3 ms·

> 1. Ends can not justify means. If you're responding to this part of my response, please don't quote me out of context. This response contains a complete idea

> 1. Ends can not justify means. If you're responding to this part of my response, please don't quote me out of context. This response contains a complete idea, and is particularly susceptible to looking at only parts of it, but that would be argumentatively lazy on your part, and I won't respond to anyone who does this. "The ends justify the means" is a perfectly legitimate argument, by itself: we should be choosing our actions based on the results we expect from those actions. The problem with "The ends justify the means" is that it is almost never correctly applied; people rarely look at the complete ends of the action they are trying to justify. An example of this is eugenics: if you kill people with genetic disorders, yes, the ends are that you have fewer genetic disorders. However, that's only part of the ends: the complete ends includes a huge amount of suffering, death, and grief. The ends can only justify the means if the ends are desirable, and in the case of eugenics the ends aren't desirable, they're horrific. In the case of Snowden, the complete ends are a public that's much more aware of our government spying on us, and so far I've come across no compelling evidence of any significant downside. So looking at the complete ends, I don't see much problem with saying that the ends did justify the means in this case. Note that this is a valid ethical argument, but it's not a legal argument at all. Of course, "the ends cannot justify the means" isn't a legal argument, either, so there's really not a legal discussion occurring here. > 2. He fabricated auth keys to gain access to confidential material he didn't have access to. Given the entire problem Snowden was trying to address was that access restrictions were being improperly used to hide information from the American people, this is exactly the point of why he did what he did. > 3. He shared the information so-gained as soon as he could. a) This isn't true, he took steps to make sure that it was released by reputable, trustworthy journalists. b) I'm unsure how this makes him a traitor. > 4. He shared it with geopolitical foes of the United States. a) This is a necessary side effect of sharing with the American public, and I'll point out that you're very much treating the American public as a geopolitical foe if you don't acknowledge that fact. b) Any serious threat to the US is sophisticated enough to get around surveillance with simple, freely-available tools. Pervasive surveillance mostly affects the innocent. > 5. Many reasonable people recognize Wikileaks' objectives are well-aligned with Russia's and feel strongly they are collaborators. ALL reasonable people recognize that Snowden did not leak to Wikileaks. This isn't even an honest point, and you should be ashamed that you repeated it. > 6. My knowledge is limited here, but does Snowden claim he used any of the actual, legal whistleblower processes before escaping to Julian Assange? My understanding is that he did not. What on earth are you talking about? Snowden did not "escap[e] to Julian Assange". This is just a lie. There were a number of people who tried to point out some of the same problems as Snowden through proper channels[1]. The results of this were that they were silenced, without producing any change. History shows us that the legal channels are a tool for surveillance organizations to identify whistleblowers and silence them before they can do any good, rather than a legitimate way to identify illegal activity by surveillance organizations. [1] https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-... EDIT: I accidentally a word.

johnfactorial 7y ago
> and I'll point out that you're very much treating the American public as a geopolitical foe if you don't acknowledge that fact. This does not follow, as the logical conclusion of your statement is that the American public either has a right to all state secrets, or is a foe of its own country. The value of secrets is in their secrecy, and when that value is lost, harm is done. > Any serious threat to the US is sophisticated enough to get around surveillance with simple, freely-available tools. That is a big claim, can you give an example of a serious threat to the US which is possible with simple & freely available tools? It sounds like you know an easy way to defeat the US in information warfare. > Snowden did not "escap[e] to Julian Assange". This is just a lie. What I know is that Snowden escaped to China with data he stole in less than 3 months on the job, and less 1 month afterward was on a flight with Wikileaks editor and Assange's closest advisor Sarah Harrison, seeking political asylum in the bastion of political freedom, Russia. > There were a number of people... My question was about Snowden's efforts, as the topic is valid reasons why some may consider him a traitor. I'll interpret your response as, like me, you also don't know the answer to my question. > you should be ashamed that you repeated it... What on earth are you talking about?... This is just a lie. I find this rather unnecessary. People who disagree with you aren't enemies to be shamed and insulted.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > This does not follow, as the logical conclusion of your statement is that the American public either has a right to all state secrets, or is a foe of its own country. The value of secrets is in their secrecy, and when that value is lost, harm is done. Could you provide some evidence of harm here? > That is a big claim, can you give an example of a serious threat to the US which is possible with simple & freely available tools? No, because that's not the claim I made. The claim I made was "Any serious threat to the US is sophisticated enough to get around surveillance with simple, freely-available tools." GPG has been around for a long time, and I haven't come across any convincing evidence of a surveillance organization able to decrypt GPG-encrypted messages. > What I know is that Snowden escaped to China with data he stole in less than 3 months on the job, and less 1 month afterward was on a flight with Wikileaks editor and Assange's closest advisor Sarah Harrison, seeking political asylum in the bastion of political freedom, Russia. ...which is not "Escaping to Julian Assange." What you said above is true, but saying he "Escaped to Julian Assange" is a lie. > My question was about Snowden's efforts, as the topic is valid reasons why some may consider him a traitor. I'll interpret your response as, like me, you also don't know the answer to my question. The answer to your question is in the part of my post which you didn't quote, so I'm just going to quote myself: "There were a number of people who tried to point out some of the same problems as Snowden through proper channels[1]. The results of this were that they were silenced, without producing any change. History shows us that the legal channels are a tool for surveillance organizations to identify whistleblowers and silence them before they can do any good, rather than a legitimate way to identify illegal activity by surveillance organizations." > I find this rather unnecessary. People who disagree with you aren't enemies to be shamed and insulted. If all you had done was disagree with me, I wouldn't have called what you said a lie, and you'll note that most of your post where you were just disagreeing with me, I didn't call what you were saying lies. I only call what you said a lie when it is a lie, and it has to be very clearly a lie for me to do that. Anyone can verify that Snowded did not "escape to Julian Assange." The locations of both people at that time are widely-known public information. So when you said that Snowden escaped to Julian Assange, what you said was not just a disagreement with me, it was unambiguously a lie. I'm not insulting you. I'll grant you the same respect that I would grant any human being, but that respect does not include treating lies as legitimate points, nor does it include mincing words when you decide to lie to everyone reading your post. If you write something untrue and post it here and I call you out on it, that's not me shaming you, that's you behaving in a shameful way. You don't get to lie and then accuse me of being impolite when I point out your lie. Politeness includes telling the truth. [1] https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-...

