4 ms·

Nobody (especially in the HN echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that what snowden did endangered hundreds of people directly, and the entire US indirectl

Nobody (especially in the HN echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that what snowden did endangered hundreds of people directly, and the entire US indirectly, by leaking what he did. It is truly amazing to read the rationales on here avoiding this idea.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Hello Ernest Voice. Nice to meet you. (For those that don't know Ernest Voice is an NSA bot that posts stuff like this on forums.) EDIT I doubt that this particular poster is actually such a bot. I am suggesting that his post is based upon not actually reading any of the facts and merely taking an opinion.
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  Lol, does he reply and say thing like, you're wrong?
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Probably.
- dang 11y ago
  It's not ok to make swipes like this in HN comments. The implication of shilling is out of line, and even if someone hasn't read any facts, posting a comment that is itself factless doesn't help.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    His post was either a shill or tragically ill informed. I merely highlighted this fact.
    - dang 11y ago
      Everyone has an "I merely" defense in response to breaking the guidelines, but we all have to follow them.
  - irishcoffee 11y ago
    > We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, with so little, for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing. http://www.beliefnet.com/Quotes/Christian/M/Mother-Teresa-Of-Calcutta/We-The-Willing-Led-By-The-Unknowing-Are-Doing-Th.aspx#vc9Z1CjuYvkEdrli.99 http://www.beliefnet.com/Quotes/Christian/M/Mother-Teresa-Of...
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Actually no this comment and this policy are not OK. Shilling happens on this forum and it is never called out. It needs to be otherwise it will in time kill the forum.
opcvx 11y ago
I can invoke the red herring too: How many lives did the OPM leak endanger? But nevertheless let's blame Snowden based on a word of an anonymous UK employee just to be sure.
raesene9 11y ago
For me I wouldn't say that you have to be blindly accepting of the good of what Snowden did to be critical of this article. It lacks anything beyond the claims of a single unnamed source with absolutely no back-up. That's not good journalism regardless of the story that's being run. Also the timing of this story is odd, to me. Surely any changes to the operational procedures of the american and UK agencies in question would have happened immediately they realised they lost control of the documents (two years ago), and they wouldn't wait around till there was evidence that Russia/China had decrypted them? So why a story now in June 2015 about this? As to the harm/benefit of Snowdens actions, I think it very much depends on who you are and your role as to your perspective. From the perspective of a non US citizen it has shone a light on what a "friendly" government considers an appropriate level of spying on its allies and clearly shows that all governments are engaging in "offensive" operations on IT systems, and the lengths that they'll go to to achieve that goal.
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  Fair points. A few comments: >a single unnamed source Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to comment? C'mon, think. > changes to the operational procedures of the American [you had a typo] and UK agencies in question would have happened immediately If you're an intelligent person (and I would like to assume you are) changing policies on a dime, esp. when it comes to govt. policy, doesn't happen in a day, or even a year. I think everyone reading this knows better than that. That is a weak argument. >As to the harm/benefit of Snowdens actions, I think it very much depends on who you are and your role as to your perspective. No shit. If you want to harm the US, its not a negative action. Else, its a goddamn negative action. I'm trying really hard to figure out why else you would make that argument. > From the perspective of a non US citizen it has shone a light on what a "friendly" government considers an appropriate level of spying on its allies and clearly shows that all governments are engaging in "offensive" operations on IT systems, and the lengths that they'll go to to achieve that goal. Imagine what non "friendly" governments are doing.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
mcphilip 11y ago
I think the question is if Snowden recklessly (i.e. without careful consideration of consequences) endangered the lives of <insert arbitrary people group here>. Information is power. Snowden leaked damaging information about corruption in one of the most powerful and important surveillance groups. The public <replace with Russian, Chinese, child pornographers for emotional poignancy> has access to said damaging information. The OP and the Times article are evaluating whether certain groups have 'privileged' access to the Snowden archive and that considerable harm has been done to British intelligence operations. I think it's more damaging to not critically evaluate claims made by the Sunday Times article than to dismiss the HN discussion because of reverb in the echo chamber.
jfaucett 11y ago
"It is truly amazing to read the rationales on here avoiding this idea." No its not. If you read the original article or this link dissecting it, it raises so many questions it makes any free thinking person skeptical. Please read the link and then explain to me how the HN rationales expressed here are "truly amazing".
snom320 11y ago
Has it ever been established that the documents he leaked contained information on operatives?
JupiterMoon 11y ago
OK I'll bite properly. Nobody (especially in the security theatre echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that what Snowden did alerted the public to the growing trend towards the establishment (presumably by mistake?) of all the apparatus of tyranny in countries like the US and the UK and to the dangers contained therein.
qrmn 11y ago
Unfortunately, nobody (especially in the intelligence community echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that some of what they have been doing endangers thousands of people directly, and all the Five Eyes and beyond indirectly, by deliberately sabotaging infrastructure they use themselves in an effort to "master the internet". It is truly amusing to read some of the bullshit posted by JTRIG and CESG supporting their ideas. This is truly embarrassing work: half-baked propaganda, with overt lies in it. Shameful and disappointing.
lcswi 11y ago
Sometimes things have to hurt. The US and other countries accept that every day with their warfare.
joesmo 11y ago
This article is full of downright lies. If you have such proof, please present it otherwise there is no reason at all to believe anyone was endangered.
NN88 11y ago
Its really frustrating too. Americans have gotten this idea that if theres no tanks in the streets, that everything is just "OK"

