Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirimir | Hacker News Reader

> Because keeping an eye on foreign governments is a legitimate task, this source is not a whistleblower. He or she could be a cryptoanarchist, or maybe even an agent of a foreign intelligence agency.

Interesting distinction: whistleblower vs cryptoanarchist ;)

View on HN

Even more interesting is that someone besides us "government shills" has finally acknowledged the idea that something NSA does could possibly be legitimate...

That's nothing new - the Electrospaces site has called into question the claims of Snowden and Greenwald on numerous occasions. For example:

- Snowden would not have been able to legally "wiretap anybody": http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2015/02/snowden-would-not-...

- Snowden-documents show no evidence for global mass surveillance: http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/06/snowden-documents-...

- Document shows that it was not NSA, but FBI that monitored 5 Americans: http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/07/document-shows-tha...

- Screenshots from BOUNDLESSINFORMANT can be misleading: http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2013/11/screenshots-from-b...

The Cold War is probably the closest historical lab experiment about espionage. I've seen it argued that even the spies and traitors served a valuable purpose during the Cold War. Because leaks like these provided a way for valuable information to cross the barriers of antagonism and give insight into the real problems and the real fears of the other side. And this knowledge could in fact lower tensions and increase security.

To know and to tell secrets is a very human thing that laws and social norms (spying on the President! For shame!) will not erase.

Even if it was ultimately valuable in that way, cold war espionage was still an extremely expensive theatrical game of back and forth - often piggy-backing on morally-questionable methodology in order to get those results.

Opportunity costs...

If you think that spying on a foreign nations president is legitimate, I have a question for you: Is it also ok and legitimate for you if other foreign nations spy on _your_ president?

Genuinely interested.

Being legitimate "for the NSA to do" and legitimate "in the grand scheme of things" are not the same thing.

It [could be argued that it']s legitimate for the NSA to spy on France, just like it[...]'s legitimate for the french NSA to spy on the US.

That's not the same question as whether or not it's legitimate for allies to spy on each other. Oh, sorry, for the US to spy on France and for France to spy on the US.

Legitimate? Yes. "OK" is a function of how pervasive the spying is, but far from expecting other countries not to try at all, I'd honestly expect other countries to try mightily to get information on what the President of the United States is thinking on topics of importance to that country.

Of course it's legitimate, that this is gray right now is silly. That why we use encryption for communications, because we're expecting them to try.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com