6 ms·

I think he comes off as naive and more than a little pompous, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. This is my take too. If he had had more knowledge ab

I think he comes off as naive and more than a little pompous, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. This is my take too. If he had had more knowledge about the historical background of the other countries he has visited, and especially if he had STRONG knowledge of another language, he might view the position of the United States in these matters a bit differently, and might resolve the trade-offs about what to disclose and what to keep secret quite a bit differently. On my part, as I have said in another HN comment, I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil preparing to face trial for his alleged wrongdoing, ready to bring forward any defenses he thinks he has to possible criminal charges. Right now, part of what Snowden is saying with ghostwriting help from Wikileaks is not making sense.

pvnick 13y ago
Your statement is completely nonsensical. The whole point is we have primary documents supporting what he says. His personality has nothing to do with those claims. Greenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks, and your comment comes off as very head-stuck-in-the-sand-y.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  We have primary documents supporting a very small subset of what he says. Most of the claims, including the more extraordinary ones such as he can wiretap anyone in the world including Barack Obama's personal email from his desk, remain undocumented.
  - mwerd 13y ago
    Snowden's claim regarding wiretapping Obama is corroborated by other NSA whisteblowers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      You're missing the point: Nobody's denying that with the right internal authorization, the NSA can tap any phone line they like. What's up for debate (since Snowden has provided no evidence) is the claim that Snowden could do it all by his lonesome, with no oversight or approval.
      - mwerd 13y ago
        While I disagree with your point as well, I don't think it's at all the point to which I was responding. The question was about the credibility of his claims. I have not heard any other NSA whistleblower doubting his claims, and in fact they all seem to corroborate them. Snowden directly addresses your point in his live chat: "More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n...
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Greenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks You seem like the sort of fellow who ought to own a bridge.
  - Natsu 13y ago
    If you wish to dispute the GP comment, it would be more productive to pick a specific item you believe to be inaccurate and give your reasons for believing it to be inaccurate.
    - declan 13y ago
      I'm not aware of any false statements that Snowden made, or any doctoring of the NSA documents he provided. (Senators and other officials have confirmed the legitimacy of at least some, as has a federal indictment.) But journalists can and do make mistakes interpreting the documents. Here's one example of a report trying to set the record straight: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...
ianterrell 13y ago
> I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil What bearing does which country he's in have on the content of the disclosures? Do you think he fabricated the PRISM slides since he happens to be in Russia right now?
lisper 13y ago
> if he had STRONG knowledge of another language What difference would that make? I am a naturalized American citizen who speaks three languages (English, German and Hebrew. Four if you count broken Spanish). Would that lead you to put a lot of stock in my position?
chc 13y ago
> I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil preparing to face trial for his alleged wrongdoing, ready to bring forward any defenses he thinks he has to possible criminal charges. So in order for you to take Snowden's claims seriously, he has to either claim that what he did is legal or willingly go to prison for the rest of his life? That seems pretty irrational.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  Martin Luther King, Jr. took a greater risk than that. So did the several freedom fighters in Taiwan I know personally, some of whom did hard prison time for leading peaceful public protests before Taiwan democratized. It takes people with a lot of courage to change tough situations.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    That doesn't invalidate the efforts of those who are not willing to take quite as extreme risks.
  - chc 13y ago
    I am well aware of all that, and I have great respect for those people who made those sacrifices, but it doesn't make sense to require that. The idea you're promoting here is "If you won't volunteer to have your life completely ruined, don't do the right thing. I'd rather you just be complicit in something that harms me if you aren't willing to be punished for doing the right thing." Do you not see how completely bonkers it is to look at somebody who has already given you valuable information at great personal cost and demand that he suffer more for your benefit? Why on earth would you feel he owes that to anybody?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      You're really assuming your conclusion here. William Binney did not go to prison at all; Thomas Drake got a month's probation. Now I'm not saying that they were free to make their revelations, or that it was easy; they went through a great deal of stress, legal expense, and obviously their public service careers are permanently over. But that's still a very long way from 'having your life completely ruined.'
abstractbill 13y ago
I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil preparing to face trial for his alleged wrongdoing, ready to bring forward any defenses he thinks he has to possible criminal charges. I'm not convinced we would be hearing anything from him at all - claims or otherwise - were he currently on US soil.
- gcb0 13y ago
  He would probably have 'resisted arrest' at some point.
aetherson 13y ago
While I understand the sentiment that says, "I'd prefer it if Snowden were possessed of infinite strength, that he should be willing to suffer years of imprisonment while speaking truth to power," I don't understand the sentiment that says, "So I'll dismiss everything he says given that he doesn't have limitless moral courage." I note that the same standard never seems to apply to the other side of the argument. You don't hear people say, "Well, naturally I'll dismiss everything that Obama says on the NSA scandal because he used cocaine and didn't even stand trial, much less go to prison, for it."
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Actually, I do hear a lot of people who reflexively disbelieve anything Obama says; also, you're making a terribly flawed analogy. A more appropriate one would be to say you didn't trust anything Obama said on the subject of drug policy because he used cocaine etc.
  - aetherson 13y ago
    I hear a lot of people who reflexively disbelieve anything Obama says too: it's because they've decided he's a liar, not because he lacks the moral courage necessary to turn himself in for his admitted drug use. Digression: I do not myself care that Obama used drugs. I think those drugs should have been legal. I think it was courageous of Obama to admit to drug use even if he did so in a way that did not lead to legal repercussions. But I also do not care that Snowden violated the law in his whistleblowing. I think his whistleblowing should have been legal. And I think it was courageous of Snowden to blow the whistle, even if he did so in a way that did not lead to the most severe legal repercussions possible. End digression. But no, I do not think that I made an analogy, nor that my observation was flawed. People who say, "I won't listen to Snowden unless he turns himself in" are not making an argument about Snowden's facts, they're making an argument about his character. They're saying, "I won't listen to Snowden because he isn't willing to suffer every possible negative consequence of his actions." It doesn't matter if his actions were related to the spying or not. Those same people never demand the same of Obama (or any of the other government representatives). Those representatives can, and do, in fact, grant themselves and their allies full immunity from negative repercussions, and are still treated respectfully. This is hypocrisy on the part of those who demand that Snowden turn himself in. And finally, if you want an example of Obama's less-than-perfect moral character that directly relates to the matter under discussion, there is his claim that he was against warrantless wiretaps, and campaigning as someone who was against them.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil There is a long list of former gov't employees who went through those channels and found them sorely lacking. In other words, people who are in a position to know better, who disagree with you. Radack, Drake, and Binney, to name a few. >Right now, part of what Snowden is saying with ghostwriting help from Wikileaks is not making sense. You sound a lot like Walter Pincus, whose employer had to print a retraction[1] over the baseless accusations he made in this column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questions-for-snowden/2013/07/08/d06ee0f8-e428-11e2-80eb-3145e2994a55_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questi... I suggest you have a look at that story from a critical perspective: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spying-scandal-focus-on-edward-snowden-by-us-media-a-911185.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spying-scandal... [1]Correction: A previous version of this Fine Print column incorrectly said that an article by journalist Glenn Greenwald was written for the WikiLeaks Press blog.The article, about filmmaker Laura Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. officials, was written for the online publication Salon and first appeared April 8, 2012. Its appearance on the WikiLeaks Press blog two days later was a reposting. This version has been corrected. A previous version of the column also asserted that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, during a May 29 interview with Democracy Now, “previewed” the story that Greenwald wrote for the Guardian newspaper about the Obama administration’s involvement in the collection of Americans’ phone records. There is no evidence that Assange had advance knowledge of the story; the assertion was based on a previously published interview in which Assange discussed an earlier surveillance project involving the collection of phone records.The assertion has been taken out of this version. The column also does not mention Snowden’s past work in the intelligence community. The lack of this context may have created the impression that Snowden’s work for Booz Allen Hamilton gave him his first access to classified surveillance programs.

pvnick 13y ago

Your statement is completely nonsensical. The whole point is we have primary documents supporting what he says. His personality has nothing to do with those claims. Greenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks, and your comment comes off as very head-stuck-in-the-sand-y.

Kylekramer 13y ago
We have primary documents supporting a very small subset of what he says. Most of the claims, including the more extraordinary ones such as he can wiretap anyone in the world including Barack Obama's personal email from his desk, remain undocumented.
- mwerd 13y ago
  Snowden's claim regarding wiretapping Obama is corroborated by other NSA whisteblowers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    You're missing the point: Nobody's denying that with the right internal authorization, the NSA can tap any phone line they like. What's up for debate (since Snowden has provided no evidence) is the claim that Snowden could do it all by his lonesome, with no oversight or approval.
    - mwerd 13y ago
      While I disagree with your point as well, I don't think it's at all the point to which I was responding. The question was about the credibility of his claims. I have not heard any other NSA whistleblower doubting his claims, and in fact they all seem to corroborate them. Snowden directly addresses your point in his live chat: "More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n...
anigbrowl 13y ago
Greenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks You seem like the sort of fellow who ought to own a bridge.
- Natsu 13y ago
  If you wish to dispute the GP comment, it would be more productive to pick a specific item you believe to be inaccurate and give your reasons for believing it to be inaccurate.
  - declan 13y ago
    I'm not aware of any false statements that Snowden made, or any doctoring of the NSA documents he provided. (Senators and other officials have confirmed the legitimacy of at least some, as has a federal indictment.) But journalists can and do make mistakes interpreting the documents. Here's one example of a report trying to set the record straight: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...

ianterrell 13y ago

> I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil What bearing does which country he's in have on the content of the disclosures? Do you think he fabricated the PRISM slides since he happens to be in Russia right now?

lisper 13y ago

> if he had STRONG knowledge of another language What difference would that make? I am a naturalized American citizen who speaks three languages (English, German and Hebrew. Four if you count broken Spanish). Would that lead you to put a lot of stock in my position?

chc 13y ago

> I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil preparing to face trial for his alleged wrongdoing, ready to bring forward any defenses he thinks he has to possible criminal charges. So in order for you to take Snowden's claims seriously, he has to either claim that what he did is legal or willingly go to prison for the rest of his life? That seems pretty irrational.

