
Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn - jdi626
http://animalnewyork.com/2015/theres-a-massive-illicit-bust-of-edward-snowden-stuck-to-a-war-monument-in-brooklyn/
======
plainOldText
It's interesting to see that these people (1) installed the bust in such a way
that it can be easily removed without damaging the existing structure and (2)
went to great lengths to ensure that the new design is honoring the aesthetics
that were already in place.

One can argue otherwise, but I think this is a very creative and considerate
form of protest which btw is also non-violent.

~~~
ics
As I said in another response: it's a political statement made with public
art. As far as Parks and Rec is concerned, it's big heavy piece of vandalism,
the integrity of which they know nothing about.

To put this in a programmer's perspective: imagine if artists wanting to make
political statements suddenly started littering your linux kernel with binary
blobs which caused your boot screen to flash an image of Snowden. Let's
pretend that this version of the kernel is hosted on an otherwise trusted
package cache, and nobody is actually verifying checksums and so thousands of
unsuspecting developers now have this tainted kernel. Funny? Innocuous?
Ingenious? Perhaps, but I'd be amazed if you all didn't wipe your disks right
then and there.

Edit: I don't mind downvotes (this is my most downvoted chain of comments so
far). However if you do, please take some time to contribute to the discussion
with a substantive argument. I fully support Snowden, these artists, _and_ the
Parks department here. My argument here is only an attempt to make better
sense of what people seem to be ignoring for the sake of a political argument
which many of us want to support.

~~~
Dylan16807
Depending on what you mean by "otherwise trusted", I would either not care or
freak out worrying that I got something other than the Snowden blob.

Just displaying an image would be easy to verify with a disassembler. And it's
misleading to use 'binary blob' as an analogy to a simple statue. Most binary
blobs are effectively impossible to examine fully.

~~~
avn2109
>> "...easy to verify with a disassembler."

Have to laugh at this, because only on HN is the use of a disassembler
considered "easy."

True story, I program computers for a living, and I have literally no idea how
to verify anything at all with a disassembler. Or even approximately how one
works.

~~~
Dylan16807
We're talking about a breach of a major distribution. It's the job of someone
in charge to do the analysis, not every single end user. To _them_ , it is
easy.

And I'm talking about looking at a 20 byte function; you could figure it out
if you wanted.

~~~
ics
Read my analogy again (despite it's flaws). It isn't _mainline kernel
development has been breached_. It is more like *Ubuntu accidentally set
`APT::Get::AllowUnauthenticated "true";` and then thousands of users upgraded
from a tainted mirror[1]. Regardless of how you lay blame, Canonical would
have a responsibility to undo that action.

[1] I don't use Ubuntu so maybe it doesn't fully apply here. On Arch using
pacman, the list of mirrors/caches is mostly commented out so that people can
choose their own. They are "trustworthy" essentially until they're not, but we
have signature checking to fall back on. In the physical world we don't have
this, thus the setup of my (again, flawed) analogy.

Any more involved than that and it's missing the spirit of what I was trying
to say, but I admit that the disassembler response made me chuckle.

~~~
Dylan16807
I'm not sure what your objection is to my post. If Ubuntu sets
AllowUnauthenticated, then it's Ubuntu's job to check the server logs and at
least _attempt_ to analyze what the kernel module actually does. If they find
out it's two lines of code and is completely harmless, they can tell all their
users that.

The point is that you're using 'binary blob' to sound scarier than it is. With
a statue there's no reason to fear it (for reasons explained in other posts).
With an image displayer an expert can poke it and then announce there's no
reason to fear it.

You're telling me I should be ready to wipe my disks then and there, _even
though it 's just an image displayer_, but that's an overreaction. Your
analogy just strengthens the point that the park shouldn't panic.

------
Animats
The Wall Street Bull is also a piece of guerrilla art in New York City. That
huge bronze was made by Arturo Di Modica and installed by him in 1989. It was
once towed away to an impound lot, but enough people complained that it was
moved to its present location.

~~~
pharke
This is probably the most relevant comment in this thread and something that I
am glad to have learned.

~~~
reustle
For those looking to learn more, here is the history on it

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#History)

------
borgia
It has already been covered over with tarp and the letting removed[1].

