4 ms·

The problem with Snowden is that: A. He did not try to whistleblow through any officials channels in the NSA, intelligence community, or Congress B. He stole

The problem with Snowden is that: A. He did not try to whistleblow through any officials channels in the NSA, intelligence community, or Congress B. He stole somewhere around 1.5 million documents, of which the vast majority had nothing to do with the programs he thought were illegal The house intelligence committee report on Snowden actually concedes that he could have enjoyed whistleblower protection under the law at the time. One could make the argument that one should not have trusted those protections and Snowden decided the same. But that still doesn't explain why he stole so much classified material that was unrelated to his civil liberties concerns.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago
The real problem is that the NSA not only routinely ignores issues raised by whistleblowers, but actively retaliates against them for trying to blow the whistle on illicit activities. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...
- GVIrish 7y ago
  Yes, that was what I was referring to when I said that one probably shouldn't have relied on those protections. However, it doesn't change the fact that he stole a tremendous amount of classified material that had nothing to do with what he felt civil liberties issues. Also doesn't change the fact that the Russian government outright admitted that Snowden shared Intel with them (according to the house Intel committee report). So even if he has a solid defense regarding prism and some of the other stuff he exposed, he doesn't really have any justification for the defense and foreign intelligence classified info he stole.
  - soraminazuki 7y ago
    Do you have any credible evidence to back up your claims? It seems to me that you're spreading baseless accusations. > he stole a tremendous amount of classified material that had nothing to do with what he felt civil liberties issues. How could you possibly know this? The only people who had access to the full documents are just a handful of journalists. > Also doesn't change the fact that the Russian government outright admitted that Snowden shared Intel with them (according to the house Intel committee report). Again, any evidence besides some half-baked government PR? He didn't have any documents with him by the time he left HK.
    - GVIrish 7y ago
      Read from the HPSCI report here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/hpsci-releases-full-snowden-report https://www.lawfareblog.com/hpsci-releases-full-snowden-repo... > Again, any evidence besides some half-baked government PR? He didn't have any documents with him by the time he left HK. What evidence do you have that he didn't? His public denials? Do you think someone in his position would have any reason to lie about such a thing? But let's say he didn't take any materials with him to Russia. What was stopping Russia intelligence services from debriefing him? Here is the quote from a member of Russian parliament (deputy chairman of the defense and security committee, Frants Klintsevich) "Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get information, they will get it." That was in a NPR interview transcript: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/29/483890378/during-tenure-in-russia-edward-snowden-has-kept-a-low-profile https://www.npr.org/2016/06/29/483890378/during-tenure-in-ru... Maybe there's something missed in the translation there, but it seems pretty plainly stated there. And in the HPSCI report they claim ongoing contact with Russian intelligence services by Snowden. Now maybe they were just acting as chaperones for him and expected absolutely nothing in return. But that to me seems hard to believe.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    Are you or have you ever been employed by a US intelligence agency? You seem very skilled at subtly misleading with half-truths. We don't really know what unpublished documents Snowden took, and it is extremely naive to trust the state's allegations. The published info about defense and foreign intelligence was relevant to the American people because it demonstrated that NSA had been lying to congress and our allies. Unchecked violations of our alliances is a grave threat to national security.
    - GVIrish 7y ago
      I've never worked for the intel agencies but I've worked in other places in the USG. You're right that we may never know what exactly Snowden took, that's always going to be the tough part about the public evaluating classified information cases. Sometimes you'll find other pieces of the puzzle years later if you're lucky. Either way, you should take what senior intel officials say with a grain of salt, they're always going to be cagey and particular with language. But looking at the Snowden case there are a number of things that are red flags with his story. Was the NSA performing illegal surveillance on Americans? Yes. Did Snowden expose information that had nothing to do with those programs? Even by his own admission yes. Did Snowden even read all of the documents he stole? No, again by his admission. I don't think Snowden was a stone cold traitor, but I also think there are some things about his story that don't add up. The truth is probably somewhere in a gray area.
      - cwkoss 7y ago
        What are the biggest red flags or things that don't add up in your opinion? I dug into his releases pretty deeply, but probably have missed quite a few of his public statements.
  - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
