
The Snowden Principle - shill
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/06/snowden-principle
======
mjn
I don't really disagree with the principle, but it seems to more or less be a
statement of the idea of "whistleblowing". Snowden is a high-profile current
example of a whistleblower, but it might be going a bit too far to credit him
with the principle itself! Even sticking to relatively contemporary U.S.
history, you could call it the Buxtun principle, among other names.

On the topic of naming: I didn't realize until some googling just now that
"whistleblower" itself is a neologism, dating to the '70s, and coined by Ralph
Nader. He wanted to give the concept a positive spin by analogizing it to a
referee pointing out dirty play, vs. alternatives like "leaker" and
"informant" that have negative connotations. I'm not much of a fan of Nader's
subsequent political career, but in retrospect that was a pretty successful
move.

~~~
jdale27
_I don 't really disagree with the principle, but it seems to more or less be
a statement of the idea of "whistleblowing". Snowden is a high-profile current
example of a whistleblower, but it might be going a bit too far to credit him
with the principle itself!_

An example (in a different domain) of
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy)

------
jmadsen
Yep, and now all the major media & blow-hards have to back pedal on their
smear campaigns, as little by little everything he claimed turns out to be
true:

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-
lis...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-
to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/)

------
coldcode
I think the Founding Fathers would approve of this. Despite their being the
elite in society they identified that there must be a a design for a
government that discretely limited its ability to screw the people at will.
The Bill Of Rights was their way to make it obvious that government must be
limited and that its existence is dependent on the people's will, not the
other way around.

~~~
oleganza
Most of Founding Fathers were also slave owners. Could we stop bringing people
of the past with their dubious morale into the modern times when we all are
more educated? Otherwise, we could equally use What Would Jesus Do principle.

[http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-
Fou...](http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-
Fathers-and-Slavery)

~~~
pfortuny
Being a good lawyer and a defensor of good principles does not imply living a
good life. At all.

Also, do not think they understood slavery exactly as you do. As a matter of
fact, what they wrote probably paves the way to where we are today.

------
rdudekul
"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name
and that which is done against them"

Must read for anyone interested in understanding the principle behind
Snowden's acts. As requested in the article I also joined
[https://optin.stopwatching.us/](https://optin.stopwatching.us/) campaign.

------
dfc
_For the sake of argument -- This should be called The Snowden Principle._

For the sake of argument let's say we don't call this the Snowden principle,
because that would mean we are in an argument with uninformed people who are
so arrogant that they think they are the first generation to wrestle with
tough decisions and lofty ideals. Forty years ago my parents could have called
this "the Ellsberg Principle" and I am sure that HNers from other countries
can easily come up with examples from not so recent history in their country.
Can we please try and raise the level of dialogue and expect a little more of
ourselves before running to twitter/blog/HN?

~~~
reeses
I would prefer not to call it this, merely because the combination of
"snowden," "secrets," and "catch-22" really screw up search results.

------
D9u
I see a lot of people conflating the messenger with the message.

Forget about your tendencies towards fascination with a "cult of personality"
and see these abuses of our 4th Amendment rights for what they truly are.

------
danielrm26
The problem with this is that it assumes perfect judgement from the
whistleblower. I explain this more here: [http://danielmiessler.com/blog/why-
its-dangerous-to-call-whi...](http://danielmiessler.com/blog/why-its-
dangerous-to-call-whistleblowers-heroes)

------
gyardley
"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name
and that which is done against them."

Ah, but I don't believe his actions have been consistent with this motive at
all - and actions do speak louder than words. Since publicly revealing himself
as the whistleblower, he's made a significant portion of the story about him
and not about the issues he claims to care about - for much of the media and
public, it's become just another human-interest saga with Snowden as the star.

If your sole motive is _truly_ to inform the public about a cause, leak your
leaks and then do whatever in hell you can to stay out of the way and not blow
it. Perhaps he's just a glory hound, perhaps he really means what he says and
didn't realize what effects his actions would have - but either way, Snowden
did his cause a lot of damage when he put himself at the center of the story.
We'd all be a lot better off if we'd never heard his name.

~~~
GregBuchholz
A slightly different take:

"My Creeping Concern that the NSA Leaker Edward Snowden is not who he Purports
to be…"

[http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-
ns...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-
edward-snowden-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be/5339161)

~~~
btilly
That is _slightly_ different?

Well coached PR person for the purpose of making us all aware of how scared we
should be, to spread public fear is not just _slightly_ different from
courageous whistleblower.

