
In Defense Of Leakers: Snowden and Manning - soneca
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/08/in-defense-of-leakers.html
======
ignostic
I was recently reminded in a conversation with my in-laws how far we have to
go. Not only do they not really understand what the NSA is doing or why it
matters, but they still see both Manning and Snowden as "traitors."

Coming out in support of whistle-blowers may seem non-controversial on HN and
similar sites, but we do have a long way to go before swaying public opinion.
We can help a little by discussing it with friends and family, and by letting
our politicians know we're not OK with it.

I'm not sure what else to do or whether it's even helping. I wonder what kind
of response we will get to the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I
expect it to be one-sided nonsense.

~~~
skwirl
It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with
you. I'm reminded a little of the rabid followers of Ron Paul... they couldn't
understand why the general public ignored their candidate when they were so
beyond certain that he was not only the best choice, but self-evidently the
only choice for the continuation of the American experiment. Their supporters
called on each other to pester their friends and family and hijack every poll
and discussion on the Internet, which is very similar to what I'm seeing
called on in many threads here and on reddit.

It could also be that a small majority do agree with you, but simply don't
care. I'm sure you can think of some policies of the federal government you
don't like, but you just don't spend any time trying to fight, other than the
occasional Internet comment (you have gone beyond the occasional Internet
comment on this issue, right?)

When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about
your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a
sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to
think that way.

~~~
ignostic
> _" When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much
> about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a
> sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful
> to think that way."_

Would you like to point out where I made such an idiotic claim? I didn't mean
or intent to imply that the only reason people don't agree with me is because
they don't know. My point was simply that a lot of people are ignorant. What's
_not_ useful is this sort of straw-man pedantry.

As for those who agree but don't care: it's hard to blame them. I signed
petitions, I sent letters to my elected representatives. I tried to attend a
protest, but it was so pathetic that I left. I try, but there's a sense of
futility to it all.

I'm very open to suggestions on how we can have a greater impact.

~~~
Wingman4l7
> I sent letters to my elected representatives.

Were they stuffed with cash? Nothing talks like campaign donations.

All the vote promises in the world don't mean squat if they can't print enough
flyers so that Joe Blow will recognize their name when they step into the
booth.

Of course, no politician is going to care about donations on the level that
your average middle-class American can afford to give. Maybe crowd-fund a
large sum for donation whose receipt is contingent upon an agreement to vote a
certain way on certain issues, with highly public and embarrassing
repercussions if they do not?

------
teeja
"Russia's action today is a disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the
United States." \- John McCain

The US needed no help to embarrass itself. It chose the course it has taken
with Guantanamo and Manning and Binney and Drake, chose to lie repeatedly to
Americans about what it's been up to, chose to subvert the FISA's original
purpose. It's up to Congress to end the embarrasment.

------
lettergram
Imagine if the NSA creates all this terrorist hype in order to maintain
funding...You know, in order to protect American's we must maintain our
surveillance and to do that we must create all the hype, just in case the real
thing comes along (like Boston?).

So I wonder if they reduce program size if all the sudden there will be
terrorist attack. Wouldn't that be interesting.

Also, if we spend 10 billion on the NSA and what does our terrorist enemies
spend?

~~~
detcader
Well, it gets a bit more sinister when you learn that the FBI actually creates
"terrorist plots" by sending spies into mosques etc to radicalize otherwise
ordinary Muslim men.. this is common knowledge to those following what's been
happening to the civil liberties of Muslims. The NYPD does this also [1] but
you can easily websearch for either case.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-
horr...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-horrifying-
impacts-of-nypd-ethnic-profiling-on-innocent-muslim-americans/274434/)

