> I still have no idea if he's an adversarial plant by some government
Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters.
Was what he disclosed true or not? In the end, that's all that matters.
It was a hot mess in the media for a few months about how the reporters he fed stuff to was going to release it all. Then, once the story died down, you didn't hear anything and there were no more releases. At least none that were so groundbreaking, they hit the media. You could say the media was culpable and simply ignored subsequent releases though.
Is there somewhere you can go to see what's been released? I'm still under the impression the bulk of what he said he had has yet to be released.
Most of what he took he gave to reporters so it wouldn't be released, that's why he didn't release everything online.
The several organizations he gave information to continued to go through it for a couple of years, periodically releasing stories based on the disclosure. They all slowly stopped funding going through the documents, until only the Intercept was left.
They continued with a limited staff until 2019, and it's end is one of the reasons both Poitras and Greenwald have left the organization.
For what has been released, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...
We assume an impartial news organization will investigate Coke and Pepsi equally, so if the org comes out with a bunch of stuff about Coke acting badly, we figure that Coke really is bad, otherwise the org would have gone after Pepsi too, or both. On the other hand if a less scrupulous news org one day receives a mysterious package with a ton of bad stuff about Coke and just verifies and prints it, then Pepsi could be good or bad or anything, but most people will think they're good because of all the bad stuff only coming out about Coke.
This isn't a competition between two corporations, this is about democracy and people's rights. What is this other side you would like to see presented more "impartially"?
PS: [a completely fictional scenario] if a leak disclosed that Coca-Cola was secretly implanting mind-controlling substances via their soft drinks, and that these substances made every consumer broadcast their most intimate thoughts to Coke marketing execs, you should publish this and damn Coke. Who cares about what Pepsi is doing? Their turn will come.
In the real world voters are at the mercy of cognitive and other biases, tend to blame the current government no matter what, and a leak's importance depends as much on media attention and trivialities like how close the leak is to an election as it depends on actual merit.
So, even true leaks can be effective tools to remove a government you don't like.
Suppose some government opposes the U.S. in some important way. That government then gets voted out at the next election due to a leak. Would you care if that leak came from a CIA mole? I would. I doubt the CIA would investigate and reveal foreign corruption or illegal overreach purely out of the goodness of its heart.
However the actual political results were mostly favorable to Republicans. Trump himself popularized the term "deep state" and criticizing it was a key part of his administration's PR.
Russia benefited, not only by getting Republicans in power, but also by embarrassing and casting doubt on U.S. intelligence, a year before Russia's invasion of Crimea. Now in the current Ukraine war it's obvious how vital NATO intelligence is to resisting Russian aggression.
I don't think much actually changed at the NSA or any other agency. Trump didn't actually care about the ethics, he just thought it was some huge, personal injustice that he couldn't command everyone in the executive branch the way he could in his businesses. He didn't even pardon Snowden.
So overall the only changes were political and it all worked out great for Russia. Maybe Russia didn't plan it but they sure benefited from it, with the public and the media doing the heavy lifting. Something to keep in mind the next time some theoretically nonpartisan government scandal appears.
Yes, and it doesn't have to be that dramatic either. Even relatively small shifts in public opinion can matter when it comes to specific areas and/or legislation and/or funding.
But in the context of the thread, the common thread is clear. Negative information, even if true, can be chosen selectively to attack an enemy.
I'm not even sure what "selectively attack an enemy" means in this context. What Snowden disclosed was unequivocally bad, who cares what his motives were? We are not comparing soft drinks.
I interpret you as saying the act of disclosing this information was "unequivocally bad". Fair?
If so, no.
From the Apple dictionary, unequivocal means "leaving no doubt; unambiguous".
Please don't take this comment as "for" or "against" Snowden. Rather, please interpret this comment as "for" critical thinking and clear writing.
Students of philosophy and ethics, as well as many thoughtful people, know that weighing right and wrong is hardly simple. There are many schools of thought. Whatever one's views might be, it is clear that different people have different views of the ethics of Snowden's leaks.
For example, a utilitarian style philosophy could easily argue that Snowden's leaks resulted in more benefit than harm.
Your comment is sarcastic and unhelpful to any meaningful conversation.
That is part of the context. It might be one person's entire notion of the context. However, different people, all reasonable, may have different contexts.
