3 ms·

> 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

by 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...
- mpyne 11y ago
  > Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. That is not my claim, succinctly or otherwise. The fact that you believe my comment reduces to that claim means that you did not understand my comment. That may be my fault in making it unclear or your fault in not trying to read and understand what I was actually saying (instead of simply seeing what you thought I meant), but either way you're replying to something I didn't say. My comment was in response to someone who felt mentioning essentially that why are we even mad at Snowden, it's not like anything bad happened. You seem to agree with me that his actions did result in real negative consequences, so in that regard you agree with me about the only substantive thing I mentioned in my own reply. But to address what you brought up, let's say it's true that Snowden revealed government wrongdoing. I happen to be of the opinion that merely revealing government wrongdoing doesn't excuse every other possible wrong that may have been committed by a 'whistleblower'. Especially in cases like Snowden's where any "whistleblowing" portion of his leaks is dwarfed in magnitude by leaks that don't indicate any government wrongdoing at all, but still result in disastrous effects that you admit occurred as a result of his actions. Otherwise a spy would be able to leak whatever they wished by simply throwing a scrap to the media while they tunnel the real secrets to their political masters. And at this point we still can't prove Snowden did something like this: The secrets he revealed to the world via the media were all (but one) stolen while he worked at Dell, but before leaving the NSA he deliberately took a position at Booz-Allen Hamilton in order to take higher-level ("Tier 3") secrets. That Tier 3 was the source of the "NSA spying on these specific Chinese IPs" story soon after Snowden landed in Hong Kong, but those Tier 3 secrets have been revealed to no other journalists (or even angry Internet bloggers...). Why did Snowden need Tier 3 secrets if he wasn't going to give them to journalists? Who did he give them to, if not journalists?

by mpyne 11y ago

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...
mpyne 11y ago
> Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. That is not my claim, succinctly or otherwise. The fact that you believe my comment reduces to that claim means that you did not understand my comment. That may be my fault in making it unclear or your fault in not trying to read and understand what I was actually saying (instead of simply seeing what you thought I meant), but either way you're replying to something I didn't say. My comment was in response to someone who felt mentioning essentially that why are we even mad at Snowden, it's not like anything bad happened. You seem to agree with me that his actions did result in real negative consequences, so in that regard you agree with me about the only substantive thing I mentioned in my own reply. But to address what you brought up, let's say it's true that Snowden revealed government wrongdoing. I happen to be of the opinion that merely revealing government wrongdoing doesn't excuse every other possible wrong that may have been committed by a 'whistleblower'. Especially in cases like Snowden's where any "whistleblowing" portion of his leaks is dwarfed in magnitude by leaks that don't indicate any government wrongdoing at all, but still result in disastrous effects that you admit occurred as a result of his actions. Otherwise a spy would be able to leak whatever they wished by simply throwing a scrap to the media while they tunnel the real secrets to their political masters. And at this point we still can't prove Snowden did something like this: The secrets he revealed to the world via the media were all (but one) stolen while he worked at Dell, but before leaving the NSA he deliberately took a position at Booz-Allen Hamilton in order to take higher-level ("Tier 3") secrets. That Tier 3 was the source of the "NSA spying on these specific Chinese IPs" story soon after Snowden landed in Hong Kong, but those Tier 3 secrets have been revealed to no other journalists (or even angry Internet bloggers...). Why did Snowden need Tier 3 secrets if he wasn't going to give them to journalists? Who did he give them to, if not journalists?