12 ms·

Snowden differs from many of the whistleblower ilk in that there is nothing to dislike about his character (yet). The media have not dished any dirt, none of hi

Snowden differs from many of the whistleblower ilk in that there is nothing to dislike about his character (yet). The media have not dished any dirt, none of his friends/family/ex-lovers have came forward with anything untoward about him and he hasn't shown any signs of being deluded. Even if you try your hardest to 'believe', a lot of whistleblowers have been deluded one way or another. They can be overly indoctrinated in their 'mission', so, whilst bringing to light useful information they have also been a bit keen to believe the propaganda that goes with The War Against Terror, e.g. Coleen Rowley. They can also be deluded in their importance, to be less than convincing, e.g. Sibel Edmonds. They can also fully jump the shark, e.g. David Shayler. Then there is Assange, 'deluded' in my opinion for thinking leaks could be monetized. Unless I am missing something, Edward Snowden has taken a stand for truth and not allowed his character to be compromised in any way whatsoever. He has not made any mistakes, there is nothing where you could think he could have done better. Am I being deluded in thinking this?!?

hosh 13y ago
You're not deluded. I expect we'll see more of this kind of thing and these kind of people to appear.
- samstave 13y ago
  I'd be interested to see if they attempt to fake people who know him...
cryoshon 13y ago
The idea that the character of the whistleblowers themselves has anything to do with the quality or impact of the information they leak is a propaganda trick enforced by the media-- a leak with a face can be discredited if the face can be discredited, and in the 21st century, everyone has skeletons in the closet. Additionally, if your aim is to obscure, it's far easier to focus on the flaws of the person behind the leaks than the leak itself. A discussion of the leaker is a discussion that is not entirely focused on the meaning of what they leaked.
- herewego 13y ago
  I wish I could upvote this 1000 times.
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  That's the ad hominem fallacy - shoot the messenger, discredit the message by discrediting the messenger even though the two have no logical relation. It's a testament to our educational system that so many people fall for it. Though part of it, I'm sure, is that it simply gives many people a rationale for believing what they already want to believe.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    The problem, though, is exactly what fidotron describes: without independent validation, we must trust the credibility of the source of a leak, for that leaked information to be considered valid. If Snowden were a character if ill-repute or questionable morality (outside the question of the morality of leaking intelligence secrets to foreign countries), it requires that you question whether any of the leaked information may have been tampered with. Once the relevant leaked-upon agency admits to the validity of information, then definitely the messenger's credibility becomes decoupled from the truthiness of the message.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Even if the information can be verified, there can still be questions of things like lies by omission, so knowing if the leaker has an undisclosed agenda can still be valuable.
- fidotron 13y ago
  There is legitimacy if you assume the leaker is the only source of the information. In such cases it logically follows that trust in the contents of the leak is reliant on trust in the leaker, until other ways to authenticate the contents of the leak become available. Once separately verified the discrediting game is utter nonsense though.
- 13y ago
podperson 13y ago
Probably why he has been compared pretty frequently to Daniel Ellsberg -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
sheetjs 13y ago
> Snowden differs from many of the whistleblower ilk in that there is nothing to dislike about his character (yet). ... and because the leaks related to issues that outraged most people. It's easy to understand the concerns regarding spying, and most people have a visceral negative reaction. It's much more difficult to elicit that type of response to, say, human rights violations that don't directly affect most Americans. In this case, I think that the media is siding with the people (more viewers / ad revenue). If this were any other type of leak, without the same populism, the media most likely wouldn't be as "friendly". There is dirt, but it hasn't been brought to light because it wouldn't sell well (who wants to bash the guy who told us that the NSA is spying on us?)
- lhc- 13y ago
  I'm not sure which media you are referring to as "friendly", but unless its the Guardian or some independent journalist, basically the entirely of establishment journalism is incredibly hostile towards Snowden and is siding completely with the USG. If they had dirt, they would release it immediately (notice how they parrot all the unsubstantiated claims of unnamed USG officals, for example).
  - pantalaimon 13y ago
    Maybe he is not from the US.
lukev 13y ago
I think the fact that he leaked a lot of details about NSA surveillance of foreign governments diminishes his moral high ground. That is the stated mission of the NSA and while the details are highly classified, everyone knows that they're doing it and agrees it should be done as a matter of policy. Embedding himself in the NSA specifically to find the details regarding these activities and release them looks more like espionage than it does whistleblowing. I'm all for whistleblowing on how the NSA is abusing its powers to spy on US citizens, and I think it's extremely important that he did so. I really wish he'd constrained himself to that. Releasing everything he did hurts his credibility in everyone's eyes and prevents any part of the government from acknowledging him as a legitimate whistleblower, which would have been the best outcome to this whole scenario.
- fidotron 13y ago
  I think that speaks more about the naivety and agendas of the journalists he leaked to than about himself. Given the apparent quantity of documents it seems unlikely he'd have had the chance to prefilter them. Anyone remotely surprised the NSA were spying on foreign governments (including allies) is basically an idiot.
  - mowfask 13y ago
    So allied governments are basically idiots for not thinking the USA would spy on them? That would mean they should have put into place institutions protecting them from said spying. Which would be taking (defensive) military action because of the actions of an allied government. Now what kind of alliance is that?!
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      No, if it's anything like the Cold War, everybody is spying on everybody else, and everybody knows they are being spied on. They just kick up a fuss in the news when they happen upon a piece of proof, to use in the PR battle.
      - 13y ago
rdl 13y ago
I've never found anything to dislike about the actual NSA whistleblowers (Binney, Drake, Wiebe). I guess the only problem I have with Drake is that he hasn't prioritized personal and family income/wealth enough -- he lost his pension, and is now working at an Apple Store; he could have gotten a much more lucrative job.
nswanberg 13y ago
Arstechnica figured out that Snowden had been a commenter there (or maybe on their chat system) and had published the threads, but nothing very scandalous besides writing some swears and defending the NSA.
GeneralMayhem 13y ago
I agree 100%. It's very nice to have Snowden as a champion as compared to Chelsea Manning or Julian Assange; he's well-spoken, has no known mental health issues, and isn't wanted for anything other than leaking secrets. It's much easier to get a message across when the only story is the message and not the messenger's transgenderism, depression, megalomania, or sexual assault charges. I don't have a problem with Assange's approach, really. The point was for him to personally be the lightening rod so that Wikileaks could go about its business in peace, which is a reasonable gambit. And if monetization and theatricality are the easiest way to get people to pay attention to what you have to say, so be it. He just didn't execute well enough in separating the two when it came to absorbing attacks, and WL didn't have enough interesting things to say to stay relevant.
dnautics 13y ago
What is your N on this observation? "Snowden differs from many of the whistleblower ilk in that there is nothing to dislike about his character (yet)." How do you feel about famous whistleblowers like "Deep Throat (Mark Felt)", or the various awardees of the Sam Adams award: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award

hosh 13y ago

You're not deluded. I expect we'll see more of this kind of thing and these kind of people to appear.

samstave 13y ago
I'd be interested to see if they attempt to fake people who know him...

cryoshon 13y ago

The idea that the character of the whistleblowers themselves has anything to do with the quality or impact of the information they leak is a propaganda trick enforced by the media-- a leak with a face can be discredited if the face can be discredited, and in the 21st century, everyone has skeletons in the closet. Additionally, if your aim is to obscure, it's far easier to focus on the flaws of the person behind the leaks than the leak itself. A discussion of the leaker is a discussion that is not entirely focused on the meaning of what they leaked.

herewego 13y ago
I wish I could upvote this 1000 times.
SkyMarshal 13y ago
That's the ad hominem fallacy - shoot the messenger, discredit the message by discrediting the messenger even though the two have no logical relation. It's a testament to our educational system that so many people fall for it. Though part of it, I'm sure, is that it simply gives many people a rationale for believing what they already want to believe.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  The problem, though, is exactly what fidotron describes: without independent validation, we must trust the credibility of the source of a leak, for that leaked information to be considered valid. If Snowden were a character if ill-repute or questionable morality (outside the question of the morality of leaking intelligence secrets to foreign countries), it requires that you question whether any of the leaked information may have been tampered with. Once the relevant leaked-upon agency admits to the validity of information, then definitely the messenger's credibility becomes decoupled from the truthiness of the message.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Even if the information can be verified, there can still be questions of things like lies by omission, so knowing if the leaker has an undisclosed agenda can still be valuable.
fidotron 13y ago
There is legitimacy if you assume the leaker is the only source of the information. In such cases it logically follows that trust in the contents of the leak is reliant on trust in the leaker, until other ways to authenticate the contents of the leak become available. Once separately verified the discrediting game is utter nonsense though.
13y ago

