Hacker News Reader

Comment by blhack | Hacker News Reader

Wow, I would tread incredibly lightly here. In the eyes of the US government, this person could be considered an enemy of the state...and you're literally giving them aid.

That's probably a pretty serious crime. I support this person as well, but there is something to be said about living to fight another day. Directly giving money to [possible] enemies of the state might not be the greatest idea.

View on HN

I wasn't going to do this, but now I am.

I just let my friends know this: 'I am going to materially aid someone that the US government is very likely to label as an enemy. If that should happen, that could make my act, as per the definition in the constitution, retroactively "treasonous". Everyone who knows me knows that I am a patriot: but only because I believe in what this country strives to be - not necessarily because of what it is, was, or ever will be. And those who know me well should know that I am doing so because I believe generally in the principles set forth by the framers - principles which are supposed to transcend the institution in power.'

So. It's done. I'd like to also add, as I did on a previous post - that there is a network effect here. The more people contribute, the more difficult it will be for the government to round us all up and cry treason on us.

Everyone who supports Snowden should print out a gold star and wear it on their sleeves.

They don't have to actually charge you with anything. You'll just end up on a no-fly list or have some assets frozen.

Did you not want to tell your friends a little more about who this "someone" is and what he did, rather than focus on your own actions?

if they're not idiots they can figure it out. I've been posting a lot about it on facebook. Furthermore, the point of the post is primarily a warning to protect my safety/let them know how bad it is if something happens to me, not necessarily to spread the word (which I've done plenty of). I don't want to encourage impetuous people to follow my actions unless they ask and think hard about what they are doing, because of the risk involved. Facebook is a "push" notification service, not a "pull" service.

The fact that we've reached a point where one has to question if it's safe for them to contribute to a cause like this makes me shudder with disgust.

Yes. This is one of these moments when you can feel whether you truly have freedom or not.

I don't recall anyone who contributed to Bradley Manning's defense fund (or to Wikileaks) getting hauled off to Gitmo.

people did. I didn't. But I think this guy is more articulate, more well-reasoned, less impetuous, and more forward-thinking than Manning (and certainly Assange). Disclaimer: I have no reason to believe so except gut feeling.

I think Manning had/has some mental health problems. I'm pretty sure he was struggling with depression. This guy sounds like he's in a much better place, mentally, to go up against the US government. Being a contractor (citizen) will probably also make this a lot easier for him than it is for Manning.

I'm sure the smearing of Snowden will start soon enough. All the things we know about Manning took months to come out. Manning didn't even get to publicly respond to the smearing until, what, years of solitary confinement? And when he did respond he sounded a lot more level-headed than the smears made him out to be. No man is an angel, especially the kind of man willing to buck the system like they have.

I expect that the NSA will make it their mission to dig up everything they possibly can on the guy to discredit him because they will see it as a zero-sum game, the more doubt they cast on his character the less justification for scrutiny of their billion dollar budgets.

um, this logic is false. you can give money to whoever you want -- this is not the same as hiding a convicted criminal in your basement from the legal authorities.

i can send a $1,000 check to bradley manning (who has actually had charges brought on him, currently in jail), and there would not be a single illegal thing about sending him a check.

While I have faith that the US government has a legal system that does a reasonably good job adhering to the principles of logic, precedence, rule of law, reasonableness - and probably a relatively excellent job (comparing to other legal systems), it is neither perfect nor immune from political pressure. Time and time again we see broad classes of situations (drug war, guantanamo) where the US sees fit to throw out what I would consider to be intelligent, rational, reasonable decisions where the matters are not really in shades of grey... It is entirely reasonable to be worried about a very unpleasant reaction by the authorities.

EDIT: I think the likelihood of severe negative consequences is low, but there is a nonzero likelihood of being targeted for a bad experience, for varying values of "bad experiences".

If the US government were to take action on this, the mostly likely consequence is seizure of the funds. They'd target the site itself, which might give them a list of names (which, at the most, they'd lateral to the IRS for fun).

Otherwise, the site would disqualify the campaign and return any funds.

(edit to above): I think the likelihood of severe negative consequences is low, but there is a nonzero likelihood of being targeted for a bad experience, for varying values of "bad experiences".

As long as you aren't pissing off powerful organizations that are watching you... oh wait.

There are plenty of people in jail and dead for the act of sending a check to someone. Giving money to someone is a crime in many circumstances, among them:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A

(Computer crimes are covered there; that is to say, anyone providing money to encourage or support anyone performing any sort of computer crime against U.S. national security is themselves guilty of a crime and liable for up to 15 years in prison.)

If you read the title at the top of the page at the link you provides, you'll see it's "Providing material support to terrorists." Manning has not been charged with terrorism.

The subheadings are not part of the law and are there for general information only. If you read the specifics of the law, as I said in my comment just above, the law covers giving money in support of a wide variety of crimes, not just KABOOM! terrorism, despite the title. The wide variety includes computer crimes.

I don't think they'll bother prosecuting people who donate to him, but even if they did I don't think that hiding your opinion is the correct course of action. If people see a government actively repressing its civilian citizens they'll be more likely to actually do something about it (or maybe not, who knows).

The government can decide at any point than anyone is an enemy of the state, so if you really want to be careful you should stay completely off the grid. Donating to a third party, or even a major party that happens to lose, could one day become "aiding an enemy of the state."

Oh, and what about this?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow...

Wouldn't that also be considered aiding an enemy of the state?

Then this is just another example that your democracy is broken. Go fix it.

>Donating to a third party, or even a major party that happens to lose, could one day become "aiding an enemy of the state."

Everyone has lost their minds.

If we all keep waiting there isn't going to be another day to fight.

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/137/

Fuck. That. Shit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com