4 ms·

> What's most maddening to me is the narrative [...] that Snowden has through bravery somehow transcended accountability I don't know where you're getting that

> What's most maddening to me is the narrative [...] that Snowden has through bravery somehow transcended accountability I don't know where you're getting that. It's certainly not what Greenwald is saying. He's saying (and I agree) that Snowden acted responsibly by leaving to journalists the decision of what, of all the leaked material, to publish. He didn't just throw the whole pile on Wikileaks. Does that not make a difference to you? Does the Post bear no responsibility whatsoever for the decisions of their own news editors?

tptacek 10y ago
The fact that Snowden didn't do the worst possible thing and just dump everything onto BitTorrent does not for me suggest that Snowden's actions are unimpeachable. But I also have grave problems with the manner in which the Snowden cache was handled. I don't think the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Guardian have the OPSEC chops to protect the data. But more than that, I don't think The Washington Post, Glenn Greenwald, The New York Times, and The Guardian can generate the right set of expertise to evaluate all these documents. I wonder, for instance, how much sooner we'd have discovered the Juniper backdoor --- possibly the most catastrophic backdoor in the history of the Internet --- if a larger collection of experts was somehow allowed to review the cache. The whole thing, to me, seems like a giant clusterfuck animated more by egos and clique dynamics than by a coherent public policy goal. So I have no trouble understanding people who put forward arguments that, despite his bravery, Snowden should be accountable for the totality of his actions, and not just the ones that produced outcomes we're all pleased with.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > I have no trouble understanding people who put forward arguments that, despite his bravery, Snowden should be accountable for the totality of his actions, and not just the ones that produced outcomes we're all pleased with. I have no problem with that either, as long as we don't forget the accountability of the other people involved. That would include those who initiated and furthered the unconstitutional NSA programs; those who kept them hidden even from Congress; those to whom Snowden gave the documents; and, to some extent, all the rest of us looking on, at whatever distance, and commenting (or not). > The whole thing, to me, seems like a giant clusterfuck animated more by egos and clique dynamics than by a coherent public policy goal. Any more than, say, the American Revolution? I suspect the creation of history is always a bit messy when it involves human beings.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. This is logic that is deployed constantly on HN --- most commonly in the form of "none of the banksters went to prison so why are we prosecuting XXX" --- and it's just not valid. No state works that way. I would be really happy to see NSA employees charged for (provable) abuse of laws governing their operations. I totally believe that a lot of what NSA has done has been abusive. I mean that in the sense of: I would feel better about our country if that happened. But the fact that it hasn't happened or even that it won't happen doesn't change my feelings about whether Snowden should be accountable for his actions.
    - lolc 10y ago
      What would be a reasonable punishment for him, by your standards? And what would be a reasonable punishment for the Post staff, by your standards?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Based solely on what I personally know, which is terribly incomplete, I wouldn't be alarmed by a felony conviction but no custodial sentence.
        throwawaymaroon 10y ago
        When you spend as much time talking about felony convictions for those that Snowden unmasked instead of hemming and hawwing as you have all over this topic, I'll feel a lot less comfortable calling you a snivelling pro-establishment equivocator.
    - ScottBurson 10y ago
      > It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. That's true, but it's not a license to scapegoat one person and let everyone else off scot-free. A legitimate attempt must be made to bring the other involved people to justice. You know as well as I do that no one besides Snowden will ever be prosecuted in this connection. Everybody already knows that James Clapper perjured himself before Congress, and he hasn't even been fired.
- feklar 10y ago
  They briefly allowed some industry people to look at a few of the documents, like Bruce Schneier who said he wished he could have had more time instead of being placed in front of a live OS with a few dozen pdfs the Guardian wanted him to review. As for OPSEC there was the time the Guardian leaked the password to the first Wikileaks large Manning dump (the Assange hotel napkin PGP password incident), then they actually wrote Op-Ed attack pieces on Assange for "releasing unredacted classified information".
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The fact that it was people like Bruce Schneier who got access to the document, and not, say, Bruce Leidl, is a big part of my problem with the process used to evaluate the documents.
    - blackguardx 10y ago
      What is wrong with Bruce Schneier?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Nothing is wrong with Bruce Schneier.
        throwawaymaroon 10y ago
        You know what he is asking, answer the question or don't. >>The fact that it was people like Bruce Schneier who got access to the documents [...] is a big part of my problem with the process... Clarify.
      - ENOTTY 10y ago
        Schneier is a well-regarded expert on cryptography, but outside of that domain, he appears to have very little relevant experience.
        10y ago
- qrendel 10y ago
  > I wonder, for instance, how much sooner we'd have discovered the Juniper backdoor --- possibly the most catastrophic backdoor in the history of the Internet --- if a larger collection of experts was somehow allowed to review the cache. So you're claiming that he should be prosecuted and convicted for the leaks, but simultaneously that he should have allowed more people to have access to the leaks? This position doesn't seem very consistent.

