

Demonizing Edward Snowden - nqureshi
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/demonizing-edward-snowden-which-side-are-you-on.html

======
brown9-2
The idea that one needs to choose sides reduces every part of this debate to a
binary decision which I think is foolish.

It's completely possible to question or dislike some of this guy's decisions
and/or motives, and also be thankful of some of the things that he has
revealed and the other disclosures that have followed (via government leaks)
due to it. It's also not a contradiction to think that some of his leaks were
useful to the American public and some were harmful. You can be glad at the
outcome some of his actions have brought about (such as the increased
knowledge we now have) without having to label him "a hero" and reserve your
skepticism or judgement for other things he might do or will do.

~~~
agravier
(Beware, I never visited the US, all I write is based on my distant
perception)

It seems like Americans like to black-and-white every decision, binarize every
election (leading to two political parties; any alternative is disregarded).
That mentality is taught since generations and cultivated by those press
articles and many cultural products. It eases the herding of mass opinion, and
by denying immediate access to intellectual subtlety, it makes philosophical
though more alien and generates anti-intellectualism in scientific and
cultural areas where subtlety and self-criticism are key.

Maybe my indirect reading is biased by the most prominent cultural exports of
the US, or their the most vocal representatives. I would welcome the opinions
of insiders.

~~~
pekk
If you have not visited the US, please resist the urge to make sweeping
generalizations about it. OK?

~~~
siphor
Why? His data is from the outside and so is a generalization... But that's
what are government is about... the majority. I'm from the US. i tend to agree
with you. I believe overprotectve schooling and parenting (in general) has led
to this mindset.

------
lifeformed
What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad?
The legality and morality of the spying program shouldn't even have to be an
issue when one is determining whether to support Snowden or not. If an
American supports the spying program, how is it any better or worse now that
he knows of its existence?

It's not like Snowden destroyed the program. All he did was tell us that it
exists. The program still operates freely and "protects us" as much as it did
before. Why would a citizen now be unhappy that he's burdened with the
knowledge of such things?

Terrorists aren't now saying, "oh crap, I better be more careful with my
communications now." I'm sure they were already taking proper precautions. The
existence of the program was probably already safely implied by the people
it's targeting the most.

~~~
dasil003
> _What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be
> bad?_

I don't think anyone who thinks Snowden is a traitor actually has considered
it at all, they are just eating up the standard post-911 narrative that has
been driving this country for over a decade now. The problem is that being
anti-terrorism is such a political bi-partisan pillar that even appearing to
rationally consider the cost-benefit (let alone the constitutionality!) of
something as obscene as the NSA's domestic spying program in its current form
is political suicide . It's a sad state of affairs, but the public debate
driven by politicians is based on the strength of Twitter-length arguments.
Based on current sentiment, can you can concoct a stronger sound bite pro or
anti NSA surveillance? Critical thinking doesn't enter into it at all.

That's why only the people can change this debate. We need to convince each
other of the slippery slope we're on, and the futility of an ever-increasing
police state in 100% prevention of terrorism. Then we need to make the
politicians aware that we do believe in the first and fourth ammendments, and
that we will _not_ allow our proxy power to be used to spy on ourselves en
masse, and we will vote out of office any politician who does not respect the
limits of government power.

A little help from the media would be nice, but big media is almost as
beholden to political winds as politicians are these days.

~~~
JonFish85
"I don't think anyone who thinks Snowden is a traitor actually has considered
it at all..."

You're completely dismissing the fact that he took an oath to keep certain
secrets, and a few months later decided to take it upon himself that the
entire world needed to know what he was working on. There are avenues to
report these things, to voice concerns without completely going against your
word. Call your government representatives, go up the chain. There are phone
numbers to call and people to contact if you're uncomfortable.

It's people like you who make the whole issue a "black-or-white", "for us or
against us" situation. Probably shouldn't assume that just because people have
a different opinion on an issue are "just" anything.

~~~
darkarmani
> There are avenues to report these things, to voice concerns without
> completely going against your word. Call your government representatives, go
> up the chain. There are phone numbers to call and people to contact if
> you're uncomfortable.

Have you seen what happened to every whistleblower who did what you suggest?
You'd have to be an idiot to follow them and expect different results.

------
quaunaut
I genuinely don't care about Snowden. I want him to force Greenwald to give us
some more fucking information instead of this pussyfooting, because at this
point all I'm seeing is those two skewing a lot of facts and getting a lot of
this horrifically wrong. Except they've completely clammed up, so now we get
no clarifications or additions to the story.

