Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

I understand that (believe me; get RT'd by him sometime and see what happens to your mentions). But add up everything he's said publicly and you still don't have a complete picture of what he had, who he gave it to, and who got what.

I'm not suggesting that anything nefarious happened. I do not think Snowden is an FSB operative. I think he grabbed a giant tranche of documents, few of which he actually read, and handed them off to a small set of reporters he believed to be trustworthy.

But the USG has an interest (a) in confirming that and (b) containing the damage.

By the estimation of literally everyone involved, Snowden took documents whose publication isn't in the public interest. Snowden and his informal team of assistants have charged themselves with protecting intelligence secrets. It's not crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role.

View on HN

It's not crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role.

The argument has been made that a crucial difference between Snowden and other recent whistleblowers is his relative freedom to participate in ongoing conversations and inspire potential future whistleblowers.

Is it crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role?

No, it isn't, but that's not the question this part of the thread is asking. Rather, it's asking "isn't Snowden harmless to the USG?"

In a discussion about the legitimacy of the government's pursuit of Snowden you point out that it has a very reasonable interest in parts (a) and (b).

But if recent whistleblower prosecutions are a guide, it quite obviously has a strong interest in part (c) -- to scare the living daylights out of anyone in their ranks who might even think of crossing them through whistleblowing.

You would agree that Snowden's ability to inspire future whistleblowers is a powerful way in which he isn't harmless to the USG? You might sincerely disagree with those who believe that this motive for getting him is at least as strong as the others. But this motive cuts into the legitimacy of the pursuit, and it should be part of your survey of the government's interests.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11028715.

I know we're getting a bit off topic, but can you share what happens to your mentions when you get RTd by Snowden?

ZILLIONS of randos. That guy has some engaged followers.

Mostly positive though? I wondered if you meant that you were being bashed for being related.

No, it was a warm retweet. I do a lot of crypto work.

On which side? I think I can guess

Does the USG also have an interest in (c) the ability to prosecute and punish Snowden in such a conspicuous and forceful way that anyone else in a position similar to his would be frightened enough not to take any action similar to his?

Snowden and his informal team of assistants

Do you believe Greenwald, et al. are collaborators and therefore should be prosecuted?

No. I really dislike Greenwald and, to a lesser extent, The Intercept as a publication, and think they spread more disinformation than journalism, but it's hard for me to see what crime any of them could possibly have committed.

(I answered your first question upthread).

You must be aware that people actually have called the Snowden journalists collaborators who should be prosecuted, that this was in fact a major issue in how the story has been received.

Why would you call them "his informal team of assistants?"

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you're thinking of someone in particular who has suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted, you should put your weird questions to that person, not me.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/prosecuting-glenn-greenwald/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-gr...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/...

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/would_ag_holder_...

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/eric-holder-says-he-...

Taken literally from the entire first page on Google:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prosecute%20gree...

At least one sitting U.S. Congressman called for it, David Gregory threw it directly in Greenwald's face on Meet the Press, the question was even brought to the U.S. Attorney General.

Against that backdrop if someone calls these journalists "assistants" to Snowden, it really shouldn't be out of bounds to ask about it.

You are not out of bounds asking any of those people to answer for what they said, but please stop asking me to.

With absolutely sincere respect, given your credentials and your role on this forum, I will ask you to answer for what you say when it -- albeit perhaps unintentionally -- entails false innuendo.

There's no way to accuse someone of lying "with absolutely sincere respect", but at any rate: I've actually answered the question you're pressing me on, clearly, elsewhere on the thread --- in fact, you literally replied to a comment where I did that --- and am no longer interested in this conversation.

For whatever it's worth:

> albeit perhaps unintentionally

You've clearly said you do not believe the journalists have committed crimes, which means your calling them "assistants" to Snowden unintentionally perpetuates the innuendo that they were criminal collaborators.

The sincere respect is aimed at your influential role on this forum, which is the reason what you say ought to be challenged, not at the innuendo.

(Also FWIW I can't find an answer to the question of why you would call the Snowden journalists "his informal team of assistants.")

Note, unintentionally -- When an influential voice on HN albeit unintentionally spreads false and damaging innuendo, then says he should not be challenged, what is the appropriate way to say that, yes, in fact he should be challenged?

(His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)

they spread more disinformation than journalism,

Specifics?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com