
Snowden-haters are on the wrong side of history - ColinWright
http://reprog.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/snowden-haters-are-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/
======
tptacek
I don't understand this article. Unless its author can predict the future, or
knows a lot of things that nobody else in the public knows, they can't
possibly draw conclusions about exactly what Snowden did.

Snowden himself has made it clear that he took documents from NSA _en masse_ ,
far more documents than have ever been disclosed in the media.

How many of those documents have been released to the press? We don't know.
But what we do know is, of the documents he gave to the press, only a subset
have been released. In Greenwald's case, that's because it was decided that a
titrating drip of stories would keep the narrative alive in the media and, not
coincidentally, better serve the interests of the publications releasing the
stories. In other cases it's because journalists have resisted full disclosure
out of concern for its propriety.

What's been done with the zero to a billion documents that haven't been
provided to the press? Who knows? Have they been encrypted and stuck on the
Internet as an insurance policy? Have they been provided to Russian
intelligence? Were they stolen from Snowden in an embassy in China? Are they
vouchsafed with his acquaintances? Does Wikileaks have them? Nobody knows.
Including the author of this blog post.

There are places those documents can go that will alter history's judgement on
Snowden. For instance, if he offered wholesale access to US intelligence
secrets to Russia, a country which painstakingly and overtly spies on its own
citizens and routinely kills journalists (Barton Gellman is not in hiding in
the US, for what it's worth), there aren't going to be any adoring spreads
about him my grandkid's history book.

You can tell by the questions that jump to my mind what I generally think of
Snowden. But nobody who (a) is skeptical of Snowden and (b) posts on Internet
message boards could possibly be unaware of how out-on-a-limb that impression
must be, because Snowden skepticism invariably whips up a frothy swell of
criticism. Unfortunately, the author of this blog post doesn't seem to have
the benefit of a critical readership; it's clear that he hasn't actually
thought through what's happened.

~~~
Nrsolis
Where I have a hard time with the "Snowden as hero" storyline is my nagging
suspicion that he make very clear and deliberate attempts to place himself in
a position to have access to these materials for the express purpose of
stealing them.

He was essentially fired from the employ of the CIA only to find another
position at NSA. Apparently the CIA got wise to his attempts and shut him off.
The NSA wasn't so lucky.

None of this detracts from the disclosures of NSA overreach. But we would be
foolish to discount the possibility that all of this is a huge smokescreen for
a concerted and consistent attempt to weaken or expose US intelligence
operations. The fact that an impingement of our sources and methods helps our
adversaries cannot be understated.

~~~
intslack
>He was essentially fired from the employ of the CIA

No, he was not:

"The C.I.A did not file any report on Snowden indicating that it suspected he
was trying to break into classified computer files to which he did not have
authorized access while he was employed at the C.I.A., nor was he returned
home from an overseas assignment because of such concerns," Todd Ebitz, an
agency spokesman, said in the statement.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/us/cia-disputes-early-
susp...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/us/cia-disputes-early-suspicions-
on-snowden.html)

~~~
Nrsolis
Did you read that article? I did when it was first published.

Are we really at the point where we take the word of an "agency spokesman" and
not the sourcing of the journalists who quoted two unnamed sources to verify
the story?

~~~
intslack
Yes, I did read the article. Here is Snowden's account:

>Mr. Snowden said that in 2008 and 2009, he was working in Geneva as a
telecommunications information systems officer [...] He began pushing for a
promotion, but got into what he termed a “petty e-mail spat” in which he
questioned a senior manager’s judgment.

>Several months later, he was writing his annual self-evaluation when he
discovered flaws in the software of the C.I.A.’s personnel Web applications.
He warned his supervisor, but his boss advised him to drop the matter. After a
technical team also brushed him off, his boss finally agreed to allow him to
test the system to prove that it was flawed.

>He did so by adding some code and text “in a nonmalicious manner” to his
evaluation document that showed that the vulnerability existed, he said. His
immediate supervisor signed off on it and sent it through the system, but a
more senior manager — the man Mr. Snowden had challenged earlier — was furious
and filed a critical comment in Mr. Snowden’s personnel file.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-
took...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-
secret-files-to-russia.html?pagewanted=2)

~~~
Nrsolis
Riiiiight.

So the local IT guy goes looking for vulnerabilities, finds them, SAYS he
tried to alert people, then runs an EXPLOIT, and he's mad because he got a
ding in his personnel file?

He did know that he was working for an intelligence agency, right? In what
world is it acceptable to run an exploit on your company machines if it's not
your job to find those exploits? A little Occams's Razor goes a long way.

