4 ms·

My brother is in the US Army (and so was my cousin). I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger - AFAIK, he's at much higher

My brother is in the US Army (and so was my cousin). I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger - AFAIK, he's at much higher risk from "insurgent" activity, which the US's actions have created without any help from leaks. Nor is using the word "serving" instead of "working" beneficial to how people think about it. It's a job, he enjoys it, he's fairly well compensated (good credit, benefits, etc.) The military offers all sorts of bonuses and recruiting tactics to hire people, like other companies. You're not forced into the military, and when he joined, the various divisions were actually quite picky and it took a while to find a properly compensating match, just like other employers. (Though in my cousin's case, after suffering severe damage on base, they had no trouble discharging her to a rather miserable life, hey just like other corporations.)

mpyne 11y ago
> I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger That's true only in the same way that sending half-rations to your soldiers on the front line instead of full rations doesn't put them in "more specific" danger. Or in a civilian context, refusing to wear seat belts doesn't put people in any "more specific" danger, nor does smoking cigarettes. Yet we understand that statistically speaking across the entire population in question, that it is possible to reduce the risk of harm by taking specific actions that have general impact. In the case of the military, it's always a double-ended question. There is the risk added or reduced for your force in particular, but also the risk added or reduced for the adversary forces. E.g. you put "insurgent" in scare-quotes when mentioning that they actually pose a danger to your family in the military, but without seeming to realize that many of the NSA programs Snowden leaked are directly aimed at those very same insurgents putting your family at risk. Even if we take it as true that the U.S. managed to unilaterally create insurgencies (which is by no means the case), that is not the fault of U.S. servicemembers like your family any more so than any other non-U.S. politician. To loop back to my point about managing general risk, the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, including second- and third- order effects. Beyond improving the security posture of U.S. insurgent adversaries and terror networks (terror networks that strike against U.S. allies in addition to the U.S. itself, I might add), Snowden's leaks also had the effect of weakening the national intelligence agencies of important U.S. allies, and reducing Western nations to infighting even as they needed to be able to present a united front due to geopolitical changes. It's hard to make statements about past "what-ifs" (though that has never stopped Snowden's supporters from chicken-littling about future what-ifs...), but certainly the joint U.S./E.U. reaction to Russia's invasion of Crimea would be more meaningful without Snowden's actions a year earlier. But just because these risks (for the U.S. and for the possible adversaries or the U.S.) can't be quantified or laid out in short and simple flowcharts doesn't mean that those risks don't exist.
- kansface 11y ago
  |the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, I agree, this is undoubtedly true. I also firmly believe Snowden is a hero. Any highly illegal or immoral activity of the US government (or any government for that matter) could be hidden under the same argument. We live in a democracy. It is impossible to change the government if we don't know what our government is doing in secret. Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. Have you consider that it is the government who has placed the troops in harm's way by undertaking such outrageous, immoral, and illegal actions as opposed to the guy who merely told us about it.
  - readme 11y ago
    Have you considered the idea that Snowden is working for the Russians? He is in Russia, you know. That's a bit... odd, yeah? What better post-cold war tactic than to weaken the capabilities of an organization that spies on Russia than by decreasing its public approval.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      What other strong countries are there, that wouldn't give into US threats, that'd offer him a place to live worth living in? China? Just curious how the case of a true whistleblower would look different from a secret agent.
      - mpyne 11y ago
        China is actually a great example. They are today stronger than Russia, they are a target themselves of NSA spying, and like Russia they are resentful of the "U.S. led international order". So much as China thumbs its nose at the U.S. by pushing back against U.S. presence in the Western Pacific, they'd have every reason to host Snowden as a cause célèbre. That would certainly have involved less air travel for Snowden as well! But Wikileaks told Snowden to go to Russia, and in any event China told Snowden to leave. Why would China do that? Because Snowden wasn't their asset...
  - 11y ago
readme 11y ago
I think Manning's leaks are a better example of a data breach that would have adversely affected troops in combat now. However any data on what damage they did is certainly not public, if it's even measurable. As for being picky about how people think about what the military does, "serving" or "working", you've got to think about it again. It's definitely a service. It should be apparent from overwhelming consensus on the matter. However, if you want to make the argument that "oh hey, you volunteered for it" -- sure, keep in mind that if there weren't volunteers, we'd have conscription, and the US would be a significantly less free country than it is today. Freedom is choice. Volunteer soldiers means you choose, which means we have freedom. I am sorry to hear that your cousin was chewed up and spit out. In this way the military is exactly like a corporation. Not everyone gets what they deserve, but I would like to think most people are compensated fairly. Should probably disclose, I am in the Army.

