkanize the Internet, which companies like Google and Facebook oppose for obvious reasons. You can credit Snowden with revealing to the world the types of dangers inherent to an open Internet, but that very same set of revelations is a large part of what's harming the U.S. tech sector. You're right that people may have figured it out eventually, but nations and companies around the world tended to agree not to make too big an issue of it since the benefits of an open Internet were thought to outweigh the risks. But Snowden forced the issue. The only true solution to the issues he raised, if you're a European citizen, cannot be left to voluntary compliance by the other nations of the world, especially since you can never certify compliance with that. You'd have to instead build out your own Facebook, your own Google, your own tech sector, just like Russia and China have done. So credit Snowden with opening the eyes of Europe to that reality, but you can't eat your cake and have it too. We've seen region locking spread too far with just with RIAA/MPAA to want to see it infect the rest of the Internet, but that is the message Snowden is responsible for (even if it wasn't the message he meant to send).
  - drumdance 12y ago
    It's one thing to be dismayed at what the revelation of facts has done to the tech sector. Nonetheless, they are still facts. Calling Snowden a traitor is a red herring. One could just as well say that Andreessen's greatest allegiance is to money. So perhaps in that context Snowden is a traitor to Andreessen's cause.
    - calibraxis 12y ago
      Yes, it's not that Andreessen's lost his mind; just that his role in life means he's in antagonism with people like us. And Snowden is a traitor to the US government, whose interests are pretty much the same as wealthy elites like Andreessen (to a first approximation). But not a traitor to the world or even just the US population.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    ...the types of dangers inherent to an open Internet... You haven't made the case that the NSA's shenanigans are in any way "inherent" to the internet as currently designed and implemented. I would suggest that these phenomena are due far more directly to the current organization of the USA federal government, and to the oligopoly that exists in internet service in that country. I think we ought to give Cerf, Kahn, and Postel a pass on this one.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > You haven't made the case that the NSA's shenanigans are in any way "inherent" to the internet as currently designed and implemented. Not the NSA's shenanigans, the shenanigans of any properly resourced foreign (or domestic!) intelligence service. After all, the U.S. itself suffers the same problem in reverse from China and Russia and God only knows who else. If there's anything I've learned from hacktivists, it's that if you leave your stuff on the open Internet it will be exploited eventually, the only question is who will be exploiting it.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  I have to call you out on this one. I disagree with Andreessen's statement on Snowden, but it is not an unreasonable position to hold (he did steal secrets and he did damage the capability and reputation of the US in revealing them. I just happen to think he was right to do so) I suspect I also disagree with Andresseen on provision of comprehensive public healthcare (I am a product of the NHS) and gun control and many other political issues - all of which it is possible to have reasonable people disagree reasonably on. Just because he holds a different view on this issue to most tech sector, does not make him a bozo. If anything, the potential danger Snowden has alerted us to is the ability of the Administration to shut down political discourse and disagreement through superior knowledge of our lives - ironically we should embrace statements like Andreesseens as something that can and should be openly discussed.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    I hear what you're saying, but I believe that anyone who condemns Snowden's crimes while saying nothing about those of Alexander and Clapper is ethically challenged at best. Snowden arguably betrayed his government, while Clapper and Alexander committed offenses of even greater magnitude against the American people. If Andreessen has a beef with anyone, it's with the latter two people. I personally find it difficult to believe that Snowden's revelations weren't already old news to the influential foreign business and political leaders that are the target of Andreessen's concern trolling. Snowden's sin was bringing the knowledge down the mountain to the rest of us.
    - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
      It's part of this strange double standard we have for spies - their guys are liars, our guys are cunning. Once upon a time "our" meant "our country". Today it seems to mean "our values". I think that's an improvement. And to be honest I think Chancellor Merkel, who by all definitions should be cynical as hell, was genuinely shocked by the Stasi like extent of PRISM et al. So I think Snowden did reveal, in convincing ways, that the NSA had gone far far beyond what many thought practical and most thought sane. No matter how cynical a business leader you might be a small part of you thought "everyone" did not really mean everyone till Snowden
wellboy 12y ago
For me, a16z was just the best VC ever, I thought wow finally somebody different to everyone else, finally a real investor. But that statement just shattered all my high opinions of them, they're just another VC firm/shark/herd investor like everyone else. How sad :((
nl 12y ago
If the only thing you learn from Andreessen is something you (presumably) disagree with then you are missing out.
- wellboy 12y ago
  The thing is, anything, everything he has ever said or done is invalidated by this one statement.
  - edanm 12y ago
    That seems like a terrible position to hold about almost anyone uttering almost any sentence.
    - wellboy 12y ago
      No, there are simply sentences that fall into this category such as not supporting gay marriage, proclaiming Snowden as a traitor, being anti-abortion, which invalidate everything that the person has ever said or done, because they reveal untenable views like homophobia, ignorance and religious misogonysm. There are some more views, that reveal racism, but lets leave it at that. In this particular case, this ignorance reveals the view that mass surveillance is okay, whereas the author seems to miss that every nation that supports mass-surveillance is going towards a Nazi-Germany-like regime. Ever wondered why Germany is so adamant about privacy? Because they remember what happened when a certain entity gained too much control. The thing is, it's not a question if such mass control will be abused at some point. It's just a question of when, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 15, but it will inevitably be abused at some point. Americans don't get that, because they haven't been there.
      - dwaltrip 12y ago
        Your zeal has lead you to an absurd conclusion. "Invalidate everything they have ever said or done"? That's not how it works... People can be completely wrong about one thing and have good insight into something else.
      - 12y ago
rational-future 12y ago
PG also ...
- wellboy 12y ago
  Where did he say that
- dang 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not true at all.
LargeWu 12y ago
Wealth capitalist angry about allegations of government overreach that threaten to make him only super wealthy instead of obscenely wealthy. Film at 11.

