3 ms·

someone who ... endangered national security I haven't seen anybody make this claim and provide any reasoning or evidence to back it up. On the contrary, if y

by bgentry 13y ago

someone who ... endangered national security I haven't seen anybody make this claim and provide any reasoning or evidence to back it up. On the contrary, if you were planning terrorist activities, you'd probably assume that the US government already had access to any of these services and instead use secure, encrypted alternatives. There's probably nothing about your behaviors that would change as a result of the existence of this program being revealed.

threeseed 13y ago
The point is that most people didn't assume that the government had access to the extent it did and how much was done domestically. That's why it has been such a big story. So on the basis of this it's obvious that Snowden endangered national security. Not all terrorists are sophisticated remember e.g. Boston Marathon.
- A1kmm 13y ago
  The widely accepted definition of 'national security' means the survival of a state. To say that Snowden endangered national security is to say that he took actions which could credibly precipitate the end of the purportedly democratic regime which is in force, and, for example, lead to an anarchy, dictatorship or a return to British rule. I personally don't believe this to be true; if anything, he may have enhanced national (and international) security against a future shift to a higher and unpopular level of authoritarianism. Certainly if the state has secret powers they have the power of surprise over some criminals and can prevent some crimes they might not otherwise, but it is folly to optimise for one thing (low crime) to the detriment of all others (personal privacy, governance by consent of the people, rule of law, balance of power of entrenched interests, due process rather than being targeted on secret evidence), and if the government is doing that, the public have at least a moral right to know.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  And yet this highly sophisticated secret program neither prevented the Boston Marathon bombings, nor AFAICT, did it aid in any way in the manhunt following the bombings.

by bgentry 13y ago

threeseed 13y ago

The point is that most people didn't assume that the government had access to the extent it did and how much was done domestically. That's why it has been such a big story. So on the basis of this it's obvious that Snowden endangered national security. Not all terrorists are sophisticated remember e.g. Boston Marathon.

A1kmm 13y ago
The widely accepted definition of 'national security' means the survival of a state. To say that Snowden endangered national security is to say that he took actions which could credibly precipitate the end of the purportedly democratic regime which is in force, and, for example, lead to an anarchy, dictatorship or a return to British rule. I personally don't believe this to be true; if anything, he may have enhanced national (and international) security against a future shift to a higher and unpopular level of authoritarianism. Certainly if the state has secret powers they have the power of surprise over some criminals and can prevent some crimes they might not otherwise, but it is folly to optimise for one thing (low crime) to the detriment of all others (personal privacy, governance by consent of the people, rule of law, balance of power of entrenched interests, due process rather than being targeted on secret evidence), and if the government is doing that, the public have at least a moral right to know.
georgemcbay 13y ago
And yet this highly sophisticated secret program neither prevented the Boston Marathon bombings, nor AFAICT, did it aid in any way in the manhunt following the bombings.