6 ms·

It's unfair to characterize people who disagree with you as being uninformed. A lot of people who don't like Snowden's actions know as much about the situation

by hooande 13y ago

It's unfair to characterize people who disagree with you as being uninformed. A lot of people who don't like Snowden's actions know as much about the situation as you do. They've just drawn different conclusions. The gap here is one of personal philosophy and opinion, not one of knowledge. I''m not entirely sure why Snowden is getting so much personal credit. I remember watching an episode of Frontline on PBS that discussed “Room 641A” [1]. A few quotes from the cited wikipedia page, emphasis added: ”[the room] is fed by fiber optic lines from beam splitters installed in fiber optic trunks carrying Internet backbone traffic and, as analyzed by J. Scott Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former adviser to the FCC, has access to all Internet traffic that passes through the building, and therefore 'the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic.” ”[the program] was originally broadcast on May 15, 2007. It was also featured on PBS's NOW on March 14, 2008. The room was also covered in the PBS Nova episode 'The Spy Factory'.” I admittedly watch more PBS than the average person. I was talking about Room 641A and concept of the NSA directly siphoning every call, email, text and url sent from the AT&T Pacific data center several years ago. Snowden’s revelations were news and he provided theretofore unnknown details. But they weren't completely out of the blue. People knew that the NSA was collecting data on an unprecedented scale before Edward Snowden. These programs aren’t new, they didn’t start last year. Snowden unquestioningly gets credit for coming forward, he deserves praise for taking such a risk. It’s clear that he provided us with a paper trail and evidence that no one had in May of 2007. But our knowledge of the NSA’s activities is not “entirely because of information provided to journalists by Edward Snowden” as the NYT OpEd alleges. People had the knowledge years ago. The outrage is recent. We'll see if the future holds substantive policy reforms or presidential pardons. Cautious optimism never hurts. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

jonathanwallace 13y ago
You're absolutely correct, Snowden receives personal credit because he's taken on great personal risk to share the information he's shared. Let's not underestimate the value of a singular face to focus sentiment vs. a room.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Mark Klein was the ATT tech who exposed room 614A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein
gdrulia 13y ago
In the same way, one day, when someone will discover life on other planets or something similar, there will be people telling us, that people knew that life exists outside of the Earth. Evidence is one crucial point that is necessary to be able to distinguish tattle from facts. Knowledge without evidence is just a possibility. An in my very amateur opinion, Mr. Snowden receives the personal credit simply because he has provided the world with evidence of that previously "known" activity.
jcc80 13y ago
"It's unfair to characterize people who disagree with you as being uninformed. A lot of people who don't like Snowden's actions know as much about the situation as you do." True, but the point the parent comment is making is that as people learn more, more people will support what Snowden did / want NSA reforms. I think it's clear that will happen but we'll see what public opinion does over time. Anecdotal I can say that members of my family (the type that barely use a computer) had only a vague notion of the NSA's domestic spying until the Snowden stories broke through the everyday media noise.
bguthrie 13y ago
You're underestimating the importance of that paper trail. Knowing that they could have such a capability is not the same thing as knowing that they are actively exercising it, laid out in helpfully blunt Powerpoint. Yes, if you were paying attention, the signs were there. But even well-informed tech people have been taken aback by the breadth and sheer gall of the NSA's snooping. Snowden isn't the only NSA whistleblower, but he is the most important. He deserves the personal credit he's received. As for the article, I'm thankful. If my relatives won't listen to me, maybe they'll listen to the New York Times editorial board.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  >>>>> Knowing that they could have such a capability is not the same thing as knowing that they are actively exercising it. I hope you don't give your government that much credit and really are not that naive. Considering the NSA and CIA's history, why would think anything other than they were actively using technologies to eavesdrop on the general population? Conspiracy nuts have been screaming this from the rooftops for years and suddenly because of Snowden they're finally listening? Sure he deserves credit for the evidence he's released, but this is not something new by any stretch of the imagination.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    Conspiracy nuts have been screaming this from the rooftops for years and suddenly because of Snowden [people are] finally listening? Yes. For example, they were called "conspiracy nuts" before.
  - shortly 13y ago
    conspiracy nuts have been screaming all sorts of stuff from the rooftops for years. if i say 'twenty' every time, eventually i'll correctly predict the outcome of a d20. this doesn't make me good at doing so, nor does it mean that you should have listened.
    - at-fates-hands 13y ago
atmosx 13y ago
These kind of thing changes your worldview. It's like math, you either prove it or it remain a hypothesis even after the 1.0000x10^1.000.000 repetition.
guelo 13y ago
That snooping at a room at AT&T became part of a lawsuit that threatened to reveal more about the wiretapping program but it was squashed by congress, including Obama, when they voted to give AT&T and other telecoms that broke the law at Bush's behest retroactive immunity. Not sure what your point is as to how that relates to Snowden.
- ihsw 13y ago
  The point is Snowden's revelations made headlines, and Room 641A didn't. The lionization of Snowden is baffling when it was already well-known. Personally I disagree with the parent quite strongly -- the recent revelations made it quite clear that the NSA's data hoovering is making the State Department into a frivolous formality. Diplomacy is irrelevant when you already know the internal political structure of your allies/adversaries, and it takes 'real politik' to the extreme (like playing a game of poker with the cards revealed to a powerful few). The loss of privacy in diplomatic correspondence is a far greater blow to the peace of the world than the revelation of your torrid love affairs or your weak financial integrity.
  - rpgmaker 13y ago
    It didn't make the headlines Snowden's leaks have generated but it was news and anyone interested in civil liberties at the time knew about it when it came out, I know I did and any follower of Greenwald before he became "mainstream" knew about it (even if it was a little bit later). I don't know what your complain is here. The fact that this specific part of the leaks was known doesn't diminish what Snowden did one bit. If anything it increases it's importance.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      Exactly. I think just about everyone knew that "the government" spies on people. It has divisions dedicated to that exact purpose. This was public knowledge. But, much like war, when people are fully informed, that tacit acceptance goes south. When people realize that "some unelected, uanccountable government employee has access to my phone calls and my emails including the ones to my (lover/bookie/doctor)", or put another way, "The government spies on ME" that is a much more powerful thought than just "Eh, the government spies on people".

