Hacker News Reader

> government-corporate propaganda aimed at expanding the surveillance state

I'm one of those people who believes very strongly that Snowden was a hero for exposing grossly illegal and immoral activity, and should be pardoned.

But I do not feel this way about this case. Why? Because the leak did not expose government malfeasance, and therefore wasn't in the interest of the American people. Ordinary anti-espionage rules can and should apply.

You don't have to support the leaker to oppose expanded social media monitoring back-channels for the intelligence services.

I think ICs are already in all the major social media back-ends that a nation hosts. I think that allies (like Israel and the US) regularly trade access to circumvent laws preventing surveillance of own citizens. Meanwhile LEOs of all stripes are already in social media, through the front-door.

The former is abhorrent and should be a big scandal, but it won't be. Snowden showed that Americans simply don't care. Given that signal, why stop?

The latter is actually good, in general. LEOs doing actual police work, joining groups that might be extremist...that's the online equivalent of undercover work, and I think it's good when it's human work.

So, basically I agree that proactive, general IC infiltration of back-ends is wrong, but I think its already happening and won't stop without change of sentiment. LEOs can and should do more human investigation, join groups, get involved, see what they are about - and then leave them alone if they aren't a physical threat. Obviously this can be super problematic (e.g. the FBI vs MLK) but the only alternative is to just sit there and wait for an attack. That's no bueno, either.

If ICs were already all over major social media like Discord, then how did these leaks sit spread around unnoticed for almost half a year? I swear every time this comes up people's critical thinking just vanishes into thin air. Mythologizing intelligence agencies as these omniscient entities only benefits them.

Having access, using access, using access to detect threats, and using access to detect leaks are 4 different capabilities. If I was NSA chief I personally would rank "proactive leak detection" far below "proactive threat detection".

As an aside, if lack of critical thinking skills sets you off easily, you are in for a rough ride. It's particularly dangerous because directed at others, it gives you clout in with the wrong people, and directed at yourself contempt can lead to self-loathing and depression.

Parent post doesn't distinguish between those. It just annoys to see people always talking about governmental or corporate bureaucracy but when it comes to intelligence agencies suddenly it's like they're immune to it and become perfect panopticons of information gathering and analysis.

Sorry for the offtopicness but could you please email me at hn@ycombinator.com?

I want to send you a repost invite for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34556378.

> But I do not feel this way about this case. Why? Because the leak did not expose government malfeasance, and therefore wasn't in the interest of the American people. Ordinary anti-espionage rules can and should apply.

It does confirm that Ukraine is losing the war badly, I think it was like 7 Ukrainians dying for 1 Russian. With that knowledge, it seems that continuing to fund this war with a blank check to Ukraine is not in the interests of the American people.

So I feel that this leak was a good thing, from the perspective of the American people, especially if it ends the US funding of this war.

> It does confirm that Ukraine is losing the war badly, I think it was like 7 Ukrainians dying for 1 Russian.

No:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/13/world/europe/ukraine-russ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/14/did-the-ukr...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-wit...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65260672

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/14/...

> With that knowledge

What you call "knowledge" here is, in fact, just lies.

It's interesting how susceptible people have become to falsehoods in the internet age. People get told what they want to hear and they believe it wholeheartedly, not matter how untrue it is.

None of the sources you listed are credible.

Out of curiosity, what do you think credibility is? How do you think it is acquired? Do you think you have credibility? If so, why?

Personally I don't find it odd that someone might reject "mainstream reality" as not credible. But what is odd are the things they often choose to replace it. E.g. 4chan ramblings or general internet randomness. It's like, be super skeptical, fine, but you don't get to be selective. You can't say the BBC is shit but forum22334.hackerville.ru is credible and be taken seriously.

Sorry, but the factual world does not correspond to your fantasy world. You're going to have to grow up and learn to see the world beyond your computer screen.

You've become internet siloed. It's rotting you.

>It does confirm that Ukraine is losing the war badly, I think it was like 7 Ukrainians dying for 1 Russian.

Are you referring to the picture with 17k russians vs 71k ukrainians? I thought that was the one that had been edited/falsified…

I don't see how the ratio of dead Ukrainians to dead Russians is relevant to the utility of winning this war. It can also be construed as an argument for increased funding, because the Ukrainians are losing so badly.

In my view, curtailing Russian expansion is the point of the war, and Ukrainian lives are unfortunately one cost of doing so. It's important that Ukrainians are participating in the war of their own volition; the US is not paying Ukrainians to join the battle, unlike the scenario with the ANA in Afghanistan.