~~~
intslack
I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether he should've rocked the
boat or not.

My only point was that your assertions earlier in the thread were shaky, at
best, especially considering Snowden's corroboration.

Or is there any other evidence besides the two unnamed sources who contradict
the official CIA account?

~~~
Nrsolis
And my point is that you can't take Snowden's assertions at face value. His
behavior doesn't comport with someone who was a patriot and found himself
facing a difficult decision to disclose.

It's far closer to that of a "mole".

~~~
intslack
>And my point is that you can't take Snowden's assertions at face value.

Good thing we aren't taking them at face value, seeing as the CIA spokesman
lightly corroborates his account rather than your assertion that he was fired
for attempting to access and steal classified materials at the CIA.

And while we're on the subject of "moles," neither the internal NSA
investigation nor the FBI investigation has found anything supporting your
conspiracy theory to date.

~~~
Nrsolis
What conspiracy theory? Do you really think that if there was real evidence
that a foreign power was involved that the administration would be up-front
with that information? What if the whole purpose of the action is to make them
guess if the Russians and/or Chinese have copies of the documents?

Not knowing for sure what the exposure is fuels the nightmares of the whole
NSA. What if the Russians and Chinese know EVERYTHING?

------
rwmj
So I'll put forward a controversial, but hopefully _true_ point: If you
believe in the Rule of Law, then Snowden should be tried, and probably will be
found guilty, for a fairly clear breach of the law. The US President is bound
by the constitution to use every means available to go after him.

Presidential pardons, although they are part of the US consitution and
therefore strictly speaking part of the Rule of Law, are very capricious tools
and not really in the spirit of it.

Of course this is why we shouldn't have secret laws or secret parts of
government, and national parliaments weren't doing their job to get us into
this situation in the first place. And we weren't doing _our_ job either, by
not holding politicians to account and being apathetic about voting.

~~~
aaronem
Come now, Citizen! "Rule of Law"? How old-fashioned of you!

Snark aside, what I don't understand is this: If it means so damned much to
Snowden that he should expose all these supposedly horrible supposed abuses,
then why isn't he willing to suffer the consequences of his treasonous
actions?

The original article is so hot to compare Snowden with Dr. King, but what
everyone seems to ignore is that _Dr. King did not seek to escape the
consequences of his actions._ Indeed, he turned those consequences into a
cornerstone of his arguments, and they were in large part what drove his
movement to eventual victory.

Dr. King and his confederates in the Civil Rights movement, put simply,
possessed the courage of their convictions. Edward Snowden, by comparison, has
shown nothing but cowardice; having stolen the secret documents on which Glenn
Greenwald is turning such a tidy reputational profit, Snowden fled like the
thief he is and begged asylum from nations which, while not belligerent
enemies of the United States, certainly have no reason to wish us well.

In short, the man is no lion, but a weasel; no hero, but an arrant coward.
Have we, in a few short decades, become so debased, so degraded, that no one
can any longer tell the difference?

~~~
talmand
Wow, how hateful of you. Do you not see the obviously glaring difference
between the two?

I don't believe that Dr. King had the likelihood of being tortured and
executed by his own government for pointing out the mistreatment, illegal or
otherwise, of his people by that very government.

I do believe that Snowden is under a direct threat of possible execution and
potentially being tortured, depending on the current definition of torture I
suppose, by his own government for pointing out the illegal activities of said
government aimed at its citizens.

You complain the post is hot to compare the two, maybe you should refrain from
doing the same.

Snowden has shown the government to be corrupt in his eyes and now you expect
him to directly face that very government on their grounds and on their terms?
That seems to be a foolish thing to do. You may label the man however you
like, I'll wait to see how history plays out a bit and see more of the
evidence before making a judgement.

------
pedrocr
_> An actual spy would have quietly disappeared with the damaging intel, and
no-one in America would ever have known anything about it._

And chances are one probably did. It's one of the risks of amassing that much
private information in a single place. You become a juicy target.

