Edward Snowden Q&A - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower <comment><USER2> This guy is amazing. The thing I love about him is he truly embodies the bravery that goes along with the idea that it's better to live in a free society with a modest threat of terror attacks than to live in an oppressive society where we are supposedly kept "safe" from the terrorists hiding behind every corner.

It takes courage to make such an assertion. The NSA spying route is fundamentally based on cowardice.

<comment><USER3> Amazing poetic writing skills, love it:

      "Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't
       I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living
       in a palace petting a phoenix by now."

why did I not drop our of school and get a 200K job:-(

<comment><USER4>
      "If they had taught a class on how to be the kind
      of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have
      finished high school."

<comment><USER5> This was by far my favorite quote from his answers. Perfect way to cap off that whole paragraph.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, that's incredibly cool. Make a meaningful statement whilst throwing their own rhetoric back at them. The more I hear/read from this guy, the more I like him!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Oh wow:

MP_Stroebele_GER 17 June 2013 3:53pm

Mr Snowden, as a deputy at the Bundestag (German Parliament) who is responsible for the supervision of the intelligence apparatus, I am eager to know if you have any knowledge about information which was given to the German Government or the Bundesnachrichtendienst by the NSA within the PRISM programme. If so, do you know how much and what kind of information was given to them and if the BND knew that it was gathered by PRISM? Best regards, Hans- Christian Ströbele

<comment><USER7> Saving you all ddging it:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans- Christian_Str%C3%B6bele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans- Christian_Str%C3%B6bele)

<comment><USER3> The Green Party is sharpening their axe!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Sigh_ :

"So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate?"

"Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history."

:(

<comment><USER9> Remember, the mainstream media is for _entertainment_ , not to keep you informed about significant events.

<comment><USER10> That, and government propaganda. Look at CNN's lede:

"Washington (CNN) -- The man who admitted leaking classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs purportedly went online live on Monday to declare the truth would come out even if he is jailed or killed, and said President Barack Obama did not fulfill his promises and expanded several 'abusive' national security initiatives."

This is textbook propaganda. The news media like CNN may partially be about entertainment, but it is also about propagating the government position, specifically the intelligence agencies positions.

[http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/17/politics/nsa- leaks/index.html?...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/17/politics/nsa- leaks/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

<comment><USER11> Can you explain the propaganda angle there? To me, that reads like a straightforward summary of what is going on.

<comment><USER10> Sure.

To start with, take a look at that first clause: "The man who admitted leaking classified documents..." The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal. Were CNN to want to cast him in a positive light they could have chosen to write it something like this: "The man who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications..." Instead CNN chose to emphasize the criminal aspect, rather than the civil liberties/anti-democratic aspect.

Next: "... purportedly went online..." The use of the word "purportedly" here is interesting. Why is that questioned? To associate doubt with him. It's subtle, but nevertheless there it is.

Next: "declare the truth would come out even if he is jailed or killed". Out of all the questions which were answered CNN focused on this one because it most easily supports the "egotistical" narrative they are attempting to paint him with. Implication: "He is setting himself up as some kind of _martyr_! How arrogant!"

Next: "Obama did not fulfill his promises and expanded several 'abusive' national security initiatives." This one is, to me, the most blatant. The scare quotes around "abusive" are of course the most obvious. But look how the frame it: "national security initiatives". Not "domestic spying programs", or "electronic surveillance mechanisms", or something else. After all, no one who calls themselves reasonable can be opposed to national security!

It's subtle, and of course debatable. But it's certainly present. CNN has their own slant, and it is obviously pro-NSA.

Also note that nowhere to they actually link to the Q&A page.

Let's rewrite it, communicate the same information, but make it skeptical towards the NSA:

"Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications and online activities, did an online question-and-answer session today, making himself available to provide follow-up answers to questions raised by concerned citizens over the reach and power of the notoriously secretive intelligence agency."

<comment><USER12> "The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal." Ignoring any moral aspects, isn't he technically a criminal? This certainly seems more neutral than your suggestion. Calling him a traitor would be out of line, but I do believe it was against the law to do what he did.

It IS only 'purportedly' him; why do you expect CNN to report what it cannot confirm?

The quotes around 'abusive' are suggestive, but it is also how you indicate that the word came from someone other than the author of the article. If you expect neutrality, expect the writer to segregate their words from their subject's.

Your summary is far more emotionally charged and subjective.

<comment><USER13> Which summary you find more emotionally charged probably depends on your existing opinion, and how often you consume mainstream news. To me CNN's wording (and, for that matter, all TV news reports) feels like a stream of verbal knives, each word chosen to induce anxiety and put the viewer/reader on edge. Regardless of their veracity, "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.

<comment><USER14> > * "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to > just this story.*

Of course it is. CNN competes with 250+ other channels to grab your attention, draw you deeper in, and serve you commercial breaks.

You could claim it's a carefully orchestrated propaganda machine designed to scare people into ceding their rights to the government (of course, such arguments might also designed to scare you). Or you could claim that they need to do this to excite their broad audience and thereby preserve their jobs and paychecks.

You could say the media dug up pictures of his girlfriend in provocative outfits to discredit him among conservative Americans. Or you could acknowledge that they didn't have to do much digging at all, that sex sells, and that the public love personality news (see all the Hollywood "news" shows).

There's a conspiracy lurking around every corner, if you go looking for it.

<comment><USER15> Who said anything about _" orchestrated"_, carefully or otherwise?

<comment><USER14> Fine, call it a haphazardly improvised propaganda machine if you prefer.

<comment><USER15> You seem to be ruling out the possibility that they are acting as peddlers of propaganda of their own accord.

<comment><USER14> Ah, you're not yet up to speed with the new revised definition of orchestrated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16>
        He will be online today from 11am EST/4pm BST today. An
        important caveat: the live chat is subject to Snowden's
        security concerns and also his access to a secure
        internet connection. It is possible that he will appear
        and disappear intermittently, so if it takes him a while
        to get through the questions, please be patient.

Hah, nice. Reading that just made me smile. Loads of people are going to be patiently watching out for the lag, for the possible periodic disconnects/reconnects, and they will be vaguely internalizing why Snowden has to do this. And this is pretty mainstream news at this point, people are going to be on edge listening for his words. I like the cyberpunk feel of these happenings. We live in interesting times.

<comment><USER17> "he will appear and disappear intermittently"

How frustrating a taunt to those in the NSA who would rather make him _disappear permanently_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here is an interesting remark by Edward Snowden during the interview:

 _Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we 've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it_

<comment><USER19> I think the best part about this is he is not completely willing to say that the U.S. should or should not be doing what it is doing _per se_ , just that it should not be doing it without the _consent of the governed._ He wants us to ask where the line should be drawn as a people, and his basic concern is that we are not being informed, not that the wiretapping is happening. This shows a profound respect for democracy and the country, since he seems to have faith that if all the facts are laid bare our country will do the right thing.

