Hacker News Reader

Comment by some_random | Hacker News Reader

Snowden leaked a shit ton of documents, the vast majority of which had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of NSA wrongdoing. Journalists then had to go through and try to figure out what these documents actually meant (which they frequently misunderstood). Obviously they're still doing it to today.

View on HN

>Snowden leaked a shit ton of documents, the vast majority of which had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of NSA wrongdoing

Like how NSA collects a shit ton of data on citizens... the vast majority of which has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of wrongdoing.

I'm only pointing this out because your comment has a negative tone towards what Snowden did.

I didn't read anything negative in there. GP might have been negative but I don't think there's enough to tell just from the post

Making a strawman argument doesn't point anything out.

As a general rule when criminal conspiracies are taken to task, they don't retain a right to privacy for their communications that aren't about the criminal conspiracy. Rather it all comes out in court. I understand why Snowden released the way he did, and given how it kept attention on the subject for longer than Binney/Klein it was probably the right call. But there should have also been an escrow/intent to dump the whole trove raw after some time period.

Do you really think the entire American IC is a "criminal conspiracy", or are you just trying to justify the fact that Snowden is an angry and vindictive sharepoint admin who simply dumped everything he had access to without regard for what was actually in those documents?

Yes. By the straightforward standards that non-governmental criminal conspiracies are prosecuted, a large chunk of the NSA is engaged in a criminal conspiracy. We don't hold back on prosecuting other criminal conspiracies just because their associations produce other results like financially supporting their communities and coaching their kids' soccer teams.

The only way they're not is by the Nixonian "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal" standard.

>As a general rule when criminal conspiracies are taken to task, they don't retain a right to privacy for their communications that aren't about the criminal conspiracy. Rather it all comes out in court.

That doesn't seem to be true. There are many court cases involving criminal conspiracies where you cannot find unrelated information about the involved people.

"in court" may have been a bit too strong, but police do generally have carte blanche to the entirety of someone's private life. For most people the police show up, confiscate anything that might possibly be evidence, damaging it or at least denying its use for several years. Never mind what happens to people, who often get arrested first and then sorted out later.

Due to the severe corruption of our institutions, the investigators in this case are the public. A time period of a decade is more than enough time to recall all the HUMINT assets that might be harmed by such disclosure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com