
Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden - hukl
http://ccc.de/en/updates/2014/snowden-manning
======
eik3_de
From the ccc website[1]:

 _> Donations_

 _> We gladly accept any donation, even considerable sums._

 _Bank account of the CCC e. V.:_

 _Chaos Computer Club e. V._

 _IBAN DE41 2001 0020 0599 0902 01_

 _BIC PBNKDEFF_

[1] [http://www.ccc.de/en/membership](http://www.ccc.de/en/membership)

~~~
cyphunk
A worthy cause. Also see this page for places to donate to Snowdens defense.

[https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden](https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden) (scroll
down to Other options)

Location for Chelsea Mannings defense/appeal fund:

[http://couragetoresist.org/2010/09/chelsea-manning-
defense-f...](http://couragetoresist.org/2010/09/chelsea-manning-defense-
fund/)

~~~
csandreasen
Does that imply that Snowden has some intention of returning to the US and
facing trial? Everything I've read from him indicates he doesn't plan on it.
If so, what's the purpose of donating to fund his legal defense?

~~~
cyphunk
true. could also donate just as a sort of "hey thanks"

------
ameister14
I don't really understand supporting Chelsea Manning, or equating her plight
with Snowden's.

Snowden had a purpose and a plan, and executed it while attempting to keep
people from getting hurt. Chelsea Manning lashed out at an army that didn't
support her and put her in the wrong position. The military may have
mistreated her, but they're still not the same thing.

~~~
lispm
What actually did the 'army' do in Iraq? Thinking a bit about that might help
you to understand what Manning did and why...

~~~
ameister14
Why would you put army in quotes? It's really an army, so that doesn't make
sense.

Chelsea Manning was a confused person when she released the documents. She
felt isolated from the people around her and searched for inclusion elsewhere.
She developed a friendly relationship with Wikileaks personnel, and sent them
hundreds of thousands of random documents. Later, she sent the helicopter
video and hundreds of thousands more random documents.

That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing. That's a
person unhappy with where they are lashing out and in the process occasionally
hitting the mark.

The military subsequently mistreated her, and she should never have been in
the position to do this in the first place. She ended up telling people that
she was the one who leaked all the documents, when she didn't have to say
anything at all. That doesn't make her a crusader or hero.

Snowden, on the other hand, was valued and paid well, and sacrificed that. He
specifically targeted information that he believed was unconscionable and
unconstitutional, and was careful about who he trusted with it and what he
released. He had a well-articulated and thought-through purpose and has
effected change through it.

~~~
lispm
Manning did a great services to mankind to expose actions of the US military
in Iraq and related.

The US invasion in Iraq was based on lies and caused death, destruction,
violence, torture, etc. for many humans.

Manning helped to expose some of these actions.

> That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing.

Yeah, she should have done it in some more orderly way. WTF?

~~~
ameister14
It's not about doing it in an orderly way, it's about doing it on purpose.

If I'm upset and download a bunch of documents onto a flash drive and send it
to a person that is nice to me, and it just so happens that in amongst the
hundreds of thousands of miscellaneous documents is some scrap of evidence of
wrongdoing, it doesn't make me a hero for doing it.

If on the other hand I find that evidence and expose it purposefully because I
have principles, that's another story.

Intent has meaning when you're defending a person's actions.

~~~
lispm
That's your FUD version. There is another version.

------
kbenson
I had to look up Chelsea Manning. I was aware from the news that Bradley
Manning had issues with gender, but wasn't aware he had changed his gender
association. What's considered the current best way to describe this, that
Bradley Manning released the documents (past tense) and now Chelsea Manning
needs support (present tense), or that Chelsea Manning released documents and
now needs support? The first way feels like it's more useful for expressing
the situation to those that lived through it, but may be ignoring the identity
of the person in question. Referring to the person through the later moniker
in all instances may be confusing to those that miss the change as it happens,
but may be less confusing to future generations.

I guess this isn't new though, we have Cassius Clay / Muhammad Ali.

~~~
king_jester
> I was aware from the news that Bradley Manning had issues with gender, but
> wasn't aware he had changed his gender association.

There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely edit
this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly misgendering this
person. Secondly, being trans isn't about gender association, it is expressing
and living as your gender, period. 'Gender association' implies that there is
some true gender rather than what Chelsea Manning has stated and that is very
transphobic whether you realize it or not.

> What's considered the current best way to describe this, that Bradley
> Manning released the documents (past tense) and now Chelsea Manning needs
> support (present tense), or that Chelsea Manning released documents and now
> needs support?

The latter. Chelsea Manning released these documents and now needs support. If
you are speaking to specific historical information, sometimes you may need to
refer to the previous name. However, it is rare to need to phrase something
this way and usually such phrasings serve to portray being trans in a negative
light.

> The first way feels like it's more useful for expressing the situation to
> those that lived through it, but may be ignoring the identity of the person
> in question. Referring to the person through the later moniker in all
> instances may be confusing to those that miss the change as it happens, but
> may be less confusing to future generations.

It is not confusing whatsoever. People change names and aliases all the time
for a variety of reasons but the world doesn't end and future generations
aren't confused as to who someone is. Moreover, misgendering someone isn't
just ignoring their identity, it is a slap in the face and challenges the
validity of their existence.