<comment><USER20> I wish that were true, but in the context of everything he says it doesn't seem true.

This part especially his belief that privacy is a universal right:

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self- evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The mentions of his security concerns reminded me of this: [http://grugq.github.io/blog/2013/06/14/you-cant-get-there- fr...](http://grugq.github.io/blog/2013/06/14/you-cant-get-there-from-here/)

"As a thought experiment, imagine that Osama bin Laden was still alive and that he used the Tor network to do a Reddit AMA once a month. How long do you imagine it would take for the US to find and neutralize him? I posted this question on Twitter and, while responses varied, ex-NSA Global Network Exploitation Analyst Charlie Miller guessed one to two months. I would be very surprised if it took more than three."

<comment><USER22> "neutralize"? Say what you really mean.

<comment><USER23> Reminds me of the George Carlin's sketch on political correctness. Eventually "neutralize" will be replaced by "moved aside" or "inconvenienced".

<comment><USER15> [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The key point in the answers thus far is that when he refers to "direct access" he means to some database that has all the stuff in it, and not (e.g.) via a direct conduit to Google or whoever's database.

So what I think is going on is that the NSA archives packets it can see in transit, but doesn't necessarily know who all the endpoints are. (It probably has a VERY good idea most of the time.) When someone becomes of particular interest they can execute a warrant on Google et al and get more detailed information on a specific target which lets them make better use of data they've already got.

The key thing they're doing is, fundamentally, logging packets that they can see going past any number of bottlenecks in the internet, which should have been perfectly obvious that they would try to do from day one. This alone is enormously powerful and all the extra info from service providers is probably only icing on the cake. If you can be identified from some cleartext comms somewhere then all you other dealings have been archived, and can be correlated, and then decrypted and traced back to you posthoc.

<comment><USER25> This is my belief as well. A few years ago I worked for a company that sold packet capture appliances to unnamed government agencies. The higher end appliances were capable of 10Gb/s packet to disk streaming. I helped write a search interface for the resulting data capable of the type of filtering and data reconstruction described. If organizations directly, indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly allowed the NSA to tap Internet links, they could theoretically provide full data access, while at the same time publicly deny direct server or backdoor access.

<comment><USER26> How do they get past the ssl encryption? Mmmm? You don't have to answer that...

<comment><USER27> For a government agency like the NSA, that's easily accomplished by a man-in- the-middle attack. They can almost certainly convince multiple US-based certificate authorities to give them a certificate that will be included in the default set of trusted certificates by all mainstream browsers. They would only have problems with the very small number of people who are both paranoid and tech-savvy enough to change the certificates that there browser trusts.

<comment><USER28> Chrome, at least, has certificate pinning for Google properties (and perhaps some other big sites?), which prevent the use of a different but otherwise valid certificate from a trusted CA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Seem like more like a platform for self aggrandizing quips than anything substantial. I guess it isn't surprising that Snowden and the Guardian are remaining vague, but we are pretty much no closer to the truth than day one.

<comment><USER30> I agree, he said a whole lot of beautiful nothing. He didn't really add any new information to the discussion.

The question I most wanted to see asked was a request to expand on the notion that he had the ability to wiretap anyone up to the president. When this came up he simply went on a philosophical rant about the nature of bureaucratic creep and how our constitutional rights should extend past our borders.

<comment><USER31> The first part of Snowden's response to that question:

>Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time.

So, he stands by what he said and expanded on the scope of his capabilities by addressing the claims that there are "systems" in place to prevent someone (such as himself) from grabbing domestic data. He details that there are "policy" protections --that he asserts are effectively no protection at all-- and "one very weak technical protection" that acts as a filter of some sort on incoming data. He goes on to describe the filter as "constantly out of date" and specifically configured to be as ineffective at its stated purpose as possible by letting us know that the configuration is "euphemistically referred to as the 'widest allowable aperture.'"

Really, I'm just retyping what Snowden has already said. It looks to me like he most certainly did expand on his claim.

<comment><USER30> Ok, I will be happy to break down that particular question if you want. His initial quote was as follows, emphasis added by me:

>"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the _authorities_ to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email."

He doesn't say he has the capability, he says he has the authority. That is an important distinction.

>"Yes, I stand by it."

He doesn't waiver in his initial statement.

>"US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections"

While it might not be clear in the initial interview, I think most people would assume that this type of power isn't given to everyone so some type of policy protection was obvious. Snowden doesn't add anything new here because he doesn't give any details and his statement just raises more questions. The question that relates directly to his first statement is whether he really did have _the authority_ to wiretap the president like he initially claimed? But I would also like to here more explanation of these policies. Was this an honor system? Was there any oversight? Did these things require a warrant or any approval?

>"(and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens)"

Part of the philosophical musings that I mentioned in my initial post.

>"and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time."

This is another vague and almost worthless statement. At this point and with this level of detail, we can only speculate on these "technical protections". It would seem to imply that there is a technical filter in place that prevents information about US citizens from ever entering the system. But the way Snowden dismisses it as soon as he brings it up makes it seem like it is useless. Some followups would have been helpful here. What does he mean that the filter is constantly out of date? What does "widest allowable aperture" mean? Who has the authority to "strip it out at any time"?

I don't think he provided anything new here outside of simply confirming that there were policy and technical limitations in place, something that would likely be assumed by most people.

<comment><USER32> > This is another vague and almost worthless statement. At this point and with > this level of detail, we can only speculate on these "technical > protections". It would seem to imply that there is a technical filter in > place that prevents information about US citizens from ever entering the > system. But the way Snowden dismisses it as soon as he brings it up makes it > seem like it is useless. Some followups would have been helpful here. What > does he mean that the filter is constantly out of date? What does "widest > allowable aperture" mean? Who has the authority to "strip it out at any > time"?

Snowden definitely needs to expand more on these things and talk about the technical aspects more specifically. It seems that Greenwald (who admitted he is very nontechnical) is guiding Snowden into dumbing down his technical descriptions (for whatever reason, maybe its to avoid declassifying stuff that would actually impact national security) and that is doing him a disservice.

Snowden seems to be exaggerating in the sense that he, a knowledgeable IT contractor employed to overlook the NSA infrastructure would be able to get the data he needs, bypassing the policy protections. I don't think he means that any "associate" level NSA agent without technical knowledge of the infrastructure can easily get any data he wants, even with the policy protections. This is just my interpretation, based on how I've seen other technical people exaggerate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _> [...] if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now._

If I didn't like this guy before...I certainly do now.

<comment><USER15> I hope somebody breaks it to him gently that phoenix aren't real. ;)

<comment><USER34> Or perhaps he has some secret knowledge that has been hidden from us!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Oooh, this one from the article comments, one that tptacek will be happy about ;) (and it's a good question, to settle):

> Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.

