4 ms·

Yeah sure, people believe what they want to believe. Or we could just accept that until 2013 he was just another wheel in the giant machinery that is the NSA an

Yeah sure, people believe what they want to believe. Or we could just accept that until 2013 he was just another wheel in the giant machinery that is the NSA and that his morals changed - for whatever reason. But he was with the bad guys.

Fnoord 9y ago
> Yeah sure, people believe what they want to believe. Or we could just accept that until 2013 he was just another wheel in the giant machinery that is the NSA and that his morals changed - for whatever reason. His motives and how he ultimately ended up leaking information is well documented in the 2014 documentary Citizenfour [1] and the 2016 movie Snowden [2]. > But he was with the bad guys. Are there shades of grey or nuances or is the NSA the root of all evil? Its impossible to care about security as NSA employee? Teaching US civilians how to use GPG means you're trying to protect civilians against the NSA? The world isn't black and white. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenfour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenfour [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film)
- bogomipz 9y ago
  His motives? He worked happily for the CIA from 2007 - 2009. Then he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton/NSA from 2009 to 2013. That's seven years of employment in the security-industrial complex. Was he playing the long game then? >"Its impossible to care about security as NSA employee?" I don't think the question is security but privacy and no, it's hard to imagine sincerely caring about other's privacy and working for an organization that regularly disrespects it as a matter of course. Documentaries like autobiographies are often a vehicle for revisionist history. In regards to [2], Hollyood is not really considered a good source of historical accuracy.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > His motives? He worked happily for the CIA from 2007 - 2009. Then he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton/NSA from 2009 to 2013. That's seven years of employment in the security-industrial complex. Was he playing the long game then? Your question is answered in depth in the documentary, in the movie, and in various interviews (written, as well as videos). Imagine someone who's patriotic at heart, who picks up signs where he's starting to doubt the things he's doing are patriotic (e.g. on the longer term, or in their specific targets). That's Snowden in a nutshell. You're also seemingly unaware Snowden attempted to disclose the information before. Furthermore, elsewhere in this thread HN user sig links to an article where he admits he did join "Booz Allen to gather evidence of surveillance". > I don't think the question is security but privacy Semantics, both are entwined in case as GPG. The latter depends on the former, and GPG is very much related to security just as well. > Documentaries like autobiographies are often a vehicle for revisionist history. And often they're not. They're used to tell one side of the story. The other one's the US government's take on the matter. > In regards to [2], Hollyood is not really considered a good source of historical accuracy. Not a statement of much, if any, value. It wasn't the sole source I stated. If you'd have a look on Wikipedia article, you could learn how the movie was made (research-wise there's quite some details). If you'd have seen both docu and move you'd know how close the movie is to the docu (although also dramatised as mentioned in the movie itself, btw).
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"Your question is answered in depth in the documentary ..." It wasn't an actual question it was rhetorical. I've seen the documentary, I don't buy it all. I find his sincerity questionable. Similarly his Twitter profile shows he is the President at @FreedomofPress, yet he takes refuge in a country that that is one of the most deplorable in terms of media freedom. >"Semantics, both are entwined in case as GPG." No it's not semantics and if you want distort it like that, both security and privacy are under assault by that same NSA. >"Not a statement of much, if any, value." But sighting a Hollywood movie as evidence of accuracy is? Sure, right that makes a lot of sense.
      - geofft 9y ago
        > Similarly his Twitter profile shows he is the President at @FreedomofPress, yet he takes refuge in a country that that is one of the most deplorable in terms of media freedom. That's because we live in a world where there is no country that's good at media freedom. We have the US, which is interested in exposing Russia's crimes and hiding its own; Russia, which is interested in exposing the US's crimes and hiding its own, various somewhat less powerful countries that are effectively allied with one or the other, and various significantly less powerful countries that don't have the ability to anger either. What country do you think he should have taken refuge in?
        bogomipz 9y ago
        >"That's because we live in a world where there is no country that's good at media freedom" No, there's no shortage of countries that have good media freedom: https://rsf.org/en/ranking# https://rsf.org/en/ranking# >"We have the US, which is interested in exposing Russia's crimes and hiding its own; Russia, which is interested in exposing the US's crimes and hiding its own," Please name one crime that the US media hid from the American people? Everything and everyone in the US is fair game. >"What country do you think he should have taken refuge in?" That's not the point, the point is he emigrates to Putin's Russia and then becomes President at @FreedomofPress. And for a refresher on the state of media freedom in Russia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23...

