6 ms·

I thought it was kind of surprising at first then I realized it’s because he already thought deeply about everything he’s been asked. After careful deliberatio

I thought it was kind of surprising at first then I realized it’s because he already thought deeply about everything he’s been asked. After careful deliberation he made a moral choice to leak information at great risk to himself. This makes him not only good to talk through the technical implications of his choices but also moral ones.

jonahbenton 7y ago
Please consider alternative narratives. He acted selfishly, not morally. Like a startup founder he wanted to disrupt an existing infrastructure, with a one-sided view of the trajectory his impact would have on the domain. Any collateral damage would be easy to hide in the personal narrative memory hole. Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with significant corroborating evidence, and should certainly not be taken in any way to imply morality, as shown by the growing list of deep thinkers who supported and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's schemes. With Snowden we have very little corroboration, so best reserve judgement. And if he does wind up dying as many other Russian actors have...
- dilippkumar 7y ago
  > Please consider alternative narratives. No. > He acted selfishly, not morally. No, he acted morally. > Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with significant corroborating evidence, and should certainly not be taken in any way to imply morality, as shown by the growing list of deep thinkers who supported and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's schemes. No. It's simple. Snowden = Good. Stop trying to "muh Russians!" this. > With Snowden we have very little corroboration, so best reserve judgement. No. His documents appear sufficiently authentic to be acted upon. I, and people I know, are not reserving our judgements. > And if he does wind up dying as many other Russian actors have... We all will know exactly what sort of people run our government.
  - mda 7y ago
    Huh? "No no he is good stop." There are still a lot of unknowns, It is good to leave some room for doubt. Always.
    - philipov 7y ago
      It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > No. It's simple. Snowden = Good. Sure, if you only read his side of the story. Anyone looks good if they get to make up their own narrative about themselves. The fact is that anyone with half a brain should have known decades ago that the US government, like all governments, does all kinds of surveillance and classifies all kinds of information, and not all of it is going to be pretty. When you tell the government you want it to protect your security and stop terrorist attacks, it's going to do whatever it takes to do that. For Snowden to talk as though he just found all this out when he got access to NSA's super sekrit systems doesn't show that he's good. It just shows that he was ignorant. Also, while it's perfectly reasonable for ordinary citizens to question what level of surveillance is justified and what kind of information the public should get to see in order to hold the government accountable, it's not reasonable for an individual to just decide on his own that it's OK to violate the law and the agreements he signed up to when he got his security clearance. That is exactly the kind of personal hubris and lack of accountability that we are trying to stop in people who have privileged access to government secrets. We have processes for holding our government accountable: we have FOIA requests, we have lawsuits, and ultimately we have elections. Those processes don't always work well, but that doesn't mean it's ok for one person to arrogate to himself the right to bypass them all.
    - jonahbenton 7y ago
      Well said.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I'm with you, except for the last paragraph. There, I'm more ambivalent. Yes, I kind of agree with you on your general point. But if we don't know what the government is doing, and we aren't going to be told, how are we supposed to hold them accountable? In general, you're right, but there does come a point at which a whistleblower is in fact necessary. Whether this one reached that point is a separate question.
- jdsully 7y ago
  Can you point out the “collateral damage”? I can’t think of any. He did damage the mass surveillance system but that was intentional.
- josho 7y ago
  > He acted selfishly Risking imprisonment isn’t exactly what I’d call a selfish act. How do you see his action as selfish. He’s lost so much. And what corroboration do you feel is necessary. Snowden simply leaked documents. The government hasn’t contradicted that.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Risking imprisonment isn’t exactly what I’d call a selfish act. Immediately giving lists of compromised systems to China in an attempt to gain asylum in Hong Kong is a selfish act.
- weare138 7y ago
  > Please consider alternative narratives. Why not just consider facts and accept what we know while also accepting that all the facts are not known or possibly can not be known rather than relying on opinionated narratives because it makes for a better story and doesn't require critical thinking?
- marricks 7y ago
  I’m pro choice but I can accept the notion someone has a moral objection to abortion. In the same way, even if you disagree with the man, Snowden had a moral objection to surveillance so he did something about it.

