from Hacker News

Edward Snowden leaks: NSA 'debates' amnesty

by nexttimer on 12/16/13, 12:31 PM with 55 comments

• by spodek on 12/16/13, 2:51 PM

  > The US National Security Agency is considering offering an amnesty to fugitive intelligence contractor Edward Snowden if he agrees to stop leaking secret documents, an NSA official says.

  That means as bad for the NSA as giving amnesty would be, they consider remaining documents worse.

  That means however bad you've found the revelations so far, expect worse to come.

  As for Snowden, I presume he's smart enough to realize amnesty from the NSA leaves dozens of other government entities or just angry people to get him, whether legally or illegally, who already flout the Constitution, lie, illegally detain and send people to countries that torture, etc.

• by kordless on 12/16/13, 4:10 PM

  > "This is analogous to a hostage taker taking 50 people hostage, shooting 10, and then say, 'if you give me full amnesty, I'll let the other 40 go'."

  No. This is analogous to YOU taking 50 people hostage, shooting 10 of them, and then someone coming to you and telling you to stop shooting people or they are going to tell on you if you don't release the rest of the hostages.

  > What do you do?

  You let your hostages go.

• by JanezStupar on 12/16/13, 1:17 PM

  Is NSA going through 5 stages of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Stages)? Reading this article seems like this is making me feel like they are at stage 3.

• by wil421 on 12/16/13, 2:10 PM

  This is so stupid. Snowden hasnt leaked documents since he initially gave it to the first few reporters. Those reporters have stated from the beginning it was in their hands now to determine what is reported to the public.

  > This is analogous to a hostage taker taking 50 people hostage, shooting 10, and then say, 'if you give me full amnesty, I'll let the other 40 go'. What do you do?

  That is absolutely absurd. No lives are put in harms way like they could've been with the unredatcted wikileaks data. I believe the reporters are being cautious on what type of data they post.

• by mattgibson on 12/16/13, 4:02 PM

  That's a pretty extreme step.

  Given that there have been stories saying that the NSA have not been able to work out exactly what he took from them, this implies that they are afraid of what he has yet to reveal.

  We know that he deliberately didn't release material that was specifically going to endanger individuals or operations and that newspapers have been even more careful to only reveal generalities. This suggests that there is no need for the NSA to worry about stuff that is not suitable for publication. Which implies that there are other stories which are a really big deal, which both he and newspapers would be happy to publish, but which they have not published yet.

  But what? I can't imagine what else they could've been up to on top of what we've learnt. Maybe I just have incredulity burnout.

• by Havoc on 12/16/13, 2:41 PM

  This just comes across as weak/desperate on the NSA's side.

  If I were him I'd tell the US to shove it. They made him intentionally stateless and pressured other nations to make seeking asylum difficult - that to me is a low blow when it comes to treating whistle-blowers - even by US standards.

• by mtgx on 12/16/13, 1:00 PM

  Is Alexander seriously comparing this to him taking 50 hostages and then killing 10 people?

  And this is the same Alexander who helps CIA kill that many people per day with his mass surveillance and "signature drone strikes" - right? Just checking to see if he's the right guy to question Snowden's morals.

• by dregstudios on 12/16/13, 8:32 PM

  The dystopian fantasies of yesteryear are now a reality. We’ve allowed the coming of an age where the civil liberties our forefathers fought so hard for are being eroded by the day. Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are mere ghostly images of their original intent. We’ve woken up to an Orwellian Society of Fear where anyone is at the mercy of being labeled a terrorist for standing up for rights we took for granted just over a decade ago. Read about how we’re waging war against ourselves at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society...

• by Tosh108 on 12/16/13, 3:20 PM

  I'm not an expert on US law. But why does the NSA have the authority to grand amnesty?

• by midnitewarrior on 12/16/13, 1:24 PM

  If Snowden takes the deal, then he looks like the guy they are trying to paint him to be - a traitor that can't stomach permanent exile.

  If he takes the deal unconditionally, he will have accomplished nothing other than isolate the United States from the rest of the world. Laws will not change, the people will not gain control of its government's activities.

  Snowden can take the deal under one condition only - and that is that the NSA stops their improper practices under the supervision of Snowden. Of course, this will never happen.

  Any interest Snowden expresses in a NSA deal will only be used to discredit him.

• by dobbsbob on 12/16/13, 2:19 PM

  Snowden has 'insurance' that will leak if they kill him and they probably figured out what it was and would like it back. Most likely plans to the NSA death star

• by venomsnake on 12/16/13, 12:53 PM

  Snowden cannot possibly stop leaking the information. It is in journalists' hands already.

• by sneak on 12/16/13, 3:58 PM

  There will be no deal for Snowden. The headline is vastly misleading.

• by FreeKin256 on 12/16/13, 6:36 PM

  Sounds like they are attempting to make the conditions of Mr Snowden's asylum in Russia null as he will "no longer be under threat" back in the US.

• by nexttimer on 12/16/13, 12:35 PM

  In plain English, this NSA is saying:

  "If we 'consider' this, it's because the most important information is still not out there, yet."

  So it's basically counter-productive, unless your goal is to get the public behind the NSA in order to hang Snowden one way or the other.