5 ms·

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 inconvenie

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
        Thank you.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        That's a data dump, not a coherent analysis or explanation. And either way -- this whole discussion is plainly moot. For starters, the initial argument made in [0] was just not coherent to begin with. There's no way to interpret "commit espionage against the US" other than to mean in the service of some adversary (as others have indeed accused Snowden of doing, with similar vehemence and invariably lacking hard evidence). The commenter withdrew that assertion, which is okay I guess, but that made for an awfully sloppy start. And even so, the basic logic of what was left in their post (that it was "extremely clear" that Snowden was on some kind of nihilistic rampage against the government, rather than out to expose abuses) just doesn't hold up. Okay, so the guy was sloppy and scattershot in his choice of what to leak. But that by itself doesn't establish destructive nihilism or even vindictiveness toward his former employer as the primary motive. When this was pointed out in [1], the commenter's followup led off with, not a substantive retort -- but a straight-up character smear. Another huge red flag. To the extent that they did attempt to address the critique -- still, their logic just didn't add up. Even if 90 percent of the files were related to foreign rather than domestic programs -- that doesn't mean Snowden was simply out to cause as much damage as he possibly could. The simplest and far more plausible explanation is that he thought he could stop (or at least warn people about) abuses in foreign countries as well. So with that, and the plainly obnoxious, browbeating tone they adopted from the get-go (at the readers of HN, not even at me specifically) I came to a point where I had had enough. As a last resort I was hoping someone could point to something resembling a coherent analysis from some trusted external source (as obviously no one has time sit down and dig through those PDFs, and no one not deeply immersed in this field can honestly say that they can quickly come to conclusions about anything after just a quick sampling). But their response to that was hand-wavy and combative, as well. So that's it for me. I'm not vested in this topic, and have no particular sympathies for or against Snowden. But I don't pretend to know what his "true" motives were, either. All I know is that I definitely don't trust what the commenter of [0] has to say about anything in regard to this topic. Not because they're right or wrong. But just from how they choose to communicate, and especially their attitude toward those who don't immediately buy into their (at best, sketchy) interpretations of the narrative record. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406143 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406442

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
      Thank you.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      That's a data dump, not a coherent analysis or explanation. And either way -- this whole discussion is plainly moot. For starters, the initial argument made in [0] was just not coherent to begin with. There's no way to interpret "commit espionage against the US" other than to mean in the service of some adversary (as others have indeed accused Snowden of doing, with similar vehemence and invariably lacking hard evidence). The commenter withdrew that assertion, which is okay I guess, but that made for an awfully sloppy start. And even so, the basic logic of what was left in their post (that it was "extremely clear" that Snowden was on some kind of nihilistic rampage against the government, rather than out to expose abuses) just doesn't hold up. Okay, so the guy was sloppy and scattershot in his choice of what to leak. But that by itself doesn't establish destructive nihilism or even vindictiveness toward his former employer as the primary motive. When this was pointed out in [1], the commenter's followup led off with, not a substantive retort -- but a straight-up character smear. Another huge red flag. To the extent that they did attempt to address the critique -- still, their logic just didn't add up. Even if 90 percent of the files were related to foreign rather than domestic programs -- that doesn't mean Snowden was simply out to cause as much damage as he possibly could. The simplest and far more plausible explanation is that he thought he could stop (or at least warn people about) abuses in foreign countries as well. So with that, and the plainly obnoxious, browbeating tone they adopted from the get-go (at the readers of HN, not even at me specifically) I came to a point where I had had enough. As a last resort I was hoping someone could point to something resembling a coherent analysis from some trusted external source (as obviously no one has time sit down and dig through those PDFs, and no one not deeply immersed in this field can honestly say that they can quickly come to conclusions about anything after just a quick sampling). But their response to that was hand-wavy and combative, as well. So that's it for me. I'm not vested in this topic, and have no particular sympathies for or against Snowden. But I don't pretend to know what his "true" motives were, either. All I know is that I definitely don't trust what the commenter of [0] has to say about anything in regard to this topic. Not because they're right or wrong. But just from how they choose to communicate, and especially their attitude toward those who don't immediately buy into their (at best, sketchy) interpretations of the narrative record. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406143 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406442