

Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero - danboarder
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/why-edward-snowden-is-a-hero.html?mobify=0

======
cdooh
I have to agree that in his actions the public benefit by far outwieghs the
"security" risk. In a country where people have been blocked from travelling
for mentioning "bomb" and "airport" in the same tweet it's not really shocking
that the security apparatus is monitoring the internet. Like he mentioned
there's a reason Osama's home had no internet or phone connection. So this
leak only does one thing, show the extent that American's civil liberties have
been eroded for something that has killed less people in total since 2000 than
chocking

~~~
ra
One can have little doubt that the real terrorists look upon all this with
glee.

I imagine the perpetrators of extremist based terrorism see this erosion of
civil liberties as an enormous win.

Yes. Snowden is definitely a hero, of dare I say it, historic proportions.

~~~
Amadou
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S.
government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into
an unbearable hell and a choking life." \- Osama bin Laden, October 2001
[http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview...](http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/index.html)

~~~
cdooh
When a hardcore terrorist calls the future correctly you have a huge problem

~~~
ra
I'm suggesting that it was a planned outcome (of terrorism) to make our
governments to mistrust us like this.

Bin Laden wasn't the first person to predict that an increase in terrorism
would lead to an increase in "Orwellian" practices.

------
monsterix
Sounds like a very nasty and clever way of publishing: One of 'em calls
Snowden a traitor and then another calls him a hero. Two opposing stories, all
for the eyeballs.

I'd much prefer media to choose a side/ideology and then stick to it. New
Yorker went in bed with snoopers earlier, so I don't see any reason to up-vote
this story; even if the second author has written in favor of the people.

Choice of the medium to broadcast is, I believe, a very important factor when
it comes to context of writing on state control, public policy etc.

[Edits] I've flagged this story.

~~~
danboarder
@monsterix I think you stopped reading too soon. A few paragraphs in the major
focus of this article indeed takes Snowden's side and sticks to it, addressing
exactly the real issues (not 'steering away' from them as you claim).

This article goes further than others with links to sources of intelligence
agencies denying these programs on record (basically "lying" to congress), see
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/07/privacy-
wy...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/07/privacy-wyden-
clapper-nsa-video) and
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-
chi...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-chief-denies-
wireds-domestic-spying-story-fourteen-times-in-congressional-hearing/) ), and
concludes with a quote by Daniel Ellsburg:

“Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs
for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale
invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to
our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.”

It's one of the better written stories that explain the issues well and
clearly supports Edward Snowden. Today I've been sending this story to friends
who are seeking to understand the issues.

~~~
monsterix
I do agree that the article itself is among the better written stories about
NSA and snoops. The title of the post on HN, however, needs editing (tries to
sway attention from NSA/snooping to the messenger).

------
nsns
Regardless of his fate or the consequences of his revelations, he scarified
his life for us. My respect for him is boundless.

It's also a reminder of the vital and essential difference between fighting
for liberty and Ayn Rand-ish "libertarianism", which is probably what many in
government believe in.

~~~
olalonde
I fail to see how you managed to make a connection to "Ayn Rand-ish
libertarianism" and why you think many people in government believe in it.
Don't libertarians dislike government?

~~~
rayiner
Libertarians (unlike anarchists) don't "dislike government." They dislike
government that has more than a specific set of responsibilities.

That said, I don't get the Rand connection here either. I will say that NSA
spying isn't necessarily incompatible with a libertarian government.
Libertarians don't reject the law & order or security functions of the state.
Even a libertarian government would have the power to issue warrants,
subpoenas, etc. Given that, something like the recent NSA incident couldn't
have been prevented with a "small libertarian government." It's cheap as hell
(Google, etc, do all the work!) and leverages basic powers that would exist in
the "smallest" governments.

~~~
jetti
"I will say that NSA spying isn't necessarily incompatible with a libertarian
government."

I would believe it is against the very definition of libertarianism as a
belief and not any political party with libertarian in its name. Taken from
Wikipedia:

"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political
philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This
includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political
freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6]
Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at
all.[7]"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

------
exodust
I still don't understand this whole thing.

Why oh why didn't Snowden's interviewer ask him to explain the tech giant's
denial of PRISM? And their denial in general of government access to their
data beyond the court-ordered variety we all knew about?

I really doubt all the tech giants are spinning the same prepared lie about
not knowing anything. And if they're not lying, then where does that leave
Snowden's accusations?

Maybe PRISM does exist, but maybe it has limits and can't access everything it
wants to, but only everything that _can already be scraped_? In which case,
who the hell cares, we all know mass data scraping and mining is going on with
our public shares and comments. Maybe PRISM does this really well, but then,
again.. what's the big deal?

The alternative is almost too far-fetched... that the tech giants are all
lying (unlikely); that PRISM has access to their protected data without their
knowledge (still unlikely); or that PRISM is fed the data via insiders within
the tech giants who are like IT spies - which would make the best hollywood
movie. I'd call it PRISM GAMES. Oliver Stone, stay away... you're not touching
this after your 9/11 effort.

~~~
chatmasta
Or, quite simply, that "PRISM" is the name of the automated system for
facilitating FISA requests.

~~~
famousactress
Isn't the biggest challenge to this idea the letter from GOOG that made the
rounds yesterday asking DoJ for the ability to publish aggregate numbers of
these, which it implies will be evidence that this kind of large scale
automation isn't happening?

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-
government-...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-
to-allow-google-to.html)

------
fried_dough
Am I the only one who finds the hero/traitor dichotomy that the New Yorker,
CNN, etc. are advancing is unhelpful and perhaps disingenuous?

------
radicalcut
Is there an article or initial analysis somewhere summarizing all that's known
right now about this scary NSA/PRISM business (with links to sources ideally)?
Or is it still too soon for such a thing?

I'm participating in a Google Student Ambassador program at my university and
since I've always stressed the importance of privacy (especially in the era of
the cloud) I feel obligated to educate my friends and colleagues about this.

~~~
youngerdryas
All that exists so far is four vaguely worded power point slides, although
their is allegedly a lot more which is not being released for unknown reasons.

------
ChrisAntaki
He took a massive risk, to advance our society.

~~~
grecy
I would re-word that to:

He took a massive risk, to prevent further degradation of our society

------
youngerdryas
Maybe the definition of hero should be required to have more than one
datapoint.

------
meritt
Stop focusing on Snowden, hero or traitor, he's probably fake. The revelation
is important, not the messenger.

The idea of "Snowden" is critically important -- citizens standing up against
government overreach -- but him as an individual is immaterial.

~~~
jacquesm
Fake?

~~~
meritt
I was suggesting the Snowden interview could be intentionally staged to create
a distraction from the bigger issue. Which it's done really well. Now everyone
is talking about Snowden, whether he's a traitor or a hero, why this
inexperienced kid had all this access to "the entire intelligence community",
etc.

If he is real, he's going off the radar for his own protection. If he gets
picked up by the CIA, he's going off the radar. If he's fake, he's going off
the radar too. He's going to disappear regardless.

I think it's an unnecessary distraction from the core issue of the US
government having unfettered spying access.