Even if the leak produces good outcomes, it should still be prosecuted as espionage, since there was no good faith motivation for the leak.

The war itself is illegal. Congress never authorized the war. Exposing illegal activity of the US government should not be a crime.

> Congress never authorized the war.

The US aid to Ukraine that is the relation of the US government to the war is, in fact, authorized by Congress. See, e.g., the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 (PL 117-118).

> The war itself is illegal

Yes, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal. It's a war of choice waged for reason no better than Putin's vanity. It hasn't helped Russia and it certainly hasn't helped Ukraine.

Fortunately, it is within Russia's power to end the war tomorrow. All Russia needs to do is leave Ukrainian territory, return relocated Ukrainian citizens, start paying reparations, and begin the process of extraditing war criminals so they can be tried.

Please give an example of a document that reveals greater US involvement than was known previously.

The documents I've seen revealed Ukrainian secrets. For example, they revealed Ukrainian casualty numbers and Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualty numbers.

Everyone paying attention before this leak knew that the US is giving significant support in the form of advice, money, and arms. Everyone knew that the US has a small number of military personnel in the embassy but isn't fighting in the war. Some people think this is bad, but it's not a secret.

For example:

"Ukraine war: Leak shows Western special forces on the ground" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065)

You can say "everyone knew that" but nobody could prove it before.

I stand corrected. The presence of US troops in the Kyiv embassy was revealed last November, but the fact they are special forces is new.

Well we knew that, we also know they are there mostly training Ukrainian soldiers, and some might be tasked with embassy duty as most countries (unlike USA) don't protect their embassies with military presence. You're not going to find any NATO SoF near the front-lines.

They literally openly admitted it last November. You can say the special forces part is new but that isn't the point being made by most, which is about US troop boots on the ground, and the military never says which specific type of troops are there anyway for operational security reasons.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-military-inspectors-...

> Lord forbid the Ukraine war end in some kind of negotiated settlement, that would mean Europe might lift sanctions on Russian gas, reducing the demand for LNG exports... as well as reducing the diversion of taxpayer dollars to bloated military-industrial contracts.

You did not write that, but just to make it clear to people who do not know - there were no EU sanctions on Russian gas, but Russia cut off (most of) the supply unilaterally.

A list of sanctions is available:

https://eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu/eu-sanctions-agai...

Russian oil and coal are heavily sanctioned, but not gas. This may have caused the confusion. Bans on any fuels from Russia likely contribute to European demand for fuel from other countries.

Back when I got my DoD security clearance, I remember my employer's security officer sitting down with me and going through a PowerPoint together, and then witnessing my signing of some paperwork. As I remember, one of the points in that paperwork is that a warrant wasn't required to tap my phone, etc. (and also, I'd go to prison if I shared anything improperly).

Am I misremembering? Maybe it was only that no warrant was required to monitor me on company systems, but (it's been 20 years), I thought I was generally signing away an expectation of privacy in exchange for access to classified information. (So, indirectly gaining extra pay, job security, and access to interesting technology in exchange for signing away privacy... not sure how I feel about that 20 years later, but it seemed a good trade at the time.)

If I'm remembering things properly, no extra legislation is necessary for monitoring people with DoD security clearances. Even if monitoring were warranted, I believe these powers already exist to cover this case, and any extra legislation is a power grab.

> Am I misremembering? Maybe it was only that no warrant was required to monitor me on company systems...

I've only been in uniform, not worked for private defense contractors, but it should be this. On government (classified or not) systems, websites, etc. you're subject to monitoring, and a prominent banner reminds you of this every time you logon. All web traffic goes through a proxy that breaks TLS to do inspection. Your .mil email and files on your government device(s) get scanned. Even a low level (like, 19 year-old E-2 with a Sec+ certificate) sysadmin can manage accounts in Active Directory and browse any machine on the domain through C$ administrative shares.

This doesn't apply to your personal devices unless you've brought them somewhere that they shouldn't go.

The paperwork is mostly a non-disclosure agreement.

We don't want Russian gas any more. We don't want any gas. I sadly live in a country where 50% of the power generation comes from LNG, but fuck that. We need to work to make it 0%.

This is a tired topic. We are not in a position to negotiate the surrender of territory to a murderous barbarous invading power so they can build more concentration camps through which to "process" more of the citizens who live there. Only Ukraine can do that and she has little incentive to do so given what has and will be done to its people and the unwillingness of Russia to keep prior settlements in 1991 or 2014.

