Thank you Snowden, and fuck you U.S. Government.
- A U.S. Citizen
The private sector surveillance machine is probably more competent and high tech than three letter government agencies (it pays better and gets first pick of the talent pool), is subject to zero oversight, is almost completely lawless, and gathers quite a bit more information.
The NSA at least has to answer to someone and is subject to some law.
If you are concerned about the NSA you should be totally freaked out about Facebook and Google.
What was released (and how), and what we learned are two separate issues. As a U.S. citizen, it's preferable that the subjective legitimacy of what best serves public interest is not in the hands of ONE person. That's why we care about what was released.
While a portion of the leaked documents might positively benefit society, who is to say the net benefit in total was positive? Call me naive but I'm unable to make the call either way, even after having read through the revelations.
Leaking that info was sure audacious but not worthy of a get-out-of-jail free card or a thank you IMO.
What more should he have done?
I get where he was coming from. But the people in charge of releasing stuff seem too clueless and/or deferential.
With the only reason for not releasing being risk to arguably ~innocent individuals.
Also, it's relevant to note that Holocaust investigators have not redacted names of ~responsible individuals from their releases. Indeed, they've targeted them.
They also clearly time their leaks for impact rather than purely apolitical time slots.
Speaking of the holocaust, wikileaks also hired a holocaust denier (in the words of hopenothate) - Israel Shamim - for years
Do you have any evidence such a decision has been made by WL?
Does that decision apply to China too? I don’t see any wikileaks from China. What makes Russia special?
Perhaps these countries just aren’t that interesting to mostly English language WL?
Then there is also the source of their 2016 leaks, as documented the Special Counsel report
"Please defendent, have look at the evidence we gathered about your murder case. It's best if you decide which of the evidence we should use in court against you."
lmao (on a sad note, this is how day to day business at goverments looks like and precisely WHY we need whistleblowers)
That said, I believe Snowden acted correctly. The federal government in its current form has lost its legitimacy as an arbiter of sensitive information, and citizens of the USA have every reason to believe that federal intelligence agencies are abusing the priveledges vested in them by the people.
Laws can be formulated in good faith by a legitimate government to protect and conceal information, but in this particular case they needed to seriously overhauled, and Snowden's act of civil disobedience was justified.
I think he should be prosecuted, and the laws changed. Personally I'm rooting for Snowden, but effective civil disobedience requires a willingness to go down with the ship that Snowden clearly lacked.
IMO, it would have lessened the impact if he went down with the ship. Otherwise I agree.
The NSA employees who are 'just following orders' are little better than Nazi footsolders in 1940s Germany. Their continued violation of the constitution is audacious and they should be imprisoned for treason. The NSA bosses who actively worked to craft these illegal plans deserve the most severe legal punishments available.
It's very easy to say there should be no surveillance whatsoever but that would be anti-pragmatic.
Remember that countries are fictions.
Of the "handful of truly knowledgeable parties", most/all of them likely are willing to lie to the American public to avoid treason and illegal wiretapping charges for their constitutional violations.
In that case I would urge them to think about what they are doing, and what Snowden revealed.
SIGINT is important, but showing PowerPoint slides with an image of a virus doing the "happy dance" IS NOT.
That is teenage hacker nonsense, which makes me believe they do not care one iota about what they are doing, outside of that they can.
This feels like one of those things that Americans say, that may not be true. Is this actually true? Do NSA employees state such an oath? Is defense of the constitution more important than defense of the nation if the two are in conflict?
Happy to be persuaded that this is true, but feels pretty glib to a non-American.
> To begin with, did Snowden sign “an oath…not to disclose classified information”? He says that he did not, and that does not appear to have been contradicted.
General guidelines to organize and plan governments around have existed since time immemorial. What makes modern constitutions special is that it specifies the idea of popular sovereignty, that it is the entirety of the population of a nation that provides the legitimacy for the state.
The idea originated amidst the Enlightenment period of the 17-1800s. Monarchy was where, generally speaking, legitimacy derived ultimately from the divinity of the ruler, and was passed down through their descendants. Popular sovereignty and the republican form of government that enshrined it had to be evolved over hundreds of years, the Dutch constitution being a pillar of the system. The US Constitution was a virtual carbon copy of the Dutch one.
One of the questions grappled with in the transition from monarchy to republic was, what happens when the government fails to exercise authority due to exigent circumstances? This question led to the modern concept of the "state of emergency" in which the government reverts to a more primitive form. It was also noted that protecting the republic required extra-legal powers, because republican forms of government are relatively easy to subvert.
When states of emergency arise, the constitution is set aside by the executive branch of government until order is restored. No elections are held, power rests in the hands of the military.
This is but one of the ways in which constitutions cannot be seen as the ultimate arbiters of the organization of society. If society can't protect itself, then somebody must protect society.
