Didn't we just hear about a new HN policy to limit trolling, snotty comments, and low information negativity like this? This snide aside here is a good test case to see if these new policies have any teeth. I would expect this comment deleted by the mods. Accusing other members of being paid-for shills merely because they disagree with you is trolling and only hurts discussion.

Then again, I can't help but wonder why people bother asking if someone else is a shill, as if they honestly expect an actual shill to admit to it. Probably the same people who think undercover cops actually have to admit who they are if you ask them.

That said though I really dislike the atmosphere created by frequent shill accusations. It seems to rapidly create an echo chamber, where minority opinions are dismissed.

'3rd parties' who spend any amount of time here are perfectly aware of that a pro government, anti-Snowden point of view won't be popular. I doubt they would turn tail if someone suspected their presence.

And arguably, false positives and arguments about whether or not someone is a shill work in favor of actual shills. Notice how nobody ever seems to accuse the people making those accusations of having ulterior motives, despite the fact that a false flag strategy of deflecting attention to innocent accounts and derailing threads would be a much smarter strategy on their part than sockpuppet accounts making obviously noticeable propagandic statements.

I fall on the 'Snowden is a hero' side of the fence, but I don't see what got that comment flagged.

strawman: "Their argument is this weak thing that's easily disproved."

this post: "I haven't heard a single actual argument from them."

I think this argument holds a lot less strongly than it did with what Manning released (notably the cables that listed "infrastructure weak points" that would basically be a list of high-value targets for anyone looking to do pain to the allies of the US. Things like schools and pipelines). But it's a question of where you think the line lies in "legitimate" surveillance.

But if you don't think it makes sense for the NSA to be spying on Chinese research institutions, for example (if only to keep tabs on Chinese military research), then I don't know if you have any task that the NSA could do given its mission statement. Obviously a balanced position, but I think most people in the US believe some spying infrastructure is necessary.

People get insulted when there is information which implies the USA has done something wrong. On some level, they admit the truth, but they react against it strongly by suppressing that admission and focusing their anger on the person or people who brought it to their attention.

Also I think you have something to learn about human nature if you don't believe people will bluff on a political opinion without being able to give a coherent argument.

And you know what? Where "my morality" is our Constitution and the principles of a constrained government that serves (and is accountable to) the people, then yes, that trumps the Hell out of laws designed to allow what's going on and keep it secret from us.

Given the context of the original memorial that the bust was added to, I wish I could say I was still surprised at people like cdbajorin.

The fact that you are somehow extracting an opinion from my statement is fascinating. No where have I stated my beliefs, no where have I implied my beliefs. Your statement is a simple display of black and white thinking: "If you criticize my comment, you disagree with everything I believe". The fact that "people like me" exist in the context of this commentary is probably a good thing.

Let me reiterate: My opinions were never stated anywhere in this entire thread. I criticized your train of thought and your straw man argument. Nothing more.

When you responded with "I've never seen a plausible argument supporting what Snowden did that boiled down to more than [my morality is more important than your laws]", you were trying to mock my complaint. However, while I was complaining about a lack of argument, you were complaining about an actual, very valid argument that I endorsed.

Or to put it another way, snarking about people who think morality is more important than law is kinda hilarious when we're talking about a monument to the Revolutionary War. Or much of American history, for that matter.

Here's a list of people that were morally justified in breaking the law:

Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Eric Rudolph, Mohamed Atta

Some you may agree with, hopefully some you don't. But it's YOUR morality, so I'm sure it's OK.

That looks like an implication of lying to me.

I already explained how it's not a straw man, it's not meant to represent an actual argument.

Most of us think he was in the right to expose PRISM and some other programs, but he basically gave Greenwald & Co. unfettered access to a huge swath of the NSA's internal operations. That's too far for me. It's an issue of scope.

Not released. Not even plausibly given to "Greenwald & Co."

It's telling that you jump to a ridiculous supposed analogy of endangered CIA field agents when we're talking "operations" safely carried out in secure server farms, cubicles, and offices.

On the other hand, when you have state powers like China to contend with (who have a greater degree of explicit control over their citizens), it wouldn't be surprising to see state-level competitors wanting to keep a leg up on their competition by employing similar tactics. Unfortunately, the dragnet in place is unconstitutional for the NSA, which is why it is a part of the Five Eyes to work around that issue - by relying on collaboration with other institutions to provide the data that is ultimately being collected.

Correct. You have no evidence or plausible argument for characterizing what's in the dump or for making your assertion that Snowden himself doesn't know what's in the dump. You only have ominous generalities to hint about.

Unlike other posters, I don't care whether you're a shill. There are many people around the world who will say what you say - and much worse things - without taking a dime. I submit that it's a mistake to think that the difference matters. You're still engaging in misinformation and siding with government agencies spying on the people instead of with the people. That's no better than shilling.

If you want change, it might be best not to alienate the 45% of Americans who believe that Snowden went too far or the 56% who believe that he should be charged. The NSA and Snowden issues are two separate things that are linked by a common thread.

I believe the NSA is abusing its power and needs to be changed. I also believe Snowden released vast amounts of classified data, not all of it in a legitimate whistleblower role. If that makes me a bad person who is engaging in misinformation somehow, so be it. I'm willing to accept that other people believe differently, and I believe that people should extend that courtesy to others instead of insulting them.

And yet, you're here going on about how the real problem is what Snowden did, not the NSA. I see nothing in what you're saying that's distinguishable from concern-trolling.

>> would it be "too far" to release the entire list of CIA field agents and their covers around the world to two journalists at a foreign newspaper because of that one group of agents? It absolutely would be and would potentially put shitloads of lives at risk. Snowden basically did the same thing with the NSA information.

>> he basically gave Greenwald & Co. unfettered access to a huge swath of the NSA's internal operations. That's too far for me. It's an issue of scope.

Since you admit that you don't know what exactly is in that data dump, perhaps you'd care to make a verifiable argument as to why what Snowden did was too far? Currently you are just using your own assumption that he went to far as your evidence.

//edit for typos

It's fine to disagree with this, but it's an arguable point and it's stuff like that most of us Snowden non-supporters take issue with, not PRISM or XKEYSCORE which are clearly unconstitutional.

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

I don't think all of those documents had to be released for the point to be made. A lot of them, sure, but not all of them.

Never forget, the holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, segregation was legal. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.

I have two objections to this comment:

1) It's inappropriate; the grandfather's comment can stand on its own merits

2) You think you can detect shills based on quality. It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out how to shill in a convincing manner. Maybe you can catch the morons, but anyone who puts much thought into their shilling operation won't be caught so easily. If you look around you can find articles describing the sophisticated methods and training that go into conning people in this way.

I'm not paid to post political opinions. I hope you can open your mind and see that there are informed people in this world who don't agree with you.

He's not making policy. He's informing the public.