<comment><USER36> Unfortunately he didn't really answer it.

"More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed."

<comment><USER37> No, he did answer the question, with the biggest walk-back in the history of whistle-blowing. He defined it as "direct access" to internal databases of shit the NSA has already collected. Absolutely not the same as what Snowden was selling the newspaper reporters a week ago, which was "direct access" to Google servers.

Also, by the way, 5% auditing is an very high rate. With a 5% audit rate, you'll catch evil-doers in no time at all.

<comment><USER38> But the picture I'm getting is that they 'collect' everything (via fibre intercepts etc), because they've interpreted the rules as being "collect everything but then ask permission to look at it"

<comment><USER37> "Collect everything; analyze later" is not a feasible strategy. Nobody has that kind of storage, and even if they did, nobody has the CPUs to ingest the stream. I think it goes without saying that you need a Google-scale computer to ingest Google-scale network traffic, and that's just one of the companies in question, on top of all the public transit bandwidth. Nobody has presented any evidence that the NSA has computing facilities on that scale. The only one we know of is not yet built, and way too small.

I think it is completely feasible that the NSA would or does collect all or a great deal of voice traffic, because that's a tiny piece of network traffic these days.

<comment><USER39> I've always assumed the US gov't does have this computing power and that's why we spend so much on national defense. Besides, when you employ more mathematicians than anyone else, I'm sure you can come up with some smart ways to store big data. Also, I think it would be fairly cheap to just write everything out to tapes or disk and dump them in a closet, even if you don't have the money to load them all in a database (so that you can put them online when technology improves or you have more budget/time). Further, I haven't seen where Snowden clearly retracted his 'direct access' assertion. You might keep some identifiers in a database and the whole dataset on a user can be ingested on demand from Google or whichever company (even if that means sending an automated request to Google which automatically responds by dumping data to FTP).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Edward, do you believe winning the Nobel Peace Prize would help get the hunter-killers off your back?

<comment><USER41> Has some truth to it. It would compensate the horrible mistake of 2009.

<comment><USER42> Imagine the US assassinating or imprisoning a Nobel Peace Prize winner. It wasn't that long ago where we would fight regimes who did that.

<comment><USER43> Chile is eager to imprison a particular Nobel Peace Prize winner... and frankly, I more or less support them.

<comment><USER44> Can you state which one you're talking about for ease of Googling?

<comment><USER43> Henry Kissinger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He's retaining a sense of humor:

> Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, > that all US Persons are created equal."

<comment><USER45> I loved this line. A lot of people don't seem to understand that our constitution explicitly denotes between rights provided to citizens and rights provided to "persons." Most of the constitution and the bill of rights is worded to apply to _persons,_ not necessarily US citizens.

<comment><USER7> Don't forget the Declaration of Independence:

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
     are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
     Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

EDIT: I quote it because it too makes a _universal_ claim

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Obama, The NSA and the usual internet suspects: Google, Yahoo, Facebook are getting their asses kicked. This man is the Thomas Paine of our day: "Give me liberty or give me death."

<comment><USER47> Actually he's coming off as arrogant with delusions of grandeur.

<comment><USER48> That's a predictable smear that's aimed at every whistleblower.

<comment><USER49> predictability doesn't imply innacuracy

<comment><USER15> Perhaps in the sense that predictably broken clocks are correct twice a day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 I imagine that today will be a very interesting day for the Guardian's operations team.

</comment><comment><USER50> Man this guy can write,

"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school"

<comment><USER40> Who is 'King'?

<comment><USER19> Rep Peter King of NY who has a hardon for protecting the children from terrorists.

<comment><USER40> Lemme get out the `FUEL' moleskin, ....ah,yes:

Mitch McConnell James Baker Dick Cheney Bush POTUS' Feinstein Peter King

Got it. thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> "This country is worth dying for."

Hats off to him.

<comment><USER9> _" This country is worth dying for."_

I find that a very perplexing notion (I'm not American)

How bad would things have to get before it wasn't worth dying for?

Do you find it scary that the citizens of any country your country is at war with think the same way?

Personally, I have no interest in dying for any country. If my country were doing something that required me dying, then I'm leaving for a country that doesn't require my death.

<comment><USER52> The point is that America's founding ideals are very much worth dying for. "How bad it gets" is totally irrelevant in this context, since the "it" refers to specific conditions, whereas the ideal remains separate, over and above them.

The thing to understand is that "country" in this context, means the embodiment of an ideal, and not just a particular piece of territory, or a group of people inhabiting it.

If you don't feel that there are any ideals worth dying for, then all of this will be much harder to understand.

<comment><USER9> > _The point is that America 's founding ideals are very much worth dying for. > _

In _YOUR_ opinion.

> _" How bad it gets" is totally irrelevant in this context, since the "it" > refers to specific conditions_

But those specific conditions have not existed for many, many years, and your death won't bring them back.

> _If you don 't feel that there are any ideals worth dying for..._

Why die for them when I can just go somewhere else that already has them?

It's amazing more American's don't realize _they_ are the fundamentalists they are told to be afraid of.

<comment><USER53> > In YOUR opinion.

In Snowden's opinion as well, obviously.

> Why die for them when I can just go somewhere else that already has them?

Because this totally ignores the reality that this other place didn't appear out of thin air. It has people there that care about these ideals, and most likely some that would be willing to die for them.

In some respect, not attempting to change your country to be what you consider a better place and just migrating to a different location is leeching off the world, and those that work hard to make it what they consider a better place. We all do it to a lesser or greater degree, but to just throw your hands up and give up on your current circumstances entirely in favor of a move is beneficial to no one but yourself and those you disagree with.

This is as true for neighborhoods as it is for countries.

<comment><USER9> > _Because this totally ignores the reality that this other place didn 't > appear out of thin air. It has people there that care about these ideals, > and most likely some that would be willing to die for them......In some > respect, not attempting to change your country to be what you consider a > better place and just migrating to a different location is leeching off the > world, and those that work hard to make it what they consider a better > place...... This is as true for neighborhoods as it is for countries._

I agree that we need to work hard to make a place (country/neighborhood/whatever) better. I personally protest, picket, vote, write to and call my representative, etc. etc.

If it gets to the point I need to die to make something better, it's not worth it.

<comment><USER52> "If it gets to the point I need to die to make something better, it's not worth it."

You know what? That's fine. In reality, most people feel the exact same way. But here's the other reality: without people who felt otherwise, there wouldn't be better places for you to go in the first place.

So when you encounter the kinds of people who realize that someone needs to make the ultimate sacrifice, and look to themselves, instead of looking around for others, the least you can do is to treat them with gratitude and respect instead of disparaging the very ideals that prompted the extrordinary sacrifice from which you (and millions of others) so clearly benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I'd like to ask him how people can support him financially. A Bitcoin address would be cool, but he'd still have to convert it to local currency.

