DelightfulScone

I'm sorry but I am responding to this:

"believing that Glenn Greenwald should be thwarted is an opinion that, while obviously objectionable on HN, not actually unethical."

Are you trying to say that an employee for NSA contractor Palantir discussing targeting a journalist because of his work on a topic is separate from the employee's beliefs, therefore is not actually unethical?

How exactly did the journalist, or his career get brought up in a conversation between federal contractors about solicitation for work again? Was it to talk about of the reports they liked from him?

Thwarting a journalist from reporting by targeting him and his career, not actually unethical according to tptacek.

One wonders if Glenn's persistence in reporting this issue is due to being targeted by NSA contractors like Palantir, regarding Palantir's work against US activists. A "Spotlight" as the email says: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2LJZSZknE-I/TVpg4sNeUHI/AAAAAAAAC6... Via street nigga's thread.

What propaganda? You are the one that started this thread propagandizing your position that the man was not a hypocrite regardless of him being an energy company CEO and the case was not about fracking since it involves a company that just happens to provide services for fracking.

As others have pointed out, the CEO is a hypocrite for wanting to hinder the health of his local economy since he is in a position that directly profits off such ventures. That his luxury home wouldn't be if not for the eminent domain of infrastructural energy works next to residents across the globe. Residents who don't have the money or time to fight his and his company's legion of lawyers.

The heinous act of editing comments to be more grammatically correct or readable is worthy of this type of reaction from you? Of course this isn't Reddit, no one referenced it aside from you. Try to engage the topic instead of pounding sand about unsubstantial edits.

I'm not much of a fan of "X probably didn't do Y because I cannot guess what would be to gain."

There has been no word from Gox that their social account has been compromised so the clearest conclusion to guess is that they wiped their timeline. Why? That doesn't exactly matter before establishing who and right now the who seems to be Gox.

Google cache: https://www.google.com/#q=site:twitter.com%2Fmtgox

Why would it be more likely an account compromise?

I am a lazy troll according to you. I earned this by referencing the free market principles that define the Exxon CEO's home as being in the path of progress. If he doesn't want his 'luxury' (according to court doc) home value to decline he wouldn't build it around natural resources the likes of which he aims to profit personally from to buy things like 'luxury' housing.

This is a situation many have to deal with yet are not news-worthy because they are not personally profiting of the types of ventures that they raise lawsuits over.

You can call me a troll for pointing that out as that is your right but you cannot accuse me of altering my comments to askew context, because that is rubbish.

And if you would direct your attention to the man's profession, you can see where people's idea of hypocrisy stems from. Thanks for calling me lazy, easy out that is.

I think it is up to you to define valid national concern. Since you are OK with it the onus for explaining how policy is carried out in action and why it is OK is with you.

As far as I can tell many resources both human and otherwise have been expended by the US govt to solidify US corporate grounding. Many of those corporations seek to maximize profit and revenues by offshoring labor and finances. I do not accept this byproduct of excessive lobbying as valid national concerns.

If the nation's sovereignty is a conduit for corporate profits, and immense personal profits by the few monied enough to lobby state actors, then the nation is not very sovereign at all.

Who is our allies? Who are our enemies? Do we spy on them equally?

Is the information yielded from spying only used for valid national concerns?

The answer is of course you cannot see why you should care, since any duplicity is hidden behind the cloak of good ole patriotic national security there is nothing for you to see. Continue on brave blind soldier.

You seem to be reaching to put the man on level ground with his peers. He is the CEO of a company that is partially responsible for many such installations sprouting up near other peoples regular homes. The man is complaining about his luxury mansion depreciating in value because of development.

He should listen to Exxon and other energy company lawyers and move away from progress if he doesn't like the smell or sight of it.

That is effectively what I was attempting to highlight. No minds read.

On the topic of tortured logic, I would love to know why you don't think the lawsuit[0] is about fracking when it involves water and the infrastructure that supplies it for those activities.

[0] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/water201402...

Sorry but infrastructural parts of fracking count as fracking. It's not like people are complaining solely about injection or leaking. Or the constant convoys of diesel vehicles, the expansive works they drive to and from.

In this case one tower is highlighted, but the process the tower is involved in is... Fracking.

Would it be different if it was a municipal water tower? Yes, since the man's job is to promote drilling and pumping hydrocarbons, not piping municipal water supplies. Of course it would be different.

"So how do state secrets privileges introduce anonymous evidence?"

By allowing anonymous evidence to be introduced, obviously.

"Regulatory "Executive Privilege" to Withhold Evidence," Indiana Law[0]

[0] http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

By taking it.

Or you know, take the currency since this is a ponzi scam and ponzi scammers don't want to let pay-outs go to anyone but themselves.

Why is HN giving traffic to scam sites now?

That's why I said withheld, yes.

"Anonymous tips don't remain anonymous in court."

Evidence can and is withheld from defense using mechanisms like States Secrets.

"but too many people argue about it without understanding at all what it is."

Oh tell us then since you have the inside track of knowledge on the issue. You know you are chomping on the bit to do so.

I've mention something like this previously, in light of Obama 'conceding' on NSA complaints by suggesting the data be stored in private corporate hands.

It is befuddling.

Here is a screenshot for the blank results when the sources link is clicked: http://imgur.com/63dWPlw

I don't know what is a tailored result and what is not on sites, specially Google lately. Add in other quirks and you have an unreliable system of communication.

Well that is interesting. I typically jump to Google News in response to such accusations to show a thread of stories on the subject 'being blacked out.' In this case..

Shows some search results: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0...

Clicking on the '73 news sources' link results in blank thread: https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dePJixL6H8f9VzMIt-2rs1GZLI9...