    Snowden sacrificed his extremely lucrative career, his access and his ability to live in his own country to expose the illegal and unconstitutional conduct being carried out by the NSA. He put himself in extreme legal jeopardy to expose this illicit government activity and the lies of government officials like James Clapper, who perjured himself before the Senate when asked directly about these activities. In direct contrast to Snowden and his unselfish, principled actions are people like you, who spread blatant falsehoods, such as your suggestion that Snowden gave the Russian government intel. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Those in government and in other official positions who have violated our Constitution are the real enemies of our country, not the people who expose their crimes. Sanctimonious babble about, "national security" does not excuse them, lessen or mitigate their crimes in any way. Hopefully the release of Snowden's book will rekindle interest in the unconstitutional, illegal surveillance that continues to be carried out in the name of, "national security" so those lawbreakers and criminals in the "intelligence community" can be put behind bars where they belong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
    - GVIrish 7y ago
      > Snowden sacrificed his extremely lucrative career, his access and his ability to live in his own country to expose the illegal and unconstitutional conduct being carried out by the NSA. He put himself in extreme legal jeopardy to expose this illicit government activity and the lies of government officials like James Clapper, who perjured himself before the Senate when asked directly about these activities. Certainly. Never claimed otherwise. > In direct contrast to Snowden and his unselfish, principled actions are people like you, who spread blatant falsehoods, such as your suggestion that Snowden gave the Russian government intel. That's kinda making a massive leap to call someone selfish and unprincipled simply for pointing out what came out in a Congressional report. Some people think Snowden is a hero, some think he's a traitor, but I don't attack the character of people simply for having either view point. Snowden clearly exposed programs that used dodgy interpretations of the law to justify illegal surveillance. But that doesn't mean that he didn't cause other collateral damage, it's all but certain he did. And by his own admission he didn't read the documents he handed over to journalists, so he couldn't have known the full impact of what he was leaking. So while he can be lauded for exposing illegal surveillance, there are some problems with what he did and how he did, and some open questions about his actions in this affair.
soraminazuki 7y ago
You're making the same old arguments that gets debunked over and over again. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/washington-post-wrong-edward-snowden-pardon https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/washin... https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/941723524175187969 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/941723524175187969
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  That Navy sailor that took pictures inside the sub and got court martialed should get to go free too. And, those FBI memos that Comey took home and then kept after he was fired shouldn't result in his prosecution, either. /s You steal US Federal Government property, you're going to eventually go down.
  - soraminazuki 7y ago
    None of the examples you have given is even remotely related to whistleblowing.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Maybe that's because the examples I gave and the original topic of discussion are related in that they deal with the theft of federal government property.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  Did Snowden go through any of the whistleblowing channels? No. I can see why he didn't, but fact is that he didn't. Snowden didn't read all of the documents he stole, instead he relied on journalists to responsible when redacting things. So that alone means he would have no way of knowing how much natsec damage he did. Not to mention the fact that often times classified leaks help adversaries figure out other classified information by filling in the picture. As far as damage to national security, it's always going to be difficult to assess, but there's no way the Guardian or any media outlet can definitively claim there wasn't damage because they don't have the whole picture. In the case of SIGINT, if your adversaries learn your offensive capabilities they are going to develop countermeasures. If they learn that you've detected their spying activities, they are going to move to new ground. If they learn key things about your communications security, they will be better equipped to exploit them. Just this week a story came out about how Russian intelligence services penetrated FBI communication systems and were able to eavesdrop on FBI counterintelligence efforts. These are the types of things that get compromised with leaks. Ultimately it would be very difficult for Snowden to mount an effective whistleblower defense based on his actions. I can understand why he didn't try to report through oversight channels (see William Binney and Thomas Drake) but the fact that he didn't drastically weakens his case on that front. Then the fact that he stole and divulged materials which he had not even read means it would be harder claim that his leak was solely related to illegal spying.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago

