9 ms·

An opposing view: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/09/what_snowden_gets_wrong_about_its_hero.html http://www.slate.com/articles/

by zeveb 10y ago

An opposing view: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/09/what_snowden_gets_wrong_about_its_hero.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... And the unanimous, bipartisan report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=692 http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docum...

tvon 10y ago
I honestly do not know who to believe, but a counter to the report: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
- tptacek 10y ago
  I hadn't read this and generally admire Gellman. Thanks for the link. We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them: * The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. * The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable. * The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority. * The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree. * The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman. * The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive. * The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply. * The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever. * Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit. It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist. Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments. I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!
  - kenko 10y ago
    "but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport" But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Yes, this is true, but if that's what's happening, the Russians are holding him hostage. You can simplify this whole point to: Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
      - ScottBurson 10y ago
        > if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador I think this is very naïve. The US wanted him very badly, and we can throw our weight around pretty well. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
        tptacek 10y ago
        Could you better explain what you're trying to say here? How is it that the US can prevent Snowden from boarding a plane in Moscow?
        tedunangst 10y ago
        They use the HAARP installation to control the weather and cause a catastrophic lightning strike on his plane. That's why he can't go outside.
        10y ago
dgnnmdhn 10y ago
Oh wow, bipartisan? You mean both authoritarian business parties approved it? Surely this level of cooperation is unprecedented!
frandroid 10y ago
When it comes to matters of American National Security, there is very little daylight between Democratic and Republican positions, so calling a report bipartisan is not something that indicates that its contents were carefully debated, but rather that debate on these issues is nearly absent. GIGO.
probably_wrong 10y ago
I think the first article falls for the easiest of traps: it's a movie, not a documentary. Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position. Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of it.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  Mitch Hedberg: I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  "Fact checking" a movie to derive its "artistic worth" is indeed pointless. That said though if a movie paints a certain picture while bending or omitting some facts which contradict the said picture then I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the discrepancies. Claiming moral high ground comes with scrutiny. If for example he had indeed stolen the test questions to pass the test that paints a slightly different picture of the character he and his supporters are trying to sell.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Aside from the fact that the report makes no mention of the crimes Snowden exposed (as if the American public were too dumb to notice, or care) -- would you care to comment on any of the apparently quite egregiously misleading assertions it makes? Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. You mean these statements? 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did.' They go to Snowden's credibility (or complete lack thereof). Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. For now, I see someone who claimed to have mono, who claimed to have epilepsy, who claimed to have washed out of basic training due to broken legs (leaving 'on crutches,' which may be technically true but misleading), who claimed to have all sorts of evidence of illegal actions, not one of whose claims of illegal actions has been borne out, yet who also claims to have released evidence of legal activity to adversary state. His trustworthiness rating looks incredibly low.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. There's no reason to believe they'd be hiding the "goods" on these accusations in the classified report. The only reason they aren't providing any more detail is because... they don't have any. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; Where? Quotes, please. BTW if you've ever had any kind of a bone fracture -- in that part of the body, it does make you a "temporary cripple". Presumably the Army agreed, which is why they discharged him. Shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. But he wasn't diagnosed for shin splints (or anything equivalent to it); his actual diagnoses was for something different (and categorically more serious). "Shin splints" are just an invention of the Intelligence Committee. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. The article refers to documents on file with the Maryland State Department of Education, which is the authority I'll trust on this matter. But if you want to believe what the IC report nakedly asserts on the matter (despite not providing a shred of evidence), go ahead -- whatever works for you.
gravypod 10y ago
I'd like to ask something. Is it leaking information if the information is commonly known? It is said in this article that Snowden leaked information that is appropriately done by the NSA as part of their charter. The direct quote: Whatever one’s views of U.S. foreign policy in those parts of the world, these activities are legitimate aspects of the NSA’s charter If this is the case, as in these activities are specified in the NSA's charter, then there can be no harm with talking about them publicly right?

by zeveb 10y ago

tvon 10y ago

I honestly do not know who to believe, but a counter to the report: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...

tptacek 10y ago
I hadn't read this and generally admire Gellman. Thanks for the link. We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them: * The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. * The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable. * The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority. * The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree. * The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman. * The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive. * The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply. * The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever. * Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit. It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist. Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments. I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!
- kenko 10y ago
  "but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport" But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes, this is true, but if that's what's happening, the Russians are holding him hostage. You can simplify this whole point to: Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
    - ScottBurson 10y ago
      > if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador I think this is very naïve. The US wanted him very badly, and we can throw our weight around pretty well. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Could you better explain what you're trying to say here? How is it that the US can prevent Snowden from boarding a plane in Moscow?
        tedunangst 10y ago
        They use the HAARP installation to control the weather and cause a catastrophic lightning strike on his plane. That's why he can't go outside.
        10y ago

dgnnmdhn 10y ago

Oh wow, bipartisan? You mean both authoritarian business parties approved it? Surely this level of cooperation is unprecedented!

frandroid 10y ago

When it comes to matters of American National Security, there is very little daylight between Democratic and Republican positions, so calling a report bipartisan is not something that indicates that its contents were carefully debated, but rather that debate on these issues is nearly absent. GIGO.

probably_wrong 10y ago

I think the first article falls for the easiest of traps: it's a movie, not a documentary. Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position. Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of it.

nsxwolf 10y ago
Mitch Hedberg: I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"
ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
"Fact checking" a movie to derive its "artistic worth" is indeed pointless. That said though if a movie paints a certain picture while bending or omitting some facts which contradict the said picture then I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the discrepancies. Claiming moral high ground comes with scrutiny. If for example he had indeed stolen the test questions to pass the test that paints a slightly different picture of the character he and his supporters are trying to sell.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Aside from the fact that the report makes no mention of the crimes Snowden exposed (as if the American public were too dumb to notice, or care) -- would you care to comment on any of the apparently quite egregiously misleading assertions it makes? Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...

zeveb 10y ago
> Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. You mean these statements? 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did.' They go to Snowden's credibility (or complete lack thereof). Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. For now, I see someone who claimed to have mono, who claimed to have epilepsy, who claimed to have washed out of basic training due to broken legs (leaving 'on crutches,' which may be technically true but misleading), who claimed to have all sorts of evidence of illegal actions, not one of whose claims of illegal actions has been borne out, yet who also claims to have released evidence of legal activity to adversary state. His trustworthiness rating looks incredibly low.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. There's no reason to believe they'd be hiding the "goods" on these accusations in the classified report. The only reason they aren't providing any more detail is because... they don't have any. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; Where? Quotes, please. BTW if you've ever had any kind of a bone fracture -- in that part of the body, it does make you a "temporary cripple". Presumably the Army agreed, which is why they discharged him. Shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. But he wasn't diagnosed for shin splints (or anything equivalent to it); his actual diagnoses was for something different (and categorically more serious). "Shin splints" are just an invention of the Intelligence Committee. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. The article refers to documents on file with the Maryland State Department of Education, which is the authority I'll trust on this matter. But if you want to believe what the IC report nakedly asserts on the matter (despite not providing a shred of evidence), go ahead -- whatever works for you.

gravypod 10y ago

I'd like to ask something. Is it leaking information if the information is commonly known? It is said in this article that Snowden leaked information that is appropriately done by the NSA as part of their charter. The direct quote: Whatever one’s views of U.S. foreign policy in those parts of the world, these activities are legitimate aspects of the NSA’s charter If this is the case, as in these activities are specified in the NSA's charter, then there can be no harm with talking about them publicly right?