10 ms·

> I still have no idea if he's an adversarial plant by some government Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters.

by the_af 4y ago

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
I have found all the “shoot the messenger” of leaks to be so backwards it seems like an orchestrated defense.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  It is, and it's how media manufactures consent for punishing/outing whistleblowers who should be protected from any type of harassment. We saw something similar recently with the leak of the SCOTUS Roe v Wade opinion. There was a huge push to move the discussion from how controversial the opinion was & what the fallout would be towards "leaks are bad & we have to find who did this".
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    >It is, and it's how media manufactures consent for punishing/outing whistleblowers who should be protected from any type of harassment. Agreed; but… In your example, it’s both. In that case, it’s a completely legal and expected part of the process for the justices to decide things, even if it’s things you don’t like. In the case of Snowden or Manning or others, they were leaking something that the government says it does not do, should not do, and expressly illegal things. So it’s not a great example. While we likely agree on abortion; Roe has always been on “shakey legal ground” (RBG’s words) and the 7 justices that decided it could not agree if it was because of the 9th or 14th amendments, and offered no explanation how one or both of these superseded the 10th in this scenario. If you haven’t, read the full opinion, do, it gives insight into what is going on… legally anyhow. So as to your example, it wasn’t a whistleblower or shooting the messenger to find the scotus leaker - it’s literally protecting the sanctity of that institution’s process. If you can’t imagine a scenario you would be upset a decision you agreed with was leaked in order to bully justices or influence a coming election, you aren’t thinking hard enough.
at-fates-hands 4y ago
From what he reportedly took and what's been released, I'm still so confused. It was a hot mess in the media for a few months about how the reporters he fed stuff to was going to release it all. Then, once the story died down, you didn't hear anything and there were no more releases. At least none that were so groundbreaking, they hit the media. You could say the media was culpable and simply ignored subsequent releases though. Is there somewhere you can go to see what's been released? I'm still under the impression the bulk of what he said he had has yet to be released.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >Is there somewhere you can go to see what's been released? I'm still under the impression the bulk of what he said he had has yet to be released Most of what he took he gave to reporters so it wouldn't be released, that's why he didn't release everything online. The several organizations he gave information to continued to go through it for a couple of years, periodically releasing stories based on the disclosure. They all slowly stopped funding going through the documents, until only the Intercept was left. They continued with a limited staff until 2019, and it's end is one of the reasons both Poitras and Greenwald have left the organization. For what has been released, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... And https://theintercept.com/collections/snowden-archive/ https://theintercept.com/collections/snowden-archive/
sky-kedge0749 4y ago
I don't know. If a ton of news came out about shady stuff happening at the Coca-Cola company, I'd want to know if it was all coming from corporate espionage paid for by Pepsi. We assume an impartial news organization will investigate Coke and Pepsi equally, so if the org comes out with a bunch of stuff about Coke acting badly, we figure that Coke really is bad, otherwise the org would have gone after Pepsi too, or both. On the other hand if a less scrupulous news org one day receives a mysterious package with a ton of bad stuff about Coke and just verifies and prints it, then Pepsi could be good or bad or anything, but most people will think they're good because of all the bad stuff only coming out about Coke.
- the_af 4y ago
  I don't follow that line of reasoning. The NSA massively invading the privacy of Americans, often without disclosure, has nothing to do with a Pepsi vs Coke scenario. This isn't a competition between two corporations, this is about democracy and people's rights. What is this other side you would like to see presented more "impartially"? PS: [a completely fictional scenario] if a leak disclosed that Coca-Cola was secretly implanting mind-controlling substances via their soft drinks, and that these substances made every consumer broadcast their most intimate thoughts to Coke marketing execs, you should publish this and damn Coke. Who cares about what Pepsi is doing? Their turn will come.
  - xpe 4y ago
    Yes, there are big differences between an NSA leak versus the hypothetical soft drink company example. These differences are fair game to discuss. But in the context of the thread, the common thread is clear. Negative information, even if true, can be chosen selectively to attack an enemy.
    - the_af 4y ago
      The context of this thread is democracy and the rights of Americans. I'm not even sure what "selectively attack an enemy" means in this context. What Snowden disclosed was unequivocally bad, who cares what his motives were? We are not comparing soft drinks.
retcon 4y ago
I can't get past the question about the conditions under which the disclosures became deemed necessary. Everything else definitely never ought to be clear or you have a problem with arbitrary decision making agency out of hand.
- the_af 4y ago
  I honestly don't understand your reply, could you reword it please? Thanks.
  - xpe 4y ago
    >> I can't get past the question about the conditions under which the disclosures became deemed necessary. Everything else definitely never ought to be clear or you have a problem with arbitrary decision making agency out of hand. > I honestly don't understand your reply, could you reword it please? Thanks. I also find it confusing. Here's my understanding: the commenter is asking something akin to this question: Why did Snowden's deem his disclosures to be necessary? Based on my understanding of Snowden, he deemed his disclosures necessary because he views these NSA programs as unjust and/or undemocratic and would continue (and probably get worse) if not revealed. >> Everything else definitely never ought to be clear or you have a problem with arbitrary decision making agency out of hand. I'm unclear on what this sentence as a whole means. First, I wonder if "never ought" was a typo and the commenter meant just "ought". Second, I'd guess that "arbitrary decision making agency out of hand" probably was meant to be "arbitrary agency decision making out of hand", suggesting that the NSA was overstepping its bounds.
rblatz 4y ago
You can say only true things but still mislead by selectively releasing information. That's why it is essential to try and understand the motivations behind the leaked information.
- the_af 4y ago
  Yes. On the other hand, the NSA illegally spying on Americans is bad. You don't need to know the motivations, it's just bad. You cannot build a robust democracy on top of such a shaky foundation. They can claim "Snowden was a KGB mole!" but if they hadn't been doing such nasty things, there wouldn't have been something so damaging for the mole (or a disgruntled ex employee, whatever) to disclose. There will always be dirty laundry to disclose of course -- nobody is 100% clean -- but this was major. This is classic "shooting the messenger".
xpe 4y ago
> Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters. Incorrect. One person -- or one group -- or one ideology -- doesn't get to decide all that matters for everyone.
- the_af 4y ago
  Your reply is worded so generally and vaguely I don't even understand what you mean. Who "gets" to "decide" what in your reply? Please be specific.
  - xpe 4y ago
    >>> Was what [Snowden] disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters. >> Incorrect. One person -- or one group -- or one ideology -- doesn't get to decide all that matters for everyone. > Your reply is worded so generally and vaguely I don't even understand what you mean. I know the feeling. I've struggled to understand what you write as well. Yes, I was making a general point. When you wrote "In the end, that's all that matters." you are claiming that the truth (or lack thereof) of what Snowden said is all that matters. This is an overly simplistic and narrow view. Such a view disregards the rest of the situation, including ethics, impacts over different time scales, disinformation, and geopolitics.