CamperBob2 12y ago

Yes, I never expected Marc Andreessen to flip his own bozo bit, but that quote did the trick. Andreessen took the concept of "shooting the messenger" to new depths of stupidity when he said that. Still, this link is well worth the few minutes it takes to read. His blog has a lot of "Things I've learned from" entries from various people.

mpyne 12y ago
> Andreessen took the concept of "shooting the messenger" to new depths of stupidity when he said that. And yet, not really. With the exception of RSA, American tech. companies are being hammered for the actions of NSA, not for their own "crimes". Even German companies obey German legal directives after all, and Vodafone made clear the other day the extent of government monitoring of networks around the world. To the extent that Snowden has made clear the reality that government (and not just criminals) can take advantage of the jurisdictional problems of an open Internet, that's not the fault of the U.S. tech sector either. After all, some of the most successful NSA programs are really liaisons with European security agencies that run the actual intake work, not conspiracies with Silicon Valley. The correct solution for Europe if they want to be free of the possibility of other nations (incl. the USA) doing targeted operations in their networks is to completely balkanize the Internet, which companies like Google and Facebook oppose for obvious reasons. You can credit Snowden with revealing to the world the types of dangers inherent to an open Internet, but that very same set of revelations is a large part of what's harming the U.S. tech sector. You're right that people may have figured it out eventually, but nations and companies around the world tended to agree not to make too big an issue of it since the benefits of an open Internet were thought to outweigh the risks. But Snowden forced the issue. The only true solution to the issues he raised, if you're a European citizen, cannot be left to voluntary compliance by the other nations of the world, especially since you can never certify compliance with that. You'd have to instead build out your own Facebook, your own Google, your own tech sector, just like Russia and China have done. So credit Snowden with opening the eyes of Europe to that reality, but you can't eat your cake and have it too. We've seen region locking spread too far with just with RIAA/MPAA to want to see it infect the rest of the Internet, but that is the message Snowden is responsible for (even if it wasn't the message he meant to send).
- drumdance 12y ago
  It's one thing to be dismayed at what the revelation of facts has done to the tech sector. Nonetheless, they are still facts. Calling Snowden a traitor is a red herring. One could just as well say that Andreessen's greatest allegiance is to money. So perhaps in that context Snowden is a traitor to Andreessen's cause.
  - calibraxis 12y ago
    Yes, it's not that Andreessen's lost his mind; just that his role in life means he's in antagonism with people like us. And Snowden is a traitor to the US government, whose interests are pretty much the same as wealthy elites like Andreessen (to a first approximation). But not a traitor to the world or even just the US population.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  ...the types of dangers inherent to an open Internet... You haven't made the case that the NSA's shenanigans are in any way "inherent" to the internet as currently designed and implemented. I would suggest that these phenomena are due far more directly to the current organization of the USA federal government, and to the oligopoly that exists in internet service in that country. I think we ought to give Cerf, Kahn, and Postel a pass on this one.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > You haven't made the case that the NSA's shenanigans are in any way "inherent" to the internet as currently designed and implemented. Not the NSA's shenanigans, the shenanigans of any properly resourced foreign (or domestic!) intelligence service. After all, the U.S. itself suffers the same problem in reverse from China and Russia and God only knows who else. If there's anything I've learned from hacktivists, it's that if you leave your stuff on the open Internet it will be exploited eventually, the only question is who will be exploiting it.