Hacker News Reader

Comment by specialist | Hacker News Reader

Followup.

Why is this tidbit such a big deal to you? I think you have unrealistic expectations.

Have you ever tried to get a story published in the "mainstream" media?

I've done technical writing. I also spent years explaining my pet issue to journalists, reports, policy makers, other lobbyists.

It's a miracle if the message gets thru mostly correctly.

You ever read a story about topic in which you're an expert? Then you know the press never get the story completely "right".

Even if lawyer Greenwald understood what computer expert Snowden was trying to explain, he'd still have a hard to time running that explanation past his editors. And I'm absolutely certain that whoever is reporting tried to explain novel ideas using layperson's language.

View on HN

And yet most of HN took it as gospel truth and shouted down anyone expressing skepticism. Tptacek's post is chiding the credulity of HN as much as the weak editorial oversight at the Grauniad (which is capable of fact verification, and has historically been good at it).

And I don't even care about people's (clearly reasonable) belief that NSA had put into place an overreaching and possibly unlawful domestic surveillance system.

My problem is with people who appear convicted of the idea that Google's leadership are conspiring with NSA to deceive its customers, or that NSA is employing exotic and outrageous methods (like optical signal intercepts --- it's right there in the name Prism!), or that Palantir is somehow involved in Google-related surveillance, or that NSA is "disappearing" people... the list goes on and on.

I have a problem with the idea of conversations on HN reifying speculation that Google or Facebook are defrauding their customers; I also have a problem with bullshit stories clouding the very real problems we do have with overreaching surveillance.

> I have a problem with the idea of conversations on HN reifying speculation that Google or Facebook are defrauding their customers

To be fair, no one actually said Google and Facebook are defrauding advertisers

This helps me understand where you're coming from.

I understand your frustration, but I think you're attacking the signal instead of the noise you're talking about.

There's definitely a lot of nonsense floating around (optical signal intercepts from these providers, etc.). This is noise.

But there is also a very real signal. A journalist with an inside source is telling us about a program that indicates some of these companies have given the NSA a level of access than most of us who know anything about systems would not be comfortable with.

While the degree to which this is happening has not been supported with evidence, numerous other claims have been. It has already forced the declassification of orders to the phone companies. This seems to be a very credible source.

Instead of attacking the noise, I see you attacking the signal. You're saying "These companies could not be doing this! Why would you believe someone saying they are!"

Maybe there is no such program, maybe the NSA doesn't even know what it's doing enough to make an accurate presentation, maybe the presentation was planted for the guy to find, and maybe the journalists are hacks. These are all possibilities. But with what we know, these are the extreme possibilities, and speculation about them is mostly noise. Defending hack-job articles attacking the source and messenger isn't increasing the quality of the conversation.

Why are you so invested in not getting the answers to the questions I'm raising? That's what your argument is: that my questions are unimportant, because they don't address your more important questions.

You can't see the wood for the trees, can you?

"Stop asking questions I won't like the answers to."

My view is that we will be getting answers to these questions soon. The journalist is closer to the answers than we are, but he would prefer the government and the companies disclose the answers in a responsible manner so he doesn't have to be the arbiter of what gets released or not.

It seems that from what we're getting from the government and companies, we're getting closer to answers, but we're not there yet.

If the question you're raising is about the nature of the Prism program, I am very much looking forward to an answer to that. But I think the best approach is to see the evolution of responses from government and companies rather than smear the journalist as a hack for not immediately releasing the whole presentation.

I'm not smearing him for not immediately releasing the whole presentation. I'm noting places where his own publication contradicts statements that he made, statements that Google and Yahoo and Facebook categorically denied, which are vital to the story.

Agreed. For future, I encourage you to state your objections plainly. Like this (above). And perhaps focus on the issues, facts, details and less about the players.

If the HN front page aspires to be no more technically correct than the mainstream media, I think pg should just close it down.

I remember the day I realized that freaking Newsweek provided better coverage of technology patents than Technology Review.

Greenwald is known to publish without running his work past an editor first.

Yes, if you mean his blogging. That's kind of the point.

His published work too, for the Guardian.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com