4 ms·

This information is illuminating, albeit not too surprising. But with all these releases, Snowden's chance of securing whistleblower protection on constitutiona

This information is illuminating, albeit not too surprising. But with all these releases, Snowden's chance of securing whistleblower protection on constitutional grounds is completely shot. There could be a legitimate discussion about tapping US companies, or constitutionality of the information dragnet on Americans [1]. He could have had a fighting chance if the leak were confined to just those. That's not going to happen anymore, because now everybody is distracted by sensational asides: we're hacking everybody, we're behind Stuxnet, we're in cahoots with the Europeans, etc etc etc. Snowden is allowing the spotlight to remain fixed on him; this whole thing is perfect fodder for the media -- an individual on the run, Hollywood-style hacking plots, and predictable Internet outrage. All while the constitutionality issue gets swept under the rug (see Congress). What's more, Snowden will probably lose the battle of public (and legal) opinion because these foreign operations are arguably justifiable [2], and the leaks weaken the US bargaining position with other countries. I'm not sure what the goal of this leak is anymore. Snowden is completely fucking himself over while diverting public attention from issues that have the best odds of an immediate fix -- the surveillance of Americans. This whole thing is a bitter popcorn-fest. William Binney said this during the USA Today interview [3] a few weeks ago: I would tell him to steer away from anything that isn't a public service — like talking about the ability of the U.S. government to hack into other countries or other people is not a public service. So that's kind of compromising capabilities and sources and methods, basically. That's getting away from the public service that he did initially. And those would be the acts that people would charge him with as clearly treason. [1] Sorry, non-Americans: the Constitution doesn't cover you guys. But we need to protect ourselves from our own laws first before we can help the rest of the world. [2] If you think the US is the only one doing this, or if the world should just hold hands and sing Kumbaya: get a clue. [3] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...

sneak 13y ago
> Snowden is allowing the spotlight to remain fixed on him; Well, look who the interview is with.
sneak 13y ago
> Sorry, non-Americans: the Constitution doesn't cover you guys. But we need to protect ourselves from our own laws first before we can help the rest of the world. Protecting the US internet industry from these actions means not permanently undermining the credibility of every single US company when they say they're not spying on their international customers to further the government's (secret) national interests. Americans are outnumbered more than a dozen-to-one on the Internet, you know. (And that ratio stands to get even more lopsided as the next 2 billion people get on the internet, too.)
grey-area 13y ago
I'm not sure what the goal of this leak is anymore. Snowden is completely fucking himself over while diverting public attention from issues that have the best odds of an immediate fix -- the surveillance of Americans. I think he simply wants Americans, and the world, to know the truth about what their governments are doing, and doesn't believe that the best chance of that happening is staying within the bounds set by US law. He probably believes the best chances for pushback on privacy lie outside the five-eyes states, because those states have been co-opted so completely by their intelligence services. In the UK for example, every secret communication of every politician, judge and public servant is now available to those services. Binney in his heart still believes the US government can be reasoned with and negotiated with and it seems you agree with him. It appears Snowden has decisively broken with that point of view and sees it at somewhat naive (probably after seeing what was done to Binney and Manning). As to treason (in a broad sense as betraying his country), I think that depends on whether you believe he's exposing wrongdoing or not. If he's found extensive wrongdoing, it's impossible to make that public without damaging the US in the short-term, but in the long-term, he may believe what he does is in the interests of the US. I certainly agree with him. Sorry, non-Americans: the Constitution doesn't cover you guys. But we need to protect ourselves from our own laws first before we can help the rest of the world. Personally I think we should try to move past this sort of parochial patriotism and look at this issue as one which affects the whole world. If you accept the argument that foreigners may be spied upon, and anyone having contact with foreigners, you're accepting that anyone who does business outside the US or has contacts outside the US is a potential surveillance target. That probably covers almost the entire cosmopolitan US population nowadays. So much for American privacy. You also accept that states like the UK and Canada will be allowed to take every bit of information that passes through them and pass it back to the NSA, because that data is now 'foreign'. By the same argument text messages in the UK are all swept up, because they pass over the border for technical reasons apparently. Of course the only country and legal framework we can currently work within is our own, but it is inconsistent and ultimately futile to view this as a struggle for rights in only one country, because the network which we're objecting to is global in scope and global in ambition. Perhaps more important than the difficulties of separating foreign from US data is the damage this attitude causes to the standing of the US in the world - if this deepens the perception that there is one law of US citizens and another for everyone else, why should other countries treat American data and persons with respect?
mongol 13y ago
Related to 1): If that's the American attitude, then Snowden is certainly a hero for all of us non-Americans.
guelo 13y ago
I hate the "everyone is doing it" "get a clue" excuses. The U.S. government hacking into Hong Kong computers is wrong and disclosing it is a public service to the people of Hong Kong. If we don't demand moral just governments we will never get them.
- jallmann 13y ago
  >If we don't demand moral just governments we will never get them. OK, here's a clue: truly moral governance is only sustainable if all governments follow the same moral behaviors. Unfortunately, that's not a stable equilibrium, because the world is not Kantian -- thinking otherwise is naive.
  - guelo 13y ago
    The US used to be a leader, forming the United Nations, ratifying the Geneva Conventions, promoting human rights, etc. Nowadays we have squandered our moral leadership by refusing to sign things like the ban against land mines or the international criminal court; as well as by leading immoral wars and torturing prisoners. As a superpower we have the power to make the world better for everyone but the empire has turned selfish, short-sighted and evil instead.
    - jallmann 13y ago
      Rose-colored glasses, maybe? How about slavery, segregation, the treatment of Native Americans, Japanese internment, McCarthyism, etc. Find a country with a history of unblemished human rights -- it doesn't exist. Anyway this thread is getting off topic, I'll stop here.
antocv 13y ago
> This whole thing is a bitter popcorn-fest. I believe this whole fest and keeping "Snowden" in the media light is deliberate, as we know people in USA have a goldfish memory concerning important issues and media, it appears that talking like this is the only way to keep the issue in the light. What else would you like him or anyone to do? Keep quite and hide, just like the US government wants? Better keep him in the light than on the latest North Korean threats. Snowden can go to slience-mode once something concrete has been done and not just internet masturbation over it on reddit and hn. Until then, enjoy the popcorn fest.
HSO 13y ago
> [2] If you think the US is the only one doing this, or if the world should just hold hands and sing Kumbaya: get a clue. 1) Governments spying on governments, sure. On foreign businesses even, sure, if they're big or important enough, I've heard that too. But does any other country do indiscriminate mass surveillance on the entire US population? Make no mistake, this is the informational equivalent of carpet bombing other countries. And not just your purported and declared "enemies" but even your friends and allies. You should not wonder if you end up having none. 2) "It's right because other people do it too / did it first." Hm, grow up? 3) "It's ok because it's always been done like that." Don't I love this time-based argument. So it was ok to have concentration camps in 1944 because they've been there in 1943? Or where is the line? And who determines it?
- jallmann 13y ago
  > 1 If they don't, it's probably because NSA is actively preventing it (albeit while doing it themselves). Anyway, we're not disagreeing here. > 2 Like it or not, it's how the world works. > 3 ...and Godwinned. One would hope that it's conversations like these that allow us to call out the slippery slope between liberty and (overbearing) security.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
[2] If you think the US is the only one doing this, or if the world should just hold hands and sing Kumbaya: get a clue. If you think that's an argument, you should follow your own advice.

sneak 13y ago

> Snowden is allowing the spotlight to remain fixed on him; Well, look who the interview is with.

sneak 13y ago

> Sorry, non-Americans: the Constitution doesn't cover you guys. But we need to protect ourselves from our own laws first before we can help the rest of the world. Protecting the US internet industry from these actions means not permanently undermining the credibility of every single US company when they say they're not spying on their international customers to further the government's (secret) national interests. Americans are outnumbered more than a dozen-to-one on the Internet, you know. (And that ratio stands to get even more lopsided as the next 2 billion people get on the internet, too.)

