Hacker News Reader

By the way, I don't know about anybody else, but for the first time I can think of, I'm seriously concerned about the consequences of posting support for somebody like this online. I don't know how things will play out years down the road and who will do what with this information.

I don't know about you, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. As far as I'm concerned, Edward Snowden is an American hero and deserves a medal and a ticker-tape parade before he deserves to spend the rest of his life on the run, and possibly ultimately in a jail cell, or having his life taken prematurely by US operatives.

I think he did the right thing though, by going public. Presumably he knew the odds that "they" would track him down anyway, and by going public he has a chance to leverage popular public sentiment as a shield of sorts. As he says, it's a tactic to keep them from "going dirty". He might still wind up in jail, but there's a better chance now that they'll have to deal with him through ordinary judicial means, and (hopefully) no torture, or secret imprisonment at Guantanamo or whatever.

Hopefully Iceland (or maybe Ecuador!) will grant him political asylum and give him a shot at a semi-normal life, albeit far from his original home.

Postscript: To any NSA / CIA / FBI / etc. spooks who are reading this - blow me.

As far as I'm concerned, Edward Snowden is an American hero...

He's a hero. Putting the word American in there is very, well, American. The NSA has done a lot worse by foreigners than Americans.

I think it's clear he meant that he is a hero to/for Americans, without anything further being implied in the positive or negative.

There's absolutely nothing unique about inserting the nationality of a hero that relates to Americans. I see it done regularly by citizens of other countries. In my observation, national pride is nearly universal.

I'm not American but I was clapping and cheering him loudly by the end of the interview. He is a hero for me.

> In my observation, national pride is nearly universal.

In my observation, it might be universal, but its degree varies greatly, with americans on the high end of the scale.

Nobody would say "a Greek hero".

In the spirit of inquiry, if the country is Greece, how likely are the following descriptions?

"A hero of Greece"

"A national hero"

"A hero to the fatherland"

"A hero to the people"

You'd say "a national hero" (the rest are not commonly used). The person can be any nationality, but he's a hero to the nation.

"To any NSA / CIA / FBI / etc. spooks who are reading this - blow me."

It is easy to feel anger towards those we perceive as oppressors, but if this nascent movement (I hope it is a movement!) is to have any success, thoughts like these from Gandhi should not be forgotten:

Real noncooperation is noncooperation with evil and not with the evil doer.

Noncooperation is not a hymn of hate.

My noncooperation is with methods and systems, never with men.

Gandhi's tactics, while plainly effective in his time and place, against his aggressors, should not be accepted as universalizable. It is not the only way to realize change, nor it is necessarily the most effective way to realize change in any particular situation, nor is it even necessarily a way that works in the slightest in any situation.

Noncompliance and noncooperation have a time and a place. We must avoid the temptation of viewing them as silver bullets simply because we find them pleasant, easy to stomach.

Reducing Gandhi's tactics to noncompliance and noncooperation is a great mistake. I think it is better to view them through what is in essence a key commonality between upper caste Hinduism and ancient Greek Stoicism, namely that all we can control are our own actions and responses, and therefore the greatest form of heroism is to lead the life we choose and to make that choice heroically, the rest of the world be damned.

The struggle then becomes one about respect and cooperation, without which no government can last, for even the greatest tyranny is executed not by one man giving orders but by everyone cooperating. The underdog struggles to inspire others. The state struggles to keep the facade of legitimacy. Sometimes the words "you are no longer our legitimate government" are stronger than all the guns in the world.

Imagine if half the country suddenly decided to no longer respect American law. They refused to pay taxes, obey traffic law, etc. What would the government do? In the end, they wouldn't be able to do anything. Once you understand that proposition, Gandhi's methods start looking a lot less gentle and a lot more dangerous.

>Imagine if half the country suddenly decided to no longer respect American law. They refused to pay taxes, obey traffic law, etc. What would the government do?

Start beating the shit out of people, killing them, etc., etc. and the people would very quickly relent.

Gandhi's tactics weren't even effective then. Look up Bhagat Singh. The only reason everyone gives credit for Indian independence to Gandhi instead of Singh is that Britain didn't want anymore Singhs.

Whatever your judgement about what to do is, the very fact that we have to start thinking about this is telling.

This is how we achieve real change, by real heroes like mindcrime standing up and saying blow me. They are sure to fall.

We all do what we can.

Admitting weakness is a virtue in some religions.

I HOPE there is a NSA / CIA / FBI spook going through this...because this man and his courage should shake the rust off of people, who are in a position to witness the tyranny of those in power(just like our whistle-blower) and take a stand and start caring more about what is the right thing to do and not what everyone around them seems to be doing.

Even the smallest men can cast great shadows.