podperson 13y ago

Probably why he has been compared pretty frequently to Daniel Ellsberg -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

sheetjs 13y ago

> Snowden differs from many of the whistleblower ilk in that there is nothing to dislike about his character (yet). ... and because the leaks related to issues that outraged most people. It's easy to understand the concerns regarding spying, and most people have a visceral negative reaction. It's much more difficult to elicit that type of response to, say, human rights violations that don't directly affect most Americans. In this case, I think that the media is siding with the people (more viewers / ad revenue). If this were any other type of leak, without the same populism, the media most likely wouldn't be as "friendly". There is dirt, but it hasn't been brought to light because it wouldn't sell well (who wants to bash the guy who told us that the NSA is spying on us?)

lhc- 13y ago
I'm not sure which media you are referring to as "friendly", but unless its the Guardian or some independent journalist, basically the entirely of establishment journalism is incredibly hostile towards Snowden and is siding completely with the USG. If they had dirt, they would release it immediately (notice how they parrot all the unsubstantiated claims of unnamed USG officals, for example).
- pantalaimon 13y ago
  Maybe he is not from the US.

lukev 13y ago

I think the fact that he leaked a lot of details about NSA surveillance of foreign governments diminishes his moral high ground. That is the stated mission of the NSA and while the details are highly classified, everyone knows that they're doing it and agrees it should be done as a matter of policy. Embedding himself in the NSA specifically to find the details regarding these activities and release them looks more like espionage than it does whistleblowing. I'm all for whistleblowing on how the NSA is abusing its powers to spy on US citizens, and I think it's extremely important that he did so. I really wish he'd constrained himself to that. Releasing everything he did hurts his credibility in everyone's eyes and prevents any part of the government from acknowledging him as a legitimate whistleblower, which would have been the best outcome to this whole scenario.

fidotron 13y ago
I think that speaks more about the naivety and agendas of the journalists he leaked to than about himself. Given the apparent quantity of documents it seems unlikely he'd have had the chance to prefilter them. Anyone remotely surprised the NSA were spying on foreign governments (including allies) is basically an idiot.
- mowfask 13y ago
  So allied governments are basically idiots for not thinking the USA would spy on them? That would mean they should have put into place institutions protecting them from said spying. Which would be taking (defensive) military action because of the actions of an allied government. Now what kind of alliance is that?!
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    No, if it's anything like the Cold War, everybody is spying on everybody else, and everybody knows they are being spied on. They just kick up a fuss in the news when they happen upon a piece of proof, to use in the PR battle.
    - 13y ago

rdl 13y ago

I've never found anything to dislike about the actual NSA whistleblowers (Binney, Drake, Wiebe). I guess the only problem I have with Drake is that he hasn't prioritized personal and family income/wealth enough -- he lost his pension, and is now working at an Apple Store; he could have gotten a much more lucrative job.

nswanberg 13y ago

Arstechnica figured out that Snowden had been a commenter there (or maybe on their chat system) and had published the threads, but nothing very scandalous besides writing some swears and defending the NSA.

GeneralMayhem 13y ago

I agree 100%. It's very nice to have Snowden as a champion as compared to Chelsea Manning or Julian Assange; he's well-spoken, has no known mental health issues, and isn't wanted for anything other than leaking secrets. It's much easier to get a message across when the only story is the message and not the messenger's transgenderism, depression, megalomania, or sexual assault charges. I don't have a problem with Assange's approach, really. The point was for him to personally be the lightening rod so that Wikileaks could go about its business in peace, which is a reasonable gambit. And if monetization and theatricality are the easiest way to get people to pay attention to what you have to say, so be it. He just didn't execute well enough in separating the two when it came to absorbing attacks, and WL didn't have enough interesting things to say to stay relevant.

dnautics 13y ago

What is your N on this observation? "Snowden differs from many of the whistleblower ilk in that there is nothing to dislike about his character (yet)." How do you feel about famous whistleblowers like "Deep Throat (Mark Felt)", or the various awardees of the Sam Adams award: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award