5 ms·

To play devil's advocate, is there some truth to this? > Mr. Snowden's claim that he stole this information and disclosed it to protect Americans, privacy and

To play devil's advocate, is there some truth to this? > Mr. Snowden's claim that he stole this information and disclosed it to protect Americans, privacy and civil liberties is undercut by his actions. Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks. The vast majority of the documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests, but instead pertain to military, defense, and intelligence programs of great interest to America's enemies.

microcolonel 10y ago
There is some truth to it; though I think part of Snowden's ability to publish the public-interest information is predicated on his threat to publish the really important stuff. Then again, he could easily just be a foreign operative, we never will know. I, for one, am happy that we have some knowledge of the programs exposed. I do not, however, harbour the illusion that Snowden is definitely altruistic. Though to answer the "why not stay?" question; I don't honestly think that there is any practical way to expose U.S. secrets in the United States. By the time the news reports came out, he had already been targeted in several forcible operations. I also doubt that anything would have been done, considering that they haven't done much about it despite the entire world knowing.
eganist 10y ago
Sure. Tons of revelations on actual clandestine activities (think ops NSA ran against other nation states, not US citizens, and not even US citizens indirectly) were compromised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... That's a mishmash of disclosures including those Snowden claimed to focus on, but there are plenty stemming from the Snowden leaks which had to do with run of the mill intercepts against foreign states and even against allies (because allies spy on allies all the time, let's be honest). Whether "vast majority" is true isn't something I can say because I personally haven't actually read the leaks themselves, but it wouldn't surprise me given that most of the news after the big US revelations were all about NSA activities outside the US against non-US persons. I won't bring my own opinion into this, but given my reply, it's probably fairly easy to discern what I think should(n't) be done here.
- darawk 10y ago
  I'd say the most important part of this statement: > Rather than avail himselfofthe many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms... Is patently false. He did attempt to use those channels and was ignored [1] - at least once as confirmed by the NSA itself, and many other times according to him, which the NSA disputes. [1] - http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/edward-snowdens-motive-revealed-he-can-sleep-night-n116851 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/edwa...
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    I think there's some question of whether sending one email counts as an exhaustive effort.
    - Bud 10y ago
      Just because there's only one email doesn't mean there were not substantial efforts made in other ways. Phones exist. Talking to people in person is a thing.
      - NullCharacter 10y ago
        If you're going to leak 1.5 million documents and flee to China on the grounds of being a whistleblower after following proper channels, wouldn't you want to display some, any sort of proof that you indeed did attempt to follow the proper channels? People claim this dude was a genius, make him out as some sort of tech/hacker savant, so why not make the slightest effort to show the world you really are a whistleblower?
        tptacek 10y ago
        We also have statements from Snowden suggesting that the reason he took the job was to gain access to those documents and them disseminate them to various world governments, which is a goal that would be impeded by whistleblowing through channels.
vinchuco 10y ago
My only concern is that he chose to flee. Staying would have been a very different statement.
- prklmn 10y ago
  Why is that relevant? Is he a whistleblower or not is the question. Whether he gets pardoned from a jail cell or Russia makes no difference. Avoiding a trial isn't the central issue.
- rsanders 10y ago
  I understand that as a feeling, but I can't logically justify it. What reason did he have to trust in the system to treat him fairly? The rightness of the programs he exposed, and our right to know about them, don't depend on whether he decided to martyr himself.
mcv 10y ago
"the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities" don't exist. That's just talk. Previous NSA whistleblowers tried to use them and got nowhere. Thomas Drake had his life destroyed for trying to use these "lawful avenues". All the previous NSA whistleblowers agree that Snowden did the right thing. He did the only thing he could, given the circumstances.
- tptacek 10y ago
  First, Drake's life was hardly "destroyed". He was investigated, charged, and then then allowed to plea out to a misdemeanor. Second, Drake didn't simply escalate his concerns through channels; he also spoke directly to the media. His media contact occurred contemporaneously with the largest NSA leak story to have occurred prior to Snowden, the investigation of which was ordered directly by George Bush.
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    You clearly have made no effort to learn more than brief metadata about what path Drake's life took. You are too quick to be contrarian. Also, I believe I debunked this last time you incorrectly conflated Drake with a completely unrelated leak. Drake did not pass anything classified to the media. He was raided, but never charged with anything other than retaining a document that had an ambiguous classification. His charge was so trivial that if Hillary's email transgressions were pursued with half as much vigor as his, she would be eating through a tube in Guantanamo by comparison. And I say that as someone who does not think the email scandal is more than a dumb but inconsequential mistake. He did not plea bargain. They could not deliver on a single charge out of their trumped up indictment. They were on a witch hunt, had the wrong guy, and found out much later. Edit: I'll just link to my old post last time we discussed this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749938 I wish you'd stop defaming Drake. Sometimes you make what sound like well-researched assertions of fact when you are actually more interested in combating rageviews than getting the story right.
    - tptacek 10y ago

