5 ms·

Really? Greenwald, Gellman, and Poitras were awarded the Pulitzer for their coverage, and my elderly parents now know who Edward Snowden is and what the NSA wa

Really? Greenwald, Gellman, and Poitras were awarded the Pulitzer for their coverage, and my elderly parents now know who Edward Snowden is and what the NSA was up to (even though they vehemently label him a traitor). The lack of an immediate change in government policy != people not caring.

cdash 12y ago
How does winning a Pulitzer mean that the people give a shit. My parents know who he is also but they also don't give a shit.
- programmarchy 12y ago
  It doesn't matter what our parents think. Most of our parents, despite their big careers and degrees, are zombies brainwashed by television, and think they are informed by watching the news and reading the new york times. They are, for the most part, lost. Not to mention, they will be dead soon. What matters is our generation, and the generations after us. Edward Snowden, Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, and others have made the information available so we can know the truth, and act accordingly. People are now able able to choose, rationally, based on factual evidence, what side of history to be on. The true revolution begins in people's minds, after all. We are in a position to choose between an enlightenment and a dark age.
glitchdout 12y ago
> what the NSA was up to Correction. What the NSA is up to. So far nothing has changed. The Utah data center is still up. Another massive data center is being built in Maryland. May I remind you, these are for content, not metadata [1]. There are no limits to their spying. Everybody's looking for technology solutions but so far nothing has changed politically. And with the way things are going, it never will because the power and blackmail potential of these agencies are just too great. [1]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec13-whistleblowers_08-01/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec1... (skip to 3:50)
- recondite 12y ago
  So the problem with revolutions is that there is usually little thought given to the system of order that will replace the current system - people are unhappy with the current one and they want change now. Historically, the result is something that ends up being worse than the original because the sudden loss of order has unintended second and third order effects. Dan Carlin has some great insights into this, with lots of historical examples. I would argue it's generally a good thing the government moves so slowly on things - as frustrating as it can be - the Founders intentionally set it up that way. In this case, it's hugely important that the press has re-gained some of its function as an investigative agency, as opposed to the role it took in the post-9/11 world as too often a mouthpiece of the powers that be. Awarding the Pulitzer is not something to be taken so lightly. In the end, the people at the NSA still have a job to do (because people crave security), and whether or not you agree with their methods, will do whatever they think is necessary (within the bounds of the law, as they interpret it) to protect the country. If we take away the tools that Snowden exposed, do you really believe they will stop coming up with new surveillance methods? They will still manage to find ways to do their job, which you probably would not agree with either, but we would feel more secure knowing they're out there doing it. It's part of the social contract that we have with the government. Like Snowden, I used to be a part of this community, and I would echo his early comments on how almost all the people he worked with did care about making the world better and were generally good people. These people are our family, friends, and neighbors. We vilify these agencies, but what I think Snowden is really trying to expose is how the entire system is set up in such a way that creates these incentives for national leadership and agencies to do these things. That system changed dramatically after 9/11, but I believe (and I'm sure Snowden believes) the system can be brought back to a more balanced state, it just has to be done slowly. So maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't believe rapid change is the answer we're looking for.
  - ripb 12y ago
    >So maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't believe rapid change is the answer we're looking for. You're right. Rapid change without direction only causes destabilization, and destabilization, whether it's politically or economically, is not something the US or EU could withstand well currently, and would potentially drastically weaken our joint position in the short-medium term internationally.
diminoten 12y ago
> The lack of an immediate change in government policy != people not caring. How long do we wait before we strike immediate from that statement, and then set the != to ==?
- grecy 12y ago
  > How long do we wait before we strike immediate from that statement, and then set the != to ==? Your statement assumes the people caring will result in change in government policy. I'm doubting those two things are connected anymore.
- recondite 12y ago
  People have longer memories than you're giving them credit for. Are you ever going to forget this about the NSA? I know I won't. At some point, a tipping point will be reached. See my comment above about slow change. It's frustrating that things are not happening faster, but that's why we have elections every 2 years. Unless you believe that mechanism is broken too, in which case we have bigger problems to worry about.
  - glitchdout 12y ago
    You still believe the system isn't broken? You've got to be pretty naive, my friend. Or a damn great optimist. Obama was supposed to reverse Bush's policies. Instead he enhanced them. It doesn't matter who you vote for. The gerrymandering, the first past the post voting system, the electoral college, the two-party system, the two-party media, all the special interest groups, the corporations, the bribing, I mean, the campaign contributions... The system is fundamentally broken. Democracy doesn't scale. I doubt a country as big as the United States will ever be truly democratic.
    - recondite 12y ago
      The system is working exactly as it is meant to - it's the one we elected, put in place, and are all a part of. You seem to be defining the system as one where the government bends to the will of the people at every moment (true democracy), but the Founders never intended that to be the case for America. In fact, they knew democracy wouldn't scale from their own experiences and historical precedence, and purposely created a Constitutional Republic, to protect us from that possibility. True democracies, almost by default, end up in mob rule and tyrannizing the minority. I'm not sure you want that. Now, the reason why the Snowden revelation is significant is because the constitution is directly being violated (namely the 4th amendment, Bill of Rights). It could be argued that some of the problems you listed are also violations of the constitution (namely campaign contributions and corporations being defined as people), and I would probably agree with you, but we can't just throw it all away because it makes us unhappy. I'm optimistic because the constitution has been violated throughout the history of this country many times before, and the result has always been reversion to the mean (either through a constitutional amendment or the violating act became irrelevant over time). Ironically, two of my favorite presidents - Lincoln and Obama - were two of the biggest violators. Hopefully, we've learned our lesson that the candidate's promises matter less than the era they come into and the system they represent.

