3 ms·

I don't understand the respect he gets. The man is a traitor. Even if you want to argue that the information he released had public value[1] - that's only 5% of

I don't understand the respect he gets. The man is a traitor. Even if you want to argue that the information he released had public value[1] - that's only 5% of the things stole[2] - which he then took to China and potentially to Russia. He says he destroyed the rest of the cache of information but then you have to trust either his word (in which case you have to explain why he took it to a foreign adversary), or it was taken from him (maybe even unknowingly) by Chinese or Russian intelligence services [3]. [1] And even that is a little weak. The programs he leaked were legal. They were funded by Congress. Run by the executive branch and overseen by the Judicial branch and Congressional committees. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Potential_impact_on_U.S._national_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Potential_impac... [3] From [2] "On June 14, 2015, UK's Sunday Times reported that Russian and Chinese intelligence services had decrypted more than 1 million classified files in the Snowden cache, forcing the UK's MI6 intelligence agency to move agents out of live operations in hostile countries. Sir David Omand, a former director of the UK's GCHQ intelligence gathering agency, described it as a huge strategic setback that was harming Britain, America, and their NATO allies. The Sunday Times said it was not clear whether Russia and China stole Snowden's data or whether Snowden voluntarily handed it over to remain at liberty in Hong Kong and Moscow."

kjaftaedi 6y ago
I'm interested in your logic about why you feel government agencies should be allowed to hack into private companies (without a warrant), and why you feel illegal activity like this should be allowed to continue?
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >I'm interested in your logic about why you feel government agencies should be allowed to hack into private companies, and why you feel activity like this should be allowed to be swept under the rug? I didn't make any value judgment on this. I'm not even that interested in this. I even qualified my statement on Snowden by saying that you can make a case that the disclosure of the collection programs had public interest and journalist value. If that's all Snowden did, then yes, you can also make the argument that he performed a heroic action (I wouldn't agree, but you can make that argument). But that's not what he did and people want to ignore the uncomfortable part. The man stole hundreds of thousands of intelligence documents that had no public interest value and (willingly or unwillingly) handed it to China and Russia.
heavenlyblue 6y ago
I don’t understand how a person can’t be both a traitor and a hero. The fact that someone does a few sins isn’t implying they didn’t do anything good. Before him, you would be called a tin-hatter for implying that governments spy on everyone. You are doing exactly the same bad PR laundering of his sins that US is currently doing to Assange. This is some black-and-white logic I would expect from a 20-year-old.
- onedognight 6y ago
  He could have just detailed the existence of the broad data collection efforts that many suspected existed but we didn’t have confirmation of. Instead, he gave up so much “not potentially illegal” but just secret data, human sources, etc. the only reasonable assumption is that the exposure of the allegedly illegal activity was just cover for the later.
  - heavenlyblue 6y ago
    > the only reasonable assumption I see this forum contains a lot of people stealing sensitive government information every day to know exactly why people do what they did in Snowden’s situation.
mindslight 6y ago
Where is your concern for the ongoing large scale conspiracies against the People by the organizations he exposed? Their crimes directly attack the values of a Free society, contradict the government's foundation, and have shaken faith in our institutions. Until the traitors he exposed are brought to justice, condemning details of Snowden's actions while downplaying what he worked to expose is just bad-faith FUD.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Where is your concern for the ongoing large scale conspiracies against the People by the organizations he exposed To be clear. This is not an objective statement. It's a subjective interpretation. The reality is that the People have decided that it is in their interest to maintain a military and an intelligence service overseen by their representatives. We live in a complicated world, and even if the program itself is bad (and it was scuttled I believe), it may have resulted from the right intention of trying to protect people's lives from terrorist attacks. >Their crimes directly attack the values of a Free society I don't know what you mean by 'crimes'. That's another subjective interpretation. There were no crimes. It was a legal program overseen by all three branches of government. Maybe it was a bad program and it needed a whistleblower, but again, very few people have issues with Snowden disclosing that. But he didn't have to steal the hundreds of thousands of other documents that had no public interest (that he never released publicly anyway), didn't have to take those documents to a foreign adversary. Worse there is evidence that he gave those documents (willingly or willingly) to the Russian and Chinese intelligence services. That's a major crime in any society, in every nation, throughout all of history.
Twixes 6y ago
If anything, NSA are the true traitors of their nation.

kjaftaedi 6y ago

I'm interested in your logic about why you feel government agencies should be allowed to hack into private companies (without a warrant), and why you feel illegal activity like this should be allowed to continue?

macspoofing 6y ago
>I'm interested in your logic about why you feel government agencies should be allowed to hack into private companies, and why you feel activity like this should be allowed to be swept under the rug? I didn't make any value judgment on this. I'm not even that interested in this. I even qualified my statement on Snowden by saying that you can make a case that the disclosure of the collection programs had public interest and journalist value. If that's all Snowden did, then yes, you can also make the argument that he performed a heroic action (I wouldn't agree, but you can make that argument). But that's not what he did and people want to ignore the uncomfortable part. The man stole hundreds of thousands of intelligence documents that had no public interest value and (willingly or unwillingly) handed it to China and Russia.

heavenlyblue 6y ago

I don’t understand how a person can’t be both a traitor and a hero. The fact that someone does a few sins isn’t implying they didn’t do anything good. Before him, you would be called a tin-hatter for implying that governments spy on everyone. You are doing exactly the same bad PR laundering of his sins that US is currently doing to Assange. This is some black-and-white logic I would expect from a 20-year-old.

onedognight 6y ago
He could have just detailed the existence of the broad data collection efforts that many suspected existed but we didn’t have confirmation of. Instead, he gave up so much “not potentially illegal” but just secret data, human sources, etc. the only reasonable assumption is that the exposure of the allegedly illegal activity was just cover for the later.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  > the only reasonable assumption I see this forum contains a lot of people stealing sensitive government information every day to know exactly why people do what they did in Snowden’s situation.

mindslight 6y ago

Where is your concern for the ongoing large scale conspiracies against the People by the organizations he exposed? Their crimes directly attack the values of a Free society, contradict the government's foundation, and have shaken faith in our institutions. Until the traitors he exposed are brought to justice, condemning details of Snowden's actions while downplaying what he worked to expose is just bad-faith FUD.

macspoofing 6y ago
>Where is your concern for the ongoing large scale conspiracies against the People by the organizations he exposed To be clear. This is not an objective statement. It's a subjective interpretation. The reality is that the People have decided that it is in their interest to maintain a military and an intelligence service overseen by their representatives. We live in a complicated world, and even if the program itself is bad (and it was scuttled I believe), it may have resulted from the right intention of trying to protect people's lives from terrorist attacks. >Their crimes directly attack the values of a Free society I don't know what you mean by 'crimes'. That's another subjective interpretation. There were no crimes. It was a legal program overseen by all three branches of government. Maybe it was a bad program and it needed a whistleblower, but again, very few people have issues with Snowden disclosing that. But he didn't have to steal the hundreds of thousands of other documents that had no public interest (that he never released publicly anyway), didn't have to take those documents to a foreign adversary. Worse there is evidence that he gave those documents (willingly or willingly) to the Russian and Chinese intelligence services. That's a major crime in any society, in every nation, throughout all of history.

Twixes 6y ago

If anything, NSA are the true traitors of their nation.