johnfactorial 7y ago

> and I'll point out that you're very much treating the American public as a geopolitical foe if you don't acknowledge that fact. This does not follow, as the logical conclusion of your statement is that the American public either has a right to all state secrets, or is a foe of its own country. The value of secrets is in their secrecy, and when that value is lost, harm is done. > Any serious threat to the US is sophisticated enough to get around surveillance with simple, freely-available tools. That is a big claim, can you give an example of a serious threat to the US which is possible with simple & freely available tools? It sounds like you know an easy way to defeat the US in information warfare. > Snowden did not "escap[e] to Julian Assange". This is just a lie. What I know is that Snowden escaped to China with data he stole in less than 3 months on the job, and less 1 month afterward was on a flight with Wikileaks editor and Assange's closest advisor Sarah Harrison, seeking political asylum in the bastion of political freedom, Russia. > There were a number of people... My question was about Snowden's efforts, as the topic is valid reasons why some may consider him a traitor. I'll interpret your response as, like me, you also don't know the answer to my question. > you should be ashamed that you repeated it... What on earth are you talking about?... This is just a lie. I find this rather unnecessary. People who disagree with you aren't enemies to be shamed and insulted.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> This does not follow, as the logical conclusion of your statement is that the American public either has a right to all state secrets, or is a foe of its own country. The value of secrets is in their secrecy, and when that value is lost, harm is done. Could you provide some evidence of harm here? > That is a big claim, can you give an example of a serious threat to the US which is possible with simple & freely available tools? No, because that's not the claim I made. The claim I made was "Any serious threat to the US is sophisticated enough to get around surveillance with simple, freely-available tools." GPG has been around for a long time, and I haven't come across any convincing evidence of a surveillance organization able to decrypt GPG-encrypted messages. > What I know is that Snowden escaped to China with data he stole in less than 3 months on the job, and less 1 month afterward was on a flight with Wikileaks editor and Assange's closest advisor Sarah Harrison, seeking political asylum in the bastion of political freedom, Russia. ...which is not "Escaping to Julian Assange." What you said above is true, but saying he "Escaped to Julian Assange" is a lie. > My question was about Snowden's efforts, as the topic is valid reasons why some may consider him a traitor. I'll interpret your response as, like me, you also don't know the answer to my question. The answer to your question is in the part of my post which you didn't quote, so I'm just going to quote myself: "There were a number of people who tried to point out some of the same problems as Snowden through proper channels[1]. The results of this were that they were silenced, without producing any change. History shows us that the legal channels are a tool for surveillance organizations to identify whistleblowers and silence them before they can do any good, rather than a legitimate way to identify illegal activity by surveillance organizations." > I find this rather unnecessary. People who disagree with you aren't enemies to be shamed and insulted. If all you had done was disagree with me, I wouldn't have called what you said a lie, and you'll note that most of your post where you were just disagreeing with me, I didn't call what you were saying lies. I only call what you said a lie when it is a lie, and it has to be very clearly a lie for me to do that. Anyone can verify that Snowded did not "escape to Julian Assange." The locations of both people at that time are widely-known public information. So when you said that Snowden escaped to Julian Assange, what you said was not just a disagreement with me, it was unambiguously a lie. I'm not insulting you. I'll grant you the same respect that I would grant any human being, but that respect does not include treating lies as legitimate points, nor does it include mincing words when you decide to lie to everyone reading your post. If you write something untrue and post it here and I call you out on it, that's not me shaming you, that's you behaving in a shameful way. You don't get to lie and then accuse me of being impolite when I point out your lie. Politeness includes telling the truth. [1] https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-...