It's a wonderful piece of work with excellent sentiment behind it.
Unfortunately it doesn't suit the government and mainstream media narrative,
so I'm sure the act of its erection will be decried as liberal terrorism and
vandalism, the piece taken down and Snowden-related news once again brushed
over.

[1][http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/illegal-
edward-...](http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/illegal-edward-
snowden-bust-erected-atop-brooklyn-war-monume-article-1.2175004)

~~~
genericuser
I like part of Ruth Goldstein's, one of the park conservancy founders,
response in that article. While I am fairly confident that asking and trying
to go through legitimate channels to get the bust put up would not of worked,
what she said makes me think there are at least people who would consider it,
although probably not high enough in power structures to actually get it done.

“The park is such a symbol of American liberty; that’s what it’s all about,
the founding principals of it,” she said. “It (the bust) is almost appropriate
but inappropriate to do it (put up illegally).”

~~~
tessierashpool
_“The park is such a symbol of American liberty; that’s what it’s all about,
the founding principals of it,” she said. “It (the bust) is almost appropriate
but inappropriate to do it (put up illegally).”_

As if the establishment of American liberty didn't involve breaking any laws
in the first place.

~~~
rtpg
yes, not being able to put up a statue in public property is basically on the
same level as centuries of persecution, seizing of private property, taxation
without representation, and company.

Imagine if McDonald's just decided to put up giant golden arches in the park.
There's a reason the procedures exist.

I do think this is a clever and interesting thing to do, and I hope this ends
with the statue staying somehow. But I really don't see the point in comparing
this with the establishment of the nation.

------
rglover
Seeing them cover this thing up is a hideous moment in our history:
[https://vine.co/v/eBBvedaHtBz](https://vine.co/v/eBBvedaHtBz).

Shameful that something so harmless is immediately covered up (quite
literally) because it challenges the state.

The U.S. is getting scarier by the day, folks.

~~~
rosser
So it would be shameful of me to cover up your political speech when it's
inflicted upon my property without my permission?

Look, I emphatically believe in what Snowden did (though I may have some
quibbles with his methods, his reasons were exemplary). I don't think that
justifies what amounts to glorified — if tastefully done, and in keeping with
the aesthetics of the monument — vandalism.

This is a _war memorial_. How might it feel to those who have lost loved ones
in one of this country's innumerable wars, to have the monument to their loss,
their sacrifice, appropriated for someone else's speech?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
_Your_ property? The monument is no more yours than it is mine. And since you
asked, it would feel like someone understood the relative importance of
things. It would feel like they hadn't died in vain, for an unappreciative,
lethargic citizenry.

>appropriated for someone else's ends?

Appropriated for the same ends for which the original memorial was
commemorating. The ends are the same.

Let's also include some perspective. The monument does not appear to be
irreparably harmed. So, vandalism, technically, but definitely not comparable
to the Sack of Rome
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28455%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28455%29)

~~~
pvaldes
To change the point of view of a monument or previous piece of art in a easily
reversible way is not vandalism in fact. Is art.

Art is not a democratic thing at all. This is the same that Banksy does. Is
also the "monna-lissa with moustache" from Duchamp, the picasso's versions of
velazquez paintings, and the impresionists showing his pictures in the "salon
des refusees". People changed his point of view for better and just learned to
deal with it.

What was claimed as inaceptable vandalism and breaking of the rules yesterday,
is just culture today.

More interestingly, the success of a work of art is not linked to the objet
permanence. If damaged o destroyed will spawn more controversy and will spread
the idea (the real work of art), probably spawning a miriad of "photoshop
restaurations" on internet.

A very smart move.

------
sixQuarks
It would be cool if his bust becomes the first viral 3d printing meme, where
people 3d print his bust and leave it in public spaces all over the world.

~~~
hackuser
The artists are anonymous but according to the article, the author knows how
to reach them. Perhaps someone should contact the publication. This is the
only email address I see:

tips@animalnewyork.com

~~~
spiritplumber
Make the STL available and it'll happen, at least around here.

------
Theodores
Let's put this in some historical light. The British government abolished the
slave trade in 1833 - 1838 and this was a big step (even if other schemes were
in effect slavery). Only one monument was erected to commemorate this.
Protagonists, e.g. William Wilberforce have statues however the event itself -
abolition - only has this one memorial. It was built by a wealthy Quaker and
served as the entrance arch for his mansion.

Step forward 150 years and this might be the one and only memorial 'made at
the time' to the work of our hero.

------
meritt
We need a model of the bust so we can start printing these en masse on our 3D
printers.

