Hell, I'm even in favor of some SIGINT, as long as we are talking simple node-to-node analysis. But that's not what happened. What happened was a vaccum cleaner. They're sucking up every piece of meta-data they can get their hands on. And it's not because of some cost-benefit equation that the public was shown. It's simply because they can.
As a patriot, I feel that the only patriotic thing to do for all other patriots is to come out, rally and support Snowden. The government has stepped over the line here, and we all need to clearly let them know that this needs to be fixed.
And no, this case is not the same as Manning. Snowden saw one thing that he was willing to take the penalty for. He released data on one thing. Now, as the natural legislative body of the state, the people can make a choice whether to support him or not based on this one issue. I can support that kind of behavior. Manning betrayed his country by releasing everything he could get his hands on. He is truly an enemy of the system itself. Different thing entirely.
What are your thoughts on Snowden referring to Manning as an admirable heroic figure?
> Manning betrayed his country by releasing everything he could get his hands on.
I think really there isn't a big difference between the two. Snowden is trusting Greenwald's discretion on what gets published, Manning trusted Wikileaks on what would be published (and recall that Wikileaks did go on to redact a lot of what Manning leaked). Snowden's problem was with eroding civil liberties, Manning's problem was the state carrying out immoral operations (actions which resulted in a loss of many innocent lives). I don't think the two are so markedly dissimilar. At least, besides Snowden being very astute and mature vs. Manning being a troubled, depressed individual with a sad history of personal problems (though, to Manning's credit the chat logs do reveal him to be a very morally aware person).
If you argue that Manning's leaks adversely affected America's geopolitical position, you also have to account for the business ramifications that will follow because of Snowden's leaks. Now all of Europe, Asia, etc. is going to be suspicious about Gmail, Facebook, etc. America just lost a bunch of business from non-American users.
I am just waiting for all the personality attack pieces. About him not finishing high-school, perhaps some story from training buddies in the military about how he was erratic or behaved oddly and broke his own legs in a foolish way... it doesn't take much until it's easier to believe he was a one-off instead of a courageous and principled patriot who loves his country.
We are all human. For what it's worth any smear that comes his way now will not effect my image of him. He is untouchable.
<quote>[...] on the day the president [of the USoA] is meeting the Chinese leader,” Baer said, “telling us, listen, quit complaining about espionage and getting on the internet and our hacking. You are doing the same thing.”</quote>
Baer is friendly to the CIA, being a retired agent, and there is incentive for the CIA to muddy the waters. This could very well be the same motivations of a whistleblower. It also co-incided with the beginning of the Bradley Manning trial, did Baer talk about that?
Just as the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, the friend of your friend is not necessarily your friend, either.
The big difference is that Manning didn't know what he was releasing.
However admirable Snowden may have found Manning's principles, he demonstrated a much different of Manning's actions when he explained his decision to leak what he did.
He practically criticized Manning when he described how he went about preparing the release. There was no reason for him to talk about the meticulousness with which he chose what to leak except as a contrast to Manning.
What do you mean by this, exactly? I was born and raised and still live in that country, and I do not feel the slightest bit betrayed by Manning's actions. If you mean that he betrayed the US government, then I can agree, but the same applies to Snowder. But if you're talking about betraying the entire country as a whole, I think that's up to each person living in that country. I was not betrayed, and I don't think I'm the only one with that opinion. Your next sentence is:
> He is truly an enemy of the system itself.
That makes it sound like you're saying that Manning betrayed the government, not the people. That doesn't sound like an entirely different thing than what Snowder did.
You don't even know that.
All we know is that he may have tried to release a video where innocent people were being killed for the wrong reason. Since when killing innocent civilians has become a "mission of the State" ?
The rally is in NYC's Union Square at noon tomorrow. I will be there.
Nobody knows his current financial situation. I think we can all appreciate the ideal, but at this point, it's probably better to donate to the EFF, EPIC and the ACLU. Not to mention, maybe even get a subscription to the Guardian US in support of investigative journalism.
John Mccain went on CNN this morning and said that this whole thing isn't a big issue in the minds of most Americans and there won't be much if any political fallout. I am sure he is saying that with polling numbers in hand. Mark Udall, who has been trying to warn Americans about this for years, also appeared and was made to look like an overaggressive alarmist. They may as well have superimposed a tinfoil hat on him.
This whole thing gives us a very scary glimpse into how pliable the populace is. Many assumed that the NSA was doing this, but not so obvious until this incident was the depth of ambivalence Americans have toward their rights. The stage is now set for a remakably dark future, and by the time the populace finally has enough, they will no longer have the power to stop it.
But the scariest thing of all is that all of these people in aggregate are a small portion of the population -- the vast majority just don't care enough about "politics" to inform themselves.
You and I don't actually know how many people know about this, and how many people care, so talking heads will gladly tell us we're all alone in our outrage and we shouldn't expect anything to happen.
Who are we to say that this level of surveillance is not worth it? We know very little if anything of what it has achieved. Consider for a while that the population is not "pliable", but that it is possible to have a differing opinion on this topic.
You had no right to privacy on a telephone line, unlil eventually Congress passed a law against wiretapping and set controls on when the government could wiretap, controls which were later strengthened by the Supreme Court.
Cell phones: Started off with no privacy. If you had a radio scanner you could legally intercept conversations, even if you were the government (after all, they were being broadcast right in the clear in plain view of anyone who had an antenna). Again, Congress passed a law to ban deliberate interception of these communications and set similar control s on the government.
Even beepers had a specific law passed for them.
On the other hand, your slippery slope argument has itself been used to support horrific policies. Does anyone remember the reasoning for Vietnam? It was based on a slippery-slope argument itself.
The flipside of having a democracy is that people might actually choose to entrust the government with a given power. For example, the American people have seen practically no qualms whatsoever about the American government having things which are much more potentially dangerous: nuclear weapons.
I am aware of the argument that disclosing their existence makes them less effective and to that I say if we must violate our principles to defend them, we aren't really defending them.
I also have an anti-tiger rock. Just imagine how many tiger maulings that thing has saved me from! It was a steal at $100 Billion.
The last "spy" that the U.S. caught was not designated an "enemy of the state" or anything nearly so extreme, so at least wait for Obama to put on the anti-Christ mask before you start freaking out please. Pretty soon I'll literally be able to see out the back of my head.
Likewise, treason has a specific Constitutional definition, both on actions that constitute treason and the witnesses required to prove it.
As a civilian (contractor no less, not even a Government employee!) Snowden does not fall under UCMJ so all this crap about "Aiding the Enemy" is crap as well. You should be worried about Espionage Act, not UCMJ.
Likewise, giving "aid and comfort" to someone accused of a crime would fall under the same rules as any other person accused of a crime. If there ends up being a valid warrant for his arrest then you should not help him evade arrest. You should not help him commit further crimes or cover up evidence of previous ones. But certainly you can contribute to his legal defense fund (though be careful that those evil Fed prosecutors don't freeze those assets :P). Those cautions are nothing special about this case, it's always been a bad idea (legally speaking) to aid and abet crime. If you feel your morals will outweigh that then bon voyage, but go in forewarned.
Also, yes, it's possible your actions will be more closely scrutinized in the future if you aid Snowden, but things that are worth doing are not typically easy, otherwise they'd already be done.
I would be more worried about ensuring that you don't end up crowdsourcing or kickstarting some con man's bank account instead of Snowden's legal defense fund, but then again I've always been sort of a pessimist...
That's probably a pretty serious crime. I support this person as well, but there is something to be said about living to fight another day. Directly giving money to [possible] enemies of the state might not be the greatest idea.
I just let my friends know this: 'I am going to materially aid someone that the US government is very likely to label as an enemy. If that should happen, that could make my act, as per the definition in the constitution, retroactively "treasonous". Everyone who knows me knows that I am a patriot: but only because I believe in what this country strives to be - not necessarily because of what it is, was, or ever will be. And those who know me well should know that I am doing so because I believe generally in the principles set forth by the framers - principles which are supposed to transcend the institution in power.'
I expect that the NSA will make it their mission to dig up everything they possibly can on the guy to discredit him because they will see it as a zero-sum game, the more doubt they cast on his character the less justification for scrutiny of their billion dollar budgets.
i can send a $1,000 check to bradley manning (who has actually had charges brought on him, currently in jail), and there would not be a single illegal thing about sending him a check.
(Computer crimes are covered there; that is to say, anyone providing money to encourage or support anyone performing any sort of computer crime against U.S. national security is themselves guilty of a crime and liable for up to 15 years in prison.)
I think the likelihood of severe negative consequences is low, but there is a nonzero likelihood of being targeted for a bad experience, for varying values of "bad experiences".
Otherwise, the site would disqualify the campaign and return any funds.
Wouldn't that also be considered aiding an enemy of the state?
Everyone has lost their minds.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Otherwise how would any legal defense fund ever work?
The campaign is very light on details. I will not give them money just because they used his picture in a header. I will rather post the money to EFF
Did you see the article titled "How three pacifists were convicted as terrorists" currently on the front page of HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5848148
exactly. people are making unsupportable claims.
Edward Snowden has done the world and the US a huge deal by sacrificing everything and letting you know just how fucked up things are.
Use that knowledge, be inspired by his courage, and tear apart this messed up system of surveillance and oppression.
I'm only half joking.
I've been offered minor cash gifts for significant volunteer work that I've done previously, and it's usually sort of offensive - nowhere near large enough to compensate for my time, and I didn't do it for money.
The right way to go about this is probably to find a way to get meals continually delivered to him in his hotel after his credit card is inevitably cancelled.
1. You're funding someone who the government most likely has labelled a terrorist. I don't think the government will take too kindly to such a thing.
2. Snowden is in hiding. Not only might it be hard to come into contact with him, but how can we be sure our money will reach him?
I think #1 is not too difficult to solve via ways of bitcoin, but #2 is still a blocker.
Why should the government have a say on this at all? The person is doing a favor for the citizens of the whole world which happens to backfire for the government which has things to hide. Just the sole fact that government might be pissed about something transparency advocating like this should be enough of a reason to support it.
It's the government which should be afraid of the people and not the people who should be afraid of the government!
(Besides, I said should be rather than is. :)
huh? how do you get 'terrorist' from revealing secret information?
The fact that transparency is an issue for those who hold power is alone a huge reason to support people like Snowden who reveal the true nature of affairs which are being kept secret by not being transparent in the first place.
If you feel compelled to give money, give it to an organization that can effect meaningful change for those that may need it. Based on , it doesn't seem that Snowden is one that needs it.
If you choose to do it as an act of civil disobedience itself, more power to you, but it should be deliberate.
But... how long do you think he can access funds in his name? And how long do you think he will have to stay in hotels and temporary accommodation that he will have to fund?
He will need help, the hardest bit isn't even summoning the help, it will be getting it to him.
(and that's ignoring all the other obvious problems with this scheme)
For someone who doesn't want public attention and wants people to focus on the NSA surveillance programs he exposed, he certainly screwed the pooch by outing himself - now, instead of talking about the surveillance, the media's all just sitting around talking about him. He might as well have sent the administration a gift basket.
Since his actions just set back his stated goals more than anything the government could've done, I'm not so certain his stated goals are his actual ones. Are you sure he's not just looking to be famous? Do you really want to give money to someone if it turns out they're just looking for attention?