Comment by gurneyHaleck | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gurneyHaleck | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but stand this next to the Challenger Space Shuttle O-ring thread, without feeling a profound sense of resonance between these 2 scenarios.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13238346

Compare this passage:

  (U) Third, two weeks before Snowden began mass 
      downloads of classified documents, he was 
      reprimanded after engaging in a workplace 
      spat with NSA managers. Snowden was repeatedly 
      counseled by his managers regarding his behavior 
      at work. For example, in June 2012, Snowden became 
      involved in a fiery email argument with a 
      supervisor about how computer updates should be 
      managed. Snowden added an NSA senior executive 
      several levels above the supervisor to the email 
      thread, an action that earned him a swift 
      reprimand from his contracting officer for failing 
      to follow the proper protocol for raising 
      grievances through the chain of command. Two weeks 
      later, Snowden began his mass downloads of 
      classified information from NSA networks.

Compare to:

  2) The engineers actually knew the risk (~1% chance 
     of loss per launch, not specific to the o-rings, 
     compared with two actual losses of the shuttle 
     over ~130 missions). Management used entirely 
     invented numbers for the risk which were not 
     justified.

It's like, hey, Snowden tried to tell them to apply their updates. He tried to tell them the o-rings might blow. He warned them that there was a one-in-one-hundred probability of failure.

If he didn't blow the gasket on the launchpad himself, before launch, how disasterously awful might this have really been, if he had behaved like a good little cubicle drone, followed protocol, drank the Kool-Ade, and permitted this so-called "counseling" to brainwash him?

I really don't see the resonance between these events.

The damage to signals intelligence capabilities, through the leaking of classified documents, was deliberately and maliciously done through the actions of Snowden himself, most likely in response to a bruised ego.

In contrast, the engineers involved in the Challenger shuttle did their very best to try to avert disaster - albeit to no avail - through their selfless adherence to professional ethics and engineering safety concerns.

The two scenarios couldn't be more different really.

Except he didn't blow the gasket on the launchpad. He just dumped fuel everywhere and threw a match as maintenance crews and innocent civilians were standing around.

He didn't have to release all the documents in the manner he did. He could have leaked them to Krebs on Security or something else. Krebs is very trustworthy at protecting sources and data itself. Instead he just dumped it all to the world with disregard for the damage it would cause and the innocent lives it would impact.

There's a difference between drinking coolaid and realizing there's drugs in the coolaid so you blow up the entire party coolaid is served at damn the consequences to the innocent waiters and waitresses tending the party.

> Instead he just dumped it all to the world

Sure you're not thinking about someone else? Snowden gave his files to journalists, not WikiLeaks.

I see this misconception all the time -- a teacher of mine (who is generally reputable) was absolutely convinced Snowden had given the documents to Anonymous. I wonder what's caused that.

Old people aren't quite as tuned-in to the technical realities of the internet and its in-groups and out-groups.

The premise that "there is no anonymous" escapes 4 out of 5 people I talk to. It takes very careful explaining, to bring people to the understanding that their are hacking teams with names, that get away with things, and the things that those named sub-groups manage pull off are perpetrated by "some unknown, anonymous group of people" until evidence demonstrates who done it.

Because of this, The Proles (people who aren't paying close attention) often confuse the premise being a simple anonymous tipster with being affiliated with the fictious premise of an organized, regimented imaginary hacking group that possesses a rightful claim to the mantle of "Anonymous" as if it were Batman.

Then media outlets exploit this cluelessness, to sell advertising, by drumming up exciting click-bait that perpetuates the false narrative that there is a movement called Anonymous, rather than the prank call it really is.

Wow... I was under the impression that he had given them carte blanc to WikiLeaks too, an action I thought warranted punishment. I have no idea where I picked that up. Maybe a subconscious association made over time somehow?

I, uh, don't happen to understand where... precisely, that real people paid with their lives, due to these leaks.

From where I stand, he released Power Point slides to journalists, outlining the broad strokes of some programs and projects.

He did so in a way that proved there were deep flaws to be found in the manner in which the NSA secured itself. Had he not proven these flaws by demonstration, those flaws would likely have persisted until, instead of merely having its pants pulled down in the middle of the street, the NSA might have been stabbed to death for its wallet.

Why listen to me though? This very document even says they still live with the hazard of another Snowden coming along and pulling another Snowden. It is, in fact, the conclusion of the document we are discussing right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com