10 ms·

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 t

• 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.
      • mowfask 13y ago
        Looks like I totally missed the parallel to the Cold War, could you elaborate?
        • sliverstorm 13y ago
          I didn't say this is the Cold War. I said if it is anything like the Cold War.
• visarga 13y ago
  > 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. I don't think everyone considers NSA legitimate. NSA is a bunch of people with lots of information and an agenda that is most probably not in the best interest of all Americans, just those richest and most influential 1% or 0.01%. Their track record speaks for itself.
  • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    I don't agree that it should be done as a matter of policy. I think that the NSA should be disbanded immediately. Poster above you should speak for himself.
    • sitkack 13y ago
      And much of what the NSA and the CIA is benign and could be done in public. Like reading, understanding and communicating political events in other countries. Understanding world economies. Close it down and redistribute the funds to the Peace Corps, I know lots of out hipster kids I would like to send to Sudan.
• pstuart 13y ago
  What moral ground does the United States have for directly invading the personal communications of the leaders of its allies? Ostensibly this is all about protecting the itself from danger. What is the threat posed by, say, Germany?
  • lukev 13y ago
    I'm not saying is a good thing, but that's a policy decision on what the NSA's mission should be. "whistleblowing" that it's happening doesn't really change anything.
    • rpenm 13y ago
      A policy decision most Americans normally have no say in. It would never have come to public debate before the revelations.
      • timdiggerm 13y ago
        Unfortunately that's a neccessity of the nature of these policies. Are you saying the US should have nothing that isn't publically known?
        • jessaustin 13y ago
          I'd like to suggest that! We wouldn't have done 90% of the evil, pointless, counterproductive bullshit we've done since WWII, if all aspects of that bullshit had been public. And, not a single genuinely good thing we've done would have been prevented. Details of military battles could be kept secret during the battles and for a couple of years afterward, and sure we should keep demographic data about private people restricted to only those agencies that legitimately need that data, but those are the only exceptions that come to mind.
      • rayiner 13y ago
        What are you talking about? The fact of American agencies spying on the world has been well-known since at least World War II, and is the stuff of major motion pictures, etc.
• furyofantares 13y ago
  If everyone knows they are doing it and agrees it should be done as a matter of policy, why is it problematic that it leaked?
  • lukev 13y ago
    The details are important. That's why intelligence agencies are so secretive to begin with - unveiling an asset, be it an actual agent or an electronic access point usually has the effect of denying future access to that asset, thereby damaging the US's capability. Again, you could legitimately argue that that's a good thing in the global scheme of things. You could also argue that sabotaging the US air force is a good thing, on pacifist grounds. Unfortunately, this is where Snowden looks most like a traitor and least like a patriot, because US military officials tend to view the two situations as pretty much the same.
    • simoncion 13y ago
      > ...unveiling an asset, be it an actual agent or an electronic access point... Sure, but haven't the caretakers of the document cache gone to great lengths to only reveal the coarse-grained details of what a program does, and generally how it does it, but not the particulars?
• joshstrange 13y ago
  I'm interested to know what you think he could have released that would have allowed him, as you imply, to stay in the "good graces" of the NSA/USA yet provided enough information to the US public that would not have been written off as a crazy person?
  • lukev 13y ago
    The stuff about tapping major ISPs, the ubiquitous metadata collection, etc. That's the true whistleblower material, the stuff that will get people angry and clamoring for change, and I think releasing the rest of it actually hurts that goal.
    • joshstrange 13y ago
      Ok, in that case can you expand on what should have been kept back?
• jeswin 13y ago
  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. I can't believe you're saying this. Is your judgement so clouded by patriotism that you somehow think other people have no right to their privacy? Let me explain the consequences of what you are suggesting here, apart from the obvious loss of goodwill across the world. Countries will feel free to barricade "their internet" and control communications. There will be lesser transparency, more firewalls and more detentions. Oppressive regimes will love this, and your allies will be left confused. In times of peace, your allegiance should be towards ideals. Like democracy, privacy and free speech. (edit: take an upvote anyway, you are entitled to your view.)
