5 ms·

What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? The legality and morality of the spying program shouldn't even have to be an iss

What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? The legality and morality of the spying program shouldn't even have to be an issue when one is determining whether to support Snowden or not. If an American supports the spying program, how is it any better or worse now that he knows of its existence? It's not like Snowden destroyed the program. All he did was tell us that it exists. The program still operates freely and "protects us" as much as it did before. Why would a citizen now be unhappy that he's burdened with the knowledge of such things? Terrorists aren't now saying, "oh crap, I better be more careful with my communications now." I'm sure they were already taking proper precautions. The existence of the program was probably already safely implied by the people it's targeting the most.

dylangs1030 13y ago
This is an idealist approach to thinking about American reactions, not a realistic one. In the real world, people get angry at things even if they don't cause lasting change. It doesn't matter if Snowden dismantled a program they like - people get angry just because you criticize their favorite candidate, and he did so much more than that. It's naive to try and argue nothing is different or impacted because of Snowden just because he didn't dismantle the spying program. Snowden is antagonistic to the program itself and is publicly standing against it. As such, he is didactically opposed to Americans who support the program and vice versa. In politics, being opposed in such a way fuels anger and resentment. You don't need to change anything - its your existence as a player on the other team and your potential to rally against something other people agree with that makes you a target.
jzelinskie 13y ago
I think most people opposed to Snowden are using the argument that he has "crossed the line" by releasing information on the NSA hacking Chinese infrastructure. What they fail to realize is that this is public infrastructure (hospitals, etc...) and the attacks are basically human rights violations on the Chinese; which is a country we aren't even at war with.
- embolism 13y ago
  Except that there is plenty of suggestion (denied by the Chinese government) that Chinese are hacking US infrastructure and corporations too. So these revelations appear as Snowden taking the Chinese side in an international dispute.
  - jzelinskie 13y ago
    From my perspective, there has long been indisputable evidence connecting the Chinese government to hacks in the US, and the media has long portrayed them as the bad guys. I think now that there's indisputable evidence that the US has been doing the same, the public is aware of both sides of the international dispute and can have a well developed opinion of the matter. I don't see this as "taking China's side" as much as liberating people from bias on an international issue.
    - embolism 13y ago
      Not really - I don't see any 'well developed' analysis of either side. For example, I see claims that vast amounts of US IP have been stolen by Chinese corporations through hacking. Is this true, and if so, do we really think that US corporations are stealing vast amounts of IP from the Chinese? We really know almost nothing about the nature, extent, or balance of these activities other than that both sides are engaging in them.
dasil003 13y ago
> What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? I don't think anyone who thinks Snowden is a traitor actually has considered it at all, they are just eating up the standard post-911 narrative that has been driving this country for over a decade now. The problem is that being anti-terrorism is such a political bi-partisan pillar that even appearing to rationally consider the cost-benefit (let alone the constitutionality!) of something as obscene as the NSA's domestic spying program in its current form is political suicide . It's a sad state of affairs, but the public debate driven by politicians is based on the strength of Twitter-length arguments. Based on current sentiment, can you can concoct a stronger sound bite pro or anti NSA surveillance? Critical thinking doesn't enter into it at all. That's why only the people can change this debate. We need to convince each other of the slippery slope we're on, and the futility of an ever-increasing police state in 100% prevention of terrorism. Then we need to make the politicians aware that we do believe in the first and fourth ammendments, and that we will not allow our proxy power to be used to spy on ourselves en masse, and we will vote out of office any politician who does not respect the limits of government power. A little help from the media would be nice, but big media is almost as beholden to political winds as politicians are these days.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  I don't mean to insult you, but I think you missed the parent's legitimate question with your bias against "the other side". This isn't black and white. There are legitimate reasons for and against the NSA spying program (I happen to fall on the side of it being too unchecked, but I can entertain the core idea of it). The Americans who believe the surveillance program is a good idea aren't sheeple you can just write off as a symptom of hysteria culture. If you can't spend 10 minutes thinking about the NSA program and come up with reasons why it's a good idea, you're either not thinking hard enough or you're massively biased. The core idea is not stupid or unreasonable. It has a liability for abuse, which is the real problem with it, but the program stands on its own merit as a benefactor to homeland security with a few key changes. My point is, you're writing off Americans who support this as being uninformed and outright wrong, but that's not fair to them. They have reasonable and legitimate reasons to support the NSA surveillance. They might not feel powerfully about it but they're not wrong just because it's vogue to hate this program. Open this as a conversation, not one where you have assymetrical, priveliged knowledge and a superior opinion of these things.
kenjackson 13y ago
What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? I think many Americans assumed such practices likely existed, and believed them to be useful tools against terrorists and criminals. They believe that Snowden has reduced the effectiveness of these tools. For example, most people know we have spies. But I think these same people would be upset if someone said, "We have two spies in Pakistan working with this group. And a common technique for this group is to infiltrate via this mosque, where we have several spies, etc...". While this isn't a list of the names of the spies, people would probably believe at even this high level of specificity that the effectiveness of their intelligence gathering would be reduced. I personally have mixed feelings about it. I do think that to the extent that the gov't is doing something illegal, whisteblowers should be empowered to stop it. On the other hand, I think the capability of our intelligence gathering should be as secret as possible. It's not just what can they do that should be secret, but what they can't do. Some people think that terrorists are hyper-aware and practice perfect security. I suspect that they make a lot of mistakes and have a lot of assumptions. Is Snowden a hero? I think history will decide this question. If we see a freer US as a result then I think he may likely be viewed that way in the future. If instead it turns out that our intelligence agencies were practicing disciplined filtering and thwarting attacks, and in the future we're outmaneuvered due to these leaks then I think history will view him in a different light.
DanBC 13y ago
> What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? Don't wars with Iraq and Afghanistan prove that the public can have a totally incorrect view of truth? China is a bad_guy nation. Anyone going there has got to be a bit dodgy.
mikeash 13y ago
What really blows me away is the people who say that Snowden's motivations must be selfish, because he hasn't turned himself in the way a whistleblower ought to. He's not looking out for the American public, they say, he's just looking out for himself. It makes no sense. If he was looking out for himself, why would he do anything but keep his high-paid contract with the NSA and go to work like the rest of us? It's a much better life than hopping the world trying to stay one step ahead of the US Government, where the best possible outcome involves accepting political asylum and eventual obscurity in a foreign country. Yet this is an actual thing that real people getting lots of media time have said in a serious manner. It's obvious that there is simply no thought involved in this whole business, not at the top, not at the bottom, not anywhere in between. The reactions are purely emotional.

dylangs1030 13y ago

This is an idealist approach to thinking about American reactions, not a realistic one. In the real world, people get angry at things even if they don't cause lasting change. It doesn't matter if Snowden dismantled a program they like - people get angry just because you criticize their favorite candidate, and he did so much more than that. It's naive to try and argue nothing is different or impacted because of Snowden just because he didn't dismantle the spying program. Snowden is antagonistic to the program itself and is publicly standing against it. As such, he is didactically opposed to Americans who support the program and vice versa. In politics, being opposed in such a way fuels anger and resentment. You don't need to change anything - its your existence as a player on the other team and your potential to rally against something other people agree with that makes you a target.

jzelinskie 13y ago

I think most people opposed to Snowden are using the argument that he has "crossed the line" by releasing information on the NSA hacking Chinese infrastructure. What they fail to realize is that this is public infrastructure (hospitals, etc...) and the attacks are basically human rights violations on the Chinese; which is a country we aren't even at war with.

embolism 13y ago
Except that there is plenty of suggestion (denied by the Chinese government) that Chinese are hacking US infrastructure and corporations too. So these revelations appear as Snowden taking the Chinese side in an international dispute.
- jzelinskie 13y ago
  From my perspective, there has long been indisputable evidence connecting the Chinese government to hacks in the US, and the media has long portrayed them as the bad guys. I think now that there's indisputable evidence that the US has been doing the same, the public is aware of both sides of the international dispute and can have a well developed opinion of the matter. I don't see this as "taking China's side" as much as liberating people from bias on an international issue.
  - embolism 13y ago
    Not really - I don't see any 'well developed' analysis of either side. For example, I see claims that vast amounts of US IP have been stolen by Chinese corporations through hacking. Is this true, and if so, do we really think that US corporations are stealing vast amounts of IP from the Chinese? We really know almost nothing about the nature, extent, or balance of these activities other than that both sides are engaging in them.

