5 ms·

Why is Edward Snowden a hero? He divulged sensitive U.S. documents and information that now bad actors use to exploit/harm the US. Further, he knew what he wa

Why is Edward Snowden a hero? He divulged sensitive U.S. documents and information that now bad actors use to exploit/harm the US. Further, he knew what he was doing was against the law and ran as far away as he could to avoid facing the consequences(Bradley, now Chelsea Manning as far as I know didnt run like a coward). Now he's a pawn between Russia and US relations. The information he divulged that we are being watched by our govt. was nothing knew. It was information publicly known back in 2006. I don't get why he is so exalted?!?

ceejayoz 11y ago
He disclosed evidence of wrongdoing and illegal activity by the NSA, making him a whistleblower. He ran away to avoid the extrajudicial punishment Chelsea Manning experienced - years of pre-trial solitary confinement with such privileges as clothing being arbitrarily revoked. You can't say that the information he divulged was both known and sensitive without being pretty laughable, by the way.
- rhino369 11y ago
  >He disclosed evidence of wrongdoing and illegal activity by the NSA, making him a whistleblower. The only illegal things he disclosed was that some NSA agents/employees illegally used their tools to track ex-gfs and stuff. All the rest is completely legal. The country had a public debating about warrantless wiretaps and congress wrote laws about it. The NSA follows those laws. He released the information because he had a political problem with them. That cannot be allowed. I wouldn't call it traitorous, but it was a massive violation of state secrecy laws. Though, some of his actions since are at least flirting with traitorous behavior. He has released information about US spying on other governments. What the fuck did he think the NSA did? That was its raison d'être.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > All the rest is completely legal. That's a bold assertion not borne out by the facts. Examples: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-phone-collection http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-p... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/independent-review-board-says-nsa-phone-data-program-is-illegal-and-should-end/2014/01/22/4cebd470-83dd-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/indepe...
    - rhino369 11y ago
      I haven't read the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report so I can't comment other than to say it is merely a government policy board. The DOJ fully supports the NSA. But 15 Federal district court judges have approved the NSA actions as part of the FISA courts. That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge deal. The third party doctrine is very clear. Records about you do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. The judge who ruled against the NSA wants to change the law. Maybe the courts will change the law. SCOTUS has disfavored mass surveillance tactics in the recent past. But right now, it is legal.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        > That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge deal. Sure it is - that sort of disagreement makes it unsettled law, which is where SCOTUS steps in. Last year they (thankfully) ruled that cell phones can't be searched in most circumstances without a warrant, and I'd expect at least a few of the numerous suits that popped up in the wake of the Snowden leaks to wind their way to Court eventually. Right now, large parts of the NSA's actions are of disputed legality. We'll see what the justices say.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Sure it is - that sort of disagreement makes it unsettled law, which is where SCOTUS steps in. The SCOTUS is more likely to take a case where there is a split in the case law among the federal circuit courts (appellate courts). A split among federal district courts (trial courts) does not really have much significance.
        rhino369 11y ago
        District Court opinions are never binding. I just shepardized the opinion and no court has followed his lead. It will have go to the DC circuit before it carries any real weight. A single judge goes off reservation pretty frequently.
      - mindstab 11y ago
