Comment by throwaway1150 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway1150 | Hacker News Reader

>The exchange began with host Anderson Cooper asking Lincoln Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, “Governor Chafee: Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?”

The answer really should be "both." Snowden supporters readily tout his commendable whistle-blowing of unlawful domestic intelligence gathering while at the same time ignoring, denying, or outright excusing stuff like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-ch...

Snowden fled first to China and then afterwards to Russia with as much as a terabyte of classified information, at least some of which--specifically information concerning intelligence operations the NSA conducted against Huawei--we know for a fact he shared with them.

Even William Binney, another NSA whistle-blower (who, by contrast, did not seek asylum in two separate major geopolitical adversaries of the US), criticized Snowden's subsequent leaks:

>But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.

>So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...

While Binney has since referred to Snowden as a "patriot," he has yet to publicly disavow his past criticisms of Snowden:

http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-edward-sno...

He didn't flee to Russia, he was stopped there in transit.

You seriously believe that? You're willing to buy that explanation but not the far more reasonably alternatives?

I mean ffs, he was claiming to be going from China to South America. Via a connection that just happened to go through Moscow of all places. Even Russia initially claimed that they had no evidence of his final destination. I cannot believe how so many people are so gullible as to imagine that ending up in Russia wasn't intentional.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion - or are you just smarter than everyone else?

Yes, if I remember correctly his passport was revoked during the flight. There are not so many flights from Asia to South America, and many that do transit in Los Angeles, or other countries with extradition treaties.

Do you have any concrete info?

His passport was revoked the day before he left Hong Kong.[1]. He traveled to Russia on what turned out to be an invalid travel document issued by the Ecuadorian embassy in London [2] (same one that Julian Assange is holed up in).

[1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-nsa-leaker-snowdens...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/ecuador-rafael-...

Right. This man who has risked his freedom and even his life to inform us of the illegal actions of our government wants to live in a repressive autocracy.

Did you miss the part where US officials forced a flight out of Moscow to land prematurely because they thought he might be on it? [0] He applied for asylum to 21 countries [1].

No, you're quite mistaken. He's in Russia for one reason only: the US Government won't let him go anywhere else.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Asylum_applicat...

"the part where US officials forced a flight out of Moscow to land prematurely because they thought he might be on it"

Heh, "a flight". It probably deserves calling out that (as noted in the Wikipedia article title) it was the plane of the leader of another country. Could you imagine a country forcing down Air Force 1 and demanding to search it? We would lose our shit. Absolutely all of our shit.

Not all countries have the firepower that the US has. America can make demands that others can't. I am not well versed on this aspect of the issue and can't say what did or did not happen, but your argument does not reflect the reality of our unique ability to influence others. For this reason, your argument that just because Air Force 1 would not submit to requests / demands by independent nations has little basis here.

It sounds to me like you're saying I overlooked that might does, in fact, make right. I wasn't even saying our forcing down the plane was wrong.

I was pointing out that we were manifestly willing to go to substantial lengths to make sure Snowden did not get from Russia to Ecuador - lengths that were not well represented by leaving it at "a plane".

Yes, good point.

> at least some of which--specifically information concerning intelligence operations the NSA conducted against Huawei--we know for a fact he shared with them.

Where is the evidence of this alleged fact?

I'd like to know too, I've heard this trotted out several times, and never seen anything to corroborate it. The story has remained consistent - when he left, he no longer had anything left to give, it was in the hands of journalists. (Why would he walk into an 'enemy' country loaded up with sensitive data anyways? Blatantly stupid) This just stinks of astroturf or poorly-thought out demonizing.

I'm not sure what your implication is with the linked article about Huawei.

>The agency pried its way into the servers in Huawei’s sealed headquarters in Shenzhen, China’s industrial heart, according to N.S.A. documents provided by the former contractor Edward J. Snowden

The article didn't make it clear whether these were part of the wholesale leaks, or directly traded by Snowden. The implications would differ depending on how they were transmitted. What's more is that the operation involves a clear cut act of economic warfare that ensnares U.S. allies as collateral, so it's not like this is an open and shut case in favor of the NSA. It's quite ethically ambiguous.

I also don't see how "but Binney said" is remotely persuasive. Binney himself was the advocate of a bulk collection and analysis system named ThinThread, this aside from the generally dubious nature of arguments from authority.