Fnoord 9y ago

> Yeah sure, people believe what they want to believe. Or we could just accept that until 2013 he was just another wheel in the giant machinery that is the NSA and that his morals changed - for whatever reason. His motives and how he ultimately ended up leaking information is well documented in the 2014 documentary Citizenfour [1] and the 2016 movie Snowden [2]. > But he was with the bad guys. Are there shades of grey or nuances or is the NSA the root of all evil? Its impossible to care about security as NSA employee? Teaching US civilians how to use GPG means you're trying to protect civilians against the NSA? The world isn't black and white. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenfour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenfour [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film)

bogomipz 9y ago
His motives? He worked happily for the CIA from 2007 - 2009. Then he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton/NSA from 2009 to 2013. That's seven years of employment in the security-industrial complex. Was he playing the long game then? >"Its impossible to care about security as NSA employee?" I don't think the question is security but privacy and no, it's hard to imagine sincerely caring about other's privacy and working for an organization that regularly disrespects it as a matter of course. Documentaries like autobiographies are often a vehicle for revisionist history. In regards to [2], Hollyood is not really considered a good source of historical accuracy.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > His motives? He worked happily for the CIA from 2007 - 2009. Then he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton/NSA from 2009 to 2013. That's seven years of employment in the security-industrial complex. Was he playing the long game then? Your question is answered in depth in the documentary, in the movie, and in various interviews (written, as well as videos). Imagine someone who's patriotic at heart, who picks up signs where he's starting to doubt the things he's doing are patriotic (e.g. on the longer term, or in their specific targets). That's Snowden in a nutshell. You're also seemingly unaware Snowden attempted to disclose the information before. Furthermore, elsewhere in this thread HN user sig links to an article where he admits he did join "Booz Allen to gather evidence of surveillance". > I don't think the question is security but privacy Semantics, both are entwined in case as GPG. The latter depends on the former, and GPG is very much related to security just as well. > Documentaries like autobiographies are often a vehicle for revisionist history. And often they're not. They're used to tell one side of the story. The other one's the US government's take on the matter. > In regards to [2], Hollyood is not really considered a good source of historical accuracy. Not a statement of much, if any, value. It wasn't the sole source I stated. If you'd have a look on Wikipedia article, you could learn how the movie was made (research-wise there's quite some details). If you'd have seen both docu and move you'd know how close the movie is to the docu (although also dramatised as mentioned in the movie itself, btw).
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"Your question is answered in depth in the documentary ..." It wasn't an actual question it was rhetorical. I've seen the documentary, I don't buy it all. I find his sincerity questionable. Similarly his Twitter profile shows he is the President at @FreedomofPress, yet he takes refuge in a country that that is one of the most deplorable in terms of media freedom. >"Semantics, both are entwined in case as GPG." No it's not semantics and if you want distort it like that, both security and privacy are under assault by that same NSA. >"Not a statement of much, if any, value." But sighting a Hollywood movie as evidence of accuracy is? Sure, right that makes a lot of sense.
    - geofft 9y ago
      > Similarly his Twitter profile shows he is the President at @FreedomofPress, yet he takes refuge in a country that that is one of the most deplorable in terms of media freedom. That's because we live in a world where there is no country that's good at media freedom. We have the US, which is interested in exposing Russia's crimes and hiding its own; Russia, which is interested in exposing the US's crimes and hiding its own, various somewhat less powerful countries that are effectively allied with one or the other, and various significantly less powerful countries that don't have the ability to anger either. What country do you think he should have taken refuge in?
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        >"That's because we live in a world where there is no country that's good at media freedom" No, there's no shortage of countries that have good media freedom: https://rsf.org/en/ranking# https://rsf.org/en/ranking# >"We have the US, which is interested in exposing Russia's crimes and hiding its own; Russia, which is interested in exposing the US's crimes and hiding its own," Please name one crime that the US media hid from the American people? Everything and everyone in the US is fair game. >"What country do you think he should have taken refuge in?" That's not the point, the point is he emigrates to Putin's Russia and then becomes President at @FreedomofPress. And for a refresher on the state of media freedom in Russia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23...