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Hello Ernest Voice. Nice to meet you. (For those that don't know Ernest Voice is an NSA bot that posts stuff like this on forums.) EDIT I doubt that this particular poster is actually such a bot. I am suggesting that his post is based upon not actually reading any of the facts and merely taking an opinion.

irishcoffee 11y ago
Lol, does he reply and say thing like, you're wrong?
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Probably.
dang 11y ago
It's not ok to make swipes like this in HN comments. The implication of shilling is out of line, and even if someone hasn't read any facts, posting a comment that is itself factless doesn't help.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  His post was either a shill or tragically ill informed. I merely highlighted this fact.
  - dang 11y ago
    Everyone has an "I merely" defense in response to breaking the guidelines, but we all have to follow them.
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  > We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, with so little, for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing. http://www.beliefnet.com/Quotes/Christian/M/Mother-Teresa-Of-Calcutta/We-The-Willing-Led-By-The-Unknowing-Are-Doing-Th.aspx#vc9Z1CjuYvkEdrli.99 http://www.beliefnet.com/Quotes/Christian/M/Mother-Teresa-Of...
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Actually no this comment and this policy are not OK. Shilling happens on this forum and it is never called out. It needs to be otherwise it will in time kill the forum.

opcvx 11y ago

I can invoke the red herring too: How many lives did the OPM leak endanger? But nevertheless let's blame Snowden based on a word of an anonymous UK employee just to be sure.

raesene9 11y ago

For me I wouldn't say that you have to be blindly accepting of the good of what Snowden did to be critical of this article. It lacks anything beyond the claims of a single unnamed source with absolutely no back-up. That's not good journalism regardless of the story that's being run. Also the timing of this story is odd, to me. Surely any changes to the operational procedures of the american and UK agencies in question would have happened immediately they realised they lost control of the documents (two years ago), and they wouldn't wait around till there was evidence that Russia/China had decrypted them? So why a story now in June 2015 about this? As to the harm/benefit of Snowdens actions, I think it very much depends on who you are and your role as to your perspective. From the perspective of a non US citizen it has shone a light on what a "friendly" government considers an appropriate level of spying on its allies and clearly shows that all governments are engaging in "offensive" operations on IT systems, and the lengths that they'll go to to achieve that goal.

irishcoffee 11y ago
Fair points. A few comments: >a single unnamed source Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to comment? C'mon, think. > changes to the operational procedures of the American [you had a typo] and UK agencies in question would have happened immediately If you're an intelligent person (and I would like to assume you are) changing policies on a dime, esp. when it comes to govt. policy, doesn't happen in a day, or even a year. I think everyone reading this knows better than that. That is a weak argument. >As to the harm/benefit of Snowdens actions, I think it very much depends on who you are and your role as to your perspective. No shit. If you want to harm the US, its not a negative action. Else, its a goddamn negative action. I'm trying really hard to figure out why else you would make that argument. > From the perspective of a non US citizen it has shone a light on what a "friendly" government considers an appropriate level of spying on its allies and clearly shows that all governments are engaging in "offensive" operations on IT systems, and the lengths that they'll go to to achieve that goal. Imagine what non "friendly" governments are doing.
- alextgordon 11y ago

mcphilip 11y ago

I think the question is if Snowden recklessly (i.e. without careful consideration of consequences) endangered the lives of <insert arbitrary people group here>. Information is power. Snowden leaked damaging information about corruption in one of the most powerful and important surveillance groups. The public <replace with Russian, Chinese, child pornographers for emotional poignancy> has access to said damaging information. The OP and the Times article are evaluating whether certain groups have 'privileged' access to the Snowden archive and that considerable harm has been done to British intelligence operations. I think it's more damaging to not critically evaluate claims made by the Sunday Times article than to dismiss the HN discussion because of reverb in the echo chamber.

jfaucett 11y ago

"It is truly amazing to read the rationales on here avoiding this idea." No its not. If you read the original article or this link dissecting it, it raises so many questions it makes any free thinking person skeptical. Please read the link and then explain to me how the HN rationales expressed here are "truly amazing".

snom320 11y ago

Has it ever been established that the documents he leaked contained information on operatives?

JupiterMoon 11y ago

OK I'll bite properly. Nobody (especially in the security theatre echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that what Snowden did alerted the public to the growing trend towards the establishment (presumably by mistake?) of all the apparatus of tyranny in countries like the US and the UK and to the dangers contained therein.

qrmn 11y ago

Unfortunately, nobody (especially in the intelligence community echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that some of what they have been doing endangers thousands of people directly, and all the Five Eyes and beyond indirectly, by deliberately sabotaging infrastructure they use themselves in an effort to "master the internet". It is truly amusing to read some of the bullshit posted by JTRIG and CESG supporting their ideas. This is truly embarrassing work: half-baked propaganda, with overt lies in it. Shameful and disappointing.

lcswi 11y ago

Sometimes things have to hurt. The US and other countries accept that every day with their warfare.

joesmo 11y ago

This article is full of downright lies. If you have such proof, please present it otherwise there is no reason at all to believe anyone was endangered.

NN88 11y ago

Its really frustrating too. Americans have gotten this idea that if theres no tanks in the streets, that everything is just "OK"