by hooande 13y ago

jonathanwallace 13y ago

You're absolutely correct, Snowden receives personal credit because he's taken on great personal risk to share the information he's shared. Let's not underestimate the value of a singular face to focus sentiment vs. a room.

res0nat0r 13y ago
Mark Klein was the ATT tech who exposed room 614A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein

gdrulia 13y ago

In the same way, one day, when someone will discover life on other planets or something similar, there will be people telling us, that people knew that life exists outside of the Earth. Evidence is one crucial point that is necessary to be able to distinguish tattle from facts. Knowledge without evidence is just a possibility. An in my very amateur opinion, Mr. Snowden receives the personal credit simply because he has provided the world with evidence of that previously "known" activity.

jcc80 13y ago

"It's unfair to characterize people who disagree with you as being uninformed. A lot of people who don't like Snowden's actions know as much about the situation as you do." True, but the point the parent comment is making is that as people learn more, more people will support what Snowden did / want NSA reforms. I think it's clear that will happen but we'll see what public opinion does over time. Anecdotal I can say that members of my family (the type that barely use a computer) had only a vague notion of the NSA's domestic spying until the Snowden stories broke through the everyday media noise.

bguthrie 13y ago

You're underestimating the importance of that paper trail. Knowing that they could have such a capability is not the same thing as knowing that they are actively exercising it, laid out in helpfully blunt Powerpoint. Yes, if you were paying attention, the signs were there. But even well-informed tech people have been taken aback by the breadth and sheer gall of the NSA's snooping. Snowden isn't the only NSA whistleblower, but he is the most important. He deserves the personal credit he's received. As for the article, I'm thankful. If my relatives won't listen to me, maybe they'll listen to the New York Times editorial board.

at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>>>> Knowing that they could have such a capability is not the same thing as knowing that they are actively exercising it. I hope you don't give your government that much credit and really are not that naive. Considering the NSA and CIA's history, why would think anything other than they were actively using technologies to eavesdrop on the general population? Conspiracy nuts have been screaming this from the rooftops for years and suddenly because of Snowden they're finally listening? Sure he deserves credit for the evidence he's released, but this is not something new by any stretch of the imagination.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Conspiracy nuts have been screaming this from the rooftops for years and suddenly because of Snowden [people are] finally listening? Yes. For example, they were called "conspiracy nuts" before.
- shortly 13y ago
  conspiracy nuts have been screaming all sorts of stuff from the rooftops for years. if i say 'twenty' every time, eventually i'll correctly predict the outcome of a d20. this doesn't make me good at doing so, nor does it mean that you should have listened.
  - at-fates-hands 13y ago

atmosx 13y ago

These kind of thing changes your worldview. It's like math, you either prove it or it remain a hypothesis even after the 1.0000x10^1.000.000 repetition.

guelo 13y ago

That snooping at a room at AT&T became part of a lawsuit that threatened to reveal more about the wiretapping program but it was squashed by congress, including Obama, when they voted to give AT&T and other telecoms that broke the law at Bush's behest retroactive immunity. Not sure what your point is as to how that relates to Snowden.

ihsw 13y ago
The point is Snowden's revelations made headlines, and Room 641A didn't. The lionization of Snowden is baffling when it was already well-known. Personally I disagree with the parent quite strongly -- the recent revelations made it quite clear that the NSA's data hoovering is making the State Department into a frivolous formality. Diplomacy is irrelevant when you already know the internal political structure of your allies/adversaries, and it takes 'real politik' to the extreme (like playing a game of poker with the cards revealed to a powerful few). The loss of privacy in diplomatic correspondence is a far greater blow to the peace of the world than the revelation of your torrid love affairs or your weak financial integrity.
- rpgmaker 13y ago
  It didn't make the headlines Snowden's leaks have generated but it was news and anyone interested in civil liberties at the time knew about it when it came out, I know I did and any follower of Greenwald before he became "mainstream" knew about it (even if it was a little bit later). I don't know what your complain is here. The fact that this specific part of the leaks was known doesn't diminish what Snowden did one bit. If anything it increases it's importance.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Exactly. I think just about everyone knew that "the government" spies on people. It has divisions dedicated to that exact purpose. This was public knowledge. But, much like war, when people are fully informed, that tacit acceptance goes south. When people realize that "some unelected, uanccountable government employee has access to my phone calls and my emails including the ones to my (lover/bookie/doctor)", or put another way, "The government spies on ME" that is a much more powerful thought than just "Eh, the government spies on people".