5 ms·

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 th

by 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.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    >Why is that crazy to believe? Because he doesn't know what he is looking at. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. He doesn't know what has been said to foreign diplomats. >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. I would be behind an independent group to review this sort of stuff. But it can't be one political dood who thinks he is doing the right thing.
    - baddox 12y ago
      How do you construct an "independent group"? Who chooses the people in this group? If it's the government choosing, then it's not independent. If people can choose for themselves to review this sort of stuff, well, that's what Snowden did.
      - mpyne 12y ago
        What is your scheme to ensure that all of the people who need to review (which should be millions, right?) are able to fairly review, without also exposing the stuff which should not be seen by ISIS to that review? Snowden "chose for himself" just as much as John Walker "chose for himself" to figure out U.S. Navy anti-submarine doctrine during the 80s and pass it to the Russians.
lawnchair_larry 12y ago
You might want to watch that interview again, because what you're saying is not true. I can't even imagine where you would have gotten that idea. What's worse, even if it were true, your conclusion doesn't make sense and is just a cheap shot based on your own political views. Nothing about his stated motives are undermined by these releases, whether you agree with his actions or not.
- mpyne 12y ago
  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-... Note the date. Here's the quote: "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is." The article itself continues immediately: "He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed."
  - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
    Yes. Read that last sentence again.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      Read it as much as you want. His first sentence said "...every single document I disclosed..." (emphasis added). Note how he didn't say "every single document I copied from NSA"; he was referring to documents he disclosed, and those documents were only disclosed to the journalists you're referring to. What this means is that if a journalist ever showed you a Snowden leak at all, it was because it passed through Snowden's self-professed "carefully evaluated" disclosure review. Stop blaming the journalists, Snowden himself specifically said that if those journalists have any of his documents at all, it was because Snowden intended specifically for them to have it.

by mpyne 12y ago

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.
- rhino369 12y ago
  >Why is that crazy to believe? Because he doesn't know what he is looking at. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. He doesn't know what has been said to foreign diplomats. >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. I would be behind an independent group to review this sort of stuff. But it can't be one political dood who thinks he is doing the right thing.
  - baddox 12y ago
    How do you construct an "independent group"? Who chooses the people in this group? If it's the government choosing, then it's not independent. If people can choose for themselves to review this sort of stuff, well, that's what Snowden did.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      What is your scheme to ensure that all of the people who need to review (which should be millions, right?) are able to fairly review, without also exposing the stuff which should not be seen by ISIS to that review? Snowden "chose for himself" just as much as John Walker "chose for himself" to figure out U.S. Navy anti-submarine doctrine during the 80s and pass it to the Russians.

lawnchair_larry 12y ago

You might want to watch that interview again, because what you're saying is not true. I can't even imagine where you would have gotten that idea. What's worse, even if it were true, your conclusion doesn't make sense and is just a cheap shot based on your own political views. Nothing about his stated motives are undermined by these releases, whether you agree with his actions or not.

mpyne 12y ago
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-... Note the date. Here's the quote: "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is." The article itself continues immediately: "He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed."
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  Yes. Read that last sentence again.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Read it as much as you want. His first sentence said "...every single document I disclosed..." (emphasis added). Note how he didn't say "every single document I copied from NSA"; he was referring to documents he disclosed, and those documents were only disclosed to the journalists you're referring to. What this means is that if a journalist ever showed you a Snowden leak at all, it was because it passed through Snowden's self-professed "carefully evaluated" disclosure review. Stop blaming the journalists, Snowden himself specifically said that if those journalists have any of his documents at all, it was because Snowden intended specifically for them to have it.