Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Pitarou | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Pitarou

He may have to, but it will be a desperate move. Think about the risks involved.

The US government:

- spends billions on illicit surveillance tech

- officially sanctions kidnapping ("extraordinary rendition") as a tool of security policy

- brought down an Ecuadorian diplomatic flight over European airspace, on the mere possibility that he might be on it

- fully intends to lock him up in a cage forever and ever and ever

View on HN

You pretty much just described Batman.

That comment made HN a better place.

Interesting point. Which side do you think the Caped Crusader would take?

based on the fact that he gave Fox control to destroy his cell phone surveillance. I think he would be pro snowden

Based on the fact that he had a cell phone surveillance system, he'd probably be pro-NSA.

Didn't he decide that the thing he set up was too powerful for anyone to have though?

(in at least one version, iirc, etc. etc.)

Sure, but that didn't stop him from using it, did it?

Yes - because he was the only one morally sound enough, in his opinion, to use it. Much like the NSA and GCHQ.

We like our superheroes to kick some villain's butt without pesky 'due process' getting in the way.

Kinda like the NSA, if you think about it.

Batman prefers due process.

"I'd like you to meet the bastions of justice, my right jab Due and my left hook Process. Say hello!"

-- Batman

After he's kidnapped you.

I'm enjoying this.

Batman is an amazingly great epitome of libertarian paradox.

That's why he's always so moody. Cognitive dissonance.

I'd go even further to say that's why he is one of the most compelling superheros

...wish fulfillment power fantasy is not my idea of a compelling character.

I'm talking about the dissonance of his figure, and I think you realize that. I didn't say every single facet of the character was compelling.

The whole premise of the movie was that sometimes that kind of surveillance is necessary to save society.

But the person who controlled that surveillance knew when to destroy it.

Ah... best comment all year!

> - brought down an Ecuadorian diplomatic flight over European airspace, on the mere possibility that he might be on it

To be clear it wasn't just any diplomatic flight. It was the plane carrying the President of Ecuador.

If I were Snowden, I'd make sure all documents leak completely if anything like that happens to me. It'd be then the best interest of the US I die of old age a good couple decades from now.

Snowden is not an amateur (like me). He has insurance all over the place.

He was given asylum by the Russian government, snatching him from Russian soil would be a major thing that could possibly start a war.

Get real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinen...

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-pre...

I see no shots being fired.

Russia is not going to start a war with the United States over Snowden.

Or: Obama is not going to start a war with Putin over Snowden. They're already spread thin (Syira, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Korea, Pacific, etc).

Lol.. the US is to Russia what North Korea is to the US - a small nuisance. Talking about Obama starting a war with Russia is a ridiculous fantasy. Heck, the US has lost every single war it started over the past two decades - even to the poorest and least organized enemies you can imagine.

"the US is to Russia what North Korea is to the US - a small nuisance."

Ha. The US military is just slightly more advanced than whatever North Korea has. In terms of sheer firepower, the US military is formidable. These so-called "lost wars" aren't pitting nation against nation, which is what US vs. Russia would be.

I'm disappointed this is the case (as a fiscally conservative US citizen), but most our of aircraft carriers have superior air firepower onboard than most countries have entirely.

"One US aircraft carrier has a more powerful air force than 70% of all countries." http://www.dump.com/aircraftcarrier/

The "wars" were won quite convincingly. They were over before they started. The problem is that the wars did not end up resulting in the kind of postwar peace envisioned after about 2001 or so (an issue that Clausewitz pointed out in the 1830s).

How did the US lose the first Gulf War? I think Iraq was removed from Kuwait right?

Technically older than the last two decades?

More likely a strong tsk tsk in a passing speech.

So all that, and you think the US intelligence community don't actually know exactly where he is?

Also, interviews can and do frequently happen without disclosing the exact location of the subject.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com