5 ms·

>you need hard documentation and evidence. How is anything Snowden released hard evidence? Every single thing Snowden released could have easily been faked. He

>you need hard documentation and evidence. How is anything Snowden released hard evidence? Every single thing Snowden released could have easily been faked. Hell, those powerpoints look fake. Who thought an intelligence agency would use something straight out of the world of TPS reporting and cookie-cutter presentation templates? Note, I'm not saying they're fake, but it would be trivial for someone to make this stuff if they wanted. So the argument that there's this overwhelming proof that the public can't ignore seems like weak sauce to me. The public isn't terribly interested in hard proof (or have the time/expertise to weigh claims), historically. If they were, we'd probably be a society of hard atheists scoffing at anything that can't be trivially proven in the lab. The real issue here is why certain things go viral and others don't. Snowden's fleeing was fairly dramatic and I'm assuming that helped get the ball rolling. The timed release aspect of his disclosures are fairly clever too. Frankly, I think Assange cut a path for him by normalizing this type of leak and the journalist/news system was ready for it. In the past, this system was too busy avoiding these issues, or worse, being a mouthpiece for the current administration (See the NYTimes' disgraceful Iraq pre-war reporting, repeating Bush admin propaganda without question.) Without the Assange/Manning path, the previous whistleblowers only received marginalized exposure. Now news managers realize how profitable leaks are especially with the White House not reciprocating with the 'blocking of access.' Obama's more liberal direction probably guarantees more leaks in his terms. We'll see how things are with the next POTUS. I suspect a GOP POTUS won't be as forgiving as the Bush administration has shown (Valerie Plame/Wilson affair for example).