The last paragraph of your comment expresses a fear that is rational, but one that we need to abandon as a community. If we are afraid to even post support for a controversial cause on the internet, then we are already lost.

We do not all need to be whistleblowers. We can champion liberty and freedom of privacy in our own ways. The first step is being brave enough to stand up for what is right, no matter who we are, no matter how apparently small our sphere of influence is.

The government should be at the mercy of the vox populi, not vice versa. It is our duty - our inalienable right - to support and rally for those who care more about the triumph of democracy and liberty than their own safety.

The last paragraph of your comment expresses a fear that is rational, but one that we need to abandon as a community. If we are afraid to even post support for a controversial cause on the internet, then we are already lost.

My father (who grew up in Communist Romania) has been warning me about all the stuff I post online for over a decade now... and the reason I keep doing it is precisely that.

My Chinese-Indonesian wife says the same thing. There is a point where loyalty to one's country however and to the ideals we share must trump the risk of action by one's government.

"I don't know about anybody else, but for the first time I can think of, I'm seriously concerned about the consequences of posting support for somebody like this online. I don't know how things will play out years down the road and who will do what with this information."

I've thought the same thing many times. I think there is really no choice since I don't want to live under a dictatorship, and if I don't voice my opinion I keep thinking about it. So it's better to voice what you think, then go back to work. I feel like at least I'm doing my part.

Foucault described one of the purposes of the Panopticon is to internalize the state's power to discipline and punish the individual. Evidence of this is seen in a restraint of expression due to its possible repercussions.

The psychological terror of the Panopticon cannot be overemphasized. The Panopticon is more real now than it ever has been. Watch as former radicals instantly self-censor with these new NSA revelations.

Whenever Amira Hass tries to explain her vocation as a journalist, she recalls a seminal moment in her mother's life. Hannah Hass was being marched from a cattle train to the concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen on a summer's day in 1944. "She and the other women had been 10 days in the train from Yugoslavia. They were sick and some were dying. Then my mother saw these German women looking at the prisoners, just looking. This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'. It's as if I was there and saw it myself." Amira Hass stares at you through wire-framed glasses as she speaks, anxious to make sure you have understood the importance of the Jewish Holocaust in her life.

Amira Hass? Where is she referred to, in the article or comments?

By the way, I don't know about anybody else, but for the first time I can think of, I'm seriously concerned about the consequences of posting support for somebody like this online. I don't know how things will play out years down the road and who will do what with this information

this is exactly what's so scary. people have to think about posting on Hacker News.

We all have to die someday. Might as well die for something.

This gentleman is willing to risk his life to comment on HN! Very brave, our very own Snowden.

We all do what we can. I for example would never qualify for a position like the one Snowden found himself in because of my big mouth. But I can talk to my friends and family, to strangers on sites like this. We can see the solidarity forming right here. We can organize.

That is why the internet is the greatest opportunity to free ourselves finally from oppression, and also an opportunity if we let them for authoritarians to clamp down on us if we ignore them.

Some people are born fearful and they cower their whole lives. Others of these fearful seek to control, by any means necessary. It is up to those of us that can stand up, even in small ways, and provide an example to all.

So yeah, it's just some internet posts right now. But it's also much more than that in the aggregate.

I know you have been ridiculed for saying this by someone who was fortunately downvoted, but I want to point out that even saying the words in a post may have an impact. In context, who knows who it will inspire?

there is also a network effect. The more people post support, the less likely that anyone posting support will get in trouble, AND the less likely it is that Snowden will wind up in trouble.

I think it's almost certain the guy will have some problems not long in the future. One question that comes to mind is how a supposed intelligence organization allowed someone who subscribes to EFF thinking even come to know about this surveillance. Shouldn't the NSA be doing some kind of screening to make sure the people they hire don't have ideals diametrically opposed to their practices?

Try hiring 10,000 good CNE people with support of the EFF as a red flag. Who works in this field and doesn't support the EFF?

It's weird. On the one hand he makes them sound all-knowing. On the other hand they sound completely incompetent.

He makes the point that a chief purpose is, to repurpose a previously-ridiculous term, "backtracing." They are all-having, but that says nothing about what they currently know, which, as the existence of surveillance practices in recent history shows, didn't help with respect to e.g. the Boston Marathon bombers.

these are not mutually incompatible. Ever heard of idiot savants (I understand this is historically a derogatory term for autistic people).

This is the nature of all corporate endeavour. The corporate style of organization is very good at certain things and very bad at others. It can't be compared to a human being. It's a different animal.

I'm fairly sure they will now be screening for that in the future.

I predict they'll have a lot fewer hiring options.

Almost an inevitable consequence of growing too large. You have to start hiring people farther and farther from your core. If you want to spy on everyone, you need everyone's help. But if even a single person isn't willing, you risk the entire endeavor.

