4 ms·

I'm not exactly clear on why one is great and noble but the other is not. There's some undercurrent that I would paraphrase as 'limiting the harm' of the

by basseq 10y ago

I'm not exactly clear on why one is great and noble but the other is not. There's some undercurrent that I would paraphrase as 'limiting the harm' of the leaks by being selective. That Snowden and Ellsberg leaked different "types" of data (and to different audiences) is more a commentary on technology and the times than any inherent nobility. Gladwell makes the difference quite clear: where Ellsberg "studied under a Nobel Prize winner, gave career advice to Henry Kissinger", and was a "handsome and charismatic" Marine Corps commander, Snowden was a dropout, a washout, and a technician. Not an "élite" [accent sic]. In other words, it's all about who did the leaking, rather than what they leaked. Where Ellsberg is compared to a graduate student, Snowden is the destructive hacker. Snowden is "lesser" for his seeming assault on the ivory towers occupied by the likes of Ellsberg. Secondarily, Ellsberg's leaks documented past failings, not current ones. In that way, perhaps Ellsberg did "less harm", as it was all tinted by the rose glasses of history. Kissenger/Nixon are described as being "delighted" by Ellsberg's leaks, as they highlighted the mistakes of the previous administration. Ellsberg did also hold back some data he felt was "sensitive", so he gets credit for that, where Snowden does not. (And is described as a "flooder".)

tanderson92 10y ago
To your point about elitism as the differentiating point between the classes of leaker: consider the paragraph where Gladwell chops Snowden down to size: > But Snowden did not study under a Nobel Prize winner, or give career advice to the likes of Henry Kissinger. He was a community-college dropout, a member of the murky hacking counterculture. He enlisted in the Army Reserves, and washed out after twenty weeks. He worked at the C.I.A. for a few years and left under a cloud. He learned about the innermost secrets of American intelligence-gathering and policy not because he was personally involved with that intelligence-gathering or policymaking but because he was a technician who helped service the computer systems that managed these things. Gladwell is intentionally deceptive when he refers to Snowden "washing out" of the Reserves. In fact he was discharged after breaking both legs in a training accident. You can debate whether that technically qualifies as washing out or not, but it's quite another to lump that in with the rest of the paragraph and let the reader fill in their own opinions of the events. But perhaps that's the entire point, and part of the reason Gladwell was chosen for this piece. Eliding certain facts can leave the reader with a distinctly non-factual impression of the man. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-army-discharge-092486 http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-army-di...
- linkregister 10y ago
  The article you linked just quotes Snowden about the reason for discharge; there is no actual verification for the claim. The U.S. Army has declined to comment, claiming it violates privacy statutes to release Snowden's medical records. The reason for his discharge isn't publicly known with high certainty. The only public source is Snowden's statement. (Some background; the 18X, Special Forces option, allows a recruit to be contractually guaranteed a Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) slot. Beforehand, he attends a 14-week combined boot camp/infantry training, and then a 4-week course to prepare him for SFAS. Someone being discharged at the 5-month mark would have, given the fastest training schedule possible, been in SFAS at time of discharge.)
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Do we have any particular reason to doubt him on that one? It should be hard to hide something like double broken legs from parachute training from the others who served with him and his family, friends, and colleagues would surely notice whether or not something big like that ever happened to him. This doesn't seem like such a difficult thing to fact check if one is willing to do the legwork of talking to known associates from that time.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Not to mention it's such a trivial thing to lie about when you know that your credibility is on the line. You can bet that the NSA checked on this and would have discredited him if he lied at all about his story. Heck, they had to even lie about some of his history to try to discredit him.
      - Natsu 10y ago
        Yes, exactly. A few people to say "I served with him, this [happened/never happened]." That's also a really severe injury, don't they have to report things like that to someone? They probably can't comment on his medical privacy, but I have to wonder if there aren't safety records of some kind from OSHA or whoever?

by basseq 10y ago

tanderson92 10y ago

To your point about elitism as the differentiating point between the classes of leaker: consider the paragraph where Gladwell chops Snowden down to size: > But Snowden did not study under a Nobel Prize winner, or give career advice to the likes of Henry Kissinger. He was a community-college dropout, a member of the murky hacking counterculture. He enlisted in the Army Reserves, and washed out after twenty weeks. He worked at the C.I.A. for a few years and left under a cloud. He learned about the innermost secrets of American intelligence-gathering and policy not because he was personally involved with that intelligence-gathering or policymaking but because he was a technician who helped service the computer systems that managed these things. Gladwell is intentionally deceptive when he refers to Snowden "washing out" of the Reserves. In fact he was discharged after breaking both legs in a training accident. You can debate whether that technically qualifies as washing out or not, but it's quite another to lump that in with the rest of the paragraph and let the reader fill in their own opinions of the events. But perhaps that's the entire point, and part of the reason Gladwell was chosen for this piece. Eliding certain facts can leave the reader with a distinctly non-factual impression of the man. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-army-discharge-092486 http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-army-di...

linkregister 10y ago
The article you linked just quotes Snowden about the reason for discharge; there is no actual verification for the claim. The U.S. Army has declined to comment, claiming it violates privacy statutes to release Snowden's medical records. The reason for his discharge isn't publicly known with high certainty. The only public source is Snowden's statement. (Some background; the 18X, Special Forces option, allows a recruit to be contractually guaranteed a Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) slot. Beforehand, he attends a 14-week combined boot camp/infantry training, and then a 4-week course to prepare him for SFAS. Someone being discharged at the 5-month mark would have, given the fastest training schedule possible, been in SFAS at time of discharge.)
- Natsu 10y ago
  Do we have any particular reason to doubt him on that one? It should be hard to hide something like double broken legs from parachute training from the others who served with him and his family, friends, and colleagues would surely notice whether or not something big like that ever happened to him. This doesn't seem like such a difficult thing to fact check if one is willing to do the legwork of talking to known associates from that time.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Not to mention it's such a trivial thing to lie about when you know that your credibility is on the line. You can bet that the NSA checked on this and would have discredited him if he lied at all about his story. Heck, they had to even lie about some of his history to try to discredit him.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      Yes, exactly. A few people to say "I served with him, this [happened/never happened]." That's also a really severe injury, don't they have to report things like that to someone? They probably can't comment on his medical privacy, but I have to wonder if there aren't safety records of some kind from OSHA or whoever?