tokenadult 13y ago
Martin Luther King, Jr. took a greater risk than that. So did the several freedom fighters in Taiwan I know personally, some of whom did hard prison time for leading peaceful public protests before Taiwan democratized. It takes people with a lot of courage to change tough situations.
- vidarh 13y ago
  That doesn't invalidate the efforts of those who are not willing to take quite as extreme risks.
- chc 13y ago
  I am well aware of all that, and I have great respect for those people who made those sacrifices, but it doesn't make sense to require that. The idea you're promoting here is "If you won't volunteer to have your life completely ruined, don't do the right thing. I'd rather you just be complicit in something that harms me if you aren't willing to be punished for doing the right thing." Do you not see how completely bonkers it is to look at somebody who has already given you valuable information at great personal cost and demand that he suffer more for your benefit? Why on earth would you feel he owes that to anybody?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You're really assuming your conclusion here. William Binney did not go to prison at all; Thomas Drake got a month's probation. Now I'm not saying that they were free to make their revelations, or that it was easy; they went through a great deal of stress, legal expense, and obviously their public service careers are permanently over. But that's still a very long way from 'having your life completely ruined.'

abstractbill 13y ago

I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil preparing to face trial for his alleged wrongdoing, ready to bring forward any defenses he thinks he has to possible criminal charges. I'm not convinced we would be hearing anything from him at all - claims or otherwise - were he currently on US soil.

gcb0 13y ago
He would probably have 'resisted arrest' at some point.

aetherson 13y ago

While I understand the sentiment that says, "I'd prefer it if Snowden were possessed of infinite strength, that he should be willing to suffer years of imprisonment while speaking truth to power," I don't understand the sentiment that says, "So I'll dismiss everything he says given that he doesn't have limitless moral courage." I note that the same standard never seems to apply to the other side of the argument. You don't hear people say, "Well, naturally I'll dismiss everything that Obama says on the NSA scandal because he used cocaine and didn't even stand trial, much less go to prison, for it."

anigbrowl 13y ago
Actually, I do hear a lot of people who reflexively disbelieve anything Obama says; also, you're making a terribly flawed analogy. A more appropriate one would be to say you didn't trust anything Obama said on the subject of drug policy because he used cocaine etc.
- aetherson 13y ago
  I hear a lot of people who reflexively disbelieve anything Obama says too: it's because they've decided he's a liar, not because he lacks the moral courage necessary to turn himself in for his admitted drug use. Digression: I do not myself care that Obama used drugs. I think those drugs should have been legal. I think it was courageous of Obama to admit to drug use even if he did so in a way that did not lead to legal repercussions. But I also do not care that Snowden violated the law in his whistleblowing. I think his whistleblowing should have been legal. And I think it was courageous of Snowden to blow the whistle, even if he did so in a way that did not lead to the most severe legal repercussions possible. End digression. But no, I do not think that I made an analogy, nor that my observation was flawed. People who say, "I won't listen to Snowden unless he turns himself in" are not making an argument about Snowden's facts, they're making an argument about his character. They're saying, "I won't listen to Snowden because he isn't willing to suffer every possible negative consequence of his actions." It doesn't matter if his actions were related to the spying or not. Those same people never demand the same of Obama (or any of the other government representatives). Those representatives can, and do, in fact, grant themselves and their allies full immunity from negative repercussions, and are still treated respectfully. This is hypocrisy on the part of those who demand that Snowden turn himself in. And finally, if you want an example of Obama's less-than-perfect moral character that directly relates to the matter under discussion, there is his claim that he was against warrantless wiretaps, and campaigning as someone who was against them.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil There is a long list of former gov't employees who went through those channels and found them sorely lacking. In other words, people who are in a position to know better, who disagree with you. Radack, Drake, and Binney, to name a few. >Right now, part of what Snowden is saying with ghostwriting help from Wikileaks is not making sense. You sound a lot like Walter Pincus, whose employer had to print a retraction[1] over the baseless accusations he made in this column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questions-for-snowden/2013/07/08/d06ee0f8-e428-11e2-80eb-3145e2994a55_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questi... I suggest you have a look at that story from a critical perspective: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spying-scandal-focus-on-edward-snowden-by-us-media-a-911185.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spying-scandal... [1]Correction: A previous version of this Fine Print column incorrectly said that an article by journalist Glenn Greenwald was written for the WikiLeaks Press blog.The article, about filmmaker Laura Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. officials, was written for the online publication Salon and first appeared April 8, 2012. Its appearance on the WikiLeaks Press blog two days later was a reposting. This version has been corrected. A previous version of the column also asserted that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, during a May 29 interview with Democracy Now, “previewed” the story that Greenwald wrote for the Guardian newspaper about the Obama administration’s involvement in the collection of Americans’ phone records. There is no evidence that Assange had advance knowledge of the story; the assertion was based on a previously published interview in which Assange discussed an earlier surveillance project involving the collection of phone records.The assertion has been taken out of this version. The column also does not mention Snowden’s past work in the intelligence community. The lack of this context may have created the impression that Snowden’s work for Booz Allen Hamilton gave him his first access to classified surveillance programs.