Now we can deal with the matter of intelligence services. Intelligence services were once crucial to the functioning of pre-republican states. They were called the secret police, the apparatus of government that takes care of the tasks that need to be done by the state but are too unsavory for the public to know about.
It is inevitable that the need for these tasks arise. This comment is already too long for me to give and flesh out examples. The biggest issue that needs dealing with is revolution, which is a violent event that we usually think of as originating from grassroots populism, but is also just as easily planned and carried out by small groups that can't be seen as the instrumentation of popular sovereignty. Discovering and dealing with these national threats is part of the purview of intelligence services. The alternative to secret police is endless revolutions of the kind seen by Latin America during the late 20th century.
Another function that must be dealt with is the exploration and research of matters too unsavory for the public to deal with, as these things can carry serious consequences for public safety. I have learned recently that the CIA has carried on with experiments carried out by the Nazis. This is but one example.
The people in national intelligence organizations see themselves as guardians of the people, and empowered with ultimate authority to do that. Many countries, most notably Eastern European ones, oscillate between secret-police control and a more feudal kind of organization. One system you might study is Russia's current system of tributary taxation.
Keeping state secrets secret is the true foundation of any national security functionary, as extremely serious consequences could theoretically result. And when you get to the scale of government, theoretically possible means you have to do a study to determine how many times and where it's actually happened, and to come up with plans for dealing with it when the theory finds manifestation
The main resource that has taught me this traditional point of view believes that Snowden is a bloody traitor and should be executed. This is opinion he offered freely on Quora, with no respect given to the popular view of Snowden as a hero. As far as he's concerned, Snowden needs to serve as an example, he absolutely has to die, even if he's revealed some atrocities and secret information.
This person has also revealed vast amounts of information that has been declassified, but still shows mind-blowing inadequacy of anything other than highly trained government functionaries to deal with the heavy weight of exercising legitimate force. The idea I think he's conveying is that while Snowden's revelations might be shocking and awful, his similar revelations cut to the meat of why such things are needed.
As far as this point of view is concerned, atrocities and subversion of popular sovereignty is business as usual in the government sphere, revealing them does society no good. They've always happened, they're always happening, let the people trained to deal with them do their jobs, just like any sphere of human org, the org learns how to do their jobs better over time.
We have dealt with the traditional view of how 'secret' organizations derive their legitimacy, now I will offer my speculation as to how to think about how to move forward.
I believe Edward Snowden represents a change in the ability of society to countenance the full weight of what humans are capable of. Consciousness is being raised in the human race across the board, and the old problems that gave rise to intelligence apparatus in the past are no longer relevant.
As a result, changes need to be made in how society is planned. The old ways of organizing society are still valid, they still work, and they will continue to work. The US government will happily kangaroo court Snowden as cruelly as they can if they ever get their hands on him. And high level government functionaries will say and believe that he deserves it.
Because what Snowden ultimately embodies, to this point of view, is the same kind of thought that leads to endless, pointless revolution, the idea that humanity cannot overcome its basic nature, and so will always require highly-trained operatives and apparatus to deal with it in secret like it needs to be dealt with.
This has to fundamentally be outside of the existing legal system and constitution, which concerns itself with limiting the powers of government so as to facilitate commerce and public expression, but is woefully inadequate to deal with the protection of that society. Secrecy is an essential tool, to be wielded cautiously and judiciously. The government is the only entity that reserves the right to compel labor other than overtly criminal organizations like organized crime.
We may demand changes in how secret government operations are conducted, but it may never come to pass that secrecy is totally eliminated from government. I have a greater appreciation for this mindset now than I used to, though I still hope that we can find a way to stop ridiculousness like the MKULTRA project.
Journalists have revealed state secrets countless times, and over and over the secret was kept to hide unjustifiable actions of government officials violating their oath of office and taking actions which harm national interests.
There is a role for keeping certain information temporarily secret (i.e. don't publish where the active missile silos are, current positions of US troops), but our government should not be in the business of torture, illegal murder, faking suicides, industrial sabotage, domestic propaganda, illegal surveillance, blackmail, sexual extortion... long list of evil things the clandestine services engage in.
We know US intelligence has engaged in these behaviors through our nations history. It seems naive to believe they've never used these methods against our own political leaders to consolidate power and avoid the appropriate legal consequences for their malfeasances. We have no assurance that the system for oversight has not been wholly captured.
All of these thing make our nation more vulnerable (it justifies other countries doing it to us) and we should not tolerate govt spooks feeling they have carte blanche to take immoral and illegal actions to preserve their own self interest. We are the most powerful nation in the world, we can do better, and it truly saddens me that you think these evils are necessary.
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
https://www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigatio...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...
"The sad reality of today’s policies is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrongdoing is often a mistake. Going to the press involves serious risks, but at least you’ve got a chance."
Thanks, but no thanks.
Besides, my 15 yr knob creek barrel pick empathizes.