  • lukev 13y ago
    Those are my ideals - I am a pacifist, I'd much prefer that we wound down this (and most other) military activity. I was simply pointing out how Snowden's actions reflect on his character. Whistleblowing: Revealing that an entity is doing things it should not be doing so the correct oversight can be put in place. Sabatoge: Deliberately destroying the capabilities of an organization by means of deception and rule-breaking. I am 100% for the former. I am against the latter, even when I agree with the philosophy behind the actions.
    • davepage 13y ago
      I see your point, but I think you may be making too coarse a distinction. There is a difference between gathering intelligence on certain high-value foreign targets and en-mass foreign surveillance of the nominally innocent. Further, I am not convinced that the agency has made a proportional contribution to counter-terrorism in proportion to its budget. Stopping a few questionable donations cannot ever justify building such a dangerous infrastructure -- which will inevitably be abused for political purposes.
    • rpenm 13y ago
      The latter often describes civil disobedience.
• nabla9 13y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Snowden has not published anything really critical about NSA surveillance on China, Russia, Iran, etc. His risk/reward calculation seems to be on line with mine. Of course his leaks do some damage to U.S. foreign policy, but that's acceptable collateral damage. His leaks help to shape the power balance between government and citizens in liberal democracies.
  • JonSkeptic 13y ago
    >Correct me if I'm wrong You are and it would take a lot to correct that statement. I'd start at the timeline: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/multimedia/timeline-edward-snowden-revelations.html http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/multimedia/timeline-ed... Most of what Snowden revealed did not relate to domestic spying overreach. Hell, he wasn't even in China for a week before he revealed NSA programs that spy on the Chinese. Snowden has done more damage to his cause than the government ever could, and it's not for lack of trying. His credibility as a whistleblower has been fatally harmed by choosing to leave the country: not only did he leave, but he went to China and then to Russia, taking an encrypted hardrive with him! You'd have to be really stupid to think the Chinese and Russians have not copied every single piece of information he had, even the information that The Guardian has decided not publish yet because of the damage it could cause. At this point, he is a spy from every angle you look at it. Between revealing foreign collection activities, giving China and Russia loads of classified information, and fleeing from the U.S. to China and then Russia, there's no case to be made for him being a whistleblower. He blew the whistle on a few domestic programs and that's a very good thing. But that is such a small part of everything that Snowden did. Still, in total disregard of the facts, some will consider him a whistleblower and a hero. He is every bit as much of a hero as Edward Lee Howard and I have little doubt he will meet the same fate.
    • simoncion 13y ago
      > ...but he went to China and then to Russia, taking an encrypted hardrive with him! [citation needed]
    • nabla9 13y ago
• heed 13y ago
  We must be on reddit because someone is complaining about early downvotes.
• nitrogen 13y ago
  Here's an idea: let's hold a worldwide vote on NSA spying, in the true spirit of democracy. 300mil in favor, 6.7bil against.
  • jessaustin 13y ago
    You're really overestimating the hypothetical votes in favor.
  • shitlord 13y ago
    Why should we let non-citizens decide how we run our country?
    • erezsh 13y ago
      That's a funny thing to hear from an American
• tootie 13y ago
  I understand your point, but the NSA's mission is confined to cross-border communication. Eavesdropping within foreign governments should not be allowed.
• RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  I'm appalled that so many Americans who are outraged about their government's mass surveillance of Americans simultaneously seem to think it's acceptable for the US government to conduct mass surveillance on the citizens of other countries.
