Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm working on a project that involves a customized version of some unclassified, non-intelligence software for a defense customer at my job (not my ideal choice of market, but it wasn't weapons so okay with it). Some of the people on the project come from the deeper end of that industry, with several TS/SCI contract and IC jobs on their resumes.

We were looking over some errors on the sshd log and it was saying it couldn't find the id_ed25519 server cert. I remarked that that line must have stayed even though the system was put in FIPS mode which probably only allowed the NIST-approved ECC curve and related this story, how everyone else has moved over to ed25519 and the government is the only one left using their broken algorithm.

One of the IC background guys (who is a very nice person, nothing against them) basically said, yeah the NSA used to do all sorts of stuff that was a bad idea, mentioning the Clipper chip, etc. What blew my mind is that they seemed to totally have reasonable beliefs about government surveillance and powers, but then when it comes to someone like Snowden, thinks their are a traitor and should have used the internal channels instead of leaking. I just don't understand how they think those same people who run NSA would have cared one bit, or didn't know about it already. I always assumed the people that worked in the IC would just think all this stuff was OK to begin with I guess.

I don't know what the takeaway is from that, it just seems like a huge cognitive dissonance.




I think the term "doublethink" was invented specifically for government functionaries like the IC guy you describe.

Being consistently and perfectly dogmatic requires holding two contradictory beliefs in your head at once. It's a skill.


It’s not doublethink to say the programs should have been exposed and that Snowden was a traitor for exposing them in a manner that otherwise hurt our country.

He could have done things properly, instead he dumped thousands of files unrelated to illegal surveillance to the media.


It absolutely is. Please read his book, it addresses this claim directly.

You can't fix lawlessness by reporting the violation of law to the lawbreaker.

This is also why police in the USA are out of control. You cannot fix a criminal conspiracy from within the criminal conspiracy.

PS: nations don't exist, they are fictional abstractions. You cannot "hurt a country".


> You can't fix lawlessness by reporting the violation of law to the lawbreaker

You absolutely can, especially with something as multifaceted as a country.

> nations don't exist, they are fictional abstractions. You cannot "hurt a country".

They do and you can.


While I am skeptical of US domestic surveillance, Snowden leaked this information in the worst possible way.

Try internal whistleblower channels first. Not being heard? Mail to members of Congress? Contact congress? Contact the media?

Instead he fled to an adversary with classified material. That's not good faith behavior imo. Traitor


Regarding trying internal channels, Snowden says he tried this

> despite the fact that I could not legally go to the official channels that direct NSA employees have available to them, I still made tremendous efforts to report these programs to co-workers, supervisors, and anyone with the proper clearance who would listen. The reactions of those I told about the scale of the constitutional violations ranged from deeply concerned to appalled, but no one was willing to risk their jobs, families, and possibly even freedom

The fleeing to a foreign adversary part would have been completely avoidable if the US had stronger whistleblower protections. It's perfectly reasonable to see what happened to Chelsey Manning and Julian Assange and not want to suffer a similar fate.


https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress...

There is no record that he attempted to use internal channels. He would have been afforded whistleblower protection had he went to Congress with his findings.


> There is no record that he attempted to use internal channels

From the beginning of the Snowden quote:

> I could not legally go to the official channels that direct NSA employees have available to them

In addition, I find it difficult to take any congressional report on this matter, including the one you cited, seriously given that their primary source is a group of people who have repeatedly lied to Congress without consequence.


Why do you take Snowden's word as gospel but dismiss a bipartisan Congressional Committee's findings? I think that you are biased and nothing will change your mind. Let's agree to disagree.


You could also take the word of a person from deep inside the Obama administration: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/ben-rhodes-book-proves-obam...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: