4 ms·

It doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion on HN/Reddit/etc. I've noticed a couple other people besides myself, although casting it as hero/villain is a bit

It doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion on HN/Reddit/etc. I've noticed a couple other people besides myself, although casting it as hero/villain is a bit of a simplification - I think what he did was reckless and I don't think he's been forthcoming about his motives. I've seen a lot of people downplay the comparison between Snowden's actions and Manning's actions. As I see it, Manning took thousands of sensitive documents that he didn't read and handed them over to Julian Assange, but on the hand Snowden took thousands of sensitive documents that he didn't read and handed them over to Glenn Greenwald. Personally I think the biggest difference is that Manning owned up to what he[1] did, but Snowden washed his hands of all responsibility and insists that any harm that may have come from his actions is the fault of the media, neglecting the fact that he was responsible for the media having those documents to begin with. Then there's the issue of the reporters he chose to give the documents to, who I think have been sensationalizing the issues in order to milk these documents for as long as possible. If Snowden had stopped at the first document that was released, I'd probably have a different opinion. It seems like just about every release following has been purely about legitimate foreign intelligence operations, with some language thrown in to say "there is no indication as to how many Americans or innocent civilians have been targeted under this program," with the implication that you, your family and loved ones may have been spied on by the NSA. It's a scare tactic to bring in more viewers and more advertising dollars. Every time a news outlet does actually reveal groups actually being targeted (like Russia, China, Al Qaeda, etc.), I tend to think that it's exactly the kind of people I want the NSA to be spying on. [1] Preemptively: yes, I am aware of the Bradley/Chelsea thing. No, I am not trying to make a statement. At the time that Pvt Manning plead guilty, he was known as Bradley. Now she is known as Chelsea, and it just gets confusing trying to figure out which pronoun to use when referring to events in the past.

toyg 11y ago
> sensationalizing the issues in order to milk these documents for as long as possible That's the only way to fight politicians who know how the news-cycle work: just sit tight for a couple of weeks and anything will be forgotten. By "refreshing" every few months, they kept the issue on the agenda. Recent legislative wins in this area are almost entirely due to this strategy: in the first month after release, there was massive support behind Feinstein and her likes; now that side has slowly been eroded down to a few securocrats and the usual hawks, which is why wins are happening in courts and in Congress. > It seems like just about every release following has been purely about legitimate foreign intelligence operations We really don't know how "legitimate" those descriptions of people hacking equipment in transit were. Besides, there is a world beyond the US -- Greenwald publishes from Brasil, he doesn't have to follow the wishes of the US government. Would you have kept quiet on the Bay of Pigs operation just because it was a "legitimate" foreign operation from a US-gov perspective? Journalism is not about covering government press releases.
- csandreasen 11y ago
  > We really don't know how "legitimate" those descriptions of people hacking equipment in transit were. That's actually a perfect example of what I was talking about. When Greenwald initially published the short blurb talking about intercepting routers, he didn't say who they were being used against, implying that anyone's router might be intercepted and backdoored - maybe even your own! When the full document was released sometime later, it was revealed that the NSA only used it for hard targets; in this case, targets in Syria[1]. Greenwald does this all the time - he cuts down documents to just a sentence, paragraph or picture. When the full documents come out later on, it turns out that he was selectively quoting to fit with the message he wanted to convey. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35669.pdf http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35669.pdf
  - toyg 11y ago
    > implying that anyone's router might be intercepted and backdoored - maybe even your own! But that's exactly the point -- it could be. We now know that a body with almost no oversight not just can but does backdoor US-produced equipment. This is not conspiracy-theory territory anymore, it's hard fact and anyone making decisions on procurement from now on will have to deal with it, not just "hard targets" -- because you never know when you will become a "hard target" for a body with basically no oversight. So in that sense, there is nothing wrong with Greenwald's reporting.
    - pekk 11y ago
      There is something wrong with reporting that is misleading, especially if that is intentional. If you report that a specific thing is being done, that isn't the same as reporting that it "could be" done. If you don't know what I'm doing in my basement, it doesn't make it responsible to report that I am making bombs on the grounds that I "could be" doing so as far as you know.
    - csandreasen 11y ago
      Yes, it could be done, just like the police could go door-to-door shooting everyone they see. They have guns, after all. The military could take over the White House if a presidential candidate is elected that the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't like. None of these things are actually happening, though...
dTal 11y ago
>Every time a news outlet does actually reveal groups actually being targeted (like Russia, China, Al Qaeda, etc.), I tend to think that it's exactly the kind of people I want the NSA to be spying on. I'd be interested in seeing some links. Be careful where you get your leaks from. If "a news outlet" isn't the Washington Post, The Guardian, or The Intercept, then it's not a primary source. In particular, if it's a 'leak' that hasn't even been reported by any of those three, then you're actually reading propaganda and not news. It seems quite unbelievable, but we actually have proof that NSA/GCHQ are willing to leak their own legitimate activities to the media, provided they are reported as being leaked by Snowden: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gove... I strongly suggest you read at least the first paragraph of that article and ask yourself "where did The Independent get that 'leak', and why did they attribute it to Snowden when that's clearly a lie?"
JupiterMoon 11y ago
> If Snowden had stopped at the first document that was released, I'd probably have a different opinion. This is true. You'd have have no idea about the full scope of the extent of the NSA's activity and this whole thing would have just blown over. For several weeks after the first leak the US or UK government denied something one day and the next day another leaked document was published showing that they were lying. They would have found a cover up much easier if only one document had been released. Or even if all had been released at once. Regarding pronouns. Just use she. Manning has made it clear that she thinks of herself as a woman at least give her that.