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > The country had a public debating Much of what he released was unknown to the public. I think that his stated purpose was to enable and spur public debate on those previously unknown practices.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      The metadata wasn't disclosed, but the NSA was doing warrant-less wiretapping during the Bush administration without even any oversite from FISA courts. The only real surprise to me was the metadata they were using. But even then we knew about §215 of the patriot act.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    If the state wants it to be so, it will be legal. The holocaust was legal. Segregation was legal. Stop mentioning legality of the NSA spying; the government writes the laws for their own benefit, of course what they do is legal. Legality of government actions is utterly, brutally, critically, inhospitably irrelevant when compared to what is ethical. A dragnet isn't ethical. A police state isn't ethical. Furthermore, there wasn't ever a public debate over whether people wanted the dragnet or not-- it was done in secret, then exposed, then legalized after it was exposed to the public, regardless of any public comment for or against it. As far as "political problems" go, I'd say we all should have major political problems with the government of the US, which hasn't thought twice about breaking all of its own "rules" about the privacy, civil, or human rights of citizens.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      I agree morality and legality aren't the same thing. But we cannot have a personal morality exception to classified materials. I'm sure many people who work for the Department of Defense think the Iranian Nuclear deal is wrong. Should they be able to leak a bunch of classified information to sour it? I'm sure they'd believe making peace with, in their minds, genocidal maniacs with nukes is completely immoral. >Furthermore, there wasn't ever a public debate over whether people wanted the dragnet or not-- it was done in secret, then exposed, then legalized after it was exposed to the public, regardless of any public comment for or against it. Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress has a large debate about FISA and warrent-less wiretaps every year from 2006-2008, with amendments to the FISA act ever time. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. You may think it was moral to leak, but that isn't germane.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        > Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. The Snowden leaks made it clear that statements given to Congress by James Clapper were false. If we want Congress to act on our behalf, they must be able to regulate these agencies. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/...
- teammatters 11y ago
  I was speaking in general terms. In 2006 I recall seeing reports of the NSA's activities. Back then it didn't go into all the details that he later divulged. Further, all those small details are now being exploited against the US by bad actors. I know this via someone who works in cyber security for the Govt. Obviously I hold the unpopular opinion here, as most dudes 18 to 40 in tech circles exalt him as a hero.
sixQuarks 11y ago
Fair question. You should listen to Dan Carlin's common sense podcasts specifically addressing your question in detail. It costs $2 but well worth it: http://www.dancarlin.com/product-tag/edward-snowden/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product-tag/edward-snowden/
bsimpson 11y ago
Are you trolling or seriously asking? Do you have any evidence that the articles published from the disclosures he's made have made people less safe? I think many of us had a little Truman Show-esque paranoia, especially regarding the Internet, but that paranoia wasn't widely considered credible until after his disclosures. We certainly weren't having a public discourse about the legitimacy of the US intentionally compromising SSL or hacking into our private communication en masse in 2006.
- sp332 11y ago
  Yes, and he admitted as much in a recent interview. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/edward-snowden-faces-john-olivers-semi-tough-questions/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/edward-snowden-fa...
sobkas 11y ago
>He divulged sensitive U.S. documents and information that now bad actors use to exploit/harm the US. Just to be frank, what Keanu Reeves or Charlie Sheen can do to harm U.S.?
aceperry 11y ago
He's more controversial than exalted. Snowden did an interesting interview last weekend with the comedian John Oliver which showed the public's perception of Snowden and the information he revealed. A lot of people aren't aware of him or not very familiar with what he did. But given the types of information collected, people weren't too happy about it when they learned what could be collected.
unprepare 11y ago
I see why its called a 50 cent army, the quality of this comment is laughable; an outright contradiction a sentence apart? >divulged sensitive U.S. documents and information that now bad actors use to exploit/harm the US But somehow also >The information he divulged ... was nothing knew. It was information publicly known back in 2006. How can it be both sensitive enough to endanger the US, yet completely common knowledge since 2006?
teammatters 11y ago
Pardon I witnessed the World Trade Center fall right in front of my eyes. I don't want to witness that again ... let me know your watching my every move and I'm fine with it! I don't want to witness the same type of tragedy again and I have nothing to hide. I am a law abiding citizen.

