6 ms·

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
        [deleted]
        AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
        I sincerely doubt his claim that he's familiar with the content of all the documents, given the sheer volume, but even if we take his assertion at face value some of the releases have clearly exceeded the scope of constitutional abuses. For instance, data monitoring in Europe, South America, Asia, etc. have a firm basis in law and are basically the entire reason the NSA exists. You may view it as unethical or immoral, but they clearly aren't unconstitutional. It's fine to disagree with this, but it's an arguable point and it's stuff like that most of us Snowden non-supporters take issue with, not PRISM or XKEYSCORE which are clearly unconstitutional.
      - Semiapies 12y ago
        I have no idea Correct. You have no evidence or plausible argument for characterizing what's in the dump or for making your assertion that Snowden himself doesn't know what's in the dump. You only have ominous generalities to hint about. Unlike other posters, I don't care whether you're a shill. There are many people around the world who will say what you say - and much worse things - without taking a dime. I submit that it's a mistake to think that the difference matters. You're still engaging in misinformation and siding with government agencies spying on the people instead of with the people. That's no better than shilling.
    - Estragon 12y ago
      I think it was an act of desperation to some extent. People had already been convincingly reporting the broad outlines of NSA's surveillance activities for the better part of a decade and no one seemed to care. It probably took an extended, highly specific information dump to get people to take notice.
      - superobserver 12y ago
        I'm not entirely sure it's merely a matter of getting people to take notice. After all, if you take notice, then the agency itself will take notice of that and that is liable to make you a target for information gathering purposes. Your best defense out of fear is to proclaim anyone fighting such a power is deserving of that power's treatment as it deems fit. In a way, I guess you could say it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome. On the other hand, when you have state powers like China to contend with (who have a greater degree of explicit control over their citizens), it wouldn't be surprising to see state-level competitors wanting to keep a leg up on their competition by employing similar tactics. Unfortunately, the dragnet in place is unconstitutional for the NSA, which is why it is a part of the Five Eyes to work around that issue - by relying on collaboration with other institutions to provide the data that is ultimately being collected.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rosser 12y ago
    Nice strawman.
    - AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
      I wasn't attacking a position, it can't be a strawman. It was an analogy and an explanation of my position.
      - Panoramix 12y ago
        That's true, you incurred in a false equivalence fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
        AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
        I never said they were exactly the same, which is what false equivalence deals with. I compared the two situations, both of which involve classified information, leaks, and loss of asset information.
- 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.

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
        [deleted]
      - AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
        I sincerely doubt his claim that he's familiar with the content of all the documents, given the sheer volume, but even if we take his assertion at face value some of the releases have clearly exceeded the scope of constitutional abuses. For instance, data monitoring in Europe, South America, Asia, etc. have a firm basis in law and are basically the entire reason the NSA exists. You may view it as unethical or immoral, but they clearly aren't unconstitutional. It's fine to disagree with this, but it's an arguable point and it's stuff like that most of us Snowden non-supporters take issue with, not PRISM or XKEYSCORE which are clearly unconstitutional.
    - Semiapies 12y ago
      I have no idea Correct. You have no evidence or plausible argument for characterizing what's in the dump or for making your assertion that Snowden himself doesn't know what's in the dump. You only have ominous generalities to hint about. Unlike other posters, I don't care whether you're a shill. There are many people around the world who will say what you say - and much worse things - without taking a dime. I submit that it's a mistake to think that the difference matters. You're still engaging in misinformation and siding with government agencies spying on the people instead of with the people. That's no better than shilling.
  - Estragon 12y ago
    I think it was an act of desperation to some extent. People had already been convincingly reporting the broad outlines of NSA's surveillance activities for the better part of a decade and no one seemed to care. It probably took an extended, highly specific information dump to get people to take notice.
    - superobserver 12y ago
      I'm not entirely sure it's merely a matter of getting people to take notice. After all, if you take notice, then the agency itself will take notice of that and that is liable to make you a target for information gathering purposes. Your best defense out of fear is to proclaim anyone fighting such a power is deserving of that power's treatment as it deems fit. In a way, I guess you could say it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome. On the other hand, when you have state powers like China to contend with (who have a greater degree of explicit control over their citizens), it wouldn't be surprising to see state-level competitors wanting to keep a leg up on their competition by employing similar tactics. Unfortunately, the dragnet in place is unconstitutional for the NSA, which is why it is a part of the Five Eyes to work around that issue - by relying on collaboration with other institutions to provide the data that is ultimately being collected.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rosser 12y ago
  Nice strawman.
  - AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
    I wasn't attacking a position, it can't be a strawman. It was an analogy and an explanation of my position.
    - Panoramix 12y ago
      That's true, you incurred in a false equivalence fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
      - AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
        I never said they were exactly the same, which is what false equivalence deals with. I compared the two situations, both of which involve classified information, leaks, and loss of asset information.
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.