7 ms·

Sir. Edward does not expose anything. It's the journalists that choose the material. He made it very explicit from the start. > You have to be naive to think t

• pnathan 12y ago
  His recent history suggests he's a technically informed contributor. While my initial suspicion was a 50 cent army, it doesn't smell like a purpose-built troll.
• AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
  Some of us truly believe that Snowden went too far. Calling all of us shills is counter-productive, dismissive, and extremely standoffish.
  • toomuchtodo 12y ago
    The NSA went too far by violating the constitutional rights of US citizens, both on US soil and abroad. I'm unaware of how you can go "too far" when directing sunlight on corruption and illegal activities perpetrated by an arm of your own government.
    • AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
      Say that a CIA field agent or team is found doing illegal and unethical things (it's happened before many times,) would it be "too far" to release the entire list of CIA field agents and their covers around the world to two journalists at a foreign newspaper because of that one group of agents? It absolutely would be and would potentially put shitloads of lives at risk. Snowden basically did the same thing with the NSA information. Most of us think he was in the right to expose PRISM and some other programs, but he basically gave Greenwald & Co. unfettered access to a huge swath of the NSA's internal operations. That's too far for me. It's an issue of scope.
      • Semiapies 12y ago
        "the entire list of CIA field agents and their covers around the world" Not released. Not even plausibly given to "Greenwald & Co." It's telling that you jump to a ridiculous supposed analogy of endangered CIA field agents when we're talking "operations" safely carried out in secure server farms, cubicles, and offices.
        • AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
          Not all NSA operations occur within server farms, cubicles, and offices. They have agents, they have listening posts, they have people with assets in dangerous countries. I have no idea if that information was in Snowden's massive data dump, but that's the point; no one does. He dumped a shitload of data and it's doubtful if even he knows everything that's in there.
          • shkkmo 12y ago
            He claims to be familiar with the contents of every document, even if he hasn't read them all. >> would it be "too far" to release the entire list of CIA field agents and their covers around the world to two journalists at a foreign newspaper because of that one group of agents? It absolutely would be and would potentially put shitloads of lives at risk. Snowden basically did the same thing with the NSA information. >> he basically gave Greenwald & Co. unfettered access to a huge swath of the NSA's internal operations. That's too far for me. It's an issue of scope. Since you admit that you don't know what exactly is in that data dump, perhaps you'd care to make a verifiable argument as to why what Snowden did was too far? Currently you are just using your own assumption that he went to far as your evidence. //edit for typos
            • deleted 12y ago
              [deleted]
            • deleted 12y ago
              [deleted]
            • deleted 12y ago
    • Semiapies 12y ago
      I've never seen a plausible argument what Snowden did that went "too far" that boiled down to more than "he did anything at all". At most, you get a side order of "mumble mumble national security mumble mumble he should have done it 'differently' mumble mumble he went to RUSSIA for sanctuary! mumble mumble
      • Smoofer 12y ago
        I haven't seen many good arguments against Snowden either - but your comment here is a huge strawman. Just because you feel strongly about what Snowden did doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant/dumb.
        • Semiapies 12y ago
          I didn't say anyone was ignorant or dumb. I said they're not providing a worthwhile argument, but resorting to generalities and vague ominous implications.
        • Dylan16807 12y ago
          I wouldn't call that a strawman. It's an explicit challenge to provide an actual argument, while showcasing a behavior that is not meant to be an argument. strawman: "Their argument is this weak thing that's easily disproved." this post: "I haven't heard a single actual argument from them."
      • cdbajorin 12y ago
        Similarly: "I've never seen a plausible argument supporting what Snowden did that boiled down to more than [my morality is more important than your laws]. At most, you get a side order of [George Orwell] mumble mumble [he wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything if he tried to do it differently] mumble mumble [The government was so evil towards him that he fled to RUSSIA!]". These aren't arguments that people actually make. If they ARE making either claim, you're choosing some poor conversational partners.
        • Dylan16807 12y ago
    • rudolf0 12y ago
      The way I see it: the NSA is a necessary evil in many ways, and not all of their activities are unethical. I have no problem with the leaking of documents regarding domestic surveillance or breaches into private companies in allied nations; I think these are clearly unethical activities on the NSA's part. But almost everything was released or is in the process of being released, including a lot of legitimate intelligence activity and research into actual criminals and enemy states (North Korea, Iran, etc.), as well as details about various technology of which there was no evidence of unethical use. I don't think all of those documents had to be released for the point to be made. A lot of them, sure, but not all of them.
  • DyslexicAtheist 12y ago
    judging from the lack of media attention illegal spying gets these days, Snowden didn't go far enough. Never forget, the holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, segregation was legal. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.
• marcoperaza 12y ago
  Journalists can't publish information they don't have. Snowden was trusted with state secrets and he chose which documents he gave to journalists. You're right that he can't control what those journalists do with the documents. Just one of the many reasons that passing classified documents to the press (and especially foreign press) is illegal even if you think you're whistle-blowing on illegal activities. And to preempt your argument, going through the proper channels wouldn't have yielded the results that Snowden wanted. One man does not have the legitimacy to make policy. I'm not paid to post political opinions. I hope you can open your mind and see that there are informed people in this world who don't agree with you.
  • adamnemecek 12y ago
    > One man does not have the legitimacy to make policy. He's not making policy. He's informing the public.
    • LLWM 12y ago
      And why do you think he did that?
      • adamnemecek 12y ago
        I agree that his goal was changing policy. Nevertheless he does not have the power to make policy on his own. The power to change policy rests ultimately in the democratic process. And giving the public the info required to make good policy seems pretty fair to me. The public could have chosen/can choose to ignore his leaks.
        • Estragon 12y ago
          Snowden is very explicit that his goal was not to drive policy in any particular direction, only to allow informed, democratic debate about what the NSA is doing. He decided to come forward when he saw that the NSA lies to its congressional oversight committee, which is completely undemocratic.
• drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >Are you perhaps working for the US equivalent of 50 cent army? Didn't we just hear about a new HN policy to limit trolling, snotty comments, and low information negativity like this? This snide aside here is a good test case to see if these new policies have any teeth. I would expect this comment deleted by the mods. Accusing other members of being paid-for shills merely because they disagree with you is trolling and only hurts discussion.
  • krapp 12y ago
    There are a number of users here who honestly believe that criticism of Snowden is the work of NSA agents and paid shills - so of course they feel their accusations are not at all gratuitously negative, but rather warning people not to be duped by the elaborate and subtle government psy-ops at work. Then again, I can't help but wonder why people bother asking if someone else is a shill, as if they honestly expect an actual shill to admit to it. Probably the same people who think undercover cops actually have to admit who they are if you ask them.
    • im2w1l 12y ago
      I can see it serving to purposes. 1. It lets 3rd parties know you are suspicious. 2. You may get a revealing denial/non-denial. That said though I really dislike the atmosphere created by frequent shill accusations. It seems to rapidly create an echo chamber, where minority opinions are dismissed.
      • deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      • krapp 12y ago
        I'm not entirely certain those are valuable goals, though. '3rd parties' who spend any amount of time here are perfectly aware of that a pro government, anti-Snowden point of view won't be popular. I doubt they would turn tail if someone suspected their presence. And arguably, false positives and arguments about whether or not someone is a shill work in favor of actual shills. Notice how nobody ever seems to accuse the people making those accusations of having ulterior motives, despite the fact that a false flag strategy of deflecting attention to innocent accounts and derailing threads would be a much smarter strategy on their part than sockpuppet accounts making obviously noticeable propagandic statements.
• hackuser 12y ago
  > The quality of this comment is something I'd expect from a 50 cent army. I have two objections to this comment: 1) It's inappropriate; the grandfather's comment can stand on its own merits 2) You think you can detect shills based on quality. It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out how to shill in a convincing manner. Maybe you can catch the morons, but anyone who puts much thought into their shilling operation won't be caught so easily. If you look around you can find articles describing the sophisticated methods and training that go into conning people in this way.
• tdaltonc 12y ago
  Avoid gratuitous negativity.