toyg 11y ago

> sensationalizing the issues in order to milk these documents for as long as possible That's the only way to fight politicians who know how the news-cycle work: just sit tight for a couple of weeks and anything will be forgotten. By "refreshing" every few months, they kept the issue on the agenda. Recent legislative wins in this area are almost entirely due to this strategy: in the first month after release, there was massive support behind Feinstein and her likes; now that side has slowly been eroded down to a few securocrats and the usual hawks, which is why wins are happening in courts and in Congress. > It seems like just about every release following has been purely about legitimate foreign intelligence operations We really don't know how "legitimate" those descriptions of people hacking equipment in transit were. Besides, there is a world beyond the US -- Greenwald publishes from Brasil, he doesn't have to follow the wishes of the US government. Would you have kept quiet on the Bay of Pigs operation just because it was a "legitimate" foreign operation from a US-gov perspective? Journalism is not about covering government press releases.

csandreasen 11y ago
> We really don't know how "legitimate" those descriptions of people hacking equipment in transit were. That's actually a perfect example of what I was talking about. When Greenwald initially published the short blurb talking about intercepting routers, he didn't say who they were being used against, implying that anyone's router might be intercepted and backdoored - maybe even your own! When the full document was released sometime later, it was revealed that the NSA only used it for hard targets; in this case, targets in Syria[1]. Greenwald does this all the time - he cuts down documents to just a sentence, paragraph or picture. When the full documents come out later on, it turns out that he was selectively quoting to fit with the message he wanted to convey. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35669.pdf http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35669.pdf
- toyg 11y ago
  > implying that anyone's router might be intercepted and backdoored - maybe even your own! But that's exactly the point -- it could be. We now know that a body with almost no oversight not just can but does backdoor US-produced equipment. This is not conspiracy-theory territory anymore, it's hard fact and anyone making decisions on procurement from now on will have to deal with it, not just "hard targets" -- because you never know when you will become a "hard target" for a body with basically no oversight. So in that sense, there is nothing wrong with Greenwald's reporting.
  - pekk 11y ago
    There is something wrong with reporting that is misleading, especially if that is intentional. If you report that a specific thing is being done, that isn't the same as reporting that it "could be" done. If you don't know what I'm doing in my basement, it doesn't make it responsible to report that I am making bombs on the grounds that I "could be" doing so as far as you know.
  - csandreasen 11y ago
    Yes, it could be done, just like the police could go door-to-door shooting everyone they see. They have guns, after all. The military could take over the White House if a presidential candidate is elected that the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't like. None of these things are actually happening, though...

dTal 11y ago

>Every time a news outlet does actually reveal groups actually being targeted (like Russia, China, Al Qaeda, etc.), I tend to think that it's exactly the kind of people I want the NSA to be spying on. I'd be interested in seeing some links. Be careful where you get your leaks from. If "a news outlet" isn't the Washington Post, The Guardian, or The Intercept, then it's not a primary source. In particular, if it's a 'leak' that hasn't even been reported by any of those three, then you're actually reading propaganda and not news. It seems quite unbelievable, but we actually have proof that NSA/GCHQ are willing to leak their own legitimate activities to the media, provided they are reported as being leaked by Snowden: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gove... I strongly suggest you read at least the first paragraph of that article and ask yourself "where did The Independent get that 'leak', and why did they attribute it to Snowden when that's clearly a lie?"

JupiterMoon 11y ago

> If Snowden had stopped at the first document that was released, I'd probably have a different opinion. This is true. You'd have have no idea about the full scope of the extent of the NSA's activity and this whole thing would have just blown over. For several weeks after the first leak the US or UK government denied something one day and the next day another leaked document was published showing that they were lying. They would have found a cover up much easier if only one document had been released. Or even if all had been released at once. Regarding pronouns. Just use she. Manning has made it clear that she thinks of herself as a woman at least give her that.