> I still have no idea if he's an adversarial plant by some government Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters.

by the_af 4y ago

> I still have no idea if he's an adversarial plant by some government Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

I have found all the “shoot the messenger” of leaks to be so backwards it seems like an orchestrated defense.

dfxm12 4y ago
It is, and it's how media manufactures consent for punishing/outing whistleblowers who should be protected from any type of harassment. We saw something similar recently with the leak of the SCOTUS Roe v Wade opinion. There was a huge push to move the discussion from how controversial the opinion was & what the fallout would be towards "leaks are bad & we have to find who did this".
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  >It is, and it's how media manufactures consent for punishing/outing whistleblowers who should be protected from any type of harassment. Agreed; but… In your example, it’s both. In that case, it’s a completely legal and expected part of the process for the justices to decide things, even if it’s things you don’t like. In the case of Snowden or Manning or others, they were leaking something that the government says it does not do, should not do, and expressly illegal things. So it’s not a great example. While we likely agree on abortion; Roe has always been on “shakey legal ground” (RBG’s words) and the 7 justices that decided it could not agree if it was because of the 9th or 14th amendments, and offered no explanation how one or both of these superseded the 10th in this scenario. If you haven’t, read the full opinion, do, it gives insight into what is going on… legally anyhow. So as to your example, it wasn’t a whistleblower or shooting the messenger to find the scotus leaker - it’s literally protecting the sanctity of that institution’s process. If you can’t imagine a scenario you would be upset a decision you agreed with was leaked in order to bully justices or influence a coming election, you aren’t thinking hard enough.

at-fates-hands 4y ago

From what he reportedly took and what's been released, I'm still so confused. It was a hot mess in the media for a few months about how the reporters he fed stuff to was going to release it all. Then, once the story died down, you didn't hear anything and there were no more releases. At least none that were so groundbreaking, they hit the media. You could say the media was culpable and simply ignored subsequent releases though. Is there somewhere you can go to see what's been released? I'm still under the impression the bulk of what he said he had has yet to be released.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>Is there somewhere you can go to see what's been released? I'm still under the impression the bulk of what he said he had has yet to be released Most of what he took he gave to reporters so it wouldn't be released, that's why he didn't release everything online. The several organizations he gave information to continued to go through it for a couple of years, periodically releasing stories based on the disclosure. They all slowly stopped funding going through the documents, until only the Intercept was left. They continued with a limited staff until 2019, and it's end is one of the reasons both Poitras and Greenwald have left the organization. For what has been released, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... And https://theintercept.com/collections/snowden-archive/ https://theintercept.com/collections/snowden-archive/