~~~
tomp
I'm pretty sure CIA is protecting him very carefully, preventing him from
having conversation with any non-US intelligence agencies, and preventing him
from getting killed (which might trigger some "insurance" mechanism that would
release the documents).

~~~
vinceguidry
> preventing him from having conversation with any non-US intelligence
> agencies,

How would they do this?

~~~
tomp
I guess by being near him. If my theory is correct, Snowden want's them near
him, protecting him against non-US spies, who would like to kill him (and thus
cause the release of the remainder of the documents).

~~~
vinceguidry
Can the CIA operate overtly in Russia like this? The Russians don't mind?

------
itchitawa
I don't think this is a valid argument. It seems to be "I'm right because I
believe people in the future will agree with me". Maybe so but the author
can't know that until the future comes.

~~~
atlantic
That isn't the argument at all. The author is not saying "in the future
Snowden will be a hero, therefore let's make him a hero in the present to
align ourselves with history". That is not a good argument because history is
not moral, and just because things happen it doesn't make them right.

What he is saying is that society is currently evolving in a direction of
openness and transparency, and of holding those in power to account. This
trend is visible right now; it's not a prediction.

~~~
Kylekramer
What are the visible signs that "society is currently evolving in a direction
of openness and transparency, and of holding those in power to account"? Sure
seems like the public at large is ambivalent at best to my eyes, but love to
hear otherwise.

~~~
atlantic
That's how I read the author's argument. Doesn't mean I agree with him; I
would agree with you that the signs are ambivalent at best.

------
futurist
_The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing._ ~Edmund Burke

As someone who wholeheartedly agrees with Snowden being one day vindicated as
a hero, it's tempting to nod my head silently and move on to the next article.

The problem is the critics. They will be vocal. They will openly condemn
Snowden. Many have never done anything courageous in their life or stood up on
moral grounds. Morality is just an antiquated concept to them. Just another
word to dilute and distort.

So I'll speak up and say that Snowden is a hero, and I'll take one hero over a
pack of cowards any day.

------
molbioguy
Commenting on the comments, not the original post. Seems to me there's some
confusing of issues going on. MLK vs Snowden is not a reasonable comparison --
one was a lifelong activist and the other is a first-time whistleblower. Their
roles and goals dictate different actions, including whether to stay put or
run, among other things. Secondly, the issue of the legality of NSA actions
versus their constitutionality is quite different. Laws can be found
unconstitutional. So while the NSA was ostensibly following the law, Snowden
claims they were violating the constitution. One does not invalidate the
other.

------
gms7777
Regardless of my own beliefs about the matter, which I'll leave out of here, I
couldn't get past the massive logical fallacy that this article seems to rest
on: The goverment doesn't like Snowden. The government didn't like MLK and MLK
was a good guy, therefore Snowden must be a good guy as well.

------
puppetmaster3
I am surprised if I see people trained in critical thinking not supporting the
humanity hero Snowden.

Just think of the immediate economic impact of US tech and US tech services
not able to export. He is trying to fix that. And long term, if people don't
have free will they won't work as hard.

And worst, the information will be used for political reasons, not state
reasons. The political party in power stays in power. (that is why _THEY_ like
it, the 10% approval ratting corrupt congress)

------
Shivetya
Snowden is in no way equivalent to King.

Never in a long run. King stood up to his foes, Snowden ran.

~~~
Karunamon
In a world where your "foes" have shown a willingness to torture, kill, and
use every sneaky, subversive tactic in the book (c.f. pvt. Manning) across all
borders to annihilate those it's decided, wrongfully or not, are enemies, what
good do you think would come of Snowden returning to the USA?

Does it take someone being tortured to sate your moral compass?!

Further, him "standing up" as you and so many others seem to want him to do
would undermine the whole reason he leaked the NSA stuff and took off in the
first place. He'll disappear into some military (or worse) prison somewhere
and never be heard from again.

~~~
tptacek
It is pretty offensive to the memory of MLK to suggest that the treatment that
awaited Snowden at the hands of the DOJ was in any way comparable to what
faced the Montgomery Improvement Association. MIA activists were beaten,
raped, lynched, and tortured in public with clubs, dogs, and firehoses.

~~~
Karunamon
So we've ostensibly replaced physical torture with mental. The effect on the
person isn't any less detrimental.

