4 ms·

He knows because he claims he acted alone not that he acted with the help of some personal friends but not a nation. Unless you have evidence to contradict thi

• Nrsolis 13y ago
  Again...I'm skeptical. I know that the HN crowd is all lining up to proclaim Snowden "Man of the Year" but I've learned that the "omote" is often wrong or misleading and that the "ura" is difficult or impossible to distinguish. This isn't tinfoil-hat talking, this is just my own experience trying to discern what's REALLY happening. I've said before that just because Snowden exposed the overreach it doesn't mean that there wasn't another piece of this that we are not seeing.
  • andrewcooke 13y ago
    spies don't work like that, do they? there's something of a "tradition" of people who have exposed corruption / illegality in american power through the press. those people seem to form a separate group from spies who disappear or are caught. in particular, the latter group don't send things to the papers and don't try to provoke public discussion - instead they quietly ship data of to their paymasters. do you think that "deepthroat" was a foreign-aided spy? because it seems to me that snowden is more similar to that than, say, the rosenbergs. what motivation is there for snowden to make such a public fuss? why not simply disappear and move to russia?
    • Nrsolis 13y ago
      Because if the goal is to get a global adversary to pull their punches, then the only way to do that is to foster an auto-immune disease and get the populace to attack it's own institutions. I'm not defending the NSA. But I'm also not a Snowden apologist. His actions would have carried more weight had he not tried (and so far succeeded) to escape prosecution. And "deepthroat" took great pains to stay hidden, was in a position to help himself stay hidden, and was still a suspect almost from the very start. He also never went to Russia or China.
      • pkinsky 13y ago
        I find it interesting that you apply the auto-immune disease metaphor to privacy advocates and not the post-9/11 security state itself.
        • Nrsolis 13y ago
          Au contraire: I think the metaphor fits perfectly in both directions. That's why I chose it. Ideally, your self-defense systems only attack those that are actual "invaders" but if something looks/smells/acts like an invader, it gets attacked as well, even if it's really not "harmful." Believe me when I say I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security apparatus has started to attack "healthy tissue" (to extend the metaphor) but the alternative can't be no immune system. It has to be better, more appropriate, more selective, and more effective.
          • pkinsky 13y ago
            To continue the metaphor, I believe both immune systems mentioned perform necessary functions. As a side note, the parts of said immune system responsible for investigating pollution and white collar crime could do with some strengthening. However, states are better understood as highly symbiotic ecosystems. This is more pronounced in third world states, where the military , intelligence agencies and political leadership form distinct power blocks. In the US, some hypothetical power blocks are the military-industrial complex, the alliance of media companies pushing for maximal copyright combined with the regulatory apparatuses they've co-opted, and Fundamentalist Christians, and the various three letter agencies with their constellations of contractors.
      • dreamfactory2 13y ago
        > if the goal is to get a global adversary to pull their punches And by 'pull their punches' you mean stop illegal abuses and basically setting up full Stasi apparatus? Frankly the KGB would be doing you a big favour in this case. It doesn't obviously serve Russian interests to put a spanner in the works of a program which is putting the US and Europe on the trail of a path blazed by the likes East Germany and North Korea.