sky-kedge0749 4y ago

I don't know. If a ton of news came out about shady stuff happening at the Coca-Cola company, I'd want to know if it was all coming from corporate espionage paid for by Pepsi. We assume an impartial news organization will investigate Coke and Pepsi equally, so if the org comes out with a bunch of stuff about Coke acting badly, we figure that Coke really is bad, otherwise the org would have gone after Pepsi too, or both. On the other hand if a less scrupulous news org one day receives a mysterious package with a ton of bad stuff about Coke and just verifies and prints it, then Pepsi could be good or bad or anything, but most people will think they're good because of all the bad stuff only coming out about Coke.

the_af 4y ago
I don't follow that line of reasoning. The NSA massively invading the privacy of Americans, often without disclosure, has nothing to do with a Pepsi vs Coke scenario. This isn't a competition between two corporations, this is about democracy and people's rights. What is this other side you would like to see presented more "impartially"? PS: [a completely fictional scenario] if a leak disclosed that Coca-Cola was secretly implanting mind-controlling substances via their soft drinks, and that these substances made every consumer broadcast their most intimate thoughts to Coke marketing execs, you should publish this and damn Coke. Who cares about what Pepsi is doing? Their turn will come.
- xpe 4y ago
  Yes, there are big differences between an NSA leak versus the hypothetical soft drink company example. These differences are fair game to discuss. But in the context of the thread, the common thread is clear. Negative information, even if true, can be chosen selectively to attack an enemy.
  - the_af 4y ago
    The context of this thread is democracy and the rights of Americans. I'm not even sure what "selectively attack an enemy" means in this context. What Snowden disclosed was unequivocally bad, who cares what his motives were? We are not comparing soft drinks.

retcon 4y ago

I can't get past the question about the conditions under which the disclosures became deemed necessary. Everything else definitely never ought to be clear or you have a problem with arbitrary decision making agency out of hand.

the_af 4y ago
I honestly don't understand your reply, could you reword it please? Thanks.
- xpe 4y ago
  >> I can't get past the question about the conditions under which the disclosures became deemed necessary. Everything else definitely never ought to be clear or you have a problem with arbitrary decision making agency out of hand. > I honestly don't understand your reply, could you reword it please? Thanks. I also find it confusing. Here's my understanding: the commenter is asking something akin to this question: Why did Snowden's deem his disclosures to be necessary? Based on my understanding of Snowden, he deemed his disclosures necessary because he views these NSA programs as unjust and/or undemocratic and would continue (and probably get worse) if not revealed. >> Everything else definitely never ought to be clear or you have a problem with arbitrary decision making agency out of hand. I'm unclear on what this sentence as a whole means. First, I wonder if "never ought" was a typo and the commenter meant just "ought". Second, I'd guess that "arbitrary decision making agency out of hand" probably was meant to be "arbitrary agency decision making out of hand", suggesting that the NSA was overstepping its bounds.

rblatz 4y ago

You can say only true things but still mislead by selectively releasing information. That's why it is essential to try and understand the motivations behind the leaked information.

the_af 4y ago
Yes. On the other hand, the NSA illegally spying on Americans is bad. You don't need to know the motivations, it's just bad. You cannot build a robust democracy on top of such a shaky foundation. They can claim "Snowden was a KGB mole!" but if they hadn't been doing such nasty things, there wouldn't have been something so damaging for the mole (or a disgruntled ex employee, whatever) to disclose. There will always be dirty laundry to disclose of course -- nobody is 100% clean -- but this was major. This is classic "shooting the messenger".

xpe 4y ago

> Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters. Incorrect. One person -- or one group -- or one ideology -- doesn't get to decide all that matters for everyone.

the_af 4y ago
Your reply is worded so generally and vaguely I don't even understand what you mean. Who "gets" to "decide" what in your reply? Please be specific.
- xpe 4y ago
  >>> Was what [Snowden] disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters. >> Incorrect. One person -- or one group -- or one ideology -- doesn't get to decide all that matters for everyone. > Your reply is worded so generally and vaguely I don't even understand what you mean. I know the feeling. I've struggled to understand what you write as well. Yes, I was making a general point. When you wrote "In the end, that's all that matters." you are claiming that the truth (or lack thereof) of what Snowden said is all that matters. This is an overly simplistic and narrow view. Such a view disregards the rest of the situation, including ethics, impacts over different time scales, disinformation, and geopolitics.