Edward Snowden, The N.S.A. Leaker, Comes Forward | Hacker News Reader

Edward Snowden, The N.S.A. Leaker, Comes Forward

newyorker.com

142 pointsplatz21 comments

He talked about living “comfortably” but “unfreely.” (The dystopia he seems to be obsessing about is less “1984” than “Brave New World.”)

Epictetus addressed this sentiment a few thousand years ago:

Men shut up tame lions in a cage, and bring them up, and feed them, and some take them around with them. And yet who will call such a lion free? Is it not true that the more softly the lion lives the more slavishly he lives? And what lion, were he to get sense and reason, would care to be one of these lions? Why, yes, and the birds yonder, when they are caught and brought up in cages, what do they suffer in their efforts to escape? And some of them starve to death rather than endure such a life, while even such as live, barely do so, and suffer and pine away, and if ever they find any opening, make their escape. Such is their desire for physical freedom, and a life of independence and freedom from restraint. And what is wrong with you here in your cage? "What a question! My nature is to fly where I please, to live in the open air, to sing when I please. You rob me of all this, and then ask, 'What is wrong with you?'"

A very interesting quote, but how much does the government really restrict my freedom? This is a sincere question, because I honestly feel like it isn't that much. There are some laws that I think really ought to be changed, but there aren't many times in a given day where I think to myself "oh dammit, I really wanted to do [illegal thing] but I can't because the government won't let me." So it's hard for me to really empathize with Epictetus's analogy, unless the angle is privacy: the lion isn't free because he's always being watched, even if his captors allow him to do as he pleases.

If you grow up living in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon and are repeatedly told it is there to protect you from evil doers not good people like yourself, is your resulting behaviour still truly that of a free person, or has your behaviour been modified?

I live in a rich western democracy which has no capital punishment, torture, extraordinary renditions, executive executions and about 1/5th as many people in prison by population. I don't think it terribly polite to tell friends how to conduct themselves but I feel for all my countries considerable shortcomings, for the most part we conduct ourselves in a way which is morally superior. I continue to be surprised that a country founded on some very high minded principles (equality, separation of powers, rule of law etc) seems to be continuing to develop down a path increasingly at odds with other highly developed democracies and I continue to wonder with a free press and a politically involved citizenry why that should be?

I think the number of ways the a country as big and powerful and geographically isolated and culturally diverse as the USA is different than a rich western democracy is out of scope of a forum comment. But I think the short answer is that your woes generally fall into 2 categories: fallout from slavery/racism (prison, capital punishment) and stuff that has to do with terrorism/being the sole hegemonic power in the world (torture...etc.).

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ("Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein.") -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Another interesting quote, but I'd be far more interested in concrete examples. The biggest problem is restrictions on the freedom to dissent. I agree that is a big problem (if not the central problem) with regard to government surveillance. Beyond that, though, there are some laws that should be changed (controversial issues like gay marriage, etc.), but what else? What am I wrongfully denied the freedom to do?

I hope you realize that "you don't know how enslaved you are" is really a terrible catchphrase for a movement. People just roll their eyes when they hear that. You need to back it up with something they can relate to.

There are two answers to this in the video. 1) Even if you are not doing anything wrong, you are being watched. You don't have to have done anything wrong, but if you fall under suspicion due to a bad call, they can go back into this system and analyse every decision you've made, every friend you've ever discussed with and attack you on that basis; that derives suspicion based on an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrong-doer. 2) The storage systems are growing by an order of magnitude every year and if this sort of a system is not stopped at this stage and if we allow this and assume this to be legal, imagine the kind of danger it may bring in the next few generations.

Perhaps related: in his latest book about traditional societies Jared Diamond mentions that most people from traditional societies decide to join "civilization" quickly once given the chance. One of the biggest benefits that attracts them apparently is not living in mortal danger all of the time.

I suppise it is all a matter of degrees. You always have to compromise to live alongside other people.

“I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail,” Edward Snowden told the Guardian.

Well, he's certainly entitled to believe that, but I seriously doubt he could have actually done so. He's either deluded, lying, or both.

Where's your "mistaken" and "misquoted" options?

Not misquoted, it's directly from the video of the interview.

I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the N.S.A., the entire intelligence community and undercover assets around the world.

That's another mind-blower, if true. One would think that such things are highly compartmentalized, and need-to-know would apply.

What is your reasoning? I've never heard of phone companies being sticklers for proper warrants.

> He is the cheeriest major leaker one is likely to see.

I didn't get that impression at all. He seems to fully comprehend his situation and it comes through clearly in his interview.

I think most of us understand what is the problem with the current state of affairs, but how many of us actually change their behavior in order to reduce the power the government has on them?

How many are actually posting links to this article on Google+ or Facebook?

There are technologies that can allow every individual to have its own personal data center at home, cheaply. It is ultimately a personal choice. Ignorance comes also with a cost.

I'm surprised the NSA/government agencies trust people like him and Manning with the nation's secrets. Based on what I've read he doesn't sound like the most rigorous individual. And Bradley Manning, childhood trauma and seriously questionable life decisions. Isn't this what the purpose of a security clearance is?

If you're going to make perjorative comments like this you should at least provide references/links to what it is you've read and heard that support your view.

It wasn't intended to be pejorative I honestly want to know how these people passed whatever tests are required to maintain the United States secrets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Early_life

Two motivations come to mind: he wants recognition and/or he's scared of what the U.S. will do to him.

He will be discovered sooner or later. So it is better for him to come forward and have the public attention and his current location to somehow protect him.

He needs to be protected and supported. And we will see in the coming days whether we actually care about privacy by supporting whistle blowers like him.

Does anyone know where to find the full text that he has leaked? I see so many analyses, but I don't trust any of the people writing them. I'd like to look at the source if possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com