The real problem is that the NSA not only routinely ignores issues raised by whistleblowers, but actively retaliates against them for trying to blow the whistle on illicit activities. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...

GVIrish 7y ago
Yes, that was what I was referring to when I said that one probably shouldn't have relied on those protections. However, it doesn't change the fact that he stole a tremendous amount of classified material that had nothing to do with what he felt civil liberties issues. Also doesn't change the fact that the Russian government outright admitted that Snowden shared Intel with them (according to the house Intel committee report). So even if he has a solid defense regarding prism and some of the other stuff he exposed, he doesn't really have any justification for the defense and foreign intelligence classified info he stole.
- soraminazuki 7y ago
  Do you have any credible evidence to back up your claims? It seems to me that you're spreading baseless accusations. > he stole a tremendous amount of classified material that had nothing to do with what he felt civil liberties issues. How could you possibly know this? The only people who had access to the full documents are just a handful of journalists. > Also doesn't change the fact that the Russian government outright admitted that Snowden shared Intel with them (according to the house Intel committee report). Again, any evidence besides some half-baked government PR? He didn't have any documents with him by the time he left HK.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    Read from the HPSCI report here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/hpsci-releases-full-snowden-report https://www.lawfareblog.com/hpsci-releases-full-snowden-repo... > Again, any evidence besides some half-baked government PR? He didn't have any documents with him by the time he left HK. What evidence do you have that he didn't? His public denials? Do you think someone in his position would have any reason to lie about such a thing? But let's say he didn't take any materials with him to Russia. What was stopping Russia intelligence services from debriefing him? Here is the quote from a member of Russian parliament (deputy chairman of the defense and security committee, Frants Klintsevich) "Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get information, they will get it." That was in a NPR interview transcript: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/29/483890378/during-tenure-in-russia-edward-snowden-has-kept-a-low-profile https://www.npr.org/2016/06/29/483890378/during-tenure-in-ru... Maybe there's something missed in the translation there, but it seems pretty plainly stated there. And in the HPSCI report they claim ongoing contact with Russian intelligence services by Snowden. Now maybe they were just acting as chaperones for him and expected absolutely nothing in return. But that to me seems hard to believe.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Are you or have you ever been employed by a US intelligence agency? You seem very skilled at subtly misleading with half-truths. We don't really know what unpublished documents Snowden took, and it is extremely naive to trust the state's allegations. The published info about defense and foreign intelligence was relevant to the American people because it demonstrated that NSA had been lying to congress and our allies. Unchecked violations of our alliances is a grave threat to national security.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    I've never worked for the intel agencies but I've worked in other places in the USG. You're right that we may never know what exactly Snowden took, that's always going to be the tough part about the public evaluating classified information cases. Sometimes you'll find other pieces of the puzzle years later if you're lucky. Either way, you should take what senior intel officials say with a grain of salt, they're always going to be cagey and particular with language. But looking at the Snowden case there are a number of things that are red flags with his story. Was the NSA performing illegal surveillance on Americans? Yes. Did Snowden expose information that had nothing to do with those programs? Even by his own admission yes. Did Snowden even read all of the documents he stole? No, again by his admission. I don't think Snowden was a stone cold traitor, but I also think there are some things about his story that don't add up. The truth is probably somewhere in a gray area.
    - cwkoss 7y ago
      What are the biggest red flags or things that don't add up in your opinion? I dug into his releases pretty deeply, but probably have missed quite a few of his public statements.
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  Snowden sacrificed his extremely lucrative career, his access and his ability to live in his own country to expose the illegal and unconstitutional conduct being carried out by the NSA. He put himself in extreme legal jeopardy to expose this illicit government activity and the lies of government officials like James Clapper, who perjured himself before the Senate when asked directly about these activities. In direct contrast to Snowden and his unselfish, principled actions are people like you, who spread blatant falsehoods, such as your suggestion that Snowden gave the Russian government intel. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Those in government and in other official positions who have violated our Constitution are the real enemies of our country, not the people who expose their crimes. Sanctimonious babble about, "national security" does not excuse them, lessen or mitigate their crimes in any way. Hopefully the release of Snowden's book will rekindle interest in the unconstitutional, illegal surveillance that continues to be carried out in the name of, "national security" so those lawbreakers and criminals in the "intelligence community" can be put behind bars where they belong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    > Snowden sacrificed his extremely lucrative career, his access and his ability to live in his own country to expose the illegal and unconstitutional conduct being carried out by the NSA. He put himself in extreme legal jeopardy to expose this illicit government activity and the lies of government officials like James Clapper, who perjured himself before the Senate when asked directly about these activities. Certainly. Never claimed otherwise. > In direct contrast to Snowden and his unselfish, principled actions are people like you, who spread blatant falsehoods, such as your suggestion that Snowden gave the Russian government intel. That's kinda making a massive leap to call someone selfish and unprincipled simply for pointing out what came out in a Congressional report. Some people think Snowden is a hero, some think he's a traitor, but I don't attack the character of people simply for having either view point. Snowden clearly exposed programs that used dodgy interpretations of the law to justify illegal surveillance. But that doesn't mean that he didn't cause other collateral damage, it's all but certain he did. And by his own admission he didn't read the documents he handed over to journalists, so he couldn't have known the full impact of what he was leaking. So while he can be lauded for exposing illegal surveillance, there are some problems with what he did and how he did, and some open questions about his actions in this affair.

soraminazuki 7y ago

You're making the same old arguments that gets debunked over and over again. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/washington-post-wrong-edward-snowden-pardon https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/washin... https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/941723524175187969 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/941723524175187969

Fjolsvith 7y ago
That Navy sailor that took pictures inside the sub and got court martialed should get to go free too. And, those FBI memos that Comey took home and then kept after he was fired shouldn't result in his prosecution, either. /s You steal US Federal Government property, you're going to eventually go down.
- soraminazuki 7y ago
  None of the examples you have given is even remotely related to whistleblowing.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Maybe that's because the examples I gave and the original topic of discussion are related in that they deal with the theft of federal government property.
GVIrish 7y ago
Did Snowden go through any of the whistleblowing channels? No. I can see why he didn't, but fact is that he didn't. Snowden didn't read all of the documents he stole, instead he relied on journalists to responsible when redacting things. So that alone means he would have no way of knowing how much natsec damage he did. Not to mention the fact that often times classified leaks help adversaries figure out other classified information by filling in the picture. As far as damage to national security, it's always going to be difficult to assess, but there's no way the Guardian or any media outlet can definitively claim there wasn't damage because they don't have the whole picture. In the case of SIGINT, if your adversaries learn your offensive capabilities they are going to develop countermeasures. If they learn that you've detected their spying activities, they are going to move to new ground. If they learn key things about your communications security, they will be better equipped to exploit them. Just this week a story came out about how Russian intelligence services penetrated FBI communication systems and were able to eavesdrop on FBI counterintelligence efforts. These are the types of things that get compromised with leaks. Ultimately it would be very difficult for Snowden to mount an effective whistleblower defense based on his actions. I can understand why he didn't try to report through oversight channels (see William Binney and Thomas Drake) but the fact that he didn't drastically weakens his case on that front. Then the fact that he stole and divulged materials which he had not even read means it would be harder claim that his leak was solely related to illegal spying.