cdash 12y ago

How does winning a Pulitzer mean that the people give a shit. My parents know who he is also but they also don't give a shit.

programmarchy 12y ago
It doesn't matter what our parents think. Most of our parents, despite their big careers and degrees, are zombies brainwashed by television, and think they are informed by watching the news and reading the new york times. They are, for the most part, lost. Not to mention, they will be dead soon. What matters is our generation, and the generations after us. Edward Snowden, Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, and others have made the information available so we can know the truth, and act accordingly. People are now able able to choose, rationally, based on factual evidence, what side of history to be on. The true revolution begins in people's minds, after all. We are in a position to choose between an enlightenment and a dark age.

glitchdout 12y ago

> what the NSA was up to Correction. What the NSA is up to. So far nothing has changed. The Utah data center is still up. Another massive data center is being built in Maryland. May I remind you, these are for content, not metadata [1]. There are no limits to their spying. Everybody's looking for technology solutions but so far nothing has changed politically. And with the way things are going, it never will because the power and blackmail potential of these agencies are just too great. [1]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec13-whistleblowers_08-01/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec1... (skip to 3:50)

recondite 12y ago
So the problem with revolutions is that there is usually little thought given to the system of order that will replace the current system - people are unhappy with the current one and they want change now. Historically, the result is something that ends up being worse than the original because the sudden loss of order has unintended second and third order effects. Dan Carlin has some great insights into this, with lots of historical examples. I would argue it's generally a good thing the government moves so slowly on things - as frustrating as it can be - the Founders intentionally set it up that way. In this case, it's hugely important that the press has re-gained some of its function as an investigative agency, as opposed to the role it took in the post-9/11 world as too often a mouthpiece of the powers that be. Awarding the Pulitzer is not something to be taken so lightly. In the end, the people at the NSA still have a job to do (because people crave security), and whether or not you agree with their methods, will do whatever they think is necessary (within the bounds of the law, as they interpret it) to protect the country. If we take away the tools that Snowden exposed, do you really believe they will stop coming up with new surveillance methods? They will still manage to find ways to do their job, which you probably would not agree with either, but we would feel more secure knowing they're out there doing it. It's part of the social contract that we have with the government. Like Snowden, I used to be a part of this community, and I would echo his early comments on how almost all the people he worked with did care about making the world better and were generally good people. These people are our family, friends, and neighbors. We vilify these agencies, but what I think Snowden is really trying to expose is how the entire system is set up in such a way that creates these incentives for national leadership and agencies to do these things. That system changed dramatically after 9/11, but I believe (and I'm sure Snowden believes) the system can be brought back to a more balanced state, it just has to be done slowly. So maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't believe rapid change is the answer we're looking for.
- ripb 12y ago
  >So maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't believe rapid change is the answer we're looking for. You're right. Rapid change without direction only causes destabilization, and destabilization, whether it's politically or economically, is not something the US or EU could withstand well currently, and would potentially drastically weaken our joint position in the short-medium term internationally.

diminoten 12y ago

> The lack of an immediate change in government policy != people not caring. How long do we wait before we strike immediate from that statement, and then set the != to ==?

grecy 12y ago
> How long do we wait before we strike immediate from that statement, and then set the != to ==? Your statement assumes the people caring will result in change in government policy. I'm doubting those two things are connected anymore.
recondite 12y ago
People have longer memories than you're giving them credit for. Are you ever going to forget this about the NSA? I know I won't. At some point, a tipping point will be reached. See my comment above about slow change. It's frustrating that things are not happening faster, but that's why we have elections every 2 years. Unless you believe that mechanism is broken too, in which case we have bigger problems to worry about.
- glitchdout 12y ago
  You still believe the system isn't broken? You've got to be pretty naive, my friend. Or a damn great optimist. Obama was supposed to reverse Bush's policies. Instead he enhanced them. It doesn't matter who you vote for. The gerrymandering, the first past the post voting system, the electoral college, the two-party system, the two-party media, all the special interest groups, the corporations, the bribing, I mean, the campaign contributions... The system is fundamentally broken. Democracy doesn't scale. I doubt a country as big as the United States will ever be truly democratic.
  - recondite 12y ago
    The system is working exactly as it is meant to - it's the one we elected, put in place, and are all a part of. You seem to be defining the system as one where the government bends to the will of the people at every moment (true democracy), but the Founders never intended that to be the case for America. In fact, they knew democracy wouldn't scale from their own experiences and historical precedence, and purposely created a Constitutional Republic, to protect us from that possibility. True democracies, almost by default, end up in mob rule and tyrannizing the minority. I'm not sure you want that. Now, the reason why the Snowden revelation is significant is because the constitution is directly being violated (namely the 4th amendment, Bill of Rights). It could be argued that some of the problems you listed are also violations of the constitution (namely campaign contributions and corporations being defined as people), and I would probably agree with you, but we can't just throw it all away because it makes us unhappy. I'm optimistic because the constitution has been violated throughout the history of this country many times before, and the result has always been reversion to the mean (either through a constitutional amendment or the violating act became irrelevant over time). Ironically, two of my favorite presidents - Lincoln and Obama - were two of the biggest violators. Hopefully, we've learned our lesson that the candidate's promises matter less than the era they come into and the system they represent.