  • sliverstorm 13y ago
    The US doesn't govern non-citizens. Most people don't see why people who do not pay taxes, obey US laws, etc have to be treated with all the perks of US citizens. Recall a feudal model, where a lord governs his people and protects them, but is not generally obligated to extend his protection to non-subjects. It's not a belief that foreigners have no rights, but more like foreigners have their own government to watch out for them. I don't really know which I personally believe, just sharing information.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      • sliverstorm 13y ago
        I ask you to consider, who are The People? (The ones whose rights we are securing in that text) It's used repeatedly but never formally defined. There is a clue though: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
    • sitkack 13y ago
      Not infringing on freedom isn't a perk, it is a natural born right. We don't live in feudal states, with live in the United States. "The People" formed the Union and wrote the exact rules that the government could operate under. You aren't granted rights by the Constitution. They are removed from federal government, the Constitution takes rights away from the federal government. A very important distinction.
      • sliverstorm 13y ago
• FedRegister 13y ago
  Everyone knows that they're doing it and agrees it should be done as a matter of policy First, many didn't know that they were doing it. Second, as an American citizen I surely don't agree that it should be doing it as a matter of policy. This is another situation where the government does things in my name that I disapprove of. Third, nice American Exceptionalism, bro!
• mindcrime 13y ago
  everyone knows that they're doing it and agrees it should be done as a matter of policy. Not everyone, and especially not when you're talking about "friendly" governments (aka, our allies). And even more so when the spying is being done for industrial espionage / economic advantage purposes, and not national defense.
• WettowelReactor 13y ago
  Part of what he may be trying to get at is that the US population has no idea of just what the stated mission of the NSA is. Do we as a population think that spying on our allies is OK? This is a discussion that needs to happen publicly and not under a classified umbrella.
• windexh8er 13y ago
  I think you may have missed the entire point. "Everyone knows" is also not a very tactful or impressive way to argue your point - since, as included with "everyone", I fully disagree with your point. Bulk collection of metadata across "everyone" in the United States (and other unfortunate countries through collateral damage) is not OK in any way shape or form lest the constitution has recently been changed. The fact that this idea has direct ties to surveillance of foreign governments only exemplifies the point in it's weight and severity. Your assertion that his credibility is somehow diminished based on his actions doesn't leave much room for your version of the correct way a whistleblower should go about his business properly. I'm not sure you fully grapple what this man has laid out on the line for everyone else here and has signed himself up for a life that will always be in question. Arm-chair NSA antics don't seem to justly appreciate the level at which someone has gone to great lengths to do the job fully and, IMHO, correctly.
• tripzilch 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. Er, no actually. Most people actually believe the NSA should keep their dirty fingers and prying eyes to themselves. The only ones arguing differently are Americans somehow under the delusion that they are alone on this planet. Thankfully, taken on the whole they are a minority. But go ahead, asserting that my private information should be free to be vacuumed up and abused for whatever purposes your shady intelligence organisations need. For some reason you think there's an imaginary line to be drawn between US citizens and other human beings. You have a right to privacy, and the rest does not. Superiority much? Kind of a stupid thing to say, on an international forum, IMHO, showing your true colours, US vs "Them", etc. This is the 21st century, wouldn't you like to be able to look each other in the eye? Joke's on you, however. Because don't for a moment believe that this shadowy government organisation "of yours" shares your ideas about how US citizens somehow have more rights to privacy than other human beings. "Stated mission" or not, they're in it for the power and money, and have done and will do anything they can get away with. And if you'd have been paying attention instead of sitting back convincing yourself "hey at least they're fighting on my side", you might have noticed that this "moral high ground" is there for a reason. It's also sometimes called a "moral compass" for a reason, because you can use it to make right decisions when you can't know who to trust. Snowden couldn't have leaked just one without the other either. Not to the same great effect. That's a hint right there. Because the imaginary line doesn't really exist, leaking just the "spying on US citizens" bit and not the rest, would have been so incredibly disingenuous--it's the whole Internet, silly!!--it could only have been done by someone with much less of a moral backbone than Snowden has. And then it wouldn't have gotten the exposure needed, coverage by the Guardian/Greenwald, a leftist UK paper, speaking ill of the US? Ridicule and ignore. No, it had to be the whole picture. The rest of the world's outrage is actually helping you, you understand? The NSA, they're not actually working for you, you understand that too? If there is any Us vs Them, we are in fact on the same side.