

The Solitary Leaker - impendia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html

======
oinksoft
This paragraph is the ultimate in irony:

    
    
      He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create
      the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could
      make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed.
    

Founders weren't interested in the rights of the individual, protecting him
from his own government? Frankly, I find _that_ view deeply cynical, far more
so than anything the author points to in 'dem youths.

I think that this author's viewpoint boils down to: Whisteblowing on the US
government is fundamentally immoral. Young Americans are restive because they
are at the core antisocial, being raised in a newly flawed society that fails
to make clear that the status quo, the hulking paternalist nation-state,
serves the common good.

Frankly, it reads like an old defense of Royalism.

~~~
pfortuny
The whole article is so ad hominem ("look, here we have a freak breaking the
law, he is a poor lonely guy without friends and almost a sociopath") and so
wilfully pseudo-naïve ("And, of course, he’s right that the procedures he’s
unveiled could lend themselves to abuse in the future.") that it is more than
insulting. It is unbelievable that this has made the NYT.

Unbelievable.

Patronizing, like any government sponsoring person looks nowadays.

~~~
hobs
Don't forget the forced repetition to drive the point home He betrayed...He
betrayed...He betrayed...He betrayed...He betrayed...He betrayed...He
betrayed...

------
aidos
Maybe it's my bias, and I'm probably not educated about the deeper arguments
on both sides of the PRISM case - but this article feels very off to me. The
cynic in me feels like this is pure inner circle propaganda.

 _" He betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there is a leak like
this, the powers that be close the circle of trust a little tighter. They
limit debate a little more."_

So our choices are to quietly ignore the fact that the circles he speaks of
have already closed beyond recognition - and are continuing to do so without
our knowledge or consent. We're obviously not involved in the debate in the
fist place - so it seems to me that we have nothing to lose - at least out in
the open we can actually watch the circle of trust close.

~~~
dlss
Yeah. That was the paragraph that put me over the top too. Blaming the vicim
doesn't make any sense here.

"The reason I don't tell anyone outside my family anything is that I'm afraid
my sister will tell them"

------
nakedrobot2
This is a mind-blowingly atrocious read.

It's an opinion of this unfortunate writer that poor Mr. Snowden is an
outcast, a loser, someone who is a victim of this age of solitude. Why else
would he throw everything away? David Brooks goes on to attack this leak,
saying that it will further decay society, and lead to even more surveillance.

David Brooks: how stupid do you think we are?

~~~
misiti3780
i just tweeted the hacker news link to him, so there is a decent chance he is
in fact reading this stuff.

------
uvdiv
This is... impressive:

 _He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do
vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive
eavesdropping methods._

Wow.

~~~
kr1m
More like he betrayed the privacy of the NSA...

------
kyllo
Brooks is the NYT's token conservative and fuddy-duddy establishment
mouthpiece. He's there to make Krugman look more credible and Friedman look
more clever by comparison. Pay him no mind, anyone who would actually agree
with any of his opinions doesn't even read NYT in the first place, they read
the WP instead.

~~~
oinksoft
Eh, Washington Post has a few of these guys too:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-
leaks-n...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-leaks-not-
the-nsa-programs-deserve-
condemnation/2013/06/10/e91d09ac-d1c9-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html)

------
gnosis
_" He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do
vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive
eavesdropping methods."_

So as long as you're spied upon unintrusively, it's all fine and dandy?

That the NYT should print this bloviating pundit's Orwellian attempt to twist
a self-sacrificing attempt to defend privacy in to a cynical _betrayal_ of
privacy shames the paper, if it could be shamed any further.

------
oskarth
_He betrayed the cause of open government. [...] He betrayed the privacy of us
all. [...] He betrayed the Constitution._

Really? It's like a parody of a bought opinion. Surely there must be better
ways of discrediting him.

------
msandford
This is a classic "hit piece" that Brooks has done. Find suspicion in
everything the guy does and look at his whole life in a negative light. This
is the epitome of an Ad Hominem attack.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

------
impendia
I don't agree with Brooks's viewpoint, but I would be curious to read how HN
readers might refute (or support) his argument.

~~~
zachrose
I find the framing of Snowden's actions as "unilateral" to be suspect. He's a
whistleblower at the NSA, not a union organizer at a trucking company. What
else would he do, see if any of his colleagues want to join him first?

I also feel like you're loyalty to an employer should be based on more than a
$200k salary and an office in Hawaii, as Brooks suggests.

