Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A bunch of people posting here seem to be misreading the point of the article. The point is not that he died old but that he died in obscurity in the midst of issues that came to light in part following his work decades ago.

The article suggests he was ahead of his time in finding and exposing problems with the NSA (and CIA, FBI, etc), which seem egregious then and poignant now. The article suggests the NSA worked against him, contributing to his obscurity.

I found the article interesting, informative, and relevant.




The headline itself lays out why he was relegated to obscurity: The first congressman to battle the NSA is dead. No-one noticed, no-one cares.

The echo chamber that is HN and Reddit /r/politics does not make the USA as a whole. No matter how egregious the things you think Snowden reveals over the next year: the majority of the USA doesn't give a damn.


... lots of people who were in Congress 30 years ago die, and almost never is it "important news". Just because it hits some popular current buzzwords shouldn't really change this.


That's just a communications problem.


The Washington Post and The New York Times both carried fair-sized obituaries, for what that's worth. I'd bet that quite a few papers got it from AP.


While I agree, I have to point out that all former congressmen die in obscurity, unless they went on to a cabinet post or the Senate.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: