5 ms·

At this point, Snowden's clearly a traitor. His revelations about domestic surveillance were important and timely (if not surprising to people who've been payi

At this point, Snowden's clearly a traitor. His revelations about domestic surveillance were important and timely (if not surprising to people who've been paying attention). But here, he's leaked data that's unarguably within the laws under which the NSA operates - it's a foreign telecom operator that operates abroad. Releasing this information isn't whistle blowing, it's pursuing a political agenda.

plg 12y ago
The question is, who released this information? My impression from all I have read about the Snowden affair is that some time ago he gathered some very large number of documents (large enough that he couldn't have gone through them all by hand, rather it seems he did something like a giant data dump). He then encrypted these documents, disseminated them to a small number of individuals/locations, and now he is not necessarily in control of them any more, perhaps even he no longer has access to them all. This doesn't address the more general question, if you gather a crapload of documents indiscriminately, and then you end up losing control of them (and losing control of the ability to release what you want and not release what you don't want to), are you nevertheless responsible for future releases? I don't know the answer to that
- mpyne 12y ago
  Snowden, in an interview that he gave when this all started, stated explicitly that (unlike Manning), he reviewed each and every single document in that mass that he dumped. Furthermore, that review was to ensure that it was material the the public "needed to know" and wouldn't actually harm the U.S. (as he claimed he could do). So the question of who ended up with the material after Snowden is irrelevant, inasmuch as Snowden himself says he signed off on each and every single leak you see in the media derived from that initial document dump, even if he didn't directly control the editorial process of each media (or activist) outlet doing the publishing. The alternative (that Snowden didn't actually review every document and simply negligently put stuff out there) is bad for him too, as it makes him a liar. In either event this is indicative of a political agenda, not some concern with American civil liberties. But we've already known that since his leak of phone tapping in a certain Central Asian country where American (and allied) forces are fighting for their lives each and every day, something which can't possibly implicate American civil liberties.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Even if he reivewd each document, it's crazy to believe Snowden, someone with zero intelligence, military, or diplomatic experience could accurate determine what was illegal, "need to know," or "safe." Snowden has misinterpreted some of the few documents that were widely released. For example, he thought direct data collection from facebook to mean the NSA had a direct access to facebook servers. When in fact it just meant the NSA would get the data from facebook, rather than listening to snooping on telecom links, or as they called it "indirect" access. If he can't get even basic details right, how the hell can you trust him to know when a file would expose a source? Would you trust your DBA to judge which of your files were okay to be posted on the internet? I sure as fuck wouldn't. One of mine quit last month because he was afraid of Ebola. He did good work though . . .
    - bobsil1 12y ago
      > Someone with zero intelligence... experience Not true. > as they called it "indirect" access NSA also tapped FB upstream. > Would you trust your DBA to judge which of your files were okay to be posted Would you trust the NSA to judge which of your comms are ok to steal?
      - rhino369 12y ago
        He had as much intelligence experience as the guy who runs the Packers corporate IT network has NFL experience. The rest of your comment doesn't address what I said.
      - mpyne 12y ago
        > NSA also tapped FB upstream. Which might have made sense as a defense if Snowden was talking about MUSCULAR... but he was talking about PRISM, and by your logic (saying he had IC expertise and wasn't simply a sysadmin) he should have known better than to confuse "direct access to Facebook" with "data directly from Facebook's servers".
    - baddox 12y ago
      > Even if he reivewd each document, it's crazy to believe Snowden, someone with zero intelligence, military, or diplomatic experience could accurate determine what was illegal, "need to know," or "safe." Why is that crazy to believe? I think it's crazier to believe that the only people who should be given the official authority to decide which secrets to keep are those who are directly and strongly incentivized to keep secrets about atrocious programs like those which Snowden has leaked.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Is there a "reckless negligence" equivalent to treason, as manslaughter is akin to murder?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 12y ago
The definition of 'treason' itself is subject to political debate. By subscribing to the meaning that is currently the law in America (basically, the neo-realist "us against everybody else" idea), you're adding your opinion to this discussion, not fact. It is your rightful opinion to have, though. Others might wonder whether spying on an important military and economic ally is not, in fact, at least as bad.
WildUtah 12y ago
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." [0] Exposing the secret police agencies for dereliction of duty, corruption, violation of the law and their own enabling legislation, and counterproductive stupidity isn't treason. There's no war involved and no aid and comfort to the enemy. "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." [1] We don't yet know if the USA will return to constitutional government from the path it has been taking. Whether Snowden will be honored or despised in this nation will be one barometer of our future. Also, Deutsche Telekom is a major ISP and radio telecom provider in the USA as well as abroad. [0] United States Constitution, Article 3 [1] John Harrington
- rhino369 12y ago
  Traitor doesn't mean someone who is guilty of treason.
RivieraKid 12y ago
As a EU citizen, good, more traitors like him.
w1xonaut 12y ago
He may be a traitor to that vile and heinous entity known as the United States, but he's a godamned hero to the rest of the world for exposing the crimes against humanity that the American people are allowing to occur in their name. It is the American people who cannot be trusted, for they have allowed their government, for decades, to get away with countless series of crimes against humanity, and done nothing to stop its military industrial masters from having with the world as they will. So if you have a strictly America-first orientation towards the world, feel free to continue the justification. But if you can see the world outside the pretty box, Snowden is one of the most important figures in the world today. He represents what America used to be: brave, honorable, and doing what's right in face of the certain personal danger one faces when going up against totalitarian systems of control which have the purpose of enslaving us all.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Well, take a look around you if you're in Europe, Australia or New Zealand and notice that while they're mouthing embarrassed platitudes, the heads of most, if not all, EU countries are busy cooperating with the NSA. If you're not, I'd be curious to know in which wonderful country you live, where something like "the rule of law" applies to intelligence services. That said, wrt to Snowden being a traitor... if that is your reaction to "the previous and current administrations have created a completely out-of-control behemoth which invades both our and our allies' privacy without any oversight, and therefore threatens the notion of free and fair election anywhere in the western world", maybe you should rethink your priorities.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    GCHQ operate to English law. They have specific exemptions and exclusions under and protections under all the relevant English law. Have a look at RIPA, one important bit of law that regulates GCHQ: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents Here's an example of GCHQ being mentioned as exempt from a law. This is the sexual offences act; GCHQ are allowed to "make"[1] a photograph of child sexual abuse if it's needed for a function of GCHQ. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/46 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/46 Peoe said when RIP was a bill that it was too strong and did not offer enough protection. The poor quality of oversight of GCHQ is surprising. [1] make here is a technical term and includes "make a copy of a digital file".
baddox 12y ago
Why is the legality of an action relevant? Presumably all the things Snowden has leaked thus far have been legal. Remember, it's the government that decides what is and isn't legal, not you, me, or Snowden.

plg 12y ago

The question is, who released this information? My impression from all I have read about the Snowden affair is that some time ago he gathered some very large number of documents (large enough that he couldn't have gone through them all by hand, rather it seems he did something like a giant data dump). He then encrypted these documents, disseminated them to a small number of individuals/locations, and now he is not necessarily in control of them any more, perhaps even he no longer has access to them all. This doesn't address the more general question, if you gather a crapload of documents indiscriminately, and then you end up losing control of them (and losing control of the ability to release what you want and not release what you don't want to), are you nevertheless responsible for future releases? I don't know the answer to that

mpyne 12y ago
Snowden, in an interview that he gave when this all started, stated explicitly that (unlike Manning), he reviewed each and every single document in that mass that he dumped. Furthermore, that review was to ensure that it was material the the public "needed to know" and wouldn't actually harm the U.S. (as he claimed he could do). So the question of who ended up with the material after Snowden is irrelevant, inasmuch as Snowden himself says he signed off on each and every single leak you see in the media derived from that initial document dump, even if he didn't directly control the editorial process of each media (or activist) outlet doing the publishing. The alternative (that Snowden didn't actually review every document and simply negligently put stuff out there) is bad for him too, as it makes him a liar. In either event this is indicative of a political agenda, not some concern with American civil liberties. But we've already known that since his leak of phone tapping in a certain Central Asian country where American (and allied) forces are fighting for their lives each and every day, something which can't possibly implicate American civil liberties.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Even if he reivewd each document, it's crazy to believe Snowden, someone with zero intelligence, military, or diplomatic experience could accurate determine what was illegal, "need to know," or "safe." Snowden has misinterpreted some of the few documents that were widely released. For example, he thought direct data collection from facebook to mean the NSA had a direct access to facebook servers. When in fact it just meant the NSA would get the data from facebook, rather than listening to snooping on telecom links, or as they called it "indirect" access. If he can't get even basic details right, how the hell can you trust him to know when a file would expose a source? Would you trust your DBA to judge which of your files were okay to be posted on the internet? I sure as fuck wouldn't. One of mine quit last month because he was afraid of Ebola. He did good work though . . .
  - bobsil1 12y ago
    > Someone with zero intelligence... experience Not true. > as they called it "indirect" access NSA also tapped FB upstream. > Would you trust your DBA to judge which of your files were okay to be posted Would you trust the NSA to judge which of your comms are ok to steal?
    - rhino369 12y ago
      He had as much intelligence experience as the guy who runs the Packers corporate IT network has NFL experience. The rest of your comment doesn't address what I said.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > NSA also tapped FB upstream. Which might have made sense as a defense if Snowden was talking about MUSCULAR... but he was talking about PRISM, and by your logic (saying he had IC expertise and wasn't simply a sysadmin) he should have known better than to confuse "direct access to Facebook" with "data directly from Facebook's servers".
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Even if he reivewd each document, it's crazy to believe Snowden, someone with zero intelligence, military, or diplomatic experience could accurate determine what was illegal, "need to know," or "safe." Why is that crazy to believe? I think it's crazier to believe that the only people who should be given the official authority to decide which secrets to keep are those who are directly and strongly incentivized to keep secrets about atrocious programs like those which Snowden has leaked.
tedunangst 12y ago
Is there a "reckless negligence" equivalent to treason, as manslaughter is akin to murder?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

skrebbel 12y ago

The definition of 'treason' itself is subject to political debate. By subscribing to the meaning that is currently the law in America (basically, the neo-realist "us against everybody else" idea), you're adding your opinion to this discussion, not fact. It is your rightful opinion to have, though. Others might wonder whether spying on an important military and economic ally is not, in fact, at least as bad.

WildUtah 12y ago

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." [0] Exposing the secret police agencies for dereliction of duty, corruption, violation of the law and their own enabling legislation, and counterproductive stupidity isn't treason. There's no war involved and no aid and comfort to the enemy. "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." [1] We don't yet know if the USA will return to constitutional government from the path it has been taking. Whether Snowden will be honored or despised in this nation will be one barometer of our future. Also, Deutsche Telekom is a major ISP and radio telecom provider in the USA as well as abroad. [0] United States Constitution, Article 3 [1] John Harrington

rhino369 12y ago
Traitor doesn't mean someone who is guilty of treason.

RivieraKid 12y ago

As a EU citizen, good, more traitors like him.

w1xonaut 12y ago

He may be a traitor to that vile and heinous entity known as the United States, but he's a godamned hero to the rest of the world for exposing the crimes against humanity that the American people are allowing to occur in their name. It is the American people who cannot be trusted, for they have allowed their government, for decades, to get away with countless series of crimes against humanity, and done nothing to stop its military industrial masters from having with the world as they will. So if you have a strictly America-first orientation towards the world, feel free to continue the justification. But if you can see the world outside the pretty box, Snowden is one of the most important figures in the world today. He represents what America used to be: brave, honorable, and doing what's right in face of the certain personal danger one faces when going up against totalitarian systems of control which have the purpose of enslaving us all.

mercurial 12y ago
Well, take a look around you if you're in Europe, Australia or New Zealand and notice that while they're mouthing embarrassed platitudes, the heads of most, if not all, EU countries are busy cooperating with the NSA. If you're not, I'd be curious to know in which wonderful country you live, where something like "the rule of law" applies to intelligence services. That said, wrt to Snowden being a traitor... if that is your reaction to "the previous and current administrations have created a completely out-of-control behemoth which invades both our and our allies' privacy without any oversight, and therefore threatens the notion of free and fair election anywhere in the western world", maybe you should rethink your priorities.
- DanBC 12y ago
  GCHQ operate to English law. They have specific exemptions and exclusions under and protections under all the relevant English law. Have a look at RIPA, one important bit of law that regulates GCHQ: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents Here's an example of GCHQ being mentioned as exempt from a law. This is the sexual offences act; GCHQ are allowed to "make"[1] a photograph of child sexual abuse if it's needed for a function of GCHQ. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/46 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/46 Peoe said when RIP was a bill that it was too strong and did not offer enough protection. The poor quality of oversight of GCHQ is surprising. [1] make here is a technical term and includes "make a copy of a digital file".

baddox 12y ago

Why is the legality of an action relevant? Presumably all the things Snowden has leaked thus far have been legal. Remember, it's the government that decides what is and isn't legal, not you, me, or Snowden.