Hacker News Reader

Comment by calhoun137 | Hacker News Reader

This article is complete and utter bullshit.

Disregarding the obviously silly idea that he is a fraud because he is organized and well spoken, her basic point seems to be that since he doesn't have a lawyer present during media interviews, then Snowden is an actor basically playing a role in a news story created by the NSA whose purpose is to scare people from becoming whistle blowers.

Give me a break.

View on HN

Why the hostility? So many people on the Internet seem to have this urgent need to 'react' to every piece of information that is fed to them. The author presents her points in a thoughtful and well-articulated manner--why not extend her the same courtesy? Keep in mind, too, that this person seems to have a lot of experience in this field and probably knows a bit more about the whistleblowing process than we do.

I can't imagine Naomi Wolf has that much specialized experience with whistleblowing. She is a pop feminist by trade and her political consulting work dealt with reaching female voters, not state secrets.

That said I still think this article has value as a think piece.

I'd say that her books The End of America and Give Me Liberty give her more than adequate standing - certainly more than most posters on this board - to comment on the current question ... far more deserving than a dismissive 'pop feminist' handwave.

It isn't merely a hand wave. She appeals to her own authority in the linked piece and thus it's legitimate to question that authority.

Neither of those books addresses whistleblowing or the NSA in any detail. e.g.: the word whistleblower appears precisely once in The End Of America. Neither the acronym "NSA" nor the phrase "National Security Agency" appears at all. So if Wolf does have some sort of authority in this very specific domain, it doesn't come from those books as you claim.

Moot. There's no need to descend into the trenches to have a good overview of the battlefield. I encourage those who haven't to actually read (or listen) to Ms. Wolf.

Snowden is seems like a student of machiavelli far more than american idealism. He has an objective and is doing the best job he can to make that objective happen.

Which would contrast highly with most whistleblowers who believe that doing the right thing will result in their objective happening.

Perhaps he looked at the results of other recent whistleblowers "doing the right thing" and realized that releasing information without the right choreography would end in no attention from the media or public about the issue and a ton of trouble for himself?

In an ideal world, he could release the information and each individual would engage with it, analyze it, make determinations about it, and judge whether or not it is important.

In our world, if he had followed the path of previous whistleblowers and given the information to a newspaper and returned to his house in Hawaii, he likely would have been immediately arrested, and the newspaper would have published very limited yet broad information in a single article in a way that would be easy for the rest of the media to dismiss. Then the character attacks would have overwhelmed the story.

Like it or not, presentation is important. Snowden has claimed his objective is making sure people know about these programs so they can decide about them. That objective, and his path thus far, seems perfectly in line with American idealism.

In an ideal world, he could release the information and each individual would engage with it, analyze it, make determinations about it, and judge whether or not it is important.

Thats this world, minus the people that keep "choreographing" things so they have the "right" impact.

Can you send me an invite?

and 4444 it is

Isn't Machiavelli generally accepted to have proposed a recipe for strategically achieving political aims, while he himself supported republics? Do you mean that Snowden is being strategic in how he attempts to further American ideals, as opposed to thinking its the thought that counts, or do you mean that he has some other goal that is not necessarily related to American ideals?

So far as I can see he's basically doing what Assange did, only more so.

Assuming his goals are to (a) maximise exposure of the things he's blowing the whistle about and (b) minimise his likelihood of getting screwed over, this seems like a pretty decent strategy

(I think other respondents are reading your comment about 'doing the right thing' as indicating that other whistleblowers are somehow more morally pure rather than hopelessly naive; whether you intended it or not I'm definitely on the side of the latter interpretation :)

So, the US Judiciary seems rather Machiavellian these days. He's got several recent examples of whistleblower treatment to consider.

Well, she is essentially accusing him of being intelligent and not a total dork. One wonders why…

I agree these arguments are worthless (but no need to curse).

Naomi Wolf's theory that Snowden is part of a propaganda effort by NSA/CIA/FBI/??? to make people fearful makes no sense. There is no secret "intelligence/police state" in the US but a state that has police and intelligence functions. It is run by actual people and we know their names: Obama, Holder, Panetta and Clapper. Naomi is either saying these people planned this or some rogue group inside NSA/CIA/FBI/??? planned it. Neither scenario is plausible because any possible benefit is outweighed by the political, career and diplomatic risks. These are not stupid people.

The accusation that Snowden's "very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend" is running a PR campaign is hilarious coming in a post on Facebook hilarious from a supposed feminist and PR expert.

Actually you are right calhoun - this is "complete