~~~
alan_cx
Yeah, sounds like he thinks Snowden should have organised a coup d'etat. And
that would NOT have been treasonous....

------
tropicalmug
_" For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and
cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures. By
deciding to unilaterally leak secret N.S.A. documents, Snowden has betrayed
all of these things."_

I'm amazed that the solution to being spied on by my government, showing that
they have no basic level of trust in me or my fellow citizens, is to bow my
head and treat this as a common procedure.

 _" He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do
vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive
eavesdropping methods."_

Wait...what? He didn't betray my privacy, my government did. The second part
of the argument there is the most amazing leap of logic I've ever seen. "If we
outlaw this invasive procedure, then they'll do something far worse that we've
outlawed." I don't understand this at all.

There are so many objectionable parts of this article that while typing out my
problems with it I just started raging at my desk. I don't know what to say.
I'm just appalled. Any discussion on Snowden and whether or not what he did
was right is a sideshow and should wait until we figure out what to do with
the information he gave us.

EDIT: No, let's keep going.

 _" He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create the United
States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about
what should be exposed. Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the
democratic structures of accountability, putting his own preferences above
everything else."_

The leaker of secret programs that on the surface appear to clearly violate my
Fourth Amendment rights is the one who is not being held accountable? It was
self-indulgent to tell the world about how the NSA is spying on everyone, all
of the time? This is an ad hominem attack that makes no sense. The programs he
exposed "short-circuited the democratic structures of accountability," not
him.

------
w_t_payne
I am so shocked by this dingy piece of character assassination that I barely
know where or how to begin refuting it. If Edward Snowden betrayed his
society, then surely his society betrayed him first. The ineptitude and
callous disregard with which the nation state serves it's constituents is the
real crime here: No conspiracy, just incompetence. The banality of evil writ
large.

Brooks claims that the bonds of society are weakening; that we are atomizing
in an inexorable trend towards individualism. I refute this. The bonds of
society are as strong as ever; but they are being reshaped and reforged in a
manner that crosses geographical boundaries; that renders old allegiances
obsolete and creates new societies; new movements, and new sources of power
and influence.

Brooks may find it confusing and frightening; I find it exhilarating and
liberating to live in such an age of change.

Edward Snowden; together with a great multitude of like-minded individuals are
forging a new pact; a new power base. One built on a common culture of
technological literacy coupled with socially progressive and economically
libertarian views. We have no geographical focus, and our representation in
traditional power structures is limited; but we are a real force for change,
and the change is only just beginning.

The main slur that Brooks seeks to perpetuate seems to regard Snowden's anti-
social behavior, Putting aside the disgraceful Ad-Hominem attack for one
moment, let me use myself as a counterexample: (Perhaps not the best, but the
only one I have to hand) I have a wife and a family; I am gregarious and
social; yet my affinity (and loyalty) to like-minded individuals half a world
away transcends all of that. Like Snowden, I have had security clearances in
the past. Unlike Snowden, I choose not to leak what I know, but I make my
choice not out of loyalty to my family, my community or my country, nor out of
fear of reprisal, but out of a dedication to professional ethics.

There are more, and greater things in this world than governments and nation
states.

------
return0
The author neglects to mention that "family, neighborhood, religious group,
state, nation and world" have all but been destroyed in today's world, to the
point where national identities barely exist in my generation. We are not
weird, just the product of our times. We are more taxpayers and consumers than
citizens, this is actually more prevalent in europe than the US at the moment.
I don't know how strong the American national identity still is, but seeing
how they literally need to spy on everyone to keep the congregation from
breaking apart is pretty alarming.

Maybe the author should wonder how it came to be that people trust facebook,
google and other corporations(!) more than they trust the government they
elect and its institutions.

------
mrt0mat0
"For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and
cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures."
two-way street

------
elwin
This is one of the oddest things I've read all week. It accuses Snowden of a
lack of character and claims that lack is a threat to society. But this
society and its government are designed to minimize that threat.