Allowing them to enlarge their share then consolidate, regroup, rebuild their forces, and ease out of financial straights and better prepare to take the rest of it in a few years and once again sally forth to murder, rape, and destroy is a bargain no reasonable person would take.

If you are suggesting that we stop providing them weapons in hopes that they be more inclined to negotiate you have misjudged the situation and you would have us only condemn people to murder and horror as punishment for your failure to analyze what is ultimately a simple situation explained in simple terms by Putin's own words on the topic.

Furthermore you seem to have analyzed the article in question based mostly on the title as the shallow straw man you scoff at seems absent from the actual reporting. In fact it does a better job than you of dismissing the argument you foist upon it.

>----------------------------- “We do not have nor do we want a system where the United States government monitors private internet chats,” Glenn Gerstell, the former general counsel of the National Security Agency, told NBC on Wednesday.

On Discord, some servers already joke about the possibility of being surreptitiously infiltrated by the government. Using a word first coined on the anything-goes message board 4chan, people commonly accuse others of being “glowies” — federal agents whose out-of-place behaviors are so obvious that they practically glow.

But surveilling gamer chatrooms might also end up pushing away the same young recruits the military desperately needs, all for questionable practical gain: The internet is full of ways to anonymously share images, videos and documents. >-----------------------------

I invite you to read more of it as its actually fairly well thought out

> Only Ukraine can do that and she has little incentive to do so given what has and will be done to its people and the unwillingness of Russia to keep prior settlements in 1991 or 2014.

They were a year ago: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-kyiv-bor...

Coming from the region and following the war super closely… Decision is fully in West hands.

Ukraine can win if West supplies enough weapons. Some trained manpower may be required too because Ukraine’s losses are pretty bad too. Especially if you look into most experienced ranks.

At the same time, Ukraine would loose soon if West cut off support. Ukraine would both run out of ammo and morale would be ruined.

Ukraine can be forced to take whatever peace treaty West wants.

Do you think that is an outcome anyone in the west should want?

Personally - I hope not. If Russia is not crushed in Ukraine, we’re likely next.

In reality… If West was strongly in crush-Russia camp, Ukraine war escalation in February of 2022 wouldn’t have happened. Even 2014 wouldn’t have happened.

Had West went all-in, I believe the war could be ended in 24-72 hours. Close airspace over Ukraine. Put some boots on the ground. Done.

Now the question is why the war is not over yet. Nuclear scare? Economics? Corruption and blackmailing? All of those could make crappy peace treaties a thing either.

"We are not in a position to negotiate the surrender of territory"

Richard N. Haass (President of the Council on Foreign Relations) would like to see as many Russians as possible killed in an Ukrainian offensive and start negotiating afterwards. (do not know wether he wants Ukrainian soldiers killed as well)

"Given the likely trajectory of the war, the United States and its partners need to begin formulating a diplomatic endgame now."

"Ukraine’s Western supporters would propose a ceasefire as Ukraine’s coming offensive reaches its limits"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-richard-haass-...

Ukraine's Western supporters can propose a ceasefire but why would either side agree to one? Putin seems to be in it for the long haul, he probably knows Western support for Ukraine will gradually go down and then once Russia's military recovers a bit they can go back their original aim of taking all of Ukraine. For Zelenskyy there exists plenty of popular support for trying to take back territory, and unless the US says they'll completely throw them to the wolves and cut off all aid (which would make the US look completely terrible internationally), why would he agree to a ceasefire if he thinks Russia will go back to war once they recover anyway?

Mr. Haass answers:

"Ukraine might still refuse the call for a cease-fire. If so, it would hardly be the first time in history that a partner dependent on U.S. support balked at being pressured to scale back its objectives."

"Another plausible outcome is that Russia would agree to a cease-fire in order to pocket its remaining territorial gains but in fact has no intention of negotiating in good faith to secure a lasting peace settlement."

My own maybe wishful thinking:

There are reasons for both sides to end the war.

Ukraine is failing more and more and Ukrainian people are suffering the most.

The cost of war is high for Russia as well and Putin's aims are limited.

> Lord forbid the Ukraine war end in some kind of negotiated settlement

No negotiation is possible when Russia's starting position is that Ukraine is not a real country and Ukrainians are not a real people. Putin's held that position for years:

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russia...

The way the war ends is Russia is first defeated and the negotiations that will then follow will be about the reparations Russia must pay and the war criminals Russia must extradite.

If you want to simp for genocidal dictators please at least be original.

You think he leaked these documents to bring about a negotiated end to the war?