Hacker News Reader

Comment by knowaveragejoe | Hacker News Reader

To play devil's advocate, is there some truth to this?

> Mr. Snowden's claim that he stole this information and disclosed it to protect Americans, privacy and civil liberties is undercut by his actions. Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks. The vast majority of the documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests, but instead pertain to military, defense, and intelligence programs of great interest to America's enemies.

View on HN

Sure. Tons of revelations on actual clandestine activities (think ops NSA ran against other nation states, not US citizens, and not even US citizens indirectly) were compromised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...

That's a mishmash of disclosures including those Snowden claimed to focus on, but there are plenty stemming from the Snowden leaks which had to do with run of the mill intercepts against foreign states and even against allies (because allies spy on allies all the time, let's be honest).

Whether "vast majority" is true isn't something I can say because I personally haven't actually read the leaks themselves, but it wouldn't surprise me given that most of the news after the big US revelations were all about NSA activities outside the US against non-US persons.

I won't bring my own opinion into this, but given my reply, it's probably fairly easy to discern what I think should(n't) be done here.

I'd say the most important part of this statement:

> Rather than avail himselfofthe many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms...

Is patently false. He did attempt to use those channels and was ignored [1] - at least once as confirmed by the NSA itself, and many other times according to him, which the NSA disputes.

[1] - http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/edwa...

I think there's some question of whether sending one email counts as an exhaustive effort.

Just because there's only one email doesn't mean there were not substantial efforts made in other ways. Phones exist. Talking to people in person is a thing.

If you're going to leak 1.5 million documents and flee to China on the grounds of being a whistleblower after following proper channels, wouldn't you want to display some, any sort of proof that you indeed did attempt to follow the proper channels?

People claim this dude was a genius, make him out as some sort of tech/hacker savant, so why not make the slightest effort to show the world you really are a whistleblower?

We also have statements from Snowden suggesting that the reason he took the job was to gain access to those documents and them disseminate them to various world governments, which is a goal that would be impeded by whistleblowing through channels.

They didn't claim he failed to make an exhaustive effort. They claim he made no effort. That claim is demonstrably false.

If it's "demonstrably" false, you haven't demonstrated it yet. Can you point us to some evidence showing that he complained to any authority within the government about what he learned about NSA's activities? You'll need to show more than that he mailed someone; we'll need to know more about what was in that mail.

You can put forward the argument that Snowden tried to escalate through channels, but you cannot reasonably say that it's patently true that he did, because the evidence doesn't support that claim. The simplest thing to say about this as that there is a dispute over whether Snowden tried to escalate through channels.

There is no dispute. He sent at least one email on the matter, and that is mutually agreed upon by him and NSA. The rest is in dispute.

My understanding --- and corrections: welcome --- is that the one email we know about contains no complaints about NSA programs.

> Is patently false. He did attempt to use those channels and was ignored [1] - at least once as confirmed by the NSA itself, and many other times according to him, which the NSA disputes.

The same article you link says Snowden "tried to go through channels". It's not "patently false". It's "he claimed he tried". Meanwhile, investigations show only one email he sent regarding general clarification on NSA authorities but zero raising any concern or complaints: https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-b...

The senators claim he did not avail himself of these channels. He did avail himself of a channel. That much is not in dispute. He may not have done so to your satisfaction, or apparently to the satisfaction of these senators - but that isn't what they claimed. They claimed he didn't do it at all. And that is patently false.

He asked a general question regarding authorities to OGC. What's the bar of "availing" himself to a channel? If he sent an email to OGC asking how their weekend was, he would have technically "consulted with OGC", would he not?

As it stands, there is zero evidence (from either side) that Snowden complained to the proper channels.

And why would he when his plan was to leave the country with 1.5 million classified documents?

There is some truth to it; though I think part of Snowden's ability to publish the public-interest information is predicated on his threat to publish the really important stuff. Then again, he could easily just be a foreign operative, we never will know. I, for one, am happy that we have some knowledge of the programs exposed. I do not, however, harbour the illusion that Snowden is definitely altruistic.

Though to answer the "why not stay?" question; I don't honestly think that there is any practical way to expose U.S. secrets in the United States. By the time the news reports came out, he had already been targeted in several forcible operations. I also doubt that anything would have been done, considering that they haven't done much about it despite the entire world knowing.

"the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities" don't exist. That's just talk. Previous NSA whistleblowers tried to use them and got nowhere. Thomas Drake had his life destroyed for trying to use these "lawful avenues". All the previous NSA whistleblowers agree that Snowden did the right thing. He did the only thing he could, given the circumstances.

First, Drake's life was hardly "destroyed". He was investigated, charged, and then then allowed to plea out to a misdemeanor.

Second, Drake didn't simply escalate his concerns through channels; he also spoke directly to the media. His media contact occurred contemporaneously with the largest NSA leak story to have occurred prior to Snowden, the investigation of which was ordered directly by George Bush.

You clearly have made no effort to learn more than brief metadata about what path Drake's life took. You are too quick to be contrarian.

Also, I believe I debunked this last time you incorrectly conflated Drake with a completely unrelated leak. Drake did not pass anything classified to the media. He was raided, but never charged with anything other than retaining a document that had an ambiguous classification. His charge was so trivial that if Hillary's email transgressions were pursued with half as much vigor as his, she would be eating through a tube in Guantanamo by comparison. And I say that as someone who does not think the email scandal is more than a dumb but inconsequential mistake.

He did not plea bargain. They could not deliver on a single charge out of their trumped up indictment. They were on a witch hunt, had the wrong guy, and found out much later.

Edit: I'll just link to my old post last time we discussed this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749938

I wish you'd stop defaming Drake. Sometimes you make what sound like well-researched assertions of fact when you are actually more interested in combating rageviews than getting the story right.

It's you jumping the gun here. I think if you re-read what I wrote here, you'll find that nothing you wrote contradicts what I wrote above.

My only concern is that he chose to flee. Staying would have been a very different statement.

I understand that as a feeling, but I can't logically justify it. What reason did he have to trust in the system to treat him fairly? The rightness of the programs he exposed, and our right to know about them, don't depend on whether he decided to martyr himself.

Why is that relevant? Is he a whistleblower or not is the question. Whether he gets pardoned from a jail cell or Russia makes no difference. Avoiding a trial isn't the central issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com