Hacker News Reader

Comment by sologoub | Hacker News Reader

I especially like this reasoning: "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..." (from the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document cited in the article.)

By this token, any kind of lobbying is also terrorism. Hell, any kind of activism in a political space "is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause".

Seems like a perfect illustration of the kind of slippery slope the world is on.

This article seems to also parallel well with the Russian detention of a Greenpeace ship and charging crew with piracy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against.... Effectively, "it's piracy because we say so", just like "it's terrorism because we say so" logic in the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document.

View on HN

The first part of that statement is: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives."

Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.

... Uh, defense industry lobbyists ...

True, but the quoted statement appears to be self-contained. It is that much more interesting that the author of the document seemed to feel the need to add justification beyond the assertion that the documents could endanger people's lives. It is this added justification that strikes me especially problematic.

The definition of terrorism that is implied is so vague and arbitrary that it seems that it can be attributed to almost any political process.

you mean any political process that happens to threaten someone with a big enough mouthpiece to declare it terrorism

It's a quote from another document so we have no idea if it's self contained without seeing the original document.

It's also worth remembering that Greenwald chose that quote to go in his article so would have chosen to put it in a context that emphasises his viewpoint.

I still don't understand why Miranda flew though the UK when he was carrying UK intelligence materials - still looks like a baited trap for publicity to me.

Endangering people's lives is quite abstract. If you happen to do IT security and carry documents about hacking cars with you, then in theory you are endangering people's lives. Still probably your goal is to improve security to safe lives.

If you carry documents that are uncovering a surveillance state you might endanger the lives on a few people relying on it. Still probably your goal is to improve privacy and long-term safety for the general population.

I think we should be way more careful with what we call terrorism. Democracy requires whistleblowing, free speech and critical perspectives on governments actions. Even if that means that this complicates some of the government's operations. The question is not just about safety but about commensurability.

When you get in your car to go to work, you are endangering peoples' lives. So, uhh... yeah... this is a justification that can be stretched quite far.

He was likely carrying car keys, a cigarette lighter, and some duty free alcohol as well…

Yes, this had me as well. I think Orwell is spinning in his grave right now.

When everything that is meant to change status quo becomes terrorism we will live in a terrible world.

Orwell has been spinning at the relativistic limit for some time now. He can't spin any faster.

This is where it makes sense to point out that the US, the source of these troubles, still has a much higher standard of freedom (including of the press) than countries like the UK. Ironic.

"...still has a much higher standard of freedom..."

It's interesting you used the phrase "higher standard", as opposed to "amount of". The NSA seemed to have tons of freedom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com