~~~
kbenson
> There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely
> edit this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly
> misgendering this person

I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and
honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference.
Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done
elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the
past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought
made the most sense, with explanation.

> However, it is rare to need to phrase something this way and usually such
> phrasings serve to portray being trans in a negative light.

How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a
negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what ways
is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of social
acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point in the
future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the status
quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past tense?

> It is not confusing whatsoever. People change names and aliases all the time
> for a variety of reasons but the world doesn't end and future generations
> aren't confused as to who someone is.

Well, obviously people _are_ confused, because _I_ just was when I first read
the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the world
that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move on to
something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are confused, how
often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more or less
confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?

> Moreover, misgendering someone isn't just ignoring their identity, it is a
> slap in the face and challenges the validity of their existence.

The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past
tense _as they were_ in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I
accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control
their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able to
change their past state.

~~~
king_jester
> I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and
> honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference.
> Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done
> elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in
> the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I
> thought made the most sense, with explanation.

It's not a blame thing or a "tut tut shame on you". The fact is it is a
misgendering and that is harmful to people even if unintended. You don't need
to apologize to me, but I think you should do the right thing and edit your
original post and change the pronouns.

> How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a
> negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what
> ways is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of
> social acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point
> in the future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the
> status quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past
> tense?

This has to do with how trans people are reported on and represented in media.
Often media will explicitly draw attention to someone being trans while at the
same time misgendering or attempting to paint the person as being abnormal or
unbalanced. More subtly, often times media and comments will always draw
attention to a person's gender before transitioning and it makes it difficult
for someone to live as their current, actual identity and gender.

> Well, obviously people are confused, because I just was when I first read
> the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the
> world that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move
> on to something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are
> confused, how often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more
> or less confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?

I'm just pointing out that people change names and aliases all the time and we
manage to do just fine. There isn't a problem with continuing to use the name
Chelsea Manning and the proper gender pronouns.

> The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past
> tense as they were in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I
> accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control
> their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able
> to change their past state.

It's not about the past state. It's that their present state is always reduced
back to that previous state. A trans person doesn't take to take their gender
for granted and being misgendered is common. That misgender often goes beyond
and uncomfortable social situation, that misgendering can challenge your
medical access, identification documents, your sexual orientation, and lead to
direct violence against your person.

The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about
"historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and pronouns
this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.

~~~
kbenson
> The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about
> "historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and
> pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.

I can't help but feel you keep misconstruing my argument to be that people
should not be able to change their name or gender, or that we should ignore
their name and gender preference, which I've _very explicitly_ made clear is
not my case. I do, and will continue to "just use the name and pronouns this
person explicitly announced to the world as what to use" for the present and
future tense. It's only the past tense I have questions about, and am seeking
a valid argument for.

I'm unclear why there is a special case where people who decide to change
their name (or gender, _but that 's irrelevant to my argument_) have special
rules about how their past is represented that nothing else follows, as far as
I'm aware.

------
sneak
Presumably, this now means anyone providing significant material support to
the CCC can find themselves on the US's shitlist, no?

~~~
Argorak
CCC has loose ties to the Wau Holland
Foundation([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau_Holland_Foundation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau_Holland_Foundation)),
which collected considerable sums for Wikileaks and often collaborates with
the CCC. I think they've already given enough reasons to be on the shitlist.

(Wau Holland co-founded the CCC)

edit: made it clear that by "collaborate with", I mean the CC and not
Wikileaks.

------
kghose
Do they support Pussy Riot and the Falung Gong? Or are they only interested in
folks who reveal US secrets and work against the US government?

~~~
harry8
The organisation you are looking for is Amnesty International. The Chaos
Computer Club's focus should be obvious from their name. I don't recall Pussy
Riot or Falung Gong revealing government secrets and blowing the whistle on
unalawful behaviour generally involving computers. Many people who are
critical of aspects of US policy and institutional behaviour grew up looking
at the US as a shining light of freedom and justice in opposition to the evil
that was the USSR. Not everything is an anti-us conspiracy, perhaps the
required eternal vigilance hasn't been quite vigilant enough and now we know?
Perhaps it is starting to be properly vigilant again and the USA's greatness
will re-assert itself just as some patriotic American heroes did previously
against the likes of McCarthy?

Anyway here is the wikipedia page for the CCC with whom I happen to have
absolutely zero association.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club)
Give it a cursory glance and decide for yourself if this group is focused on
being "anti-american"

