
More Americans see man who leaked NSA secrets as 'patriot' than traitor - bconway
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-poll-idUSBRE95B1AF20130612
======
alexholehouse
So, in summary, the difference between a patriot and a traitor is just PR. Pun
intended.

~~~
D_Alex
Wow... good job! But now that Snowden left the US, he must be an ex-patriot.
The traditional response is an extradition request.

~~~
EliRivers
"The traditional response is an extradition request."

Which, if not met, is followed by a massive invasion and subsequent decade
long occupation, judging by the Afghan fiasco. :)

~~~
charlieok
Not if that country is China...

------
beedogs
What really pisses me off is that Democrats seem to support Obama in anything
he does; half of them think this kind of shit is perfectly fine, likely
because their team is the one doing it. Really sorely disappointing.

~~~
rquantz
What are you talking about? Do you have any evidence for this? Or was it just
some democrat you talked to who supported mass surveillance? You think the 30%
of Americans who believe Snowden is a patriot are all non-democrats?

~~~
rexf
WSJ writes:

"A survey ... found that 56% believe that broad-based government tracking of
telephone records is acceptable ... More Democrats than Republicans found it
acceptable, a reversal of findings in a similar poll taken when George W. Bush
was president ..."

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732490400457853...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324904004578539791260216814.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories)

------
cygnus
traitor XOR patriot.

This is so narrow minded in my opinion. Snowden has done something good to the
world, because US administration is secrectly messing with everybody around
the globe.

Stop considering it happened only within US borders or as an internal matter.
US and US media still are using a group (country) scale reduction to draw some
bad opinion on Snowden, divide and gain some people to this spying dementia.

If you look on an international scale, the trivial question would be : hero or
villain, and the answer is quite obvious.

AAaaaand somebody is knocking on my door...

~~~
cinquemb
> _If you look on an international scale…_

I keep thinking about how in some Asian and Middle Eastern countries, the same
things have been going on (if not more overt), and I wonder if their citizens
have as much apathy as ours?

~~~
einhverfr
My experience is that everyone everywhere these days loves their country and
distrusts their government. The question, as always, is how individuals and
groups of people navigate the government and vice versa. The specific limits
vary from one place to another but the attitudes seem remarkably stable over
time too.

For example in medieval Iceland, one of the major protections against
unreasonable search and seizure was a combination of limiting the number of
people who could be involved in searching for a stolen item for example, and
also mandating all the places where the MUST search. So you could only have so
many bondir searching for a stolen item and they couldn't selectively search
farms. Instead they were required to search all farms between two suspects.
this made very indiscriminent searching impractical.

~~~
cinquemb
I've recognized that too. But with that, do you think there is any room to
grow (as individuals and as a global society) under these circumstances (>
_everyone everywhere these days loves their country and distrusts their
government_ )?

Personally, I find it hard to _love my country_ (not even sure what that
really means to me) or any country I've been in for an extended period of
time. Maybe it is because I keep abstracting country back to ever changing
lines on the ever changing maps drawn throughout history. Though, I'm not
saying that there are some places that I wouldn't rather live over others.

> _The question, as always, is how individuals and groups of people navigate
> the government and vice versa. The specific limits vary from one place to
> another but the attitudes seem remarkably stable over time too._

Maybe that's why it is easy for some individuals/organizations to play chess
games between nation states for whatever (usually business) reasons? At least
that's what is going on in my head now about the larger geopolitical landscape
in relation to some national and some international issues…

------
Pherdnut
I see him as more of a responsible citizen with a big brass pair. It's the
50+% who apparently don't mind what's going on as long as it keeps them safe
from terrorism that I consider traitors.

------
rcavezza
Sample size is 645 people - I don't think that's large enough to mean
anything.

~~~
aptwebapps
It depends on how they drew the sample. It's certainly large enough,
statistically speaking.

------
AsymetricCom
Surprise: press has large effect on what people think was actually leaked. I'm
sure 99% of those interviewed have no idea what he actually leaked entailed.
I'd be more interested in a study that asked people if they knew what they
were actually outraged about. A majority of the insinuations of the original
"leak" have since been retracted and those actually following the details of
the story have no belief that there is anything illegal going on.

Real opinion pieces that actually ask the hard questions like "should the
government know less than Google" are all but ignored, in favor of 6 year old
backdoor "zero-days", frontpage'd on HN, for applications that have been out
of favor for even longer, or politically motivated 'stub' court cases that
aren't expected to go anywhere. It has all the indications of a coordinated
media event, not a real political scandal. Nobody really cares what's going
on, we just care that there is popular support going forward. Popular support
for what exactly? for general NSA outrage?

