TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

318 点作者 humantiy将近 6 年前

7 条评论

komali2将近 6 年前
&gt; with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States<p>There are two versions of the United States.<p>1. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight they don&#x27;t normally get into the doings of their employees (government officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon whose whims the government has power, and allegedly upon whose whims that power can be revoked.<p>2. The Government of. This is the actual entity of power in the USA, and probably has been forever (though the way the Executive branch reacted to union riots makes me wonder - it was genuinely concerned it was about to be deposed, I wonder if that was a valid fear?) This is injured when word gets out about it breaking its own laws - it makes the USA look bad, it destroys trust and thus the ability for the government to maintain control of the people, etc. This is a living creature and that&#x27;s what many 2nd amendmenters don&#x27;t seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn&#x27;t The People of, it&#x27;s an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Anybody challenging this power is an enemy of #2, even if they aren&#x27;t an enemy of #1. Great examples are some of our industry&#x27;s favorite persons of interest, namely Snowden, Manning. Back in the day it was Civil Rights activists (note I&#x27;m not drawing a comparison between current leaks and that era, just saying it&#x27;s another example of enemies of #2 but not #1).<p>As per the article, the line &quot;be used to the injury of the USA&quot; is obviously being interpreted by the current administration to mean &quot;to the injury of #2&quot; above.
评论 #20616035 未加载
评论 #20616575 未加载
评论 #20616484 未加载
评论 #20617632 未加载
评论 #20615839 未加载
评论 #20616021 未加载
caf将近 6 年前
As I read through I didn&#x27;t think there was too much to this - if we&#x27;re going to have big classified databases then strong auditing is absolutely essential and I&#x27;m glad it&#x27;s happening (people selling the data in them to corporations and governments is absolutely a valid concern).<p>I&#x27;m happy I kept reading though, because I thought this bit down near the bottom was insightful:<p><i>Authentication, which often involves sharing information about the contents of a forthcoming story with the government, is a common journalistic practice that allows the government to weigh in on any risks involved in publishing the material of which the journalist may not be aware. By turning that process into a trap for journalists and sources, the government is sacrificing an opportunity to safeguard its legitimate interests and tell its side of the story.</i>
apo将近 6 年前
&gt; On August 8, 2014, dozens of FBI agents raided Hale’s house with guns drawn and searched his computer and flash drives. This all happened during the Obama administration, which declined to file charges. Five years later, Trump’s Justice Department revived the case.<p>The article fails to point out that it was the Obama administration that really turned up the heat on whistleblowers:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politifact.com&#x2F;punditfact&#x2F;statements&#x2F;2014&#x2F;jan&#x2F;10&#x2F;jake-tapper&#x2F;cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politifact.com&#x2F;punditfact&#x2F;statements&#x2F;2014&#x2F;jan&#x2F;10...</a><p>I suspect that at the time many Obama supporters simply didn&#x27;t care. Their guy was in charge and that was that.<p>Short-sighted to be sure.<p>Far too few considered the possibility that the opposition was watching and learning what new things might be possible.
评论 #20621595 未加载
评论 #20623202 未加载
评论 #20620895 未加载
carapace将近 6 年前
I don&#x27;t think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear.<p>If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.
评论 #20620751 未加载
Elpomm将近 6 年前
Conservatism should be about maintaining checks and balances that keep the government honest. IMO this is something that even Trump&#x27;s supporters should be concerned about, especially if they themselves lean a bit libertarian.
评论 #20615691 未加载
评论 #20619004 未加载
评论 #20615404 未加载
sarcasmatwork将近 6 年前
Obama started, Trump continued. Not good for anyone.
评论 #20615380 未加载
auslander将近 6 年前
There is a contradiction: &quot;Although Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, doesn’t have access to the content of those backed-up messages, Google and Apple do.&quot; and<p>&quot; &#x27;iMessage communications are end-to-end encrypted and Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage data when it is in transit between devices,&#x27; the guidelines state.&quot;<p>I would say it is the other way around, FB and Google <i>can</i> access the content of messages, Apple can not.
评论 #20622881 未加载