Uh, I think you're confusing "ideals" with "lawful behavior".

You can be a supporter of the EFF and believe that the work the NSA is doing is necessary and good for the country. I worked on Lawful Interception systems and I had no problem with their use as long as a COMPETENT COURT was the one regulating it.

This seems to be the critical component, to me. The intercepts must go through a competent court, which must create some form of public record that will eventually be released. There have to be enough judges to handle the load. And if the load is huge, for these intercepts we need to look at why that is, and ensure it's not just fishing.

On the other hand, maybe big data fishing is the most effective method.

So, David Simon (of The Wire/Treme fame) wrote this up:

http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

I think he makes some good points.

You see, there is an overlap amongst the qualities that would make one support EFF and also work for CIA -- and that is patriotism and devotion to their country.

CIA for example looks for devoted and patriotic people more than they look for capable people. They figure they can teach whatever is needed as a special internal course but they can't teach patriotism. So for example they love to hire ex Marines, they are considered patriotic.

Now patriotism is a double edged sword. It works well if the government and agencies are honest and transparent. Patriotic people working in such systems might accept a lower pay but they know they are helping their country. When that start to go south and they start seeing shady things going on they have a choice:

1) Rationalize participating in un-patriotic things (illegal search for ex)

2) Fight against it by leaving the agency or

3) Fight against it by going public and exposing it

Most people probably end up choosing 1). Few choose 2) and only select individuals choose 3).

You are, of course, talking about US patriotism, which is quite exceptional. As the only country to enshrine actual Enlightenment ideals in its original, still-upheld Constitution, and with a population entirely made of immigrants from different countries and ethnicities (with apologies to Native Americans), US patriotism is one of the very few versions that can actually generate anti-nationalistic or universalistic views with a certain regularity.

In more conventional settings, standard patriotism is intrinsically nationalistic and often based on race, which makes things easier for operative agencies (so to speak). Here in Europe, "patriotism" could hardly ever be invoked as basis for subversive acts or whistleblowing in a security setting.

You're aware US Intelligence is behind the development of Tor, right?

I don't think the NSA views itself as a facilitator for "turnkey tyranny", just yet. If you think you're fighting for freedom, then why wouldn't you hire people that feel the same?

Maybe this whole thing will help wake people across all levels of the CIA and the NSA, and there just might be some actual change.

I know, I'm dreaming. But clearly I'm not the only one.

> By the way, I don't know about anybody else, but for the first time I can think of, I'm seriously concerned about the consequences of posting support for somebody like this online.

It's telling, and terrifying, that this is a rational and common concern. Put plainly, it means we fear for the dissolution of our free society (yes, I believe we still live in one).

>I'm seriously concerned about the consequences...

Well, at the very least, don't bother sending your CV to Booz Allen Hamilton, Palantir, etc. Also, fuck these assholes. Seriously, is there anything worse than this?

How else to change a companies ethics and culture if not from the inside?

Maybe those prosecutors should have just sent their resumes to Enron instead, and all pacifists should join the military.

You're assuming that it's possible.

Really? They pay you to make money. Trying to change them just gets you bad performance reviews. Eventually fired or sidelined as a poor team player who doesn't understand the business.

I've never heard anything more naive than trying to change a corporation as a new hire, as a small cog in a giant machine.

Yes. Violating peoples privacy for greed and profit alone.

But that would exclude a lot more companies, many of which employ a lot of regular HN-users. Anything can be rationalized for a paycheck.

And although I've managed to steer clear so far, I'm not claiming to be any better.

I'm willing to state my support for him too - in fact, I view him as a hero. I'm just a boring guy surfing the Internet. I'm more concerned with the overall erosion of our privacy than this specific incident. I'm certainly not a terrorist or even an anarchist, but my own government is slowly turning my sentiment against the country in which I was born and raised.

Support is not a one way street. There were a lot of Americans who thought Martin Luther King Jr posed a serious threat to the US. In that case, the status quo today can be a bigger problem for you tomorrow.

Thoughtful people brave enough to blow whistles seem to be the greatest check on what looks like a secret, unaccountable, illegal centralization of power based on lies from the top of the government on down.

Especially so when you see the oversight committee receive a bald-faced lie, where the leader of the Intelligence agencies lies to the American people by extension, since this is the only public oversight these programs receive.

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/10/james-clapper-hails-sep...

"By the way, I don't know about anybody else, but for the first time I can think of, I'm seriously concerned about the consequences of posting support for somebody like this online. I don't know how things will play out years down the road and who will do what with this information."

Welcome to the land of the freedom in witch people is afraid of speaking their mind!

Here we are: http://edward-snowden-45th-president-of-the-united-states.co...