The reason we have a "big government" is to make unnecessary the civic virtue
Snowden supposedly lacks. The article calls "honesty and integrity" "the
foundation of all cooperative activity." But we have a highly regulated
economy, to ensure that it still works when most of its participants are
dishonest people with little integrity. Now that integrity is unnecessary,
it's predictably rare.

Similarly, it says Snowden damaged "the social fabric" and has "no real
understanding of how to knit others together and look after the common good."
The U.S. doesn't need its citizens "knit together". The country is held
together by government power, not a fabric of common consensus. Citizens don't
need to look after the common good. That's the job of the authorities the
author commends. NSA surveillance is supposed to prevent "solitary naked
individuals" from causing any trouble.

In summary, not just Snowden but the whole country fails to live up the the
character standard set out by this article. And that doesn't matter. Unless
the cynical people are right.

------
dangerlibrary
> He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do
> vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive
> eavesdropping methods.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes these methods are used to
the exclusion of other eavesdropping methods. In fact, they are used as a
precursor to them - and increase the total amount of invasive eavesdropping
that goes on.

------
zby
I don't know the author and what trust means for him - but my level of trust
in humanity increased after I read the Snowden story.

Have you guys noticed that the whistle-blowers of late are geeks? Snowden,
Manning and before that Stockwell.

------
DanielBMarkham
I have a lot of problem with Brooks' argument, but I still find it interesting
enough to upvote and comment on.

We've had government secrets for hundreds of years, yet lately we seem to have
an upsurge in leakers. What has changed? Have "those dang kids" just given up
on traditional structures of authority, as Brooks believes? Or has the system
itself grown evil enough that people view their obligation to their fellow
citizen more important than their obligation to the structures created by
those citizens?

I think as government continues to tighten the screws on society, more and
more people are going to rat out the system. Some are going to be single-issue
types who limit what they release. These guys have one issue that they feel a
majority of the population would be outraged about if they only knew. I
support these guys, although I would warn them that they could very well be
wrong -- people might not be outraged. And they are gambling with their lives.
The penalty for treason is death. This is not something to take lightly at
all.

The other folks are mad at the system itself. They declare war on it and do
whatever they can to hurt it. I do not support these people, mainly because
some secrecy is necessary and we rely on our system of government to do good
and necessary things.

99.999% of the time, your oath should come ahead of any personal
considerations you might have. But not always.

I also note that the smearing of Snowden has begun and now is in full force.
If I were some of these reporters, I'd be asking myself how I would feel if
the rest of the media establishment treated me this way the next time I broke
a major story.

~~~
mpyne
> We've had government secrets for hundreds of years, yet lately we seem to
> have an upsurge in leakers. What has changed? Have "those dang kids" just
> given up on traditional structures of authority, as Brooks believes?

Well, Brooks come off as a huge blowhard to me, but the government is pretty
objectively _less_ evil than it's been in the past (My Lai, COINTELPRO,
Syphilis testing on unsuspecting blacks, state-condoned lynching, Trail of
Tears, ECHELON, HUAC, Slavery, the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Dred Scott
Supreme Court decision, "Separate But Equal", Kent State, Jim Crow laws, Nisei
detainment camps, etc. etc. etc.)

I personally feel the reason that leaking is increasing is simply that it's
easier to do, and the perceived consequences on national security are much
less.

Back in the day you leak nuclear missile plans and you could get the entire
world killed by tipping MAD over too far. But even this leak of NSA collection
schemes will not drastically change the overall geopolitical picture, even if
it does potentially lead to degradation of counter-terrorism capability.

However it's also possible that people are becoming more idealistic faster
than the government is becoming less evil, which would IMO explain much of the
hysterics over issues like this that can't be explained by their relative
impact in an historical context.

~~~
maxerickson
Do you think you can reasonably predict how history will come to see the
government that you refer to?

(I'm thinking that lots of things that seem normal now might not seem so
reasonable in 30 years)

~~~
mpyne
I can't reasonably predict the weather next week. But either way, I don't
choose what to do based on what some Ph.D. will think of it 40 years from now,
I choose what to do based on whether it's right or wrong. When it's not that
simple, I try to go by what is the best overall solution.

