4 ms·

Whenever someone raises a point that Snowden might have revealed something that shouldn't be revealed, they forget that it's not only Snowden to blame for it, b

Whenever someone raises a point that Snowden might have revealed something that shouldn't be revealed, they forget that it's not only Snowden to blame for it, but the entire system from bottom to the top. If your personal security depends on arbitrary decisions of numerous officials, contractors and directors in several agencies and their arbitrary cooperation with similar agencies in foreign countries, then the problem is systemic; and Snowden is the last person to be blamed. Basically, your government is not doing the job you wish it was doing the right way. If you don't like and try not to support the system, then what do you care what Snowden released - you already accept the system as broken. However, if you rely and like the system, then you have to reconsider who you trust and with what. Snowden here could only make you a service by pointing out a problem. And we all know that he really did not have any other way to do it. When he tried to discuss weaknesses privately within the system, he was dismissed. We know it not based on what he claimed (he could lie), but based on how NSA reacted and continues to react to the problem of trust. They made it clear that any employee who tries to discuss that topic would have a lot of trouble. It's manifested in how they sent out brainwashing instructions to their employees, how they dismissed the topic in the press and how aggressive they are to Snowden generally. How many people would like to risk just chatting to their boss after all that? Anyone who likes the idea of all-powerful all-knowing god-like government agencies like NSA, army, FBI etc, should consider who little leverage and security they have in the result. When you have zero idea how your "national security" is being provided and all you know is there's a huge concentration of power somewhere at your expense, that simply means practically zero security for you.

tptacek 13y ago
No, your argument is illogical. Of course the entire system is to blame. Of course NSA shares some of the (hypothetical) blame if Russia gains access to US intelligence data, if only (in the highly unlikely event that it turns out Snowden was literally an agent) because of what NSA's own conduct does to the optics of what happened. But that in no way immunizes Snowden from the consequences of his own actions. It is perfectly possible for multiple parties to be implicated, and each for different reasons.
- lxlxlxlxl 13y ago
  Do you just by habit throw the word illogical around at the beginning of your responses? It's not really a healthy way to have a debate. Optics? Are you making this about marketing?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    This comment only makes sense if you stopped reading at the word "illogical".
- oleganza 13y ago
  Talking about Snowden's faults is like debating how candies are bad for your teeth while your city is being bombed. Technically, you can talk about such issue in isolation, but if you really care about your health, you should first solve the bombing problem and then worry about your teeth. My argument is about priorities. If the entire point of blaming Snowden at all is "because national security", then it's important to start solving the problem of "national security" with the most important issues first. The issue number one: the people who supposedly provide you with national security 1) require blind trust from you 2) were abusing that trust 3) always lie 4) have guns and you don't 5) immune to the consequences of their actions and you aren't. To understand that you should be thankful to Snowden in particular.

tptacek 13y ago

No, your argument is illogical. Of course the entire system is to blame. Of course NSA shares some of the (hypothetical) blame if Russia gains access to US intelligence data, if only (in the highly unlikely event that it turns out Snowden was literally an agent) because of what NSA's own conduct does to the optics of what happened. But that in no way immunizes Snowden from the consequences of his own actions. It is perfectly possible for multiple parties to be implicated, and each for different reasons.

lxlxlxlxl 13y ago
Do you just by habit throw the word illogical around at the beginning of your responses? It's not really a healthy way to have a debate. Optics? Are you making this about marketing?
- tptacek 13y ago
  This comment only makes sense if you stopped reading at the word "illogical".
oleganza 13y ago
Talking about Snowden's faults is like debating how candies are bad for your teeth while your city is being bombed. Technically, you can talk about such issue in isolation, but if you really care about your health, you should first solve the bombing problem and then worry about your teeth. My argument is about priorities. If the entire point of blaming Snowden at all is "because national security", then it's important to start solving the problem of "national security" with the most important issues first. The issue number one: the people who supposedly provide you with national security 1) require blind trust from you 2) were abusing that trust 3) always lie 4) have guns and you don't 5) immune to the consequences of their actions and you aren't. To understand that you should be thankful to Snowden in particular.