tptacek 10y ago

The fact that Snowden didn't do the worst possible thing and just dump everything onto BitTorrent does not for me suggest that Snowden's actions are unimpeachable. But I also have grave problems with the manner in which the Snowden cache was handled. I don't think the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Guardian have the OPSEC chops to protect the data. But more than that, I don't think The Washington Post, Glenn Greenwald, The New York Times, and The Guardian can generate the right set of expertise to evaluate all these documents. I wonder, for instance, how much sooner we'd have discovered the Juniper backdoor --- possibly the most catastrophic backdoor in the history of the Internet --- if a larger collection of experts was somehow allowed to review the cache. The whole thing, to me, seems like a giant clusterfuck animated more by egos and clique dynamics than by a coherent public policy goal. So I have no trouble understanding people who put forward arguments that, despite his bravery, Snowden should be accountable for the totality of his actions, and not just the ones that produced outcomes we're all pleased with.

ScottBurson 10y ago
> I have no trouble understanding people who put forward arguments that, despite his bravery, Snowden should be accountable for the totality of his actions, and not just the ones that produced outcomes we're all pleased with. I have no problem with that either, as long as we don't forget the accountability of the other people involved. That would include those who initiated and furthered the unconstitutional NSA programs; those who kept them hidden even from Congress; those to whom Snowden gave the documents; and, to some extent, all the rest of us looking on, at whatever distance, and commenting (or not). > The whole thing, to me, seems like a giant clusterfuck animated more by egos and clique dynamics than by a coherent public policy goal. Any more than, say, the American Revolution? I suspect the creation of history is always a bit messy when it involves human beings.
- tptacek 10y ago
  It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. This is logic that is deployed constantly on HN --- most commonly in the form of "none of the banksters went to prison so why are we prosecuting XXX" --- and it's just not valid. No state works that way. I would be really happy to see NSA employees charged for (provable) abuse of laws governing their operations. I totally believe that a lot of what NSA has done has been abusive. I mean that in the sense of: I would feel better about our country if that happened. But the fact that it hasn't happened or even that it won't happen doesn't change my feelings about whether Snowden should be accountable for his actions.
  - lolc 10y ago
    What would be a reasonable punishment for him, by your standards? And what would be a reasonable punishment for the Post staff, by your standards?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Based solely on what I personally know, which is terribly incomplete, I wouldn't be alarmed by a felony conviction but no custodial sentence.
      - throwawaymaroon 10y ago
        When you spend as much time talking about felony convictions for those that Snowden unmasked instead of hemming and hawwing as you have all over this topic, I'll feel a lot less comfortable calling you a snivelling pro-establishment equivocator.
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    > It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. That's true, but it's not a license to scapegoat one person and let everyone else off scot-free. A legitimate attempt must be made to bring the other involved people to justice. You know as well as I do that no one besides Snowden will ever be prosecuted in this connection. Everybody already knows that James Clapper perjured himself before Congress, and he hasn't even been fired.
feklar 10y ago
They briefly allowed some industry people to look at a few of the documents, like Bruce Schneier who said he wished he could have had more time instead of being placed in front of a live OS with a few dozen pdfs the Guardian wanted him to review. As for OPSEC there was the time the Guardian leaked the password to the first Wikileaks large Manning dump (the Assange hotel napkin PGP password incident), then they actually wrote Op-Ed attack pieces on Assange for "releasing unredacted classified information".
- tptacek 10y ago
  The fact that it was people like Bruce Schneier who got access to the document, and not, say, Bruce Leidl, is a big part of my problem with the process used to evaluate the documents.
  - blackguardx 10y ago
    What is wrong with Bruce Schneier?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Nothing is wrong with Bruce Schneier.
      - throwawaymaroon 10y ago
        You know what he is asking, answer the question or don't. >>The fact that it was people like Bruce Schneier who got access to the documents [...] is a big part of my problem with the process... Clarify.
    - ENOTTY 10y ago
      Schneier is a well-regarded expert on cryptography, but outside of that domain, he appears to have very little relevant experience.
      - 10y ago
qrendel 10y ago
> I wonder, for instance, how much sooner we'd have discovered the Juniper backdoor --- possibly the most catastrophic backdoor in the history of the Internet --- if a larger collection of experts was somehow allowed to review the cache. So you're claiming that he should be prosecuted and convicted for the leaks, but simultaneously that he should have allowed more people to have access to the leaks? This position doesn't seem very consistent.