If his stuff turns out to be completely 100% true, awesome. If it's mostly
true, but somewhat skewed, then whatever, okay. If it's mostly false, a giant
pile of hyperbole, and it turns out they don't have our SSL cert keys, they're
not gathering all possible social network data(or even most of it), etc etc?
Then I'm just gonna shake my head.

~~~
pekk
The point is simply to get the message out there, not to verify anything. Once
it's out, it can't be undone.

~~~
quaunaut
Then what reason do we have to believe anything Snowden/Greenwald say?

------
twoodfin
After all, you're either with us, or you're with those who want to destroy our
freedoms.

That big wheel just keeps on rolling...

~~~
pekk
Both the pro-Snowden and pro-NSA sides seem to have this attitude (you're
either with us, or you're with those who want to destroy our freedoms).

Apparently it isn't a valid option to not particularly be a fan of either one.

------
mgkimsal
"His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive
throughout has been to injure the national security of the U.S., not to
advance Internet freedom and free speech."

Perhaps the only way you _can_ advance free speech necessarily involves
injuring the US national security?

~~~
pekk
Or - to be the devil's advocate - perhaps the only way to advance free speech
is to defect to North Korea (like Joe Dresnok)? Or give secrets to Israel
(like Jonathan Pollard) or China (like Peter Lee) or Russia (like Robert
Hanssen)? I mean, who really knows what could turn out to be the only possible
way to advance free speech? With the US as the "biggest villain," perhaps
absolutely anything done to oppose the US is the only possible way to advance
free speech?

------
ecto
As noted, this is a false dichotomy
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).
Human actions are a complex and spectral subject and cannot be binarized. We
are completely eating out of the hands of media on this issue (not commenting
on the integrity of the New Yorker - just in general).

Though I agree that Snowden's affairs are an issue warranting discussion,
media outlets are rapidly (and perhaps vapidly) distancing themselves from the
core issue of the huge fucking datacenter in Utah SLURPING UP EVERY BIT OF
DATA IT CAN TOUCH. There are so many other facets of this conversation that
can generate pageviews for journalists that don't have to do with following
some dude's plane flights across the planet and obvious bureaucratic troubles.

Where is the discourse on the history of similar surveillance states? Where
are the people working to decipher the architecture of PRISM, the datacenter,
and its complete capabilities (I'm assuming they're waiting on Snowden to tell
them)? Where are the journalists that went to the ends of the earth to
speculate on the political connections and underpinnings of our previous,
numerous, dubious national actions?

I hope this doesn't become another oil spill and drop out of peoples' minds.
It's too important. I'm afraid most people don't care though, and will eat up
the latest gossip rather than meaningful commentary. We should aspire to more.

    
    
      [PHOTOS] Snowden orders ungarnished tuna sandwich, Gordon Ramsay comments

------
alexvr
Can an unbiased person explain to me how this revelation is a threat to
national security? Are terrorists going to stop saying, "Ok we blow up white
house tonight!" over Skype or something? Are people just afraid of the bad
publicity that goes along with spying on citizens and other nations? If that's
the case, it's really sad: It's like a mother yelling at her children for
speaking up about her once-secret abusive nature. I fail to see the danger or
wrongdoing in this.

~~~
dylangs1030
You're combatting an argument that the people supporting surveillance aren't
making.

They don't care that the program hadn't been dismantled as a result of
Snowden's actions. Their reaction is out of principle, and it's actually very
reasonable and consistent with their side.

If surveillance is a good thing and they are right for supporting it, they are
also right in being opposed to Snowden because he can _potentially_ dismantle
the program or discredit it. He can weaken public perception of the
government. He literally prompted the whole NSA conversation. He is a
lightning rod spearheading all public discussion of this topic.

Saying people shouldn't demonize him is like saying you shouldn't demonize a
presidential candidate before he's had a chance to impact you in office. Sure,
okay, but that's not how human beings operate.

------
el_fuser
Media observers will note that snowden has become the story... Very little is
being reported on the actual whistle blowing (or gutless treason, if you
listen to the media).

As i watch this massive PR engine start to tear apart Snowden,,,, I'm finding
it very hard to post anything critical of the government. It's just a little
too easy to flip a binary switch somewhere.

I wonder if this is how it started with those countries we consider
repressive?

