5 ms·

I'm still genuinely curious about what the intelligence community thinks of him, if it's bad, what are the arguments against him. I've heard Mike Baker on the J

by jokoon 10y ago

I'm still genuinely curious about what the intelligence community thinks of him, if it's bad, what are the arguments against him. I've heard Mike Baker on the Joe Rogan experience say that he did not trust Snowden one bit. In the intelligence world, it's common to be very cautions about leaks since foreign actors like Russia can really benefit politically from such scandal. It can be difficult to really know all the details since it's covered in secrecy, and Snowden himself will knowingly avoid to say too much to reduce the damage. In my view, digital surveillance is a complex issue because people don't really understand how it's done, the west is still waging a war against terror to avoid attacks in land, and agencies will often want to screw the due process to catch terrorists however they can.

strictnein 10y ago
Well his colleagues who lost their jobs because they trusted him probably aren't fans of his.
kpwagner 10y ago
My conservative friends, not in the intelligence community, really don't like him. They try to be civil, but I can almost hear them hiss when I mention "Snowden". It's odd to me. They don't mind digital surveillance at all. They think it's good if it makes everyone safer. Throwing in my two cents, what interests me on the Snowden topic, is his character. While I'm glad Snowden took the initiative and risk, I don't believe he did it for altruistic reasons: sacrificing himself for the greater good. My opinion is based on seeing and hearing Edward Snowden talk in the documentary "Citizen 4" and other interviews. Many people say, "Look at what he did. He gave up his life in America. He sacrificed everything for no financial reward. He's a hero." It's true he took a big risk; he could still spend a lot of his life in prison. But he has gained huge from this risk. He is famous and respected by many; they're making a fucking movie about him. It reminds me of the line at the end of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford": "You know what I expected [after I killed Jesse James]? Applause."
- colemickens 10y ago
  I really wish I could understand the people that are: 1. "patriotic" but don't respect those who stand up for ideals in the Constitution 2. "anti-government" or "anti-authority" but don't respect those who stand up to challenge the blind power grabs by the government and say things like "fix it from within" (when they would never, ever say the same thing about the IRS, for example) 3. "libertarian" but again, don't actually seem to care about liberties other than the Second Amendmend and finding ways to defund public services so they can pay less taxes. Just seems like a lot of cognitive dissonance at play among the libertarians who don't support Snowden.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Was GP talking about libertarians? I only saw mention of conservatives. Granted, there are people who blur the line, and libertarianism isn't as coherent a political philosophy as e.g. anarchism, but there are lots of libertarians who care much more about e.g. police excess or censorship than about gun rights or taxes. It is a disservice to rational conversation to conflate different concepts in this way.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > 1. "patriotic" but don't respect those who stand up for ideals in the Constitution Perhaps we think that we are standing up for those ideals? Perhaps we believe that the Constitution actually does set up a government and grant it certain powers, and that it's perfectly constitutional for that government to use those powers? > 2. "anti-government" or "anti-authority" but don't respect those who stand up to challenge the blind power grabs by the government and say things like "fix it from within" (when they would never, ever say the same thing about the IRS, for example) Because national security is an issue. You simply don't reveal your military strengths and weaknesses to potential adversaries; that's like going into a dodgy bar and announcing, 'BTW, in case of a fight, I have a bruised right rib.' > 3. "libertarian" but again, don't actually seem to care about liberties other than the Second Amendmend and finding ways to defund public services so they can pay less taxes. I care deeply about my liberties. I just don't believe that anything Snowden alleges constitutes an infringement upon those liberties.
j2kun 10y ago
Though I won't name any names, I have heard a big reason is that he was indiscriminate about what he leaked.
- mintplant 10y ago
  Are you sure you're not thinking of Assange or Manning? Snowden and his team have been much more careful and restrained with what they release than, say, WikiLeaks.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - slg 10y ago
    >Snowden and his team have been much more careful and restrained with what they release than, say, WikiLeaks Maybe at the very start, but that eventually changed. For example, I'm not sure how you can justify leaking 9 years of NSA internal newsletters as whistleblowing. [1] [1] - https://theintercept.com/snowden-sidtoday/ https://theintercept.com/snowden-sidtoday/
aidenn0 10y ago
From what I've gathered, the intelligence community thinks bad things about him; their view is "fix it from the inside." Public leaks can be incredibly damaging to our operational advantages against various adversaries, and it's often non-obvious which data will be most helpful to them. The main reason I stand behind him is the matter of the director of the NSA lying to congress under oath. We don't even have the illusion of a democracy if we can't have effective congressional oversight of intelligence agencies with as broad a reach as the NSA.
- e12e 10y ago
  That's certainly not William Binney's view, but then, as a leaker himself, I suppose he's no longer part of the "intelligence community" as he reached similar conclusions as Snowden did.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > The main reason I stand behind him is the matter of the director of the NSA lying to congress under oath. Did he? Everything I've read is that he used true words, but didn't explain what those true words actually meant.
  - hobs 10y ago
    That is called lying through omission.
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    He was asked if the NSA had records on millions of US citizens and his answer was "No sir. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly." His first explanation for this answer post Snowden was that the program was too secret to reveal publicly, so he had to give the "least untruthful answer" that wouldn't reveal the existence of the program. Later his lawyer said that he had forgotten about the program in question. Either way he did not use true words, but he may have merely forgotten rather than lied.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    He made up meaning sharply at odds with any common use of the words, and then didn't explain them. Outside of political fantasy, that is not called "using true words" - it's called lying. "No, honey, I technically told you the truth when I said I didn't have sex with her, because my buddies and I had secretly decided that 'sex' means gardening."

