4 ms·

IANAP but could it be that you and your kin have a different view as to what the leadership of a nation is for? For example, they could see the primary role as

IANAP but could it be that you and your kin have a different view as to what the leadership of a nation is for? For example, they could see the primary role as protecting the safety and prosperity of the citizenry of the USA. You, maybe, see it as protecting the values of the USA as, for example, enshrined in the constitution? I think there is an argument that Snowden's actions could have put at risk the former for the sake of the latter. I don't believe that he did but I could understand if someone believed that he took an unnecessary risk. I think there is also an argument that says that to give up ones values if to forsake the need for protection as what's left isn't worth protecting.

Floegipoky 11y ago
>> I think there is an argument that Snowden's actions could have put at risk the former for the sake of the latter This is actually addressed in the article: "CIA, NSA and DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) Directors all have been brought on the floor of the congress and they have been asked by my strongest critics, begged for any evidence, that any national security interest has been harmed, that any individual has come to harm. And not in any single case have they shown concrete evidence that this occurred."
- caskance 11y ago
  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps it is simply that they, unlike Snowden, don't blase-ly reveal classified information.
  - vkou 11y ago
    Perhaps the Snowden leaks prevented Sauron from reclaiming the One Ring. There's no evidence for that theory, either. So, all we have to go on is "Trust us! And don't verify!" - from people who lie through their teeth at congressional hearings.
    - caskance 11y ago
      Indeed. An unfortunate dilemma of espionage.
andreyf 11y ago
I think both framings of Snowden are accurate given a subset of the facts. What will make it into history books is still up in the air, and reality is more complicated than either lens. Or perhaps future history books will capture the nuance of reality. That would be nice. In the case of mass phone call metadata collection, it seems to have been well established that what the NSA was doing at the time was unconstitutional and is now changing. The mass metadata collection didn't stop, though, it's just run by telecoms instead of the feds. Has revealing it served the national interest? It doesn't obvious to me. As for the rest of his leaks, there is more public disagreement. Apparently the NSA's IA mission took second place to the offensive after 9/11. That seems to be a terrible long-term strategy, especially given the calculus of state sponsored hacking, and if Snowden's leaks expedited the reversal of that change, that's definitely a good thing.

Floegipoky 11y ago

>> I think there is an argument that Snowden's actions could have put at risk the former for the sake of the latter This is actually addressed in the article: "CIA, NSA and DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) Directors all have been brought on the floor of the congress and they have been asked by my strongest critics, begged for any evidence, that any national security interest has been harmed, that any individual has come to harm. And not in any single case have they shown concrete evidence that this occurred."

caskance 11y ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps it is simply that they, unlike Snowden, don't blase-ly reveal classified information.
- vkou 11y ago
  Perhaps the Snowden leaks prevented Sauron from reclaiming the One Ring. There's no evidence for that theory, either. So, all we have to go on is "Trust us! And don't verify!" - from people who lie through their teeth at congressional hearings.
  - caskance 11y ago
    Indeed. An unfortunate dilemma of espionage.

andreyf 11y ago

I think both framings of Snowden are accurate given a subset of the facts. What will make it into history books is still up in the air, and reality is more complicated than either lens. Or perhaps future history books will capture the nuance of reality. That would be nice. In the case of mass phone call metadata collection, it seems to have been well established that what the NSA was doing at the time was unconstitutional and is now changing. The mass metadata collection didn't stop, though, it's just run by telecoms instead of the feds. Has revealing it served the national interest? It doesn't obvious to me. As for the rest of his leaks, there is more public disagreement. Apparently the NSA's IA mission took second place to the offensive after 9/11. That seems to be a terrible long-term strategy, especially given the calculus of state sponsored hacking, and if Snowden's leaks expedited the reversal of that change, that's definitely a good thing.