microcolonel 10y ago

There is some truth to it; though I think part of Snowden's ability to publish the public-interest information is predicated on his threat to publish the really important stuff. Then again, he could easily just be a foreign operative, we never will know. I, for one, am happy that we have some knowledge of the programs exposed. I do not, however, harbour the illusion that Snowden is definitely altruistic. Though to answer the "why not stay?" question; I don't honestly think that there is any practical way to expose U.S. secrets in the United States. By the time the news reports came out, he had already been targeted in several forcible operations. I also doubt that anything would have been done, considering that they haven't done much about it despite the entire world knowing.

eganist 10y ago

Sure. Tons of revelations on actual clandestine activities (think ops NSA ran against other nation states, not US citizens, and not even US citizens indirectly) were compromised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... That's a mishmash of disclosures including those Snowden claimed to focus on, but there are plenty stemming from the Snowden leaks which had to do with run of the mill intercepts against foreign states and even against allies (because allies spy on allies all the time, let's be honest). Whether "vast majority" is true isn't something I can say because I personally haven't actually read the leaks themselves, but it wouldn't surprise me given that most of the news after the big US revelations were all about NSA activities outside the US against non-US persons. I won't bring my own opinion into this, but given my reply, it's probably fairly easy to discern what I think should(n't) be done here.

darawk 10y ago
I'd say the most important part of this statement: > Rather than avail himselfofthe many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms... Is patently false. He did attempt to use those channels and was ignored [1] - at least once as confirmed by the NSA itself, and many other times according to him, which the NSA disputes. [1] - http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/edward-snowdens-motive-revealed-he-can-sleep-night-n116851 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/edwa...
- tedunangst 10y ago
  I think there's some question of whether sending one email counts as an exhaustive effort.
  - Bud 10y ago
    Just because there's only one email doesn't mean there were not substantial efforts made in other ways. Phones exist. Talking to people in person is a thing.
    - NullCharacter 10y ago
      If you're going to leak 1.5 million documents and flee to China on the grounds of being a whistleblower after following proper channels, wouldn't you want to display some, any sort of proof that you indeed did attempt to follow the proper channels? People claim this dude was a genius, make him out as some sort of tech/hacker savant, so why not make the slightest effort to show the world you really are a whistleblower?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        We also have statements from Snowden suggesting that the reason he took the job was to gain access to those documents and them disseminate them to various world governments, which is a goal that would be impeded by whistleblowing through channels.

vinchuco 10y ago

My only concern is that he chose to flee. Staying would have been a very different statement.

prklmn 10y ago
Why is that relevant? Is he a whistleblower or not is the question. Whether he gets pardoned from a jail cell or Russia makes no difference. Avoiding a trial isn't the central issue.
rsanders 10y ago
I understand that as a feeling, but I can't logically justify it. What reason did he have to trust in the system to treat him fairly? The rightness of the programs he exposed, and our right to know about them, don't depend on whether he decided to martyr himself.

mcv 10y ago

"the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities" don't exist. That's just talk. Previous NSA whistleblowers tried to use them and got nowhere. Thomas Drake had his life destroyed for trying to use these "lawful avenues". All the previous NSA whistleblowers agree that Snowden did the right thing. He did the only thing he could, given the circumstances.

tptacek 10y ago
First, Drake's life was hardly "destroyed". He was investigated, charged, and then then allowed to plea out to a misdemeanor. Second, Drake didn't simply escalate his concerns through channels; he also spoke directly to the media. His media contact occurred contemporaneously with the largest NSA leak story to have occurred prior to Snowden, the investigation of which was ordered directly by George Bush.
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  You clearly have made no effort to learn more than brief metadata about what path Drake's life took. You are too quick to be contrarian. Also, I believe I debunked this last time you incorrectly conflated Drake with a completely unrelated leak. Drake did not pass anything classified to the media. He was raided, but never charged with anything other than retaining a document that had an ambiguous classification. His charge was so trivial that if Hillary's email transgressions were pursued with half as much vigor as his, she would be eating through a tube in Guantanamo by comparison. And I say that as someone who does not think the email scandal is more than a dumb but inconsequential mistake. He did not plea bargain. They could not deliver on a single charge out of their trumped up indictment. They were on a witch hunt, had the wrong guy, and found out much later. Edit: I'll just link to my old post last time we discussed this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749938 I wish you'd stop defaming Drake. Sometimes you make what sound like well-researched assertions of fact when you are actually more interested in combating rageviews than getting the story right.
  - tptacek 10y ago