~~~
bsimpson
It will get even better when Diane Feinstein orders us to take the model off
the Internet.

~~~
happyscrappy
Or when she orders the death penalty for anyone who prints it! /s

~~~
yellowapple
I don't think a sarcasm tag applies here; I wouldn't hold such a thing above
the likes of her.

~~~
happyscrappy
If you dislike Feinstein you should hope she tries something like that, she
would be out on her ear before noon.

------
jronald
Coopting memorials this way bothers me, especially in the case where the
person being idealized would have been against it. I do appreciate the
relevancy of the memorial being used. Using the location and its history as a
running point for a demonstration / gathering would have been more impactful
as well as being respectful to the purpose of the memorial.

~~~
Estragon
I'm not sure Snowden would be against it, if it stood a good chance of getting
people talking about the upcoming reauthorization of the Patriot Act on June
1.

~~~
MaysonL
Hell yeah he would be for it, he was willing to stoop to an extended penis
joke in his interview with John Oliver:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M)

~~~
unethical_ban
I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the presentation and the
underlying messages that episode delivered. On one hand, I believe it is sadly
necessary to present the issue in such elementary terms to the people who
wouldn't otherwise give a shit. I don't think it trivializes the problem - it
just makes it more accessible to the ignorant (at best) or WorldStarHipHop-
filming (at worst) voting population.

On a tangent, I think Jon's demeanor was a bit to jerkish for my taste. I
appreciate the desire to not look like a softball interviewer, but some of his
jokes and remarks and mannerisms were embarrassing either in its insult to
Ed/Julian or in its pure unfunny character.

------
cwyers
A lot of the discussion in this thread talks about "the government" like it's
some vast, coordinated entity. It really, really isn't. I wouldn't be
surprised if the people who put a tarp over that Snowden bust didn't even know
who Snowden was, they just knew someone snuck into their park overnight and
put this thing there.

------
decebal
I 3D scanned the place where the illicit Snowden bust was sitting just a few
months ago :)
[https://sketchfab.com/models/20d2c70c4e164c7596e9393139ad0b7...](https://sketchfab.com/models/20d2c70c4e164c7596e9393139ad0b72)

~~~
wooster
Neat. What did you use to do the scan?

------
hackuser
Don't overlook the potentially enormous cost to the artists for this brief
statement, in both time and money:

 _The materials needed to create a bust of this type cost thousands of
dollars, and the pair ponied up the cash. It then took a little over six
months to sculpt, mold, cast and ship to New York. Had the sculptor charged
market rates, he said it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. “The
amount of work that goes into this kind of stuff, it’s easily a 30 grand
project,” said the 30-something sculptor. “If it were bronze, it could be a
$100,000 piece of artwork, maybe more.”_

[From the article]

------
oldgun
This is the hacker spirit.

------
pshc
Glorious hack! I wonder how many HNers are hustling over there for a selfie
right now...?

EDIT: Already too late :(

------
thisjustinm
Step 1: the creators should release the files necessary to 3D print the bust

Step 2: thousands of little versions of the bust begin showing up around the
country

Step 3: ...

------
guiambros
Didn't last long; it was covered this afternoon[1]. The best comment on
Twitter: " _Snowden busted; massive coverup underway_ "...

Bummer I missed it. I was just a few blocks from the park. They should have
done on the weekend.

[1] [https://vine.co/v/eBB171WXqIL](https://vine.co/v/eBB171WXqIL)

------
rdl
I'd pay $500 for the smaller scale version, if they plan to offer those.

------
slowpoison
Somebody should put up a second, uninteresting, benign bust just to see what
happens to it vs Snowden's.

------
Zigurd
What we really want to know is where can we get giant Snowden busts and is
there a directory of empty plinths on the internet?