~~~
dylangs1030
I studied psychology in school, so I know I read this but sorry for not being
able to cite it:

If you tell someone the same message over and over, they begin to believe it.
I don't mean that in a cliche way, I mean literally and clinically. IIRC, the
average you had to pad a message was 60 repetitions before it "sunk in" to
someone.

If anyone has a citation or the study, please, supplement this comment :)

I'm not being so brazen as to say the media intends this effect. But I think
humans know it exists on some level and have always exploited it.

------
quchen
> Snowden Snowden Snowden

There should be a prize for ad hominem journalism. Whether Snowden is evil or
not is as important as the president's hair color.

~~~
dylangs1030
Small nitpick: I don't agree with media focusing exclusively on the man and
not the story.

That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibility based
on a person's history, intelligence, knowledge or expertise.

For example, questioning if Snowden understood the documents he leaked because
he does not have a high school diploma or certifiable, checkable expertise
(aside from landing the access) in mass surveillance is not ad hominem. It's a
reasonable way to express doubt and question someone's ability to be capable
as a whistleblower. It's also reasonable because whistleblowers should be both
accountable and rigorous.

Character defamation on the other hand is bad. I'm not against Snowden, I just
wanted to make it clear that it's not unreasonable to question him.

------
Qantourisc
"...and significant damage to our country and to our allies." You mean the
kind where the "terrorist" now know this too ? Or the PR kind ???

If your laundry wasn't dirty it wouldn't be a problem if it hung out in public
!

------
smutticus
I'm on the side that doesn't turn every controversy into ad hominem nonsense.

------
ianstallings
_I 'm on the side of good, justice, and the American way. I just can't decide
which side that is._ (Joking)

The truth is Snowden committed a crime and those guys are never going to let
it slide or else their whole secret community falls apart. Am I glad that this
information came to light? Definitely. Would I ever do the same thing he did?
Never. I would never take an oath to keep something a secret and then expose
it to the world, knowing full well I was going to do it from the beginning.
That's deceitful and I think that explains the caution around Snowden. We need
to see the _whole_ story come out over time before making judgements. But I
can dislike the NSA programs and also dislike Snowden's maneuvers. They are
separate issues.

In other words, simply claiming it's black and white doesn't make it so.

~~~
sopooneo
An undercover cop, who swears allegiance to a gang he is infiltrating, only to
testify against them later, is he deceitful? Wrongly so?

It may be that Snowden did an immoral thing. But I think it is possible to
hold allegiance first to a higher ideal, and break later promises to uphold
it.

~~~
ianstallings
Damn, good point. But I could counter that the cop has been appointed by
society to uphold certain laws. Now that dives down into the whole
philosophical question regarding authority where I'd rather not go, but I
think the minimum we ask of people acting on behalf of society is to inform us
first that you will be acting on our behalf. Otherwise we get vigilantes
acting outside of our justice system and doing what they feel is just. Let's
at least agree on it first.

I think that's what really ticks me off about this whole thing. That there was
no mechanism in place to voice concerns about the system and our
representatives completely failed us by writing a blank check to _the
watchers_. So we get vigilantes.

------
kunai
I don't have a "side." I don't care about Snowden, although I wish him the
best in his country-hopping endeavours. What I care about is that these leaks
are analyzed and outrage pours in from the public.

That hasn't happened, and the media is concentrated on Snowden's activities
rather than the leaks themselves.

It's shameful, disgusting, and the only one doing anything about it is
Greenwald. Unfortunately, not many others are.

------
bedhead
While it's not a popular view on HN (to say the least), I am hugely looking
forward to Snowden spending the rest of his life rotting in federal pound-me-
in-the-ass prison.

~~~
Intermernet
What's not popular is single line (slightly homophobic) statements of implied
gratification from the punishment of others, without even a sentence (or word)
of justification for your opinion.

Maybe if you actually stated _why_ you were "hugely looking forward" to
someone being imprisoned for a crime that hasn't yet been proven in any way,
according to any legal body or representative (charged yes, convicted no.),
they'd be more inclined to debate the point, and your view wouldn't be quite
so unpopular (to say the least).

~~~
bedhead
The opinions on HN regarding Snowden are so lamentably one-note in
unconditional support that I really dont have the strength to articulate my
counterargument. What's the point? I probably agree with many others who feel
the same so I'll just point you towards other people, lazy as that may be.

As for my "homophobic" joke, I'm merely quoting Office Space.

~~~
knowtheory
Right, but you can be lazy _and_ link to others. The absence of argument _or_
links makes it hard to evaluate the substance of your POV. :)