~~~
tptacek
You think the Montgomery activists weren't tortured mentally as well? Their
children were being threatened.

~~~
Karunamon
Who said they weren't?! If you put the unaccountable "enhanced interrogation"
users at the NSA above threatening children if they think that will get them
what they want, you've got a much higher view of these people than most. The
point that you seem to be dancing around recognizing is that all torture is
bad, regardless of degree.

~~~
tptacek
NSA has no interrogation capability at all. I no longer understand what you're
talking about. Regardless, I feel pretty confident that what MLK and his
associates faced is far worse than anything Snowden faces, at least from the
US. Who knows where things will go in Russia.

~~~
Karunamon
If you believe in the concept of "degrees" of torture, at least. It's all
wrong on every conceivable level. You don't need to ever lay a finger on
someone to break their mind and leave them permanently damaged.

------
pessimizer
The wrong side of a progressive history, maybe. If Martin Luther King is the
benchmark for someone on the right side of history, I'd advise finding an
online article about him, published on a major newspaper site, and reading the
comments.

He is still universally despised by the children of John Birch.

------
7952
It is really a question of which group is most naive. Is the threat from
terrorism larger than the threat of un-patched vulnerabilities in vital
software. At the moment the response to these "issues" is mutually exclusive.
Only time will tell.

~~~
tptacek
The NSA doesn't create vulnerabilities in software. (If you think they do, you
can argue equally persuasively for the NSA's role in hiding aliens at Area
51).

The strongest argument you can make about NSA's malign role in software
security is that, by buying vulnerabilities from people who would otherwise
sell them to vendors, NSA is retarding third-party security research and
slowing the mean time to discovery for new vulnerabilities.

I'm disquieted by that notion too (it's been a little while since I found the
kind of vulnerability that sells for real money --- those are very particular
kinds of flaws, contrary to popular opinion --- but I've had a "no selling
vulnerabilities" rule for a long time). But I'm not naive. Most of the people
who would sell vulnerabilities to NSA probably weren't in a hurry to share
them with vendors anyways. And part of the reason for that is, vendors feel
entitled to security research about their products, even though they refuse to
pay for it. They were outbid even before NSA came along.

~~~
pixl97
>The NSA doesn't create vulnerabilities in software.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG)

~~~
tptacek
Not the kind of vulnerability I inferred the parent commenter to be referring
to, or the kind considered by the reaction to the President's NSA committee
and new NSA guidelines. I agree, BULLRUN is one of the very significant and
important disclosures; probably the most important.

------
alan_cx
What I think needs to exist is a similar protection government has, national
interest. I think there should be, in all democracies, a defence of national
interest. The law should never be allowed to obstruct the truth.

~~~
jackgavigan
Where's the national interest in revealing how the US and its allies'
intelligence services target adversaries like China and Russia, international
drug cartels and terrorist networks?

~~~
talmand
From what I've seen a great deal of the materials released so far show how the
US spies on everyone but the examples you cite, including these allies you
speak of.

Have there been examples in the Snowden materials of how the US spies on
"adversaries" such as Russia and China? I didn't even realize that those were
adversaries in the traditional sense that justifies such intrusions in
everyone's lives.

~~~
jackgavigan
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-
open-c...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-
computers-not-connected-to-internet.html)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-
uks-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-secret-
mideast-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-
leaks-8781082.html)

~~~
talmand
I can't read the first article as it is behind a paywall. It starts with the
NSA installing software in nearly 100,000 computers worldwide to conduct
surveillance. I suppose it explains somewhere after the paywall of how they
use that to spy on adversaries such as China and Russia?

The second one seems to be more about the British spying on the Middle East of
which they share information with the NSA. I admit I skimmed it but does it
accuse the NSA of spying on adversaries such as China and Russia?

So far, they just seem to spy on everyone.

------
sTevo-In-VA
He should be buried with honors.

------
c7b0rg
Great read, thanks

------
seanhandley
Best part of this article, the phrase "For the hard of thinking"

------
throwwit
What's all the fuss about? I for one welcome our skynet overlords. Privacy is
obsolete. All knowing omniscient corporations are the future!