dasil003 13y ago

> What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? I don't think anyone who thinks Snowden is a traitor actually has considered it at all, they are just eating up the standard post-911 narrative that has been driving this country for over a decade now. The problem is that being anti-terrorism is such a political bi-partisan pillar that even appearing to rationally consider the cost-benefit (let alone the constitutionality!) of something as obscene as the NSA's domestic spying program in its current form is political suicide . It's a sad state of affairs, but the public debate driven by politicians is based on the strength of Twitter-length arguments. Based on current sentiment, can you can concoct a stronger sound bite pro or anti NSA surveillance? Critical thinking doesn't enter into it at all. That's why only the people can change this debate. We need to convince each other of the slippery slope we're on, and the futility of an ever-increasing police state in 100% prevention of terrorism. Then we need to make the politicians aware that we do believe in the first and fourth ammendments, and that we will not allow our proxy power to be used to spy on ourselves en masse, and we will vote out of office any politician who does not respect the limits of government power. A little help from the media would be nice, but big media is almost as beholden to political winds as politicians are these days.

dylangs1030 13y ago
I don't mean to insult you, but I think you missed the parent's legitimate question with your bias against "the other side". This isn't black and white. There are legitimate reasons for and against the NSA spying program (I happen to fall on the side of it being too unchecked, but I can entertain the core idea of it). The Americans who believe the surveillance program is a good idea aren't sheeple you can just write off as a symptom of hysteria culture. If you can't spend 10 minutes thinking about the NSA program and come up with reasons why it's a good idea, you're either not thinking hard enough or you're massively biased. The core idea is not stupid or unreasonable. It has a liability for abuse, which is the real problem with it, but the program stands on its own merit as a benefactor to homeland security with a few key changes. My point is, you're writing off Americans who support this as being uninformed and outright wrong, but that's not fair to them. They have reasonable and legitimate reasons to support the NSA surveillance. They might not feel powerfully about it but they're not wrong just because it's vogue to hate this program. Open this as a conversation, not one where you have assymetrical, priveliged knowledge and a superior opinion of these things.

kenjackson 13y ago

What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? I think many Americans assumed such practices likely existed, and believed them to be useful tools against terrorists and criminals. They believe that Snowden has reduced the effectiveness of these tools. For example, most people know we have spies. But I think these same people would be upset if someone said, "We have two spies in Pakistan working with this group. And a common technique for this group is to infiltrate via this mosque, where we have several spies, etc...". While this isn't a list of the names of the spies, people would probably believe at even this high level of specificity that the effectiveness of their intelligence gathering would be reduced. I personally have mixed feelings about it. I do think that to the extent that the gov't is doing something illegal, whisteblowers should be empowered to stop it. On the other hand, I think the capability of our intelligence gathering should be as secret as possible. It's not just what can they do that should be secret, but what they can't do. Some people think that terrorists are hyper-aware and practice perfect security. I suspect that they make a lot of mistakes and have a lot of assumptions. Is Snowden a hero? I think history will decide this question. If we see a freer US as a result then I think he may likely be viewed that way in the future. If instead it turns out that our intelligence agencies were practicing disciplined filtering and thwarting attacks, and in the future we're outmaneuvered due to these leaks then I think history will view him in a different light.

DanBC 13y ago

> What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? Don't wars with Iraq and Afghanistan prove that the public can have a totally incorrect view of truth? China is a bad_guy nation. Anyone going there has got to be a bit dodgy.

mikeash 13y ago

What really blows me away is the people who say that Snowden's motivations must be selfish, because he hasn't turned himself in the way a whistleblower ought to. He's not looking out for the American public, they say, he's just looking out for himself. It makes no sense. If he was looking out for himself, why would he do anything but keep his high-paid contract with the NSA and go to work like the rest of us? It's a much better life than hopping the world trying to stay one step ahead of the US Government, where the best possible outcome involves accepting political asylum and eventual obscurity in a foreign country. Yet this is an actual thing that real people getting lots of media time have said in a serious manner. It's obvious that there is simply no thought involved in this whole business, not at the top, not at the bottom, not anywhere in between. The reactions are purely emotional.