8 ms·
Jesus, who the fuck cares about what Snowden released. I am more sad people aren't way up in arms about WHAT WE LEARNED. (Yes, I understand that sentence makes
by xodice 7y ago
Jesus, who the fuck cares about what Snowden released. I am more sad people aren't way up in arms about WHAT WE LEARNED. (Yes, I understand that sentence makes itself not make sense, but you get my point. Rushed and on mobile, but this pissed me off.)
Thank you Snowden, and fuck you U.S. Government.
- A U.S. Citizen
- elhudy 7y agoSnowden "...carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over" What was released (and how), and what we learned are two separate issues. As a U.S. citizen, it's preferable that the subjective legitimacy of what best serves public interest is not in the hands of ONE person. That's why we care about what was released. While a portion of the leaked documents might positively benefit society, who is to say the net benefit in total was positive? Call me naive but I'm unable to make the call either way, even after having read through the revelations. Leaking that info was sure audacious but not worthy of a get-out-of-jail free card or a thank you IMO.
- monocasa 7y agoHe was under a deadline, and then gave the files to journalists to decide what they thought was in the best interest, and then those journalists ran everything they were going to release by the DoD beforehand. What more should he have done?
- mirimir 7y agoI think that he should have dumped everything. Or at least, everything that didn't put individuals at risk. I get where he was coming from. But the people in charge of releasing stuff seem too clueless and/or deferential.
- mhh__ 7y agoDumping all of it online would have been like wikileaks, which I think would've been a mistake in that Wikileaks have been very open about aiming to use there releases to influence politics rather than merely releasing for the sake of knowledge e.g. "Maximum political impact" which does make them less credible (Aside from the dubious links to and decision not to criticise russia)
- mirimir 7y agoBut isn't it less biased to dump it all? With the only reason for not releasing being risk to arguably ~innocent individuals. Also, it's relevant to note that Holocaust investigators have not redacted names of ~responsible individuals from their releases. Indeed, they've targeted them.
- mhh__ 7y agoWikileaks regularly publish credit card details of completely unrelated bystanders e.g. political donors (and I mean $15 rather than $15 million). They also clearly time their leaks for impact rather than purely apolitical time slots. Speaking of the holocaust, wikileaks also hired a holocaust denier (in the words of hopenothate) - Israel Shamim - for years
- mirimir 7y agoUmmm, I didn't mention Wikileaks, so bringing up them -- and freelancer Israel Shamim -- is whataboutism. My point about Holocaust investigators is undeniable. I mentioned it as evidence that culpability is an accepted justification for releasing information about individuals.
- ryanlol 7y ago>decision not to criticise russia Do you have any evidence such a decision has been made by WL? Does that decision apply to China too? I don’t see any wikileaks from China. What makes Russia special? Perhaps these countries just aren’t that interesting to mostly English language WL?
- tempsolution 7y agoYes, let's best put it into the hand of the agency/government that tried to hide the information from the public in the first place... "Please defendent, have look at the evidence we gathered about your murder case. It's best if you decide which of the evidence we should use in court against you." lmao (on a sad note, this is how day to day business at goverments looks like and precisely WHY we need whistleblowers)
- jknoepfler 7y agoAn obvious example of properly concealed information, however, would be the current address of an abusee testifying against an abuser. More pertinently to the Snowden case, information that might disclose the identity of people who risk their life to collaborate with the USA. There is legitimate cause to conceal information known to the government from the public. That said, I believe Snowden acted correctly. The federal government in its current form has lost its legitimacy as an arbiter of sensitive information, and citizens of the USA have every reason to believe that federal intelligence agencies are abusing the priveledges vested in them by the people. Laws can be formulated in good faith by a legitimate government to protect and conceal information, but in this particular case they needed to seriously overhauled, and Snowden's act of civil disobedience was justified. I think he should be prosecuted, and the laws changed. Personally I'm rooting for Snowden, but effective civil disobedience requires a willingness to go down with the ship that Snowden clearly lacked.
- dorgo 7y ago> requires a willingness to go down with the ship IMO, it would have lessened the impact if he went down with the ship. Otherwise I agree.
- cwkoss 7y agoSnowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution. He tried to stop gross constitutional violations from within using the official processes and was ignored. He is the greatest American hero of our era for sacrificing his own freedom to protect the nation. The NSA employees who are 'just following orders' are little better than Nazi footsolders in 1940s Germany. Their continued violation of the constitution is audacious and they should be imprisoned for treason. The NSA bosses who actively worked to craft these illegal plans deserve the most severe legal punishments available.
