4 ms·

I think the biggest problem I have with this is more from a realpolitik angle. In theory, it's great that people like Snowden expose the invasive, over-reaching

I think the biggest problem I have with this is more from a realpolitik angle. In theory, it's great that people like Snowden expose the invasive, over-reaching data collection American spy agencies are doing. In practice, you can't disclose a country's national secrets without getting involved in realpolitik. Snowden ended up having to seek protection from the Russians. From my perspective, I have absolutely every reason to believe Russian spy agencies (along with many, many other countries) also engage in invasive data collecting. Which means the protection he needed sort of amounts to a "necessary hypocrisy". This protection also IMHO diminishes Snowden's goals -- politicians can now say he is "on the Russian side" and yell "traitor!", and (as the polls show) a large percentage of people will believe them, and will ignore any argument Snowden is making. Personally, I agree with Snowden's goals, but unfortunately I think he was somewhat naive in his disclosure approach. In a way, I think the Manning / Wikileaks story is playing out the same way -- less regarding Manning, and more how Assange / Wikileaks is increasingly becoming politicized, too.

grandalf 9y ago
> I agree with Snowden's goals, but unfortunately I think he was somewhat naive in his disclosure approach. My understanding is that Snowden intended to flee to South America but was forced to end up in Russia by the Obama administration, likely due to a rapid analysis of the options and the clear PR benefits of the "Russian side" stuff you describe. The information leaked by Snowden revealed a lot of illegal activity being done by the US government as well as a lot of dishonesty about it. It revealed that Obama is at least as far to the right on surveillance as George W. Bush was, and that a system had been built that put all data collection systems used by the most notorious and corrupt regimes of history to shame. That is the story. Focusing on Snowden's personality, his motivations, etc., is a distraction from the newsworthy content that should inspire corrective action (and likely criminal prosecution of many officials) via the democratic process. > You can't disclose a country's national secrets without getting involved in realpolitik I think this is true, but what we're seeing is that when you mess with the US Government you end up with a big-budget PR team driving the public perception of your actions and defaming your character. In a sense, it's realpolitik, but in a sinister, preservation of power at all costs sort of way. The US briefly had an adversarial moment in democracy during the social upheaval of the 1970s, but at present the asymmetry between entrenched power and the average person is larger than ever before. The biggest cultural accomplishments the entrenched interests have achieved are (in my opinion) the idea that a major party can use the hashtag #resist with a straight face, and the utter demolition of the American left and culture of actual dissent.

grandalf 9y ago

> I agree with Snowden's goals, but unfortunately I think he was somewhat naive in his disclosure approach. My understanding is that Snowden intended to flee to South America but was forced to end up in Russia by the Obama administration, likely due to a rapid analysis of the options and the clear PR benefits of the "Russian side" stuff you describe. The information leaked by Snowden revealed a lot of illegal activity being done by the US government as well as a lot of dishonesty about it. It revealed that Obama is at least as far to the right on surveillance as George W. Bush was, and that a system had been built that put all data collection systems used by the most notorious and corrupt regimes of history to shame. That is the story. Focusing on Snowden's personality, his motivations, etc., is a distraction from the newsworthy content that should inspire corrective action (and likely criminal prosecution of many officials) via the democratic process. > You can't disclose a country's national secrets without getting involved in realpolitik I think this is true, but what we're seeing is that when you mess with the US Government you end up with a big-budget PR team driving the public perception of your actions and defaming your character. In a sense, it's realpolitik, but in a sinister, preservation of power at all costs sort of way. The US briefly had an adversarial moment in democracy during the social upheaval of the 1970s, but at present the asymmetry between entrenched power and the average person is larger than ever before. The biggest cultural accomplishments the entrenched interests have achieved are (in my opinion) the idea that a major party can use the hashtag #resist with a straight face, and the utter demolition of the American left and culture of actual dissent.