Comment by Aqueous | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aqueous | Hacker News Reader

I can come up with no better summation of the damage Snowden has done to liberal democracies and the rule of law than his quote near the end: "...Politics will take us only so far and if history is any guide, they are the least reliable means of achieving effective change"

In other words Snowden's taught millions of young people he influences that working within the frameworks of politics and the law is pointless and can't create the lasting change they hope for.

This is not only incredibly childish and destructive - it's inaccurate. Politics and the rule of law have have provided protections for racial, sexual, religious minority populations in dozens of countries around the globe, have destroyed institutional slavery, and have created the largest sustained creation of broad-based wealth in human history. It's provided universal health care for millions of people across Europe and the Americas, defeated totalitarianism in two global conflicts, launched people into space, and created the technological revolution without which we wouldn't be having this debate today.

We're not perfect. Nobody claims we are. But politics and law are how we improve ourselves.

>In other words Snowden's taught millions of young people he influences that working within the frameworks of politics and the law is pointless and can't create the lasting change they hope for.

Snowden attempted to expose an incredibly corrupt and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus by working within the system but was ultimately ignored.

This security apparatus undermines the very fabric of law and government that you speak so highly of.

In case you've forgotten the 4th Amendment.

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things

So what's your suggestion?

Silently put your head down and continue to breach the Constitutional rights of the American public?

Maybe you'd have kept fighting the man from within a system that clearly ignores one of the most fundamental pieces of our democracy, our Bill of Rights?

Sure, peoples rights are being trampled on but at least the youth wouldn't get any funny ideas.

Snowden gave up more for the USA than you, me, and many people on HN likely ever will by exposing an unconstitutional surveillance system so vast it'd give the Stasi a wet dream.

Edward Snowden is a patriot and I say that without reservation.

>Snowden attempted to expose an incredibly corrupt and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus by working within the system but was ultimately ignored.

He says he tried to work within the system and was ignored, but he's provided 0 evidence to back it up. Considering he says that he only leaked information because internal methods had failed him, you'd figure he would have saved at least a single shred of proof that he tried to handle things internally, but he didn't.

He's already admitted during interviews that he applied for the job specifically to gather information to leak, and the majority of the information had nothing to do with the surveillance program in the USA. He's far from a patriot, and anyone who believes he leaked all of the sensitive information out of the goodness of his heart is just being naive.

Can you link to interviews where he said that he signed up for the intelligence job to leak information. Sounds very strange to me.

Snowden was not the first who tried official channels.Seeing what happens to Thomas Drake, I think Snowdens reaction was warranted https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...

G

>He says he tried to work within the system and was ignored, but he's provided 0 evidence to back it up.

Thanks to another one of the cornerstones of our democracy, Freedom of the Press, here is an article to refute your point.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden...

>Five days later, another email was sent — this one addressed to NSA director Mike Rogers and copied to 31 other people and one listserv. In it, a senior NSA official apologized to Rogers for not providing him and others with all the details about Snowden’s communications with NSA officials regarding his concerns over surveillance.

>The trove of more than 800 pages [see the pdf at the end of this story], along with several interviews conducted by VICE News, offer unprecedented insight into the NSA during this crisis within the agency. And they call into question aspects of the U.S. government’s long-running narrative about Snowden’s time at the NSA.

In short, it would seem that there is pretty ample evidence that some significant conversations took place between Snowden and the NSA.

You can even view the FOIA requests that revealed this information at the end of the above article.

So what happens if a you realize your government is not adhering to the law? Shouldn’t you inform the public?

That’s what Snowden did, with high costs to himself. Snowden taught a generation to have a moral compass.

This article adds no new insides. Instead it drifts off in conspiracy theories.

> Snowden taught a generation to have a moral compass.

And then hid with the government that definitely wasn't adhering to the law.

I'd say it's not a good example of a moral compass.

NSA programs exposed by Snowden have been ruled unlawful, unconstitutional and in violation of Human Rights. Snowden has been loyal to the Constitution in blowing the whistle, while NSA hasn't. Working within the frameworks of politics and working within the framework of the law are not the same thing.

This is like blaming the underground railroad for the civil war.

When were there two global conflicts between "politics and the rule of law" on one side and "totalitarianism" on the other side?

Perhaps the strategies you're referring to under the term "politics and the rule of law" are more effective at promoting some goals than they are at other goals?

That sounds like blaming the little kid for stripping the emperor naked. Rule of law was already ravaged by secret laws, secret courts and surveillance.

It will take more than politics to fix things. Disobedience is key to fixing evil institutions. Communist states fell when soldiers refused to shoot civilians. Technically a departure from law but the law was meant to serve us not the other way around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com