bandrami 11y ago
For all we know, Snowden is a CIA agent who's taking one for the team as part of the ongoing NSA/CIA turf war. Honestly I kind of lean that way -- he was a CIA direct hire before he was an NSA contractor.
- bandrami 11y ago
  Hey downvoters, he actually was a CIA direct hire before he was an NSA contractor. Read the Guardian's profile of him.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    You weren't down voted for the CIA System Admin job he had (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) You were down voted for saying he "Took One for the Team". I didn't down vote you though. You were presenting a conspiracy theory.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      >You were presenting a conspiracy theory. And what's wrong with that? He didn't present it as if he thought it were fact. Why do people have such a strong reaction to "conspiracy theories"? It's not as though these things never turn out to be truthful, but some people seem to reject all things that resemble conspiracy theories without consideration of any kind. Some even seem to take the existence of a conspiracy theory as evidence of the opposite. As far as the idea in his post goes, the hypothesis presented is reminiscent of the USSR, where historically multiple internal security and intelligence units competed behind the scenes for power and sometimes undermined each other for the same.
      - baldfat 11y ago
        The issue is this belittles Snowden and what he has gone through. This wasn't some patriotic act with great personal harm but a man following orders. I lean toward he did this at great personal sacrifice. If it was a turf war he wouldn't left for China and stuck in Russia.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I lean toward he did this at great personal sacrifice. I agree, but I am not so well informed that I can reasonably exclude all other hypotheses; nor do I think is anyone else so well informed. I don't put a lot of stock in the Snowden-is-a-CIA-operative-kneecapping-the-NSA hypothesis; it's more of a whimsical idea that is amusing to think about. It reminds me of some spy fiction I read years ago by Viktor Suvorov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov >If it was a turf war he wouldn't left for China and stuck in Russia. I'm not sure how that follows. Snowden's wellbeing would definitely be in jeopardy if he had remained in the US, even if he were a CIA operative.
- sonoffett 11y ago
  Along the lines of a Snowden conspiracy theory, Dave Emory has done a fair amount of research and constructs quite a complex theory (see the "For a The Record" series on spitfirelist). He presents some interesting arguments that serve as counter point to the pervasive (libertarian) rhetoric that hails Snowden as a champion of freedom.
  - joe_the_user 11y ago
    Stepping through the dreck of Emory's arguments[1], the only substance I can find is claim that all these folks are libertarians or right-ward sympathizes (It's not true that everyone defending Snowden is Libertarian but that's only one problem with Emory's off-kilter claims and argument-style). I'd view myself as left-to-far-left with zero sympathies to libertarian politics as such. But any claim that all the libertarians are working together seems preposterous. Libertarianism appeals to geeks, constitutionalists and other sectors of the American population who tend to take it's positions seriously. [1] http://spitfirelist.com/news/snowdens-ride-part-i-eddie-the-friendly-spook-and-the-bnd/ http://spitfirelist.com/news/snowdens-ride-part-i-eddie-the-...
- peterkelly 11y ago
  http://www.thefakeguardian.com http://www.thefakeguardian.com
eli 11y ago
I don't think anyone was ever credibly claiming that Snowden's documents were fake, so that doesn't really seem relevant. There's a huge difference in terms of media appeal, journalistic norms, and general public appeal in having original source documents vs just a story.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Every single thing Snowden released could have easily been faked. If it were faked, it could easily have been denied.
jfoutz 11y ago
It's the reaction. With faked documents, the administration is free to say the documents are faked. The leaker can be immediately discredited. The wiser approach to faked documents is no comment, but that lacks the political power of completely discrediting opposition. With real stuff, people freak out and tip their hand. Media contact is made, discussions about endangering lives are had, and everyone accepts that the core idea is true.
baldfat 11y ago
> So the argument that there's this overwhelming proof that the public can't ignore seems like weak sauce to me. Your argument is that someone could fake them so having documents or not doesn't matter. The one big issue is when they aren't fake and that people look at the documents no matter how real or fake they look and test them to see if they are true. That is what happened with Snowden. He got documents and SOME of them were able to be used to show validity and than the other documents and his actions build up the case. Without those this whole Patriot Act would have just been extended. Not that this new one is extremely better.
gknoy 11y ago
> Who thought an intelligence agency would use > something straight out of the world of TPS reporting > and cookie-cutter presentation templates? In short, the crappy clip art and cookie-cutter templates make me appraise it as authentic. I think that anyone who as ever dealt with any defense contracting bureaucracy, with their endless slides, documents, and so forth, would feel similarly. These are people interested in making arguments, and dumping massive presentations on other people. Defense IT is pretty much 99% Microsoft, and the people making presentations are neither designers nor (usually) people who care about optimum information delivery. They add what flair they can. Imagine the most restrictive IT department ever, with layers of bureaucracy hardened over years to prevent you from getting work done. No one is going to open Photoshop and make custom photos, as no one can install it, and the military networks are so locked down that I'd be surprised if they could reach sites with stock photos. (OK, that's probably allowed.) I expect that the only things they have are MS OFfice and the stock clip art.
zby 11y ago
"it would be trivial for someone to make this stuff if they wanted" - it gets hard to consistently fake it when you have so many documents. Wikipedia says it is thousands - anyone has more precise stats?
jjtheblunt 11y ago
agreed.

bandrami 11y ago

For all we know, Snowden is a CIA agent who's taking one for the team as part of the ongoing NSA/CIA turf war. Honestly I kind of lean that way -- he was a CIA direct hire before he was an NSA contractor.