~~~
pvaldes
Giant Snowden busts should look really great as the next generation of science
fair soda volcanoes. The flame of truth everywhere... yup

------
aceperry
Very cool idea. It doesn't look too much like Snowden though.

~~~
arthurgibson
Google image search agrees with you:
[http://bit.ly/1CdboIs](http://bit.ly/1CdboIs)

note: jack from "the shining" shows up

~~~
Buge
Google image search is not a face recognition engine or even a way to find
different pictures of the same object.

What it does is look for different versions (sizes and croppings) of the exact
same picture, and if that fails, look for images with similar colors (Jack
from the Shining).

~~~
nostrademons
It's actually pretty effective at face recognition when given actual faces:

Obama: [http://bit.ly/19Zkgur](http://bit.ly/19Zkgur)

Putin: [http://bit.ly/1aDAvyA](http://bit.ly/1aDAvyA)

Lindsay Lohan: [http://bit.ly/19ZkFgk](http://bit.ly/19ZkFgk)

Matt Damon: [http://bit.ly/1xYl5il](http://bit.ly/1xYl5il)

~~~
Buge
That only works because it found exact versions of that same picture on
different websites and looked at the text of those sites and saw that the name
"Barack Obama" was in the text of all those sites so it did an image search
for "Barack Obama". Like I said: it searches for exact picture matches.

If you took your own picture of Obama that had never been posted online before
and did a reverse image search, it wouldn't work.

~~~
nostrademons
Obviously it works better if it can find the exact image, but I don't think
that's all that it's doing. For example, here's a picture of the Golden Gate
bridge that I took myself from Angel Island, never before uploaded to the
Internet:

[http://bit.ly/1HJy0oL](http://bit.ly/1HJy0oL)

It couldn't get the query, but it does get similar images, including at least
one other that's also of the Golden Gate bridge. I unfortunately don't have
any personal pictures of celebrities, but here's one of a slightly-askew photo
of my computer screen that includes Obama's face (but deliberately not all of
the original picture):

[http://bit.ly/1CNk9wa](http://bit.ly/1CNk9wa)

It managed to guess that one correctly, even though it didn't have the exact
original image.

~~~
Buge
For the Obama one toward the bottom of the page there is the section "Pages
that include matching images", so it did find the exact original image. I knew
it would match even cropped images, but apparently it can also handle slight
rotation and some color changes.

------
pc2g4d
Fremont (in Seattle) might be a good home for this. It already hosts that
crazy Lenin statue!

~~~
brightsize
The Seattle parks department has not in the past seen a reason to leap to
cover up and/or remove unauthorized structures that have appeared in its
parks. The Monolith (2001) [1] comes to mind. Note that it was not covered or
dismantled by the authorities, it was simply stolen. There have been other
cases [2] where the city has been downright laid-back about such things, even
supportive in a nod-and-a-wink sort of way. Yes indeed, it would be an honor
to have this statue here in Washington state. The Fremont Lenin [3] statue has
been for sale on and off over the years, the last time priced at $250K. If I
could scrape together a spare $1/4M I'd be tempted to buy it and put it on my
front lawn.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Monolith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Monolith)

[2] [http://tiny.cc/4g1owx](http://tiny.cc/4g1owx)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin,_Seattle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin,_Seattle)

Edit: formatting

------
dreamdu5t
This is pathetic and selfish. Regardless of how you feel about Snowden (or
anything) it is not okay to vandalize a memorial or any work of public art. Go
put up your own statue but it is extremely selfish and unempathetic to
forcefully co-opt an existing piece as a venue for your own. I'm disheartened
by the widespread support for this using Snowdens actions as justification.
What was put there is irrelevant to the fact that it is wrong and selfish to
coopt a memorial to spread whatever message. How sad.

------
anonforthis1
I know he wants to come to Switzerland (from some of the comments/feelers his
people have put out in the last month or so). I really hope he can. If he does
there are an endless number of American ex-pats and EU workers that will do
what they can to help him here.

He may have some trouble with the Swiss themselves though. They will want to
question him about at least one covert operation he states he took part in
when he was part of the CIA in Geneva, having to do with a Swiss banker.
Frankly, the story sounds like a lie though. (he talks about bribing swiss
police which is not something you can do easily here)

------
teammatters
Why is Edward Snowden a hero?

He divulged sensitive U.S. documents and information that now bad actors use
to exploit/harm the US. Further, he knew what he was doing was against the law
and ran as far away as he could to avoid facing the consequences(Bradley, now
Chelsea Manning as far as I know didnt run like a coward). Now he's a pawn
between Russia and US relations.

The information he divulged that we are being watched by our govt. was nothing
knew. It was information publicly known back in 2006.

I don't get why he is so exalted?!?