</comment><comment><USER55> I find it somewhat amusing that he's at least somewhat likely to use Tor, which was developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory.

<comment><USER16> Actually that would be a good question to ask him.

Him intimately knowing about how NSA does stuff, what would be his suggestion of ensuring anonymity. What steps should one take, what tools should one use, etc. His answers on this would be very telling. Someone please ask him that!

<comment><USER56> Asked: [http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment- permalink/24386192](http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment- permalink/24386192)

<comment><USER57> mm. also, [http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment- permalink/24386031](http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment- permalink/24386031)

upvoted your link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> How do we know it's Snowden?

So are more documents going to drop?

If yes the the former, why can't _The Guardian_ do an all-out dump instead of piecemealing it?

<comment><USER59> Because the point whether or not you believe they care about the content, or are cynical and assume it is just about their traffic, is to get maximum mileage out of it. And the way to do that is to drag it out.

If they dumped everything at once, a lot of it would get drowned out by a small number of the most interesting revelations.

<comment><USER58> You can dump everything and then spend the next 6 months going through it with a fine-toothed comb and writing articles daily. Is the public really better served by waiting months to hear everything?

<comment><USER60> Other journalists would try to beat The Guardian to the scoop, with the same result. Everyone would be talking about it for two weeks, then we'd forget.

By controlling the flow, they can make sure that each important revelation is allowed some time in the spotlight. The issues gets a lot more attention that way.

<comment><USER61> You people are un-fucking-believable. You are literally lauding -- no, contorting yourselves to defend -- the hoarding of information you consider vital to the public good, and the slow, drawn out manipulation of the public's attention for private gain. This is, at a high level, directly analogous to whatever evil you think the NSA is committing.

And the dumbest of all ironies, which I'm sure is lost on all of you, is that you are employing utilitarian ethics to defend it. That is exactly how a spy program is considered ethical.

God. The humanities really are dead if this kind of clueless doublethinking represents the future thought leadership of our world.

<comment><USER62> No, I think the unbelievable people are supporting the gradual release as they feel it maximises the impact of the revelations, for the public good. What with news cycles and short attention spans and everything.

You seem to disagree, but don't make any convincing arguments that dumping all the information immediately is better for the public good. Probably because it's a very hard task.

<comment><USER61> I'm not saying whether it should or shouldn't be released. IMO there is no "there" to this story anyway, as will be revealed when/if these mysterious documents arrive. My critique is of the naked speculation run rampant on HN, and the post hoc rationalizations for believing wholeheartedly claims which are, at best, dubious and in any case unsubstantiated.

The story doesn't even pass the simplest of tests for self-consistency. An NSA contractor claims that the government is listening to all digital communications, but is somehow able to transfer classified files, taken from the NSA, to a journalist in the UK. If we believe the first part, how could the second part happen? If the agency had such a capability, I would assume that a call between low-level NSA employees and _journalists_ (foreign ones especially) would trigger all sorts of alarms.

<comment> grey-area _IMO there is no "there" to this story anyway_

I disagree, there have been significant leaks - confirmation of the NSA collecting every phone record in the US on a daily basis, confirmation that the DNI lies to his oversight committee, confirmation that the NSA has collected almost 3 billion records on the US in march 2013, allegations that the NSA is attempting to collect all internet traffic, both outside and inside its borders, in the broadest possible sweeps. If it was such a non-story, I don't think Obama would have done a press conference about it, would he? That's a lot of 'there' for a non-story if you ask me, and sounds like the NSA has significantly expanded its mandate without proper authorisation or oversight.

 _An NSA contractor claims that the government is listening to all digital communications, but is somehow able to transfer classified files, taken from the NSA, to a journalist in the UK. If we believe the first part, how could the second part happen?_

Just because lots of data is collected, that doesn't mean they can find what they want from it, except in retrospect, so I'm not sure where the contradiction lies there for you - I think his communications with Greenwald were encrypted (according to the film-maker he contacted first) after first contact.

Also, I don't remember him saying specifically that they are listening to all digital communications, just that they can if they want to listen in to any communications, did he allege that somewhere?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Vote Snowden for President in 2020

</comment><comment><USER64> PSA: 11am EST is when this comment turns 55 minutes old.

</comment><comment><USER65> I don't understand why people here are getting all hung up over the words "direct access" when it comes to Google and Facebook. At the end of the day, if they have access to email and phone records, especially SMS, then they essentially have direct access to any one of these services via the password reset feature, even if you have two factor authentication turned on.

</comment><comment><USER66> Mr. Snowden seems more informed than many of our politicians. (And many of our journalists as well.)

<comment><USER14> Mr. Snowden didn't have to spend the majority of his time being a professional fundraiser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Can't wait for the twitter pic of him holding up a piece of paper saying:

"Hi Reddit! 17th June, 2013"

</comment><comment><USER68> " _NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored._ "

So how was he allowed on the plane? Surely part of the passport/no-fly-list check would have caught that. Or did he drive to Mexico and fly from there?

<comment><USER69> It's an employer policy, and it has nothing to do with the passport or no-fly- list. In normal circumstances, flying without declaring his travel would put his clearance in jeopardy and he'd have federal marshals waiting for him upon his return. Similarly, he'd have security officers checking up on him at home if he failed to show up at work on time (and failed to answer the check up call).

<comment><USER68> If he failed to show up for work, officers would be sent out of concern for his wellbeing.

The whole point of banning him from leaving the country is to try to prevent him "defecting". Waiting for him to come back is pointless. He's already not allowed "to defect" \- so not allowing him to leave the country is stupid if no one is going to enforce it.

Finally, when your employer is the NSA, I figure they'd have different/special rules. Do any non-governmental jobs forbid flying due to "policy"?

 _defect_ may not be quite the right word - _flee_?

<comment><USER69> > If he failed to show up for work, officers would be sent out of concern for > his wellbeing.

Right, but it's dishonest to pretend that's the only motivation.

> The whole point of banning him from leaving the country is to try to prevent > him "defecting". Waiting for him to come back is pointless. He's already not > allowed "to defect" \- so not allowing him to leave the country is stupid if > no one is going to enforce it.

Preventing defection takes a lot of different tacks (social pressure, education, threat of prosecution, etc.).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> His answer to the question "What direct access means":

1) More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

<comment><USER71> For me, this was a really unsatisfying answer. Maybe the question should have been more specific, but I took it to relate to the PRISM programme and the specific technology that provided direct access to data at the companies involved. His reply seemed to focus on the policies (or lack thereof), with an example relating to call logs (which I already assumed would be provided by some (S)FTP feed from the carriers and bulk loaded into a database anyway).

<comment><USER72> Maybe he doesn't know how every server is configured. Why would he be expected to?

