8 ms·

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 hones

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.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I described the evidence, provided by Snowden himself and publicly available for anyone to check, Before I offer anything else -- you are welcome to provide quotes and sources for the respective items of evidence described above.
      - throw10920 2y ago
        The source is that you look at the files yourself from GitHub or the Intercept, which are available to anyone.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        No one has time to chase down vague and hand-wavy "references" like these. If you don't want to provide a constructive response to what was asked, that's your prerogative of course.
        throw10920 2y ago
        It's a blatant lie to call this a "vague and hand-wavey reference". The files are publicly available on the Intercept and the first page on Google search results - there is absolutely no vagueness here. It's also a blatant lie to claim that "no one has time" to spend 10 seconds on a Google search to find the files and 5-10 minutes to sample them and see how many are related to domestic collection. Your response clearly indicates that you have neither read the files nor have the intellectual honesty to admit that you haven't read them and don't want to because it'll refute your existing beliefs. Future HN readers: notice how this user is unwilling to read documents that are the first page on a Google search for "Snowden files", and uses any excuse necessary to avoid doing so and deflect when called out. This is an excellent confirmation of my claim that the majority of the documents are unrelated to domestic collection.
      - ace5 2y ago
        https://github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive https://github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive second result on ddg for "Snowden files", wasn't hard to find...

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.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I described the evidence, provided by Snowden himself and publicly available for anyone to check, Before I offer anything else -- you are welcome to provide quotes and sources for the respective items of evidence described above.
    - throw10920 2y ago
      The source is that you look at the files yourself from GitHub or the Intercept, which are available to anyone.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        No one has time to chase down vague and hand-wavy "references" like these. If you don't want to provide a constructive response to what was asked, that's your prerogative of course.
        throw10920 2y ago
        It's a blatant lie to call this a "vague and hand-wavey reference". The files are publicly available on the Intercept and the first page on Google search results - there is absolutely no vagueness here. It's also a blatant lie to claim that "no one has time" to spend 10 seconds on a Google search to find the files and 5-10 minutes to sample them and see how many are related to domestic collection. Your response clearly indicates that you have neither read the files nor have the intellectual honesty to admit that you haven't read them and don't want to because it'll refute your existing beliefs. Future HN readers: notice how this user is unwilling to read documents that are the first page on a Google search for "Snowden files", and uses any excuse necessary to avoid doing so and deflect when called out. This is an excellent confirmation of my claim that the majority of the documents are unrelated to domestic collection.
    - ace5 2y ago
      https://github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive https://github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive second result on ddg for "Snowden files", wasn't hard to find...