grey-area 13y ago

I'm not sure what the goal of this leak is anymore. Snowden is completely fucking himself over while diverting public attention from issues that have the best odds of an immediate fix -- the surveillance of Americans. I think he simply wants Americans, and the world, to know the truth about what their governments are doing, and doesn't believe that the best chance of that happening is staying within the bounds set by US law. He probably believes the best chances for pushback on privacy lie outside the five-eyes states, because those states have been co-opted so completely by their intelligence services. In the UK for example, every secret communication of every politician, judge and public servant is now available to those services. Binney in his heart still believes the US government can be reasoned with and negotiated with and it seems you agree with him. It appears Snowden has decisively broken with that point of view and sees it at somewhat naive (probably after seeing what was done to Binney and Manning). As to treason (in a broad sense as betraying his country), I think that depends on whether you believe he's exposing wrongdoing or not. If he's found extensive wrongdoing, it's impossible to make that public without damaging the US in the short-term, but in the long-term, he may believe what he does is in the interests of the US. I certainly agree with him. Sorry, non-Americans: the Constitution doesn't cover you guys. But we need to protect ourselves from our own laws first before we can help the rest of the world. Personally I think we should try to move past this sort of parochial patriotism and look at this issue as one which affects the whole world. If you accept the argument that foreigners may be spied upon, and anyone having contact with foreigners, you're accepting that anyone who does business outside the US or has contacts outside the US is a potential surveillance target. That probably covers almost the entire cosmopolitan US population nowadays. So much for American privacy. You also accept that states like the UK and Canada will be allowed to take every bit of information that passes through them and pass it back to the NSA, because that data is now 'foreign'. By the same argument text messages in the UK are all swept up, because they pass over the border for technical reasons apparently. Of course the only country and legal framework we can currently work within is our own, but it is inconsistent and ultimately futile to view this as a struggle for rights in only one country, because the network which we're objecting to is global in scope and global in ambition. Perhaps more important than the difficulties of separating foreign from US data is the damage this attitude causes to the standing of the US in the world - if this deepens the perception that there is one law of US citizens and another for everyone else, why should other countries treat American data and persons with respect?

mongol 13y ago

Related to 1): If that's the American attitude, then Snowden is certainly a hero for all of us non-Americans.

guelo 13y ago

I hate the "everyone is doing it" "get a clue" excuses. The U.S. government hacking into Hong Kong computers is wrong and disclosing it is a public service to the people of Hong Kong. If we don't demand moral just governments we will never get them.

jallmann 13y ago
>If we don't demand moral just governments we will never get them. OK, here's a clue: truly moral governance is only sustainable if all governments follow the same moral behaviors. Unfortunately, that's not a stable equilibrium, because the world is not Kantian -- thinking otherwise is naive.
- guelo 13y ago
  The US used to be a leader, forming the United Nations, ratifying the Geneva Conventions, promoting human rights, etc. Nowadays we have squandered our moral leadership by refusing to sign things like the ban against land mines or the international criminal court; as well as by leading immoral wars and torturing prisoners. As a superpower we have the power to make the world better for everyone but the empire has turned selfish, short-sighted and evil instead.
  - jallmann 13y ago
    Rose-colored glasses, maybe? How about slavery, segregation, the treatment of Native Americans, Japanese internment, McCarthyism, etc. Find a country with a history of unblemished human rights -- it doesn't exist. Anyway this thread is getting off topic, I'll stop here.

antocv 13y ago

> This whole thing is a bitter popcorn-fest. I believe this whole fest and keeping "Snowden" in the media light is deliberate, as we know people in USA have a goldfish memory concerning important issues and media, it appears that talking like this is the only way to keep the issue in the light. What else would you like him or anyone to do? Keep quite and hide, just like the US government wants? Better keep him in the light than on the latest North Korean threats. Snowden can go to slience-mode once something concrete has been done and not just internet masturbation over it on reddit and hn. Until then, enjoy the popcorn fest.

HSO 13y ago

> [2] If you think the US is the only one doing this, or if the world should just hold hands and sing Kumbaya: get a clue. 1) Governments spying on governments, sure. On foreign businesses even, sure, if they're big or important enough, I've heard that too. But does any other country do indiscriminate mass surveillance on the entire US population? Make no mistake, this is the informational equivalent of carpet bombing other countries. And not just your purported and declared "enemies" but even your friends and allies. You should not wonder if you end up having none. 2) "It's right because other people do it too / did it first." Hm, grow up? 3) "It's ok because it's always been done like that." Don't I love this time-based argument. So it was ok to have concentration camps in 1944 because they've been there in 1943? Or where is the line? And who determines it?

jallmann 13y ago
> 1 If they don't, it's probably because NSA is actively preventing it (albeit while doing it themselves). Anyway, we're not disagreeing here. > 2 Like it or not, it's how the world works. > 3 ...and Godwinned. One would hope that it's conversations like these that allow us to call out the slippery slope between liberty and (overbearing) security.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

[2] If you think the US is the only one doing this, or if the world should just hold hands and sing Kumbaya: get a clue. If you think that's an argument, you should follow your own advice.