If one data feed uses a fiber tap and another uses a daily sftp transfer, does it really matter if some/most/all of Americans' communications is ending up in a database to be queried by analysts today and god-knows-who 30 years from now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I'm curious if the US govt will DDoS The Guardian during the q&a

<comment><USER74> Doubtful, but certainly a curious thought. I'm skeptical that actively censoring the media via "hacking" (because DDoS is classified as hacking to them) will bode well for their situation. Still, they could blame it on citizen traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> When asked for a flat-out answer whether he gave classified information to the Chinese government:

 _" No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists."_

Perhaps he should rephrase that as "no _direct_ contact." Apparently, by handing over classified information to journalists, he believes he's absolved of any responsibility where it eventually winds up, whether on the desk of Chinese officials, or in the morning paper.

<comment><USER15> Using the word "direct" again like that would probably not have the effect of improving the general quality of discussion. It would be a pretty "troll" move at this point.

Maybe he should have said, "Not wittingly."

<comment><USER14> _> It would be a pretty "troll" move at this point. Maybe he should have said, "Not wittingly."_

He wittingly gave Greenwald classified documents to make public, so "not wittingly" is not true. Via Greenwald, he gave classified information to the Chinese government (and everybody else).

I'm just saying, he should be transparent and honest about the implications of his actions. When he hands classified information over to journalists, he loses all control of that information. It could be made public, it could be handed over to government officials, it's impossible to say.

He says he's sitting on a lot more information that he plans to release, and everybody here seems very comfortable with that idea. We're being extremely trusting to hand this man the sole authority to decide what information is leaked to journalists and what remains classified.

At the least, we should get the sense that he's being fully transparent and intellectually honest about his actions and their ramifications.

<comment><USER15> You clearly have not subscribed to the revised definition of "wittingly".

<comment><USER26> you mean perhaps the least untruthful definition of wittingly?

<comment><USER15> "least untruthful" is not how I would describe the 'New American Revised' definition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I imagine the types of question he'll get asked are fairly predictable. Potentially he could have done extensive mock-interviews already and somebody will just post his answers online in response to any matching questions. That way he could avoid being traced.

</comment><comment><USER76> I have a question that no one i think has asked. Do you think Facebook's "search" capability was born out of their work with the government? When it first came out everyone was talking about how this could be used to violate privacy.

</comment><comment><USER77> I'd like to know if geolocation data is collected as part of the "meta data" in any of these sigint databases. Rep. Jason Chaffetz asked at the FBI hearing about the implications in light of US v. Jones.

</comment><comment><USER78> The Guardian approach to this thing is infuriating. There's little useful information from it. eg this question and answer

 _Question: Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA survelielance? Id my data protected by standard encryption? Answer: Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it._

Pfft. What size RSA keys are unbroken (2 048, 4 096, 8 192)? Is there a backdoor in the ECC NIST P256 (or similar) curve? How many TOR exit nodes does the US government manage and how good are they at in/out correlation?

<comment><USER53> He may view that as beyond the scope of what he's comfortable releasing, if he knows it. Remember, he's not supposed to be bashing the NSA and releasing all secrets, but specifically blowing the top off what he believes is an illegal program. Releasing unrelated secrets from the NSA would probably have a negative effect on that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Let's upvote here questions to him - then someone will post them at the chat.

</comment><comment><USER80> Anyone else notice he doesn't flat out deny giving secrets to the Chinese when asked?

<comment><USER81> Yes he does, further down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> "2) How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?"

Answer - 2) "All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped."

That last sentence must have Obama quaking. I wonder just how much more can/will come? And if/when it does - I wonder just how bad it will be?

<comment><USER65> I just hope that documents are leaked in response to any outright lies by the executive branch, congress or the NSA. It's clear that they have lied and continue to lie, but we don't know what is and is not a lie. Having a bunch of documents lined up to call anyone out for lying to the American people is a powerful incentive for those in charge to be honest and candid.

Reminds me of War Games... "The only winning move is not to play"</comment></comment>


College, the Great Unleveler - <AUTHOR> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/college-the-great-unleveler/ <comment><USER2> Not too long ago, I took advantage of my large, corporate employer's training benefit and took a week off for hands-on Hadoop/Hive/Hbase training. My company required I get a cert as part of the benefit, so I went and bit the bullet to take a cert test. The location of the cert test was at a local Westwood College campus. Westwood is a for-profit institution. This particular campus earns extra money by acting as a testing center for certifications. The first thing I noticed was the staff was overly-numerous and hugely, unbelievably unprofessional. Despite an appointment made two months in advance, the staff member in charge of administering the tests was nowhere to be found. The staff member present simply told me "She hasn't called. She was here but she went to get lunch." This meant that I had to wait in the admissions office waiting room for an hour. What I saw deeply disturbed me. Person after person was shepherded in, and guided through the entire student loan application process. The awful part was how completely, utterly unprepared and unequipped these folks were for any kind of academic learning. A young man came in desperately begging the receptionist for help with his Metro fare, telling her that he "had to jump the turnstile" because he couldn't afford to pay for the fare. He was in his 20s and was profoundly ignorant and juvenile in his behavior, at a level one would expect from a middle schooler. I saw a lot of that. This institution has zero consequences if the hundreds of students walking around that campus are unable to get jobs with the skills taught to them. No, the burden is entirely on the student and the US taxpayer. These for-profit institutions have no admissions requirements. They are nothing more than a giant machine designed to pump subsidized student loan money into their coffers. And in the grand fashion of "iron triangle" style politics in the US, they have huge swarms of lobbyists crawling DC (financed with government loan moeny) to ensure they keep getting the government loan money.

<comment><USER3> There are many low quality non-profit colleges as well, with negligible admission requirements, and no consequences when students fail. Why do we obsessively focus on the for-profits while giving the non-profits a pass?

[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/feature/colle...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/feature/college_dropout_factories.php?page=all&print=true)

The non-profit colleges have far more lobbyists crawling DC than the for- profits, so it can't be that.

[http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04)

<comment><USER2> Good point. I agree. I recall something being proposed in the state of Oregon: students don't pay tuition up front. Instead, a fixed percentage of a student's income for a designated time period after graduation is paid to the institution. I think this would have some amusingly rapid effects on ALL colleges. You wouldn't see schools like the University of Florida which recently axed their CS program in favor of expanding their English and History programs. My university is a decent one, but efforts to help graduating students get jobs were minimal and token: job fairs? I've attended your school for year, paying tons of money, and your best effort at job placement is a fucking job fair? And let's not forget the out of touch, tenured professors teaching out-dated skills. I'm looking at you, Virginia Tech, for continuing to teach your Introduction to Computer Science class with C++, while MIT and Harvard use Python. Students leave THEIR classes having learned to build things. They leave your shit C++ class having learned to build nothing other than homework solutions that have zero applicability in the real world.

<comment><USER4> You actually believe C++ isn't used in the real world?