~~~
discostrings
> I'd be more interested in a study that asked people if they knew what they
> were actually outraged about.

To list a few reasons people are outraged: -Surveillance has been revealed
that seems to far exceed what is authorized by the Patriot Act -The executive
branch refuses to release the legal rationale on which it justifies the
surveillance -Senior officials have lied to Congress about the scope of
surveillance -Congress has not properly been briefed on these programs -There
programs were kept secret unnecessarily -These programs are extremely
dangerous to a free society -It appears this is a serious overreach in
executive power, indicating a breakdown in the checks and balances of a
functioning representative government

> A majority of the insinuations of the original "leak" have since been
> retracted

I don't know of any insinuations that have been retracted. The NSA slides say
one thing, and the companies say another. There is still much to resolve.

> and those actually following the details of the story have no belief that
> there is anything illegal going on.

This is completely false. There seems to be a claimed legal basis for what's
going on (which happens to be an extreme interpretation of the Patriot Act
that even its author states goes beyond what it was written to authorize). But
it hasn't been ruled on by a court because the executive branch claims it is
too secret for judicial review. When that obstruction is removed, it's likely
to be found unconstitutional.

Sure, people you interview might not be able to clearly express the reasons
they're outraged. But there are at least three tiers of reasons to be
concerned. Please consider reflecting on the fact that a claim of legality is
not a claim that something is not terribly wrong and dangerous for society.

~~~
res0nat0r
Here is a summary of the Guardian story and what has been changed:
[http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-
th...](http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-
of-journalism-7000016570/)

"Updated June 10 to include a quote from a follow-up article in the Post
directly contradicting its initial claims and another observation after the
release of the leaker's identity."

~~~
discostrings
That's a summary of the Washington Post story and what was changed. It looks
like the Washington Post reporting of this was a disaster. Not only did they
initially publish language that was more sweeping than the Guardian, but they
had absolutely no backbone and edited their story when companies said the NSA
slides were wrong.

It seems the claims of the Guardian have not been edited, proven incorrect, or
retracted. I haven't re-read their entire article, but it appears to be the
same one that was initially published.

It appears that the exposé you linked eventually concludes: "According to a
more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s
report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send]
content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-
controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers." Looking at
this from a process perspective and not a technical one, it appears there is
little functional difference between this and "direct access" to servers. And
it perfectly explains why the NSA presentation cut to the point: you get data
from the company's systems without the company being involved.

It's up to the companies and the NSA to clarify things, but it appears the NSA
slides are likely correct in terms of process, if not in technical terms.

~~~
res0nat0r
It looks like the Guardian is changing their story as of today:
[http://www.mediaite.com/online/fulsome-prism-blues-the-
guard...](http://www.mediaite.com/online/fulsome-prism-blues-the-guardian-
offers-2nd-worst-clarification-ever-on-nsa-story/)

~~~
discostrings
That link is to a ridiculous "story". See my responses in the main thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876943](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876943)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5877115](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5877115)

------
nutate
I can think of a word that rhymes with patriot for this guy.

That said it was great to hear the congress and the heads of the departments
agreeing that the entire process deserves review. There was zero animosity,
etc at the finance committee meeting today. Very cool to see when the
government is working, a dialog is happening, etc.

But this guy is the ultimate sophomore, and if you ask me he was turned by
China or just by some dreams of entering into some 31337 hax0r club
illuminati.

All for leaking a powerpoint detailing what was codified in law over the past
decade.

~~~
einhverfr
As things continue to develop in Hong Kong I am more and more impressed by his
choice of venue. I would not call him an idiot and I would not want to wager
anything important on my chess skills against him.

Hong Kong is actually the perfect place because he is able to play three
distinct groups off eachother. The immediately obvious parties are the US and
China who both are likely to look at this in terms of what he knows, but then
there is also the large-scale concern in Hong Kong over encroachment by the
Chinese government so he is able to play Hong Kong off China as well. It is
one thing to play two groups off eachother but three gives him a significant
chance.

Moreover an extradition request would be a total game changer. Right now it is
a game of chicken. Extradition procedings woudl turn it into a game of
national security assets and intra-Chinese politics.

The fear of him already being turned by the Chinese is another thing he is
able to play off of.