- elhudy 7y agoThat can be said in regards to leaks pertaining to constitutional violations against US citizens. But how about the unrelated cyber espionage and surveillance leaks which fell into the hands of China, Russia, etc.? There are only a handful of truly knowledgeable parties in the U.S. which can measure how extensive the damage to those affairs was. It's very easy to say there should be no surveillance whatsoever but that would be anti-pragmatic.
- sneak 7y agoWhether or not someone is a citizen of a given country is a completely ridiculous and indefensible attribute to use when making a moral determination about whether or not they deserve privacy. The “US citizens” thing is a red herring; everyone deserves privacy. Remember that countries are fictions.
- cwkoss 7y agoCan you be specific about which leaks to China or Russia concern you? Of the "handful of truly knowledgeable parties", most/all of them likely are willing to lie to the American public to avoid treason and illegal wiretapping charges for their constitutional violations.
- crummy 7y agoDid Snowden ever suggest that there should be no surveillance whatsoever? I thought he was a proponent of targeted surveillance.
- TheOperator 7y agoI feel that weighing if his actions were in the public interest or not is besides the point as I don't believe what the government was doing was constitutional.
- elhudy 7y agoThat can be said in regards to leaks pertaining to constitutional violations against US citizens. But how about the unrelated cyber espionage and surveillance leaks which fell into the hands of China, Russia, etc.? There are only a handful of truly knowledgeable parties in the U.S. which can measure how extensive the damage to those affairs was. It's very easy to say there should be no surveillance whatsoever but that would be anti-pragmatic.
- cmiles74 7y agoThis is what you get when whistleblowers have no protections. If we don't want to see this happen again in the future, the answer is to protect people coming forward with information about abuses.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y agoWhistleblowers do have protections. I was just looking this up the other day- there are proper ways to report this even for matters that deal with classified information. He didn't do that. https://www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigations/Whistleblower-Reprisal-Investigations/Whisteblower-Reprisal/ https://www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigatio...
- mehrdadn 7y agoIf you want to know why Snowden did it, and the way he did it, you have to know the stories of two other men. 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... "The sad reality of today’s policies is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrongdoing is often a mistake. Going to the press involves serious risks, but at least you’ve got a chance."
- Thriptic 7y agoIf you're concerned about the best interest of the public and US citizens then maybe you should spend less time worrying about Snowden and more time worrying about the NSA's inadequate monitoring, life cycle, and DLP practices. Billions of dollars were lost and countless orgs were negatively affected by the release of Eternal Blue alone.
- elhudy 7y agoClearly the NSA is out of control - but these aren't conflating issues. For the record, I don't particularly spend time worrying about either Snowden or the NSA.
- Thriptic 7y agoYou made a valid point about the difficulty of judging how sensitive information should be released and the dangers of letting small groups of people make those judgements. I apologise for my somewhat tangential post. I've consumed a good quantity of whiskey and made a reflexive post.
- elhudy 7y agoLOL. You don't need to apologize, that's what's wonderful about this forum is almost everyone is open to learning more regardless of the tangenialness. Besides, my 15 yr knob creek barrel pick empathizes.
- api 7y agoI am more concerned about what Facebook, Google, and a bunch of adtech firms are doing. The private sector surveillance machine is probably more competent and high tech than three letter government agencies (it pays better and gets first pick of the talent pool), is subject to zero oversight, is almost completely lawless, and gathers quite a bit more information. The NSA at least has to answer to someone and is subject to some law. If you are concerned about the NSA you should be totally freaked out about Facebook and Google.
- sansnomme 7y agoThe FAANG tech unicorns at the current height of their power still pales in comparison to the East India Companies (British/Dutch/whatever the country doesn't really matter). Traverse the dependency tree of power and I don't think you will like what you would find near the root. At the end of the day, tech unicorns flourish within the legal sandbox of civilization. Without any command over legitimate violence, they have relatively little power compared to the government.
- mgamache 7y agoThey are increasingly functioning as part of the government. Sort of a back-door for information and control. Getting any info on you from most companies is an administrative procedure. This turns them into a data collection arm of the US (and other) governments. Also, when consider the lobbying tech companies are doing it gets really incestuous.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]