Hacker News Reader

Comment by testcaseuser | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

You mean the most sensitive government secrets that are about warrantless total surveillance of everyone on earth? The proof that the US government has lost all control over their spying apparatus? Where would be a sensitive place to take them instead in your opinion?

As the article we're commenting on makes very clear, Snowden had no such documents.

No I mean things like this which he leaked which revealed NSA spying on the Chinese government. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-c...

He gave that data to american citizens in Hong Kong and retained no copy. Obama's people trapped him in transit in russia on his way to south america so that they could claim "russia! russia!" They openly bragged about this. It worked on both levels. He's stuck and people amazingly still claim he's in with the russians.

It always surprises me how many people still come out with this totally discredited line that he gave secrets to china and russia. Are we done with the equally dishonest claim that he put lives in danger or is everyone across that being a total lie now.

When I think of courage I think of Snowden speaking out against Putin while stuck in russia. When I think of cowardice I think of the lack of prosecution for all those spooks who are now paid by CNN to lie to the public. Who decided not to prosecute clapper? How? He's above the law. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-c...

How is this whistleblowing? He also participated in Putin's call in propaganda show, I don't believe for a second that he's said anything that upsets Putin or the FSB particularly if mild criticism is useful for them in maintaining the fiction that he is not under the control of the Russian security services.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spie...

That leak about NSA breaching Chinese servers was in the same time period that Chinese security services executed accused CIA informants with a gunshot to the head in front of their coworkers.

First one was not published by the journalists Snowden chose, whom he directed as to the kinds of things he wanted published and not. The NYT got the archive from the guardian against Snowden's wishes and knew better. Your criticism is of the NYT.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowd...

And plenty more.

How are your criticisms of the CIA, NSA and Dept of homeland security coming along? Or you are unable to criticise clapper, the cnn paid expert at this time.

> The NYT got the archive from the guardian against Snowden's wishes and knew better.

No, the NYT was reporting on documents that Der Spiegel obtained from Poitras, according to Snowden's wishes. The Der Spiegel journalists had decided to publish a book about those documents and made them public in Germany at the same time.

Let's forget about publishing. He took a top secret document on NSA spying on China to Chinese territory and then on to Russia. The fact that the Times published them and not his preferred journalist is besides the point. The damage was already done when he took them to Chinese territory and then on to Russia.

> and then on to Russia

False.

The only people who saw the documents that Snowden had were the journalists chosen by Snowden. In any country, including the USA. Some were less responsible than others hence the nyt got a copy. Hong Kong is wholly and totally irrelevant.

The fact the times decided to publish is 100% their responsibility.

Again, what criticisms do you have of the NSA, CIA and dept of homeland security? List them all briefly here, please.

Your objections here are like criticizing a homeowner for shooting a burglar with an unregistered gun. Yes, it's illegal, but nobody cares because there is a much more severe crime going on, and it's strange that you would focus on that.

> Remember that cache of data that was so damaging to the US that it would only be released if he was harmed?

I do not.

Source?

What is it about Snowden discussions that brings out all the moral grandstanders and internet tough guys?

Maybe it's because of Snowden's moral grandstanding over leaking only a single extant US program that could possibly have been illegal (telephone metadata collection) and hundreds of others that very clearly weren't. People have every right to be disgusted with him.

Not illegal is not the same as nor morally wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com