~~~
ceejayoz
He disclosed evidence of wrongdoing and illegal activity by the NSA, making
him a whistleblower.

He ran away to avoid the extrajudicial punishment Chelsea Manning experienced
- years of _pre-trial_ solitary confinement with such privileges as clothing
being arbitrarily revoked.

You can't say that the information he divulged was both known and sensitive
without being pretty laughable, by the way.

~~~
rhino369
>He disclosed evidence of wrongdoing and illegal activity by the NSA, making
him a whistleblower.

The only illegal things he disclosed was that some NSA agents/employees
illegally used their tools to track ex-gfs and stuff.

All the rest is completely legal. The country had a public debating about
warrantless wiretaps and congress wrote laws about it. The NSA follows those
laws.

He released the information because he had a political problem with them. That
cannot be allowed. I wouldn't call it traitorous, but it was a massive
violation of state secrecy laws.

Though, some of his actions since are at least flirting with traitorous
behavior. He has released information about US spying on other governments.
What the fuck did he think the NSA did? That was its raison d'être.

~~~
ceejayoz
> All the rest is completely legal.

That's a bold assertion not borne out by the facts. Examples:

[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-
bulk-p...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-phone-
collection)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/indepe...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/independent-review-board-says-nsa-phone-data-program-is-illegal-and-
should-end/2014/01/22/4cebd470-83dd-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html)

~~~
rhino369
I haven't read the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report so I
can't comment other than to say it is merely a government policy board. The
DOJ fully supports the NSA.

But 15 Federal district court judges have approved the NSA actions as part of
the FISA courts. That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge
deal.

The third party doctrine is very clear. Records about you do not carry a
reasonable expectation of privacy. The judge who ruled against the NSA wants
to change the law. Maybe the courts will change the law. SCOTUS has disfavored
mass surveillance tactics in the recent past.

But right now, it is legal.

~~~
ceejayoz
> That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge deal.

Sure it is - that sort of disagreement makes it unsettled law, which is where
SCOTUS steps in. Last year they (thankfully) ruled that cell phones can't be
searched in most circumstances without a warrant, and I'd expect at least a
few of the numerous suits that popped up in the wake of the Snowden leaks to
wind their way to Court eventually.

Right now, large parts of the NSA's actions are of _disputed legality_. We'll
see what the justices say.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Sure it is - that sort of disagreement makes it unsettled law, which is
> where SCOTUS steps in.

The SCOTUS is more likely to take a case where there is a split in the case
law among the federal _circuit courts_ (appellate courts). A split among
federal district courts (trial courts) does not really have much significance.

------
marcoperaza
This is disgusting. Snowden lost any legitimacy he may have had as a whistle-
blower when he started exposing the unquestionably legitimate foreign
intelligence activities and capabilities of the United States. You have to be
naive to think the Russians are harboring him without something in exchange:
even more information about our foreign intelligence activities. This
traitor's bust does not belong among the remains of fallen heroes.

~~~
jnorthrop
Please do not downvote marcoperaza's post because you disagree with it. That
goes against the spirit and intent of this site. Make your own argument to
counter instead.

~~~
DanBC
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

PG said:

> I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement.
> Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems
> reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.

It's a bit weird to impose your own (admittedly popular) purpose of the vote
buttons, claiming that your view is the true spirit and intent of the site,
when there's a quote from the guy who set up the site directly contradicting
you.

~~~
yellowapple
I'd agree with that assessment if the downvote button didn't have the direct
result of fading the comment into invisibility. Dissenting commentary can
still be conducive to an informed discussion and thus worth reading, and the
idea that disagreement is meant to be treated as something to be silenced is
incredibly disturbing, especially in the context of this post.