~~~
maxerickson
I can see how the way I phrased it brings up the eyes of some Ph.D., but I was
thinking more about having a complete picture of things, or new information
changing the context of interpretation for things, etc.

~~~
mpyne
Well, I always reserve the right to change my mind when the facts change, or
my understanding of them does. I don't like to think I'm locked into a certain
viewpoint or worse, that my viewpoint changes to be what's most advantageous
for me personally at any given phase in my life. And I do think I have a good
understanding of history.

But at the same time I think that a good understanding of history's past
failures can enable you to essentially "try again correctly" in the future.

I think all of us agree that civil liberties are important and that a
government's protection of its citizens is important. I see it as an area of
tension, but not as a bloodfight like some on both sides of that issue.

------
john_b
If you ever wanted a case study in bare faced propaganda, this is it. You'll
rarely see a hit piece this brazen.

 _" But Big Brother is not the only danger facing the country. Another is the
rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the
social fabric and the rise of people who are so individualistic in their
outlook that they have no real understanding of how to knit others together
and look after the common good."_

Aside from mentioning "Big Brother" this reads like something directly from
the mouth of Orwell's Big Brother. The vague invocation of impossible to prove
dangers ("cynicism", "distrust", "individualistic" people). The clear
identification of an enemy: "solitary", "individualistic" people (who are
harder to coerce and threaten). The rebranding of social control to
"knit[ting] others together and look[ing] after the common good." It's all
there, plain as day, in the most respected newspaper in America.

The sad thing is that more will come. The NSA's secret programs are so
obviously indefensible that the only recourse available to the mouthpieces of
power like Mr. Brooks is to mount pathetic ad hominem attacks against the
messenger.

------
Selfcommit
Brooks argues, "He betrayed honesty and integrity, the foundation of all
cooperative activity. He made explicit and implicit oaths to respect the
secrecy of the information with which he was entrusted. He betrayed his
oaths."

This argument negates the trust and integrity the government discarded when it
chose to implement citizen surveillance.

Further, Snowden took an oath to protect the US against all enemies, foreign
and domestic. He broke no oath.

------
pkinsky
I'm starting to think some people value social stability so much that they
would condemn the leaking of "Soylent Green is people!"

------
salmonellaeater
_If you live a life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society,
perhaps it makes sense to see the world a certain way: Life is not embedded in
a series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood,
religious group, state, nation and world._

It's pretty presumptuous to take humans' current social structure and say it's
the best possible structure. The concept of hierarchy itself is directly
opposed to equality and fairness, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe
that equality and fairness are more important.

I personally hold just one level of hierarchy: humanity. We're all so similar
in the grand scheme of things, we might as well be family and fight the
universe instead of each other.

Also, he used two colons in the same sentence. Gutsy.

~~~
riggins
fascinating to listen to Brooks wax poetic about authoritative structures. One
would think he might be a little skeptical of them ... guess not.

------
flyinRyan
We need to make and maintain a list of all the sell out hacks that betray
their own people. If that list already exists, who ever has commit access
please add Brooks to it.

~~~
misiti3780
cut him some slack, he is just another Obama-worshipping sycophant :)

~~~
dlss
Given the love of authority, and OPs seeming inability to tell the difference
between valid and invalid syllogisms, my money's on Bush-worshipping :p

------
patmcguire
Take a look at the comment section and the reader picks vs. the NYT picks. The
NYT picks are about 50/50, readers are up in arms.

------
flipgimble
"He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do vast
data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive
eavesdropping methods."

Wow, the mental contortions that were undertaken to produce this sentence are
just astounding.

------
mathattack
Brooks' argument sounds logical until you realize it applies to all
whistleblowers. His world is one in which there is no way to shine light on
evil without being disloyal. This extreme I do disagree with very much.

------
mariuolo
There can bee some amount of vanity on part of the leaker, but Brooks'
argument boils down to "the government can do no wrong".

------
pasbesoin
When a multi-billion dollar corporation (X-Mart) forces its employees to go on
the dole (for lack of a living wage) and live without health insurance (the
providence of which companies directly and indirectly lobby heavily to leave
in their hands), well, you have to wonder a bit at the assumption of this
_series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood,
religious group, state, nation and world._

Oh, wait, he didn't mention employer in all that.

Brooks is, for all the controversy surrounding him, a good writer. A good
_wordsmith._

But sometimes he expresses a perspective that appears to be rather sheltered
and privileged.