Not realizing or recognizing this can contribute to thinking someone else is "off topic". But on what basis can one person claim that someone else is not on topic?
In these comments, myself (and others too) include information (and disinformation) tactics as part of the context here too.
I remember the trend on HN back when the Snowden leaks occurred. It wasn't palatable back then to express your views -- shooting the messenger, casting doubts on his motivations -- and most people were rightly appalled by the spying going on on Americans.
Thinking differently is a dangerous trend against whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are a good thing.
Unequivocally good. Yes, I used that word you dislike.
Yes, shooting the messenger and casting doubts on his motivations were (and are) tactics used when a message reflects poorly on someone or some thing.
For what it is worth, in my comments around here, I'm not using these tactics as a way to deflect criticism away from institutions that Snowden criticizes. There was a huge breach of public trust in the NSA.
At the same time, it is interesting and important to understand Snowden's motivations.
Do you intend this as an insult directed at me?
Yes, I separate out different comments intentionally, because I think they warrant separate points.
Your comments are mean-spirited. This is what you intended, right? To attack me?
It sounds like you are having cognitive dissonance. It seems to me that you have fixated on your definition of the context. In so doing, other perspectives aren't making sense to you. Having more flexibility might help you understand.
I can see it doesn't matter to you about Snowden's motives.
However, many informed and reasonable people care about his motives. Perhaps this can be a motivation to think more and dig deeper.
They can claim "Snowden was a KGB mole!" but if they hadn't been doing such nasty things, there wouldn't have been something so damaging for the mole (or a disgruntled ex employee, whatever) to disclose. There will always be dirty laundry to disclose of course -- nobody is 100% clean -- but this was major.
This is classic "shooting the messenger".
> I honestly don't understand your reply, could you reword it please? Thanks.
I also find it confusing.
Here's my understanding: the commenter is asking something akin to this question: Why did Snowden's deem his disclosures to be necessary? Based on my understanding of Snowden, he deemed his disclosures necessary because he views these NSA programs as unjust and/or undemocratic and would continue (and probably get worse) if not revealed.
>> Everything else definitely never ought to be clear or you have a problem with arbitrary decision making agency out of hand.
I'm unclear on what this sentence as a whole means. First, I wonder if "never ought" was a typo and the commenter meant just "ought". Second, I'd guess that "arbitrary decision making agency out of hand" probably was meant to be "arbitrary agency decision making out of hand", suggesting that the NSA was overstepping its bounds.
Incorrect. One person -- or one group -- or one ideology -- doesn't get to decide all that matters for everyone.
Who "gets" to "decide" what in your reply? Please be specific.
>> Incorrect. One person -- or one group -- or one ideology -- doesn't get to decide all that matters for everyone.
> Your reply is worded so generally and vaguely I don't even understand what you mean.
I know the feeling. I've struggled to understand what you write as well.
Yes, I was making a general point. When you wrote "In the end, that's all that matters." you are claiming that the truth (or lack thereof) of what Snowden said is all that matters. This is an overly simplistic and narrow view. Such a view disregards the rest of the situation, including ethics, impacts over different time scales, disinformation, and geopolitics.
We saw something similar recently with the leak of the SCOTUS Roe v Wade opinion. There was a huge push to move the discussion from how controversial the opinion was & what the fallout would be towards "leaks are bad & we have to find who did this".
Agreed; but…
In your example, it’s both. In that case, it’s a completely legal and expected part of the process for the justices to decide things, even if it’s things you don’t like.
In the case of Snowden or Manning or others, they were leaking something that the government says it does not do, should not do, and expressly illegal things.
So it’s not a great example. While we likely agree on abortion; Roe has always been on “shakey legal ground” (RBG’s words) and the 7 justices that decided it could not agree if it was because of the 9th or 14th amendments, and offered no explanation how one or both of these superseded the 10th in this scenario. If you haven’t, read the full opinion, do, it gives insight into what is going on… legally anyhow.
So as to your example, it wasn’t a whistleblower or shooting the messenger to find the scotus leaker - it’s literally protecting the sanctity of that institution’s process.
If you can’t imagine a scenario you would be upset a decision you agreed with was leaked in order to bully justices or influence a coming election, you aren’t thinking hard enough.