by jokoon 10y ago

strictnein 10y ago

Well his colleagues who lost their jobs because they trusted him probably aren't fans of his.

kpwagner 10y ago

My conservative friends, not in the intelligence community, really don't like him. They try to be civil, but I can almost hear them hiss when I mention "Snowden". It's odd to me. They don't mind digital surveillance at all. They think it's good if it makes everyone safer. Throwing in my two cents, what interests me on the Snowden topic, is his character. While I'm glad Snowden took the initiative and risk, I don't believe he did it for altruistic reasons: sacrificing himself for the greater good. My opinion is based on seeing and hearing Edward Snowden talk in the documentary "Citizen 4" and other interviews. Many people say, "Look at what he did. He gave up his life in America. He sacrificed everything for no financial reward. He's a hero." It's true he took a big risk; he could still spend a lot of his life in prison. But he has gained huge from this risk. He is famous and respected by many; they're making a fucking movie about him. It reminds me of the line at the end of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford": "You know what I expected [after I killed Jesse James]? Applause."

colemickens 10y ago
I really wish I could understand the people that are: 1. "patriotic" but don't respect those who stand up for ideals in the Constitution 2. "anti-government" or "anti-authority" but don't respect those who stand up to challenge the blind power grabs by the government and say things like "fix it from within" (when they would never, ever say the same thing about the IRS, for example) 3. "libertarian" but again, don't actually seem to care about liberties other than the Second Amendmend and finding ways to defund public services so they can pay less taxes. Just seems like a lot of cognitive dissonance at play among the libertarians who don't support Snowden.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Was GP talking about libertarians? I only saw mention of conservatives. Granted, there are people who blur the line, and libertarianism isn't as coherent a political philosophy as e.g. anarchism, but there are lots of libertarians who care much more about e.g. police excess or censorship than about gun rights or taxes. It is a disservice to rational conversation to conflate different concepts in this way.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > 1. "patriotic" but don't respect those who stand up for ideals in the Constitution Perhaps we think that we are standing up for those ideals? Perhaps we believe that the Constitution actually does set up a government and grant it certain powers, and that it's perfectly constitutional for that government to use those powers? > 2. "anti-government" or "anti-authority" but don't respect those who stand up to challenge the blind power grabs by the government and say things like "fix it from within" (when they would never, ever say the same thing about the IRS, for example) Because national security is an issue. You simply don't reveal your military strengths and weaknesses to potential adversaries; that's like going into a dodgy bar and announcing, 'BTW, in case of a fight, I have a bruised right rib.' > 3. "libertarian" but again, don't actually seem to care about liberties other than the Second Amendmend and finding ways to defund public services so they can pay less taxes. I care deeply about my liberties. I just don't believe that anything Snowden alleges constitutes an infringement upon those liberties.

j2kun 10y ago

Though I won't name any names, I have heard a big reason is that he was indiscriminate about what he leaked.

mintplant 10y ago
Are you sure you're not thinking of Assange or Manning? Snowden and his team have been much more careful and restrained with what they release than, say, WikiLeaks.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- slg 10y ago
  >Snowden and his team have been much more careful and restrained with what they release than, say, WikiLeaks Maybe at the very start, but that eventually changed. For example, I'm not sure how you can justify leaking 9 years of NSA internal newsletters as whistleblowing. [1] [1] - https://theintercept.com/snowden-sidtoday/ https://theintercept.com/snowden-sidtoday/

aidenn0 10y ago

From what I've gathered, the intelligence community thinks bad things about him; their view is "fix it from the inside." Public leaks can be incredibly damaging to our operational advantages against various adversaries, and it's often non-obvious which data will be most helpful to them. The main reason I stand behind him is the matter of the director of the NSA lying to congress under oath. We don't even have the illusion of a democracy if we can't have effective congressional oversight of intelligence agencies with as broad a reach as the NSA.

e12e 10y ago
That's certainly not William Binney's view, but then, as a leaker himself, I suppose he's no longer part of the "intelligence community" as he reached similar conclusions as Snowden did.
zeveb 10y ago
> The main reason I stand behind him is the matter of the director of the NSA lying to congress under oath. Did he? Everything I've read is that he used true words, but didn't explain what those true words actually meant.
- hobs 10y ago
  That is called lying through omission.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  He was asked if the NSA had records on millions of US citizens and his answer was "No sir. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly." His first explanation for this answer post Snowden was that the program was too secret to reveal publicly, so he had to give the "least untruthful answer" that wouldn't reveal the existence of the program. Later his lawyer said that he had forgotten about the program in question. Either way he did not use true words, but he may have merely forgotten rather than lied.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  He made up meaning sharply at odds with any common use of the words, and then didn't explain them. Outside of political fantasy, that is not called "using true words" - it's called lying. "No, honey, I technically told you the truth when I said I didn't have sex with her, because my buddies and I had secretly decided that 'sex' means gardening."