Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrRoger | Hacker News Reader

I'm probably gonna get down voted for this on HN.

For anyone who pays attention to this kind of stuff, you would know China has an aggressive spy campaign against the US primarily for its technology. So I earnestly ask how in the world would China pass up the opportunity to get hold of the documents Snowden held? He was in their territory with the highest US secrets, and they just let him go? For just nothing in return? Just like that? Snowden said they never got anything (other than what has already been leaked), but there's no way I can honestly believe that when China has so much to gain.

View on HN

You have a new account, so I'd like to point out the Hacker News guidelines. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

" Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. "

I wasn't complaining about being downmodded. There's no complaint there. I'm just aware that what I was going to say is an unpopular opinion on HN.

As someone who has been a member of HN, longer than most I would say you should not apply that rule too broadly. Unless I am missing something, he just said "I'm probably gonna get down voted.". There is nothing wrong with that. People say that all the time on HN. [1]

That guideline talks about the case when someone explicitly complains about getting downvoted after the fact. Even comments that say "I don't know why I have been downvoted" are okay imho. Everyone should be allowed to ask why they are being down voted.

[1] As a site note: Usually types of comments actually get up voted. HN rarely down votes for unpopular opinions if they are well founded.

EDIT: See if you don't believe me:

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=I+am+probably+going+to+get+downvot...

You can try other variations of that phrase as well.

Snowden was never taken into custody in Hong Kong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Hong_Kong

Anyway, everyone already knows what they need to know: if you're acting against the "interests" of the Five Eyes countries (primarily the US or the UK), don't trust any computers in or from those countries, unless you can reliably examine everything.

>Snowden was never taken into custody in Hong Kong.

Why would he?

>Anyway, everyone already knows what they need to know: if you're acting against the "interests" of the Five Eyes countries (primarily the US or the UK), don't trust any computers in or from those countries, unless you can reliably examine everything.

Well, that really goes for any country who has the capabilities, I would say.

The article has nothing to do with Snowden. At all.

I actually asked a question concerning Chinese intelligence gathering on US entities which by extension relates to Snowden. Why would the Chinese spy so heavily in the US, but pass up US secrets that's practically on their doorstep?

Because if they are "heavily" spying on the U.S., they already knew all what Snowden had, and more.

How many gov employees + contractors have top security clearances in the US? That's how.

>Because if they are "heavily" spying on the U.S., they already knew all what Snowden had, and more.

We don't know this, and how would the Chinese know specifically what Snowden has? Do you have anything to suggest that they did?

>How many gov employees + contractors have top security clearances in the US? That's how.

This doesn't say much. Just because you have a clearance doesn't mean you have access to classified documents. In the miltary, for example, almost all aircraft maintainers have a secret clearance and they just fix tires.

I'm guessing you're not aware that top secret clearances more often than not require "code words" and you are read in aka given access to said code words on a strictly need to know basis. Some code words themselves are classified. Having a too secret clearance does by know possible way grant you access to everything like say the US nuclear defense details.

How would China having "so much to gain" lead to Snowden knowing more than he leaked? Maybe your opinion is unpopular because it contains very little logic.

I don't understand your question. I never said anything about Snowden knowing more.

Still, same question, how would it lead to him having documents he handed off? There is, after all, a big difference between China wanting them badly, and Snowden wanting China to have them badly. Just because they wanted him to still have the documents likely had little to no bearing on him having them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com