This is RustyRusell of Linux kernel fame. This is kind of the evidence that he want for a claim. First hand. Not what we just read from the NYT article.

> Adam could have released the email metadata and that would have absolved him, but he didn’t.

What if he gives an metadata that doesn't reveal anything? Then, you'd argue that he did that metadata.

My problem with this article is, it came on the same day when Trump was shouting that "He will end an entire civilization". WTF are their priorities in the first place.

Secondly, as a technical person reading this written for a non-technical audience, it reads like the journalist wanted his high for most and nothing else.

This is media in action. Confuse and gaslight folks so that they stand to accept people like Trump and Elon musk.

> as if helping destroy an autocratic terror regime that killed thousands of Americans through the years is "dirty”?

> How come HN became so extreme left it can't understand this is a good thing?

Good Thing? How deranged are you to say something without proof and accuse others of a being left, when people are being normal.

> Ignoring politics has its way of coming back to haunt you. Back then this was an unpopular take.

Right now, we cannot and should not. Even if you ignore, you are getting dragged into without your choice. See: the bribes paid by the companies.

At this moment, I think we should have politics in left, right and center of our workplaces and life discussions everywhere. If you are not explicit with your stance then you are going to dragged along without your choice.

Politics has nothing to do with this. Simply put, spying on citizens or letting machines autonomously kill people is immoral, bad, and a crime against humanity.

This is reflection of corruption in the system that you cannot escape. No one is calling out Trump on his corruption, illegal use of powers and pathetic behavior, killing of people and setting up world war 3. And we call out others. We need to stay strong. If it comes to world war 3, we all lose.

> newspeak name for the DoD.

They changed the name and it matches the intention. It is not a newspeak name anymore.

> They changed the name

No, they didn't. The name of the department at issue is “the Department of Defense” and of its head the “Secretary of Defense” — these are set in statute (the latter for slightly longer time than the former) and the relevant statutes has not been changed, since the office of the Secretary of Defense was created in 1947 and the Department of Defense was created in 1949. The executive branch has just decided to use a nickname for a government department (which is the historical name for a prior department which was split to form two of what are now the three main direct subordinate elements within that department.)

That’s not what the law is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111

I am ready to pay for this. This is useful tool (even as there are many self-hosted options).