4 ms·

> And unlike Snowden, he wasn’t trying to expose abuses by sending the documents to reporters. Snowden was, according to all available evidence, not trying to

> And unlike Snowden, he wasn’t trying to expose abuses by sending the documents to reporters. Snowden was, according to all available evidence, not trying to expose abuses. He was trying to commit espionage against the US, and it's extremely clear to anyone who has passing experience with the leaks and a shred of intellectual honesty, because the vast majority of the files were completely unrelated to domestic surveillance programs, and instead concerned foreign surveillance programs. Stop bringing up Snowden; all of the evidence indicates that he was lying about his motive.

ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
It's a bit surprising that he would choose to disseminate his espionage via uncovering mass secret state surveillence and sending documents to a third party so they could publish them. I am not in espionage, but I expect there are considerably easier and more reliable ways to exfiltrate data. I don't think it is as surprising that he took more files than he should have.
- throw10920 2y ago
  He has also shown narcissistic tendencies, which is consistent with the US government's statements that he did this for publicity and personal recognition/profit. Sorry, when I say "espionage", I mean in the more general sense of dealing damage to the government, not specifically sending the documents to Russia or whatever. There's not a lot of evidence for him being a Russian spy. > I don't think it is as surprising that he took more files than he should have. It's extremely surprising if he claims to have been acting in the public's interest by uncovering domestic spying programs and then over 90 percent of the files he took were completely unrelated to that stated goal. That's a very strong indicator of dishonesty.
  - NavinF 2y ago
    Does anyone else use the word "espionage" like that or is it just you?
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    He has also shown narcissistic tendencies, which is consistent with the US government's statements that he did this for publicity and personal recognition/profit. "Narcisstic tendencies" is a very common smear / throwaway labelling we hear a lot -- about bosses, exes, manipulative relatives and what not. In some cases it's valid, but in most it's simply not. Unless you can point to specifics, we'll have to include this labelling of Snowden in that category as well. But even if it did apply -- it would also be perfectly consistent with the possibly that he simply considers himself a fearless do-gooder. I don't rule out your alternatives, but Occam's Razor (combined with the fact that there's no visible evidence of him having profited in any way; and his general bearing and demeanor do not correspond to those of the publicity whore type) does favor the former. (Not to say that he is or is not a fearless do-gooder; just that it's not at all unlikely that that's what he considers himself to be).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
aguaviva 2y ago
He was trying to commit espionage against the US, and it's extremely clear to anyone who has passing experience with the leaks and a shred of intellectual honesty, Just the pugnacious way you choose to phrase this ("It's sooo obvious, and if you don't simply full-on agree you must be clueless and/or a lying scumbag yourself") makes me doubt this version of events. That, plus the fact that (even after all this time) no one has come forward with any actual dispositive evidence for such a narrative. It's all just speculation.
- throw10920 2y ago
  There's the intellectual dishonesty - I literally described the evidence in the exact same sentence, that you cut off in your citation because it was inconvenient for you: > because the vast majority of the files were completely unrelated to domestic surveillance programs, and instead concerned foreign surveillance programs. It is exactly because the common response to the evidence is this kind of deceptiveness that I have to point it out.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Bollocks -- the context is right there for anyone to scroll up and see, so there's nothing deceptive about the segment I chose to highlight. And that's all it was -- highlighting, not deceptive quoting.
    - throw10920 2y ago
      That part of my comment that you left out directly disproves what you wrote after: > That, plus the fact that (even after all this time) no one has come forward with any actual dispositive evidence for such a narrative. > It's all just speculation. I described the evidence, provided by Snowden himself and publicly available for anyone to check, which directly disproves your claim that "it's all just speculative". The actual evidence significantly favors the theory that it was espionage over the theory that it was whistleblowing.
      - 2y ago

ToValueFunfetti 2y ago

It's a bit surprising that he would choose to disseminate his espionage via uncovering mass secret state surveillence and sending documents to a third party so they could publish them. I am not in espionage, but I expect there are considerably easier and more reliable ways to exfiltrate data. I don't think it is as surprising that he took more files than he should have.

throw10920 2y ago
He has also shown narcissistic tendencies, which is consistent with the US government's statements that he did this for publicity and personal recognition/profit. Sorry, when I say "espionage", I mean in the more general sense of dealing damage to the government, not specifically sending the documents to Russia or whatever. There's not a lot of evidence for him being a Russian spy. > I don't think it is as surprising that he took more files than he should have. It's extremely surprising if he claims to have been acting in the public's interest by uncovering domestic spying programs and then over 90 percent of the files he took were completely unrelated to that stated goal. That's a very strong indicator of dishonesty.
- NavinF 2y ago
  Does anyone else use the word "espionage" like that or is it just you?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  He has also shown narcissistic tendencies, which is consistent with the US government's statements that he did this for publicity and personal recognition/profit. "Narcisstic tendencies" is a very common smear / throwaway labelling we hear a lot -- about bosses, exes, manipulative relatives and what not. In some cases it's valid, but in most it's simply not. Unless you can point to specifics, we'll have to include this labelling of Snowden in that category as well. But even if it did apply -- it would also be perfectly consistent with the possibly that he simply considers himself a fearless do-gooder. I don't rule out your alternatives, but Occam's Razor (combined with the fact that there's no visible evidence of him having profited in any way; and his general bearing and demeanor do not correspond to those of the publicity whore type) does favor the former. (Not to say that he is or is not a fearless do-gooder; just that it's not at all unlikely that that's what he considers himself to be).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

aguaviva 2y ago

He was trying to commit espionage against the US, and it's extremely clear to anyone who has passing experience with the leaks and a shred of intellectual honesty, Just the pugnacious way you choose to phrase this ("It's sooo obvious, and if you don't simply full-on agree you must be clueless and/or a lying scumbag yourself") makes me doubt this version of events. That, plus the fact that (even after all this time) no one has come forward with any actual dispositive evidence for such a narrative. It's all just speculation.

throw10920 2y ago
There's the intellectual dishonesty - I literally described the evidence in the exact same sentence, that you cut off in your citation because it was inconvenient for you: > because the vast majority of the files were completely unrelated to domestic surveillance programs, and instead concerned foreign surveillance programs. It is exactly because the common response to the evidence is this kind of deceptiveness that I have to point it out.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Bollocks -- the context is right there for anyone to scroll up and see, so there's nothing deceptive about the segment I chose to highlight. And that's all it was -- highlighting, not deceptive quoting.
  - throw10920 2y ago
    That part of my comment that you left out directly disproves what you wrote after: > That, plus the fact that (even after all this time) no one has come forward with any actual dispositive evidence for such a narrative. > It's all just speculation. I described the evidence, provided by Snowden himself and publicly available for anyone to check, which directly disproves your claim that "it's all just speculative". The actual evidence significantly favors the theory that it was espionage over the theory that it was whistleblowing.
    - 2y ago