<comment><USER2> Of course not. It's just that its a god-awful way to introduce a general student population to Computer Science. Maybe its ok for CS majors, but even then I'm not sold. I think it should be reserved for a few semesters in, once students have an idea of what they CAN do, then focus on C++ in the sense that its where the real deal performance and mission critical stuff is built.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I read through the whole article before asking myself, "Just who is this author, and what is the author's background?" The article byline reports, "Suzanne Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell University, is the author of _Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream._ "

These days, when I look at suggestions for national policy for the United States (which show up here on Hacker News with alarming frequency, even despite the differing topic emphasis of this online community), I really like to hear from other countries about what is already working in public policy on the same topic. Is there some country in the world that does a better job in setting higher education policy than the United States? If so, which one? What improvements can United States policy gain by studying the example of other countries? As an American who has lived abroad for years during my adult life, I find it tedious to consider policy suggestions here in the country of my birth without reality-checking them by the experience of other countries. In this light, what we should consider as we ponder the suggestions in the article kindly submitted here?

(Disclosure: I have a college degree, gained at a state university in the United States at the time the article author identifies as a time of policy transition. I have close relatives who have never completed college degrees, and I wonder what factors matter most for college degrees being accessible, and also what factors matter most for college degrees being useful to their possessors and to the broader society.)

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure how generalizable it is, but Denmark has a fairly strong split between the "proper" universities, which are all state-funded and tuition- free, and private "academies", which may be for-profit or nonprofit, and don't have degree-issuing rights. The for-profit ones typically teach vocational programs. Some of these are reasonably well respected, but as a result of not being able to offer degrees, they tend to compete more on the skills gained than on the certificate. For example they will want to be able to argue that if you spend time/money there, by the time you're done you'll be a skilled 3d animator with a portfolio to prove it. So these are relatively unregulated besides not being able to issue degrees (they can issue private certificates). They also don't receive state support, and students don't receive state financial aid.

There are a few weird in-between things. For example the National Film School is very well respected and mostly publicly funded, but doesn't issue degrees, because historically it grew out of the film production scene and doesn't see itself as "academic" (nowadays they could probably gain degree-granting rights, but it's become a point of principle that they're a "film school", not a "university").

<comment><USER7> Australia is similar, as far as I'm aware. There are private colleges, that are paid up front etc, but they're sort of looked down on and are usually very industry specific (QANTM being the tech and game programming one in Brisbane, for example).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What bothers me is that we have a very nebulous idea here in the U.S. of what it is that we hope to gain from educating people in colleges. I met someone a number of years ago (mid 2000's, before the recession), who had done his degree in aerospace engineering from a regional state school (not bottom of the barrel, but not an MRU). He was working as an HVAC technician. Not a bad living, of course, but I couldn't help but think it was overkill considering that a 2-year degree is an entirely adequate preparation for such a job.

In my opinion, Americans are overeducated. We shuffle people through colleges, but the jobs waiting for them at the other end hardly merit all that preparation. We're drowning in college debt because we're spending vastly more to educate people than is warranted by the sorts of jobs available in the economy.

<comment><USER9> I don't believe in the usefulness of "overeducation" as a concept. No amount of knowledge or learning should ever be considered too much. What I _do_ believe, however, is that vocational training should be decoupled from education, and that everyone should be seeking both.

<comment><USER10> Are you arguing that spending more effort educating yourself on a particular subject never becomes suboptimal? Are you just talking past the parent? Or do you actually believe in storing information in brains for storing-information- in-brains' sake, even if it's ten years of study of pokémon glitches?

<comment><USER11> You're putting up a strawman. Information for the sake of information is not knowledge, nor learning. One can spend their whole life watching reality TV and name every single celebrities in existence - hardly anyone would call that act "learning" or "acquiring knowledge".

Of course if one could still be learning in a suboptimal way: acquiring useless information, or acquiring information without understanding of the subject matter, but that's an orthogonal issue altogether: it's suboptimal regardless of your effort/time/how much knowledge you had.

At the very least, I found it hard to believe that in this time and age, one can acquire enough knowledge of any subject (breath or depth) that any more effort would be suboptimal. The other choice of thinking "I know enough and don't need to care anymore" is potentially far far more dangerous.

<comment><USER10> > Information for the sake of information is not knowledge, nor learning.

If you're going to secretly use nonstandard meanings for English words, just stop posting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> From my time in the military, I've noticed that many who leave the military and have the GI bill available for them for use don't end up using them at good schools, causing it to be a waste of their time, education, and the government's money.

I strongly agree that more regulation of the higher education industry is needed.

</comment><comment><USER13> Ugh I'm sick and tired of this.

> but for those in the bottom half, a four-year degree is scarcely more > attainable today than it was in the 1970s.

As someone who came from a working class background, college has enabled me to move up multiple socio-economic classes.

I'll admit I was lucky when I attended, graduating in 2006 right before huge price increases went into effect. Even so, I believe college offers a huge opportunity for social and economic mobility.

> In the bottom half of the economic distribution, it's less than one out of > five for those in the third bracket and fewer than one out of 10 in the > poorest.

So what I am seeing here is that college does offer opportunities at mobility. Compared to the almost 0 opportunity so many would have had otherwise.

Let us remember here that we are talking about fifths and tenths of _hundreds of millions of people_. Ok discount that to only college aged, and we still have tens of millions of people we are talking about.

> Nearly three-quarters of American college students attend public > universities and colleges, historically the nation's primary channels to > educational opportunity. These institutions still offer the best bargain > around, yet even there, tuition increases have bred inequality.

Ah now, here is a real problem! The cost of in-state tuition has sky rocketed. Let's do something about that, rather than say "college is useless".

As for private educational institutions, the problem seems to be that they have better advertising. They sell a slick message. (Though I have had positive encounters with a few of them that have convinced me that private education _does_ have a role in the overall educational system, sometimes direct skill training is exactly what is needed!)

<comment><USER14> "Compared to the almost 0 opportunity so many would have had otherwise."

There's no such comparison to be made. Those people who expended that much effort going to college only to flunk out could have expended that same effort doing something else. Most of them might have failed at that too, but a few might have succeeded. At least none of them would have been saddled with tons of student-loan debt. "College or immediate and irrevocable failure" is the myth that for-profit-college hucksters love to promote, and I'm sure they'd be glad to see that it's working.

The problem is not that college exists as a possible route to prosperity for poor people. The problem is that it's presented - including by comments like yours - as _the only_ route. Instead of comparing college to nothing at all, we should be comparing the real odds of achieving success via college vs. the odds of achieving it by other means. If we're morally compelled to consider the 1/5 or 1/10 who benefited from going to college, we are also morally compelled to consider the 4/5 or 9/10 for whom it _failed_ and left them worse off financially.

