←back to thread

Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote

(news.cnet.com)
69 points tim333 | 1 comments | 02 Mar 14 11:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
danbruc ◴[02 Mar 14 13:37 UTC] No.7329102[source]▶
Why, if Snowden was concerned with letting us know how we are spied on, why did he let us know how we spy on other countries? I think we should spy on other countries.

The last sentence is where he is - only in my opinion of course - completely wrong; no country should spy on other countries without very good reasons. And wanting to know what is going on behind closed doors of foreign governments or companies misses my definition of very good reasons by orders of magnitude.

replies(2): >>7329135 #>>7329203 #
wheaties ◴[02 Mar 14 13:52 UTC] No.7329135[source]▶
I think k we should spy on other countries and share his view of Snowden. I'm really glad Snow den leaked what he did, I just wish he didn't leak all of it. It does raise many questions on motivation. if he's disgusted with spy work in general he should just say so and be honest with the world. I could then have more respect for him doing what he did (and I do respect the conversation he's started.)
replies(3): >>7329140 #>>7329149 #>>7329561 #
danbruc ◴[02 Mar 14 13:58 UTC] No.7329149[source]▶
Can you give good reasons why the United States should spy on other countries? Or let's make it concrete, I am from Germany, why should the United States spy on Germany?
replies(2): >>7329167 #>>7329269 #
mst ◴[02 Mar 14 14:50 UTC] No.7329269[source]▶
Diplomatic espionage is pretty much standard - you might prefer to trust your allies but you still want confirmation that they're actually doing what they're telling you they're doing. I'm from England, and fully expect the German government to be spying on the UK government and the UK government to be spying on the German government, and don't really see a problem with it. I mean ... I don't trust our politicians ... why should I expect yours to? :)

The economic espionage side I'm much less happy about.

replies(1): >>7329320 #
danbruc ◴[02 Mar 14 15:03 UTC] No.7329320[source]▶
I am not talking about the status quo - the status quo of this world is simply fucked up. Less fucked up than in the past but still fucked up. So for me and especially for this discussion it is completely irrelevant who is doing what right now, I am interested in how it should be.

And I see neither how something we decide in Germany may affect the UK to a degree that justifies espionage, nor do I see how decision of the UK may impact Germany to such a degree. Can you think of a good example?

replies(1): >>7329472 #
jessedhillon ◴[02 Mar 14 15:45 UTC] No.7329472[source]▶
Have you never heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Even if nobody wants the status quo and everyone would like to cooperate, all we can see is other actors strongly incented to betray each other.

And if you see how nothing in Germany could be decided that affects the UK, what do you think would happen if German and French banks had refused to fund bailouts for the less responsible EU companies? No effects felt outside of Germany?

replies(3): >>7329566 #>>7329580 #>>7330252 #
1. Perseids ◴[02 Mar 14 19:00 UTC] No.7330252{6}[source]▶
Have you never heard of the iterated prisoners dilemma [1]?

Besides, the prisoners dilemma assumes there are no penalties for betrayal and that certainly is not the case for international politics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...