bandrami 11y ago
Hey downvoters, he actually was a CIA direct hire before he was an NSA contractor. Read the Guardian's profile of him.
- baldfat 11y ago
  You weren't down voted for the CIA System Admin job he had (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) You were down voted for saying he "Took One for the Team". I didn't down vote you though. You were presenting a conspiracy theory.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >You were presenting a conspiracy theory. And what's wrong with that? He didn't present it as if he thought it were fact. Why do people have such a strong reaction to "conspiracy theories"? It's not as though these things never turn out to be truthful, but some people seem to reject all things that resemble conspiracy theories without consideration of any kind. Some even seem to take the existence of a conspiracy theory as evidence of the opposite. As far as the idea in his post goes, the hypothesis presented is reminiscent of the USSR, where historically multiple internal security and intelligence units competed behind the scenes for power and sometimes undermined each other for the same.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      The issue is this belittles Snowden and what he has gone through. This wasn't some patriotic act with great personal harm but a man following orders. I lean toward he did this at great personal sacrifice. If it was a turf war he wouldn't left for China and stuck in Russia.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I lean toward he did this at great personal sacrifice. I agree, but I am not so well informed that I can reasonably exclude all other hypotheses; nor do I think is anyone else so well informed. I don't put a lot of stock in the Snowden-is-a-CIA-operative-kneecapping-the-NSA hypothesis; it's more of a whimsical idea that is amusing to think about. It reminds me of some spy fiction I read years ago by Viktor Suvorov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov >If it was a turf war he wouldn't left for China and stuck in Russia. I'm not sure how that follows. Snowden's wellbeing would definitely be in jeopardy if he had remained in the US, even if he were a CIA operative.
sonoffett 11y ago
Along the lines of a Snowden conspiracy theory, Dave Emory has done a fair amount of research and constructs quite a complex theory (see the "For a The Record" series on spitfirelist). He presents some interesting arguments that serve as counter point to the pervasive (libertarian) rhetoric that hails Snowden as a champion of freedom.
- joe_the_user 11y ago
  Stepping through the dreck of Emory's arguments[1], the only substance I can find is claim that all these folks are libertarians or right-ward sympathizes (It's not true that everyone defending Snowden is Libertarian but that's only one problem with Emory's off-kilter claims and argument-style). I'd view myself as left-to-far-left with zero sympathies to libertarian politics as such. But any claim that all the libertarians are working together seems preposterous. Libertarianism appeals to geeks, constitutionalists and other sectors of the American population who tend to take it's positions seriously. [1] http://spitfirelist.com/news/snowdens-ride-part-i-eddie-the-friendly-spook-and-the-bnd/ http://spitfirelist.com/news/snowdens-ride-part-i-eddie-the-...
peterkelly 11y ago
http://www.thefakeguardian.com http://www.thefakeguardian.com

eli 11y ago

I don't think anyone was ever credibly claiming that Snowden's documents were fake, so that doesn't really seem relevant. There's a huge difference in terms of media appeal, journalistic norms, and general public appeal in having original source documents vs just a story.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>Every single thing Snowden released could have easily been faked. If it were faked, it could easily have been denied.

jfoutz 11y ago

It's the reaction. With faked documents, the administration is free to say the documents are faked. The leaker can be immediately discredited. The wiser approach to faked documents is no comment, but that lacks the political power of completely discrediting opposition. With real stuff, people freak out and tip their hand. Media contact is made, discussions about endangering lives are had, and everyone accepts that the core idea is true.

baldfat 11y ago

> So the argument that there's this overwhelming proof that the public can't ignore seems like weak sauce to me. Your argument is that someone could fake them so having documents or not doesn't matter. The one big issue is when they aren't fake and that people look at the documents no matter how real or fake they look and test them to see if they are true. That is what happened with Snowden. He got documents and SOME of them were able to be used to show validity and than the other documents and his actions build up the case. Without those this whole Patriot Act would have just been extended. Not that this new one is extremely better.

gknoy 11y ago

> Who thought an intelligence agency would use > something straight out of the world of TPS reporting > and cookie-cutter presentation templates? In short, the crappy clip art and cookie-cutter templates make me appraise it as authentic. I think that anyone who as ever dealt with any defense contracting bureaucracy, with their endless slides, documents, and so forth, would feel similarly. These are people interested in making arguments, and dumping massive presentations on other people. Defense IT is pretty much 99% Microsoft, and the people making presentations are neither designers nor (usually) people who care about optimum information delivery. They add what flair they can. Imagine the most restrictive IT department ever, with layers of bureaucracy hardened over years to prevent you from getting work done. No one is going to open Photoshop and make custom photos, as no one can install it, and the military networks are so locked down that I'd be surprised if they could reach sites with stock photos. (OK, that's probably allowed.) I expect that the only things they have are MS OFfice and the stock clip art.

zby 11y ago

"it would be trivial for someone to make this stuff if they wanted" - it gets hard to consistently fake it when you have so many documents. Wikipedia says it is thousands - anyone has more precise stats?

jjtheblunt 11y ago

agreed.