<comment><USER15> Flunking out seems at odd with extracting maximum tuition. Which are you accusing the schools of?

<comment><USER14> The really bad for-profit "schools" don't concentrate on extracting maximum tuition from each student. That would require at least minimal attention to the quality of the service being offered, which erodes margins. They don't care if existing students leave, so long as an at least equal number of new ones replace them, so they spend all their money on marketing instead.

At better schools, there's a whole different set of dynamics to explain why rich kids stay in and poor kids don't. This is hardly the forum for that discussion, except to note that the net result is approximately the same. Lots of kids leave college with a big pile of debt and no degree. When such a high percentage of lower-income students end up worse off than they started, it's quite rational to consider that a more entrepreneurial focus might actually serve them better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I feel like if we want to start addressing inequality in education, we have to start with private grade schools. In particular, I think that private high schools and grade schools should be stopped, and everyone should be forced to use the public system.

Private schools let the wealthiest, most influential people take their children out of the system, and so have no motivation to fix the system. Meanwhile the people who are least able to fix the system are left stuck with it. Take NYC as a great example of this - extremely high incomes, $45k/year private schools, and some of the worst public schools in America.

It's not that people are bad for using private schools - it's hard to take a moral stance when your children are the cost (I will certainly send my future kids to private school). But by having an easy out, it lets people avoid fixing the system.

<comment><USER17> Perhaps you don't realize this, but many parents choose not to use the public school system for religious reasons. Are you willing to trample all over their religious liberty and lock them up in pursuit of your utopia?

You probably just didn't think about them. So thank you for posting this, as it demonstrates a growing problem in America: ignorance of religion. I don't care if you're religious or not, this is a country with a lot of people who are.

People these days love words like "tolerance" and "diversity" but then they suggest the most intolerant policies you can imagine.

<comment><USER18> >> _but many parents choose not to use the public school system for religious reasons._

at the risk of sounding naive how does attending a public school limit one's ability to practice religion?

i am particularly confused because all of the private schools where i grew up were Catholic, which i assumed were even less religiously tolerant.

<comment><USER17> Deciding how to educate their children is part of their religion. If you tell them "you must send your children to a public school" you are limiting their ability to practice their religion.

And this isn't just an ad-hoc excuse... this has been true for a long time. For example the puritans in this country highly valued public education. They thought all children should know how to read so that they could read and understand the Bible (a direct consequence of their sola scriptura reformation roots).

So suppose you come from that background (like many Reformed and Evangelical Christians today), and the top priority in the education of your children is that they know the Bible: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" and all that.

Well children won't be getting that in a public school in America. And more than that the social institutions in this country (at all levels) are dead-set opposed to those kinds of traditional religious doctrines. (parents might point to things like evolution, sexual education, etc..)

Now I understand that from a secular perspective this looks ridiculous. That line of reasoning isn't even something I would necessarily agree with. All I'm advocating here is a bit of tolerance as well as a little bit of knowledge about your fellow citizens. The very type of people who are predisposed to bypass the public school system for religious reasons, are also the type of people who won't bow to government pressure. You'll have to lock them up and take their children away from them before they'll stop. (There is abundant historical precedent for this)

As to your point about Catholic schools... do you think that a Catholic school ought to be a place where other religious teaching is tolerated? Do you think such a school ought to be required to teach Islam or Protestantism for example? Or, to take a popular topic at the moment, should a church be required to perform same-sex marriages?

That seems like a very strange definition of tolerance to me... Catholic schools ought to teach Catholicism, and because the government doesn't require you to send your children to that school you have the freedom to educate your children how you see fit.

Yes that means parents will sometimes choose badly and children will suffer because of it. But that's the price we pay for living in a free society.

<comment><USER18> >> _Deciding how to educate their children is part of their religion._

herein lies my naivety i suppose. :)

>> _As to your point about Catholic schools... do you think that a Catholic school ought to be a place where other religious teaching is tolerated? Do you think such a school ought to be required to teach Islam or Protestantism for example? Or, to take a popular topic at the moment, should a church be required to perform same-sex marriages?_

no, my point was simply that public and Catholic schools were my only options. and fortunately one of them was suitable for my beliefs (whatever they may have been).

i didn't intend to suggest that forcing public schooling was the best, or even a good solution. but i'm wondering how we extract the logic from that argument without alienating anyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So... kids from affluent backgrounds have been given better oppotunities than the have-nots. I'm shocked!

<comment><USER20> Here, I'll summarize the article for you, as I think you've misinterpreted it:

1\. Programs were put in place throughout the last 60 years to help provide better opportunities for kids who did NOT come from affluent backgrounds.

2\. Over the last 20 years (and perhaps even earlier, posits the author), these programs have been increasingly abused by for-profit universities. Additionally, these programs have become less effective as the cost of tuition grows.

3\. So, if we want to restore the opportunities for aspiring students from less affluent families, we need to regulate the for-profits and we need to bring government aid programs back in line with the current state of higher education.

Of course the kids from affluent backgrounds have better opportunities -- that's not the point of the article. The point was that kids from less affluent backgrounds have fewer opportunities than they did within our parents' lifetimes, and that systemic corruption/abuse is responsible for this change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Universal demand and lack of accountability for supply create cancerous markets and bubbles. This is true for any market, including education, health, housing or internet portals.

</comment><comment><USER22> a question, in Germany there are coops between gov and industry to have both vocational and college programs result in 2 year and 4 year degrees.

An example is Siemens, if you get into a training program at Siemens you will if you complete it end up with a 2 year tech degree or a 4 year college degree complete with several years of on the job training paid both by the German gov and Siemens.

IS there any movement towards such a partnership between industry and the gov in the US towards education?

<comment><USER23> Some: the NY Times had an article about one such the other day. But they don't run to four-year degrees.</comment></comment>


Xv6 for RISC-V - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mit-pdos/xv6-riscv <comment><USER2> Some extra info/links that might be interesting to people:

6.S081/6.828, MIT's Operating Systems class, was revamped for this semester. The professors ported xv6, one of the teaching operating systems used for the course, to RISC-V, and created an all-new lab sequence: [https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2019/index.html](https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2019/index.html) (all course material, including labs, is publicly available).

The xv6 book, one of the main reading materials for the class, has also been updated for the new xv6 / RISC-V: [https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2019/xv6/book-riscv- rev0.pd...](https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2019/xv6/book-riscv-rev0.pdf).

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting that they just forked xv6-public rather than add hardware support to the existing codebase, though I guess it makes sense to keep the system straightforward given its purpose.

</comment><comment><USER4> Curious how much effort it was. Also, just to confirm: this was more of an exercise project, no practical use for xv6 anymore, right?

<comment><USER3> > no practical use for xv6 anymore, right?

AFAIK xv6 is and has always been a teaching tool, it's never been a "production" system. Whether that's a practical use or not is up to you I guess.