jonahbenton 7y ago

Please consider alternative narratives. He acted selfishly, not morally. Like a startup founder he wanted to disrupt an existing infrastructure, with a one-sided view of the trajectory his impact would have on the domain. Any collateral damage would be easy to hide in the personal narrative memory hole. Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with significant corroborating evidence, and should certainly not be taken in any way to imply morality, as shown by the growing list of deep thinkers who supported and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's schemes. With Snowden we have very little corroboration, so best reserve judgement. And if he does wind up dying as many other Russian actors have...

dilippkumar 7y ago
> Please consider alternative narratives. No. > He acted selfishly, not morally. No, he acted morally. > Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with significant corroborating evidence, and should certainly not be taken in any way to imply morality, as shown by the growing list of deep thinkers who supported and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's schemes. No. It's simple. Snowden = Good. Stop trying to "muh Russians!" this. > With Snowden we have very little corroboration, so best reserve judgement. No. His documents appear sufficiently authentic to be acted upon. I, and people I know, are not reserving our judgements. > And if he does wind up dying as many other Russian actors have... We all will know exactly what sort of people run our government.
- mda 7y ago
  Huh? "No no he is good stop." There are still a lot of unknowns, It is good to leave some room for doubt. Always.
  - philipov 7y ago
    It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > No. It's simple. Snowden = Good. Sure, if you only read his side of the story. Anyone looks good if they get to make up their own narrative about themselves. The fact is that anyone with half a brain should have known decades ago that the US government, like all governments, does all kinds of surveillance and classifies all kinds of information, and not all of it is going to be pretty. When you tell the government you want it to protect your security and stop terrorist attacks, it's going to do whatever it takes to do that. For Snowden to talk as though he just found all this out when he got access to NSA's super sekrit systems doesn't show that he's good. It just shows that he was ignorant. Also, while it's perfectly reasonable for ordinary citizens to question what level of surveillance is justified and what kind of information the public should get to see in order to hold the government accountable, it's not reasonable for an individual to just decide on his own that it's OK to violate the law and the agreements he signed up to when he got his security clearance. That is exactly the kind of personal hubris and lack of accountability that we are trying to stop in people who have privileged access to government secrets. We have processes for holding our government accountable: we have FOIA requests, we have lawsuits, and ultimately we have elections. Those processes don't always work well, but that doesn't mean it's ok for one person to arrogate to himself the right to bypass them all.
  - jonahbenton 7y ago
    Well said.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I'm with you, except for the last paragraph. There, I'm more ambivalent. Yes, I kind of agree with you on your general point. But if we don't know what the government is doing, and we aren't going to be told, how are we supposed to hold them accountable? In general, you're right, but there does come a point at which a whistleblower is in fact necessary. Whether this one reached that point is a separate question.
jdsully 7y ago
Can you point out the “collateral damage”? I can’t think of any. He did damage the mass surveillance system but that was intentional.
josho 7y ago
> He acted selfishly Risking imprisonment isn’t exactly what I’d call a selfish act. How do you see his action as selfish. He’s lost so much. And what corroboration do you feel is necessary. Snowden simply leaked documents. The government hasn’t contradicted that.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Risking imprisonment isn’t exactly what I’d call a selfish act. Immediately giving lists of compromised systems to China in an attempt to gain asylum in Hong Kong is a selfish act.
weare138 7y ago
> Please consider alternative narratives. Why not just consider facts and accept what we know while also accepting that all the facts are not known or possibly can not be known rather than relying on opinionated narratives because it makes for a better story and doesn't require critical thinking?
marricks 7y ago
I’m pro choice but I can accept the notion someone has a moral objection to abortion. In the same way, even if you disagree with the man, Snowden had a moral objection to surveillance so he did something about it.