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I have to call you out on this one. I disagree with Andreessen's statement on Snowden, but it is not an unreasonable position to hold (he did steal secrets and he did damage the capability and reputation of the US in revealing them. I just happen to think he was right to do so) I suspect I also disagree with Andresseen on provision of comprehensive public healthcare (I am a product of the NHS) and gun control and many other political issues - all of which it is possible to have reasonable people disagree reasonably on. Just because he holds a different view on this issue to most tech sector, does not make him a bozo. If anything, the potential danger Snowden has alerted us to is the ability of the Administration to shut down political discourse and disagreement through superior knowledge of our lives - ironically we should embrace statements like Andreesseens as something that can and should be openly discussed.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  I hear what you're saying, but I believe that anyone who condemns Snowden's crimes while saying nothing about those of Alexander and Clapper is ethically challenged at best. Snowden arguably betrayed his government, while Clapper and Alexander committed offenses of even greater magnitude against the American people. If Andreessen has a beef with anyone, it's with the latter two people. I personally find it difficult to believe that Snowden's revelations weren't already old news to the influential foreign business and political leaders that are the target of Andreessen's concern trolling. Snowden's sin was bringing the knowledge down the mountain to the rest of us.
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    It's part of this strange double standard we have for spies - their guys are liars, our guys are cunning. Once upon a time "our" meant "our country". Today it seems to mean "our values". I think that's an improvement. And to be honest I think Chancellor Merkel, who by all definitions should be cynical as hell, was genuinely shocked by the Stasi like extent of PRISM et al. So I think Snowden did reveal, in convincing ways, that the NSA had gone far far beyond what many thought practical and most thought sane. No matter how cynical a business leader you might be a small part of you thought "everyone" did not really mean everyone till Snowden

wellboy 12y ago

For me, a16z was just the best VC ever, I thought wow finally somebody different to everyone else, finally a real investor. But that statement just shattered all my high opinions of them, they're just another VC firm/shark/herd investor like everyone else. How sad :((

nl 12y ago

If the only thing you learn from Andreessen is something you (presumably) disagree with then you are missing out.

wellboy 12y ago
The thing is, anything, everything he has ever said or done is invalidated by this one statement.
- edanm 12y ago
  That seems like a terrible position to hold about almost anyone uttering almost any sentence.
  - wellboy 12y ago
    No, there are simply sentences that fall into this category such as not supporting gay marriage, proclaiming Snowden as a traitor, being anti-abortion, which invalidate everything that the person has ever said or done, because they reveal untenable views like homophobia, ignorance and religious misogonysm. There are some more views, that reveal racism, but lets leave it at that. In this particular case, this ignorance reveals the view that mass surveillance is okay, whereas the author seems to miss that every nation that supports mass-surveillance is going towards a Nazi-Germany-like regime. Ever wondered why Germany is so adamant about privacy? Because they remember what happened when a certain entity gained too much control. The thing is, it's not a question if such mass control will be abused at some point. It's just a question of when, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 15, but it will inevitably be abused at some point. Americans don't get that, because they haven't been there.
    - dwaltrip 12y ago
      Your zeal has lead you to an absurd conclusion. "Invalidate everything they have ever said or done"? That's not how it works... People can be completely wrong about one thing and have good insight into something else.
    - 12y ago

rational-future 12y ago

PG also ...

wellboy 12y ago
Where did he say that
dang 12y ago
I'm pretty sure that's not true at all.

LargeWu 12y ago

Wealth capitalist angry about allegations of government overreach that threaten to make him only super wealthy instead of obscenely wealthy. Film at 11.