4 ms·

Yes. There is a contingent that says Snowden overshared information and that is treasonous. Those people no problem in the oversharing Showed exposed,of course.

by tamana 10y ago

Yes. There is a contingent that says Snowden overshared information and that is treasonous. Those people no problem in the oversharing Showed exposed,of course. A substantial grouonornproehxt people, on and off HN, are deeply authoritarian and believe that The State is the only legitimate arbiter of right and wrong.

rayiner 10y ago
I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of the majority view. 64% of Americans familiar with Snowden have a negative view of him: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowden-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowde.... The people are entitled to trust the government and condemn those who leak state secrets. You or I might think that's short-sighted, but the whole point of democracy is to give people the power to make these value judgments. America wasn't set up for a class of self-appointed civil libertarian guardians to tell people what their priorities should be.
- MajesticHobo 10y ago
  A valid point of view, but the US is technically a constitutional republic, not a true democracy. Certain values and principles are written into our DNA via the Constitution, and I contest your assertion that they can simply be voted away by the majority.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Technically the US is a form of democracy. It is a type of representative, or indirect, democracy. It is not direct democracy, which is also called a pure democracy, with the best known example being James Madison in Federalist 10. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy for a list of some of the types of democracy. It does not list a "true democracy". I suspect that you meant to use "pure" instead of "true" in your comment.
    - MajesticHobo 10y ago
      Yes, that is what I meant. That's what I get for being a pedant.
- jazzyk 10y ago
  But most people who are "familiar" with him don't really know the details - for example, many think he planned the escape to Russia.
- kiba 10y ago
  Liberalism and democracy are not automatic bedfellow, but somehow people think it is.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > The people are entitled to trust the government and condemn those who leak state secrets. You or I might think that's short-sighted, but the whole point of democracy is to give people the power to make these value judgments. Isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If the government is allowed to lie to the people and keep secrets from them without oversight then the people have no way to make an informed decision, and will consequently be more inclined to make a decision favoring the government. It's all too easy to win a public debate when everyone with the information required to refute your position is prohibited by law from disclosing it.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The decision is not about individual programs. It's a much higher-level one. What do we fear more: the potential for leaks to undermine security, or the possibility of government surveillance abuses that go uncaught and unpunished? That's a decision people can make without knowing the specifics of what kind of surveillance the government is doing.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > That's a decision people can make without knowing the specifics of what kind of surveillance the government is doing. I don't think it is. To make that decision you have to know the cost of secret abuses. And how are you supposed to know that if they're secret? To make the reductio ad absurdum, suppose the government's line is that a plague that becomes contagious before it becomes symptomatic is ravaging the population and everyone is being tested and the people infected are immediately taken to quarantine where they uniformly die of the plague, but in reality what's happening is that genocidal fanatics in the government are doing genetic testing and sending people to death camps. There is no amount of undermining security that can overcome that amount of harm. But if people are assuming that the harm is dramatically less than that and are not allowed to be corrected then they can't be expected to make the right decision.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        People are entitled to trust the government not to do that, and also to presume that the really gross abuses will be hard to keep secret.

by tamana 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of the majority view. 64% of Americans familiar with Snowden have a negative view of him: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowden-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowde.... The people are entitled to trust the government and condemn those who leak state secrets. You or I might think that's short-sighted, but the whole point of democracy is to give people the power to make these value judgments. America wasn't set up for a class of self-appointed civil libertarian guardians to tell people what their priorities should be.

MajesticHobo 10y ago
A valid point of view, but the US is technically a constitutional republic, not a true democracy. Certain values and principles are written into our DNA via the Constitution, and I contest your assertion that they can simply be voted away by the majority.
- dalke 10y ago
  Technically the US is a form of democracy. It is a type of representative, or indirect, democracy. It is not direct democracy, which is also called a pure democracy, with the best known example being James Madison in Federalist 10. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy for a list of some of the types of democracy. It does not list a "true democracy". I suspect that you meant to use "pure" instead of "true" in your comment.
  - MajesticHobo 10y ago
    Yes, that is what I meant. That's what I get for being a pedant.
jazzyk 10y ago
But most people who are "familiar" with him don't really know the details - for example, many think he planned the escape to Russia.
kiba 10y ago
Liberalism and democracy are not automatic bedfellow, but somehow people think it is.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> The people are entitled to trust the government and condemn those who leak state secrets. You or I might think that's short-sighted, but the whole point of democracy is to give people the power to make these value judgments. Isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If the government is allowed to lie to the people and keep secrets from them without oversight then the people have no way to make an informed decision, and will consequently be more inclined to make a decision favoring the government. It's all too easy to win a public debate when everyone with the information required to refute your position is prohibited by law from disclosing it.
- rayiner 10y ago
  The decision is not about individual programs. It's a much higher-level one. What do we fear more: the potential for leaks to undermine security, or the possibility of government surveillance abuses that go uncaught and unpunished? That's a decision people can make without knowing the specifics of what kind of surveillance the government is doing.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > That's a decision people can make without knowing the specifics of what kind of surveillance the government is doing. I don't think it is. To make that decision you have to know the cost of secret abuses. And how are you supposed to know that if they're secret? To make the reductio ad absurdum, suppose the government's line is that a plague that becomes contagious before it becomes symptomatic is ravaging the population and everyone is being tested and the people infected are immediately taken to quarantine where they uniformly die of the plague, but in reality what's happening is that genocidal fanatics in the government are doing genetic testing and sending people to death camps. There is no amount of undermining security that can overcome that amount of harm. But if people are assuming that the harm is dramatically less than that and are not allowed to be corrected then they can't be expected to make the right decision.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      People are entitled to trust the government not to do that, and also to presume that the really gross abuses will be hard to keep secret.