Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to comment? C'mon, think.
> changes to the operational procedures of the American [you had a typo] and UK agencies in question would have happened immediately
If you're an intelligent person (and I would like to assume you are) changing policies on a dime, esp. when it comes to govt. policy, doesn't happen in a day, or even a year. I think everyone reading this knows better than that. That is a weak argument.
>As to the harm/benefit of Snowdens actions, I think it very much depends on who you are and your role as to your perspective.
No shit. If you want to harm the US, its not a negative action. Else, its a goddamn negative action. I'm trying really hard to figure out why else you would make that argument.
> From the perspective of a non US citizen it has shone a light on what a "friendly" government considers an appropriate level of spying on its allies and clearly shows that all governments are engaging in "offensive" operations on IT systems, and the lengths that they'll go to to achieve that goal.
Imagine what non "friendly" governments are doing.
> Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to comment? C'mon, think.
No, you really need to do a bit more thinking. A journalist shouldn't just publish what an anonymous source says without corroborating their story with other evidence. You can keep your source anonymous, but they need to provide some physical evidence or you need to confirm it some other way.
Exhibit A, how Greenwald handled Snowden. Every story he had was based off documents provided that could be examined and published as evidence. Everything was based on physical evidence collected by Snowden, not just some stories he told. If a journalist just took anonymous sources stories at face value w/o evidence anyone associated with an intelligence agency could feed in false information whenever they... oh wait, could that be happening here??
And Greenwald himself goes into a lot more detail about it here, just got on the frontpage on HN:
> No shit. If you want to harm the US, its not a negative action. Else, its a goddamn negative action. I'm trying really hard to figure out why else you would make that argument.
How hard have you tried? Do you honestly think nothing good can come out of this for US citizens?
>Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to comment? C'mon, think.
I am thinking, I'm thinking that a single unnamed source from a government with no back-up isn't a reliable source, just the same as a single unnamed source from a non-government angle isn't. I can claim anything you like came from a single unnamed source :)
One of the points of jounalists is that they're meant to get other information to corroborate or disprove the things they are told, that's kind of the point. If all they do is print things one person tells them, they're just really propaganda agencies. If one source tells them this, they should have other sources they can ask to confirm/deny.
>> changes to the operational procedures of the American [you had a typo] and UK agencies in question would have happened immediately
>If you're an intelligent person (and I would like to assume you are) changing policies on a dime, esp. when it comes to govt. policy, doesn't happen in a day, or even a year. I think everyone reading this knows better than that. That is a weak argument.
I don't think they can change on a dime as you put it but I do think that if agents were at serious risk of harm it wouldn't be two years down the line that this would be the case. are we seriously suggesting that the UK gov. left their agents out on a limb for two years at risk of compromise?
>>As to the harm/benefit of Snowdens actions, I think it very much depends on who you are and your role as to your perspective.
>No shit. If you want to harm the US, its not a negative action. Else, its a goddamn negative action. I'm trying really hard to figure out why else you would make that argument.
ahh consider the perspective of a European country. You consider yourself an ally of the US/UK etc only to find out that for spying purposes you're not much of an ally at all, you're a target. People say "well they're spies that's what they do", problem is that people assume that their friends don't spy on them. And also remember that the spies aren't just looking for terrorists, they're working to create advangage for their corporations. So the europeans found out that the US considers them a valid target for economic espionage, I'd imagine that they're quite happy about that as they can now change their actions accordingly.
>> From the perspective of a non US citizen it has shone a light on what a "friendly" government considers an appropriate level of spying on its allies and clearly shows that all governments are engaging in "offensive" operations on IT systems, and the lengths that they'll go to to achieve that goal.
>Imagine what non "friendly" governments are doing.
Indeed they're all at it. What irritates me personally is the double standards. Right before Snowdens revalations, the US were decrying Chinese spying and demanding a common standard of behaviour on the Internet which precluded that kind of thing. Then it turns out that they're up to their necks in exactly the same kind of behaviour.
I'm in IT security and for me this is really sad, as there's a real risk that government "offensive cyber operations" or whatever they want to call it, will have a seriously bad long term effect. It funnels loads of money into people working out how to compromise IT systems and places economic incentives on not fixing security issues, so those issues can be used to attack other countries.
You pull out the standard argument of authoritarian types in your last sentence. Fear. You are unconcerned about the decline of human rights in your country because some anonymous government source has conjured up some sinister foreign boogeyman.
>a single unnamed source
Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to comment? C'mon, think.
> changes to the operational procedures of the American [you had a typo] and UK agencies in question would have happened immediately
If you're an intelligent person (and I would like to assume you are) changing policies on a dime, esp. when it comes to govt. policy, doesn't happen in a day, or even a year. I think everyone reading this knows better than that. That is a weak argument.
>As to the harm/benefit of Snowdens actions, I think it very much depends on who you are and your role as to your perspective.
No shit. If you want to harm the US, its not a negative action. Else, its a goddamn negative action. I'm trying really hard to figure out why else you would make that argument.
> From the perspective of a non US citizen it has shone a light on what a "friendly" government considers an appropriate level of spying on its allies and clearly shows that all governments are engaging in "offensive" operations on IT systems, and the lengths that they'll go to to achieve that goal.
Imagine what non "friendly" governments are doing.