ceejayoz 11y ago

He disclosed evidence of wrongdoing and illegal activity by the NSA, making him a whistleblower. He ran away to avoid the extrajudicial punishment Chelsea Manning experienced - years of pre-trial solitary confinement with such privileges as clothing being arbitrarily revoked. You can't say that the information he divulged was both known and sensitive without being pretty laughable, by the way.

rhino369 11y ago
>He disclosed evidence of wrongdoing and illegal activity by the NSA, making him a whistleblower. The only illegal things he disclosed was that some NSA agents/employees illegally used their tools to track ex-gfs and stuff. All the rest is completely legal. The country had a public debating about warrantless wiretaps and congress wrote laws about it. The NSA follows those laws. He released the information because he had a political problem with them. That cannot be allowed. I wouldn't call it traitorous, but it was a massive violation of state secrecy laws. Though, some of his actions since are at least flirting with traitorous behavior. He has released information about US spying on other governments. What the fuck did he think the NSA did? That was its raison d'être.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > All the rest is completely legal. That's a bold assertion not borne out by the facts. Examples: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-phone-collection http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-p... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/independent-review-board-says-nsa-phone-data-program-is-illegal-and-should-end/2014/01/22/4cebd470-83dd-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/indepe...
  - rhino369 11y ago
    I haven't read the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report so I can't comment other than to say it is merely a government policy board. The DOJ fully supports the NSA. But 15 Federal district court judges have approved the NSA actions as part of the FISA courts. That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge deal. The third party doctrine is very clear. Records about you do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. The judge who ruled against the NSA wants to change the law. Maybe the courts will change the law. SCOTUS has disfavored mass surveillance tactics in the recent past. But right now, it is legal.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge deal. Sure it is - that sort of disagreement makes it unsettled law, which is where SCOTUS steps in. Last year they (thankfully) ruled that cell phones can't be searched in most circumstances without a warrant, and I'd expect at least a few of the numerous suits that popped up in the wake of the Snowden leaks to wind their way to Court eventually. Right now, large parts of the NSA's actions are of disputed legality. We'll see what the justices say.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Sure it is - that sort of disagreement makes it unsettled law, which is where SCOTUS steps in. The SCOTUS is more likely to take a case where there is a split in the case law among the federal circuit courts (appellate courts). A split among federal district courts (trial courts) does not really have much significance.
      - rhino369 11y ago
        District Court opinions are never binding. I just shepardized the opinion and no court has followed his lead. It will have go to the DC circuit before it carries any real weight. A single judge goes off reservation pretty frequently.
    - mindstab 11y ago
- hackuser 11y ago
  > The country had a public debating Much of what he released was unknown to the public. I think that his stated purpose was to enable and spur public debate on those previously unknown practices.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    The metadata wasn't disclosed, but the NSA was doing warrant-less wiretapping during the Bush administration without even any oversite from FISA courts. The only real surprise to me was the metadata they were using. But even then we knew about §215 of the patriot act.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  If the state wants it to be so, it will be legal. The holocaust was legal. Segregation was legal. Stop mentioning legality of the NSA spying; the government writes the laws for their own benefit, of course what they do is legal. Legality of government actions is utterly, brutally, critically, inhospitably irrelevant when compared to what is ethical. A dragnet isn't ethical. A police state isn't ethical. Furthermore, there wasn't ever a public debate over whether people wanted the dragnet or not-- it was done in secret, then exposed, then legalized after it was exposed to the public, regardless of any public comment for or against it. As far as "political problems" go, I'd say we all should have major political problems with the government of the US, which hasn't thought twice about breaking all of its own "rules" about the privacy, civil, or human rights of citizens.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    I agree morality and legality aren't the same thing. But we cannot have a personal morality exception to classified materials. I'm sure many people who work for the Department of Defense think the Iranian Nuclear deal is wrong. Should they be able to leak a bunch of classified information to sour it? I'm sure they'd believe making peace with, in their minds, genocidal maniacs with nukes is completely immoral. >Furthermore, there wasn't ever a public debate over whether people wanted the dragnet or not-- it was done in secret, then exposed, then legalized after it was exposed to the public, regardless of any public comment for or against it. Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress has a large debate about FISA and warrent-less wiretaps every year from 2006-2008, with amendments to the FISA act ever time. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. You may think it was moral to leak, but that isn't germane.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. The Snowden leaks made it clear that statements given to Congress by James Clapper were false. If we want Congress to act on our behalf, they must be able to regulate these agencies. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/...
teammatters 11y ago
I was speaking in general terms. In 2006 I recall seeing reports of the NSA's activities. Back then it didn't go into all the details that he later divulged. Further, all those small details are now being exploited against the US by bad actors. I know this via someone who works in cyber security for the Govt. Obviously I hold the unpopular opinion here, as most dudes 18 to 40 in tech circles exalt him as a hero.

sixQuarks 11y ago

Fair question. You should listen to Dan Carlin's common sense podcasts specifically addressing your question in detail. It costs $2 but well worth it: http://www.dancarlin.com/product-tag/edward-snowden/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product-tag/edward-snowden/

bsimpson 11y ago

Are you trolling or seriously asking? Do you have any evidence that the articles published from the disclosures he's made have made people less safe? I think many of us had a little Truman Show-esque paranoia, especially regarding the Internet, but that paranoia wasn't widely considered credible until after his disclosures. We certainly weren't having a public discourse about the legitimacy of the US intentionally compromising SSL or hacking into our private communication en masse in 2006.

sp332 11y ago
Yes, and he admitted as much in a recent interview. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/edward-snowden-faces-john-olivers-semi-tough-questions/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/edward-snowden-fa...

sobkas 11y ago

>He divulged sensitive U.S. documents and information that now bad actors use to exploit/harm the US. Just to be frank, what Keanu Reeves or Charlie Sheen can do to harm U.S.?

aceperry 11y ago

He's more controversial than exalted. Snowden did an interesting interview last weekend with the comedian John Oliver which showed the public's perception of Snowden and the information he revealed. A lot of people aren't aware of him or not very familiar with what he did. But given the types of information collected, people weren't too happy about it when they learned what could be collected.

unprepare 11y ago

I see why its called a 50 cent army, the quality of this comment is laughable; an outright contradiction a sentence apart? >divulged sensitive U.S. documents and information that now bad actors use to exploit/harm the US But somehow also >The information he divulged ... was nothing knew. It was information publicly known back in 2006. How can it be both sensitive enough to endanger the US, yet completely common knowledge since 2006?

teammatters 11y ago

Pardon I witnessed the World Trade Center fall right in front of my eyes. I don't want to witness that again ... let me know your watching my every move and I'm fine with it! I don't want to witness the same type of tragedy again and I have nothing to hide. I am a law abiding citizen.