<comment><USER5> There's apparently one exception where it was used as the basis for a production system: [https://github.com/liwenhaosuper/t6](https://github.com/liwenhaosuper/t6)

Pretty interesting as it's still in use today: [https://www.trustkernel.com/en/](https://www.trustkernel.com/en/)

<comment><USER6> > _trusted_

I am left wondering if this has been sponsored by the (Chinese) government.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ethcore is seeking out JavaScript developers to build the future of blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://ethcore.io/javascript_advert.js <comment><USER2> To apply as a JS wiz/full stack gay or gal, give us some code (firstname.lastname@example.com) that processes this into a lovely-looking web (HTML/CSS/JS) document var job = { You have a TYPO. "gay" or gal. Get it correct! ;-)</comment>


Ask HN: Anybody actually making money with Salesforce's AppExchange? - <AUTHOR>

I'm exploring a new start up and one of the distribution channels could by Salesforce.com's AppExchange. However, I've read some articles (although somewhat dated) that indicate there are not a lot of people who actually make money on AppExchange. Can anyone share their experience, or point me in a direction where I can find out more? <comment><USER2> Maybe not for direct profit, but for cross-promotion or raising brand awareness, the Appexchange has value.</comment>


How we generated $13k in 24hrs through Product Hunt - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/on-startups/4ab5a28f018c

<comment><USER2> Love Product Hunt! So glad to see it getting more attention!

Awesome post!

<comment><USER3> Thanks, Dan! :)</comment></comment>


Id3v2.3.0 – ID3.org - <AUTHOR> http://id3.org/id3v2.3.0#Attached_picture

<comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone know the backstory on $11?</comment>


Mystery seeds arrive in Australia from Asia, prompting fears of biosecurity risk - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-26/australians-warned-to-be-on-look-out-for-mystery-seeds/12592348 <comment><USER2> My mom uses a gardening community app which has users from around the world. According to her, many users across several continents/countries have been experiencing this (North America, Europe, Australia, other parts of Asia). You receive a package in the mail which contains some small, low-value item (often seeds) that you definitely didn't order. Some of her friends on the app have apparently tried planting the seeds and have grown unexciting plants (eg tomatoes). But, for fear of unleashing an invasive species, don't do this.

The prevailing hypothesis is that it has to do with spoofing reviews on some ecommerce platforms. The sellers can boost their apparent number of sales and give themselves fake reviews, but there is a customs verification step which requires them to verify for the platform that they actually sent out a package. So they create a fake package with something very cheap inside and mail it to a random address in the country of their choice.

There have been a number of articles concerning it as well: for example, this one from Chicago -- [https://abc7chicago.com/china-seeds-from-plant-in- mail/63385...](https://abc7chicago.com/china-seeds-from-plant-in- mail/6338535/)</comment>


Ask HN: Can you suggest some IOT project to work on for undergraduate CS course - <AUTHOR> I have to pick a project idea to work on as part of my final sem mandatory project. I want to do something with Internet Of Things . Can you please give your suggestions? <comment><USER2> My suggestion is based on that only you really know what to do but maybe we can help you find it. Begin with you daily life and solve a problem.

For example: Do you need to water the flowers? Make it automatic with online ui.

Do you always need to check if your door is really locked? Make a lock status report system.

Do you missing people trying to ring the bell at your house because you are in the garage? Make a camera which sends a mms with a picture of who is infront of the door.

Solve something you want to be solved!

</comment><comment><USER3> A Device which you keep in your balcony or outdoors which will tell you the temperature at home, The level of pollution in the air, noise etc. Also the mosquitoes or insects around, how clean is the air, how healthy and bunch of other utilities.

</comment><comment><USER4> Curious what projects have already been considered and why they were rejected.</comment>


AWS Elemental CEO Sam Blackman, 41, dies after suffering cardiac event - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekwire.com/2017/elemental-ceo-sam-blackman-41-dies-suffering-cardiac-event/ <comment><USER2> Sad news, indeed.

The cause of death is _only_ mentioned in the headline. In fact, the article says:

> It's not clear exactly what happened to Blackman, who just opened a new > Portland office for AWS Elemental last week and was planning business trips > for the next few weeks, according to emails we exchanged at the end of last > week. Blackman's family is asking the company and investors to refrain from > commenting publicly, but GeekWire confirmed the sad news with a person > familiar with Blackman and AWS Elemental.

</comment><comment><USER3> More the point, what level of stress was the fellow under. Higher stress level can cause all sorts of problems and it's not hard for the heart to give out under these circumstances. Especially, in those who appear fit and healthy.

There appears to be an increasing number of reports of fit and healthy youngsters (in their forties) who are just keeling over for no apparent reason.

It is a sad thing to lose a father/husband/son or mother/wife/daughter to such circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sad.

Since there's no details, the likely causes include HCM, aortic dissection (Marfan syndrome) and vfib. AED availability, doppler ultrasound and Marfan screening can be life-saving. It's important to do autopsies and publicly or anonymously release cause(s) of death in an effort to prevent deaths of others.</comment>


Local Product Quotas for Netflix, Amazon to Become Law in EU - <AUTHOR> https://variety.com/2018/film/news/netflix-amazon-local-product-quotas-european-union-law-1202924740/ <comment><USER2> So, McDonald's should be mandated to serve Thai food in Thailand?

This is inverse censorship. Not sure where you fall on government intervention but if this is so highly demanded, why doesn't a company sell local content streaming services to EU?

<comment><USER3> > This is inverse censorship

Perhaps. but it's needed to keep local cultures alive, and I don't say that lightly. The cultural influence of the USA is _massive_. Unless your country is okay with losing its identity entirely you need to work to keep it intact.</comment></comment>


Ask News.YC: Conservation of Pulse - Local Causality - Save The Galaxy - <AUTHOR>

OK, weird post. So I went to the Sunnyvale Fry's the other day and noticed for the first time that on the walls of the interior cafe, near the ceiling, this phrase was written:<p>"Conservation of Pulse - Local Causality - Save The Galaxy"<p>I did a Google search and found out that there's basically no info on the Web about it. Does anyone know what this means, or what it refers to?! <comment><USER2> Something involving the pulsating light on the front of a MacBook Pro will be caused by something else nearby, thereby saving the galaxy.

Simple.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's probably just a meme of some sort, but might very well be an Alternate Reality Game. If the same thing shows up anywhere else, I would ask around here: <http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/></comment>


Police can request your DNA without your knowledge via ancestry websites - <AUTHOR> https://newsline.com/police-can-request-your-dna-without-your-knowledge-or-consent-via-ancestry-websites/ <comment><USER2> The article can find no instance where non-public DNA data was provided to police, and instead documents merely that 23andme has declined "every" request, that Ancestry has only permitted requests for billing info, and that the one search performed was against a public DB that was made private to prevent that use in the future.</comment>