>the operation involves a clear cut act of economic warfare

What act of "economic warfare" are you referring to? Huawei's much-publicized theft of source code from CISCO? Unless you have actual evidence of the NSA passing on the intelligence it gathered to domestic firms, you have little basis for characterizing their efforts to ascertain the extent of Huawei's relationship with the Chinese government and PLA as "economic warfare."

If anyone but Snowden leaked this sort of information to the Chinese or Russians, there would be little debate about whether or not they deserved some sort of punishment for it.

Snowden's American supporters come across as shrill or even perfidious for excusing this conduct.

I'm not an American.

Again, your presenting the case as being some mere reconnaissance operation to "ascertain the extent of Huawei's relationship with the Chinese government" is quite overloaded itself, since the linked article did mention exploiting products en masse with one of the aims being to roam in foreign countries' telecom networks by the proxy of Huawei products, and this including U.S. allies. This goes beyond information gathering and recon, and yes, could be construed as economic warfare (this does not at all imply a value judgment, but you seem to be taking the term as if it's a pejorative). Hell, the fact you brought up source code theft only strengthens such a description.

If anyone but Snowden leaked this sort of information to the Chinese or Russians, there would be little debate about whether or not they deserved some sort of punishment for it.

Again, you didn't state whether these were part of the leaks, or whether Snowden had specifically handed over information to a nation state. The connotations would be quite different depending on how it was revealed. This strengthened by the case not necessarily being in favor of the NSA, your emotional pleas notwithstanding.

> I'm not an American.

Well, then it's little wonder that the prospect of him sharing classified information with the Chinese or Russians doesn't bother you all that much. However, I never would have guessed you to be non-American from your posts in this thread, particularly the one quoted below where you forcefully instruct us as to how and if (at all) we should punish those who violate our laws, and where the last sentence begins with the pronoun "we," which I foolishly took to refer to the citizens of the United States but apparently instead referred to some larger collective (perhaps the citizens of the world?):

>That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple.

>Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification.

>As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy.

>The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404739

It's flattering that you have no recourse but to retroactively reject/ignore all my statements based on identity politics. You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either.

I'm also uncertain of how exactly I have forcefully instructed anyone, unless you consider speech to be aggression.

That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account.

>You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either.

You keep drawing some distinction without a difference between "the leaks" and Snowden "directly handing over" the documents; either way, he is the author of their release and ultimately responsible for the consequences, and Americans are right to be angry with him for it.

> That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account.

You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?

The difference is one is a private transaction that directly insinuates an act of treason and further a clear allegiance (or at least sympathy) to the state one is dealing with. A leak is public, and by definition accessible to everyone. It is thus a misnomer to frame it in terms of benefiting any particular nation states, as it's now public information. It's spoilt, a sunk cost. Moreover, the intent of the aggregate leak (which is important in making a final decision) is that of raising awareness of government misconduct, and not of directly enriching an adversary's intelligence. The consequences then differ, as we could make a case of the positives outweighing the drawbacks and collateral. Moreover, I personally disagree that any party in the Huawei incident is a "good guy" (where you seem to consider the NSA to be unequivocally in the right).

Of course you have a right to be angry with Snowden if you deem the consequences of the actions to have had sufficient negative blowback.

You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?

Free speech until it hurts my feelings. What an American sentiment to advocate, throwaway. I salute you.

As a citizen of the USA, I ask you kindly to put a sock in it. This kind of hateful, authoritarian, unamerican attitude that values law over freedom goes against the very ideals this country - ruled by we the people - was founded upon.

Snowden easily the most honorable person in this whole situation, for one reason alone: he kept is oath to defend the constitution.

All those laws you want to see Snowden sacrificed upon are inferior to the oath everybody in the intelligence community had to take. That oath was to the constitution, and not a particular law, government, or politician.

You claim to want to see people face the consequences of the law, but you're deliberately ignoring the content of Snowden's message, which confirmed unconstitutional actions of many people in government. It is a shame that it took one person risking their life and possibly living forever in exile to reveal the corruption of our govenment. It is a terrible cost that the espionage act has been abused so badly with Binney and Drake, making it necessary for Snowden to bring evidence with him. In case you're forgetting, people tried going through "proper channels", and it lead nowhere.

If you had any intention of having a useful discussion about Snowden, you would know that he wouldn't get a fair trial, as the espionage act doesn't allow a a "public good" defense. You are calling for a start chamber style show trial, not justice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com