mpyne 11y ago

> I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger That's true only in the same way that sending half-rations to your soldiers on the front line instead of full rations doesn't put them in "more specific" danger. Or in a civilian context, refusing to wear seat belts doesn't put people in any "more specific" danger, nor does smoking cigarettes. Yet we understand that statistically speaking across the entire population in question, that it is possible to reduce the risk of harm by taking specific actions that have general impact. In the case of the military, it's always a double-ended question. There is the risk added or reduced for your force in particular, but also the risk added or reduced for the adversary forces. E.g. you put "insurgent" in scare-quotes when mentioning that they actually pose a danger to your family in the military, but without seeming to realize that many of the NSA programs Snowden leaked are directly aimed at those very same insurgents putting your family at risk. Even if we take it as true that the U.S. managed to unilaterally create insurgencies (which is by no means the case), that is not the fault of U.S. servicemembers like your family any more so than any other non-U.S. politician. To loop back to my point about managing general risk, the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, including second- and third- order effects. Beyond improving the security posture of U.S. insurgent adversaries and terror networks (terror networks that strike against U.S. allies in addition to the U.S. itself, I might add), Snowden's leaks also had the effect of weakening the national intelligence agencies of important U.S. allies, and reducing Western nations to infighting even as they needed to be able to present a united front due to geopolitical changes. It's hard to make statements about past "what-ifs" (though that has never stopped Snowden's supporters from chicken-littling about future what-ifs...), but certainly the joint U.S./E.U. reaction to Russia's invasion of Crimea would be more meaningful without Snowden's actions a year earlier. But just because these risks (for the U.S. and for the possible adversaries or the U.S.) can't be quantified or laid out in short and simple flowcharts doesn't mean that those risks don't exist.

kansface 11y ago
|the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, I agree, this is undoubtedly true. I also firmly believe Snowden is a hero. Any highly illegal or immoral activity of the US government (or any government for that matter) could be hidden under the same argument. We live in a democracy. It is impossible to change the government if we don't know what our government is doing in secret. Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. Have you consider that it is the government who has placed the troops in harm's way by undertaking such outrageous, immoral, and illegal actions as opposed to the guy who merely told us about it.
- readme 11y ago
  Have you considered the idea that Snowden is working for the Russians? He is in Russia, you know. That's a bit... odd, yeah? What better post-cold war tactic than to weaken the capabilities of an organization that spies on Russia than by decreasing its public approval.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    What other strong countries are there, that wouldn't give into US threats, that'd offer him a place to live worth living in? China? Just curious how the case of a true whistleblower would look different from a secret agent.
    - mpyne 11y ago
      China is actually a great example. They are today stronger than Russia, they are a target themselves of NSA spying, and like Russia they are resentful of the "U.S. led international order". So much as China thumbs its nose at the U.S. by pushing back against U.S. presence in the Western Pacific, they'd have every reason to host Snowden as a cause célèbre. That would certainly have involved less air travel for Snowden as well! But Wikileaks told Snowden to go to Russia, and in any event China told Snowden to leave. Why would China do that? Because Snowden wasn't their asset...
- 11y ago

readme 11y ago

I think Manning's leaks are a better example of a data breach that would have adversely affected troops in combat now. However any data on what damage they did is certainly not public, if it's even measurable. As for being picky about how people think about what the military does, "serving" or "working", you've got to think about it again. It's definitely a service. It should be apparent from overwhelming consensus on the matter. However, if you want to make the argument that "oh hey, you volunteered for it" -- sure, keep in mind that if there weren't volunteers, we'd have conscription, and the US would be a significantly less free country than it is today. Freedom is choice. Volunteer soldiers means you choose, which means we have freedom. I am sorry to hear that your cousin was chewed up and spit out. In this way the military is exactly like a corporation. Not everyone gets what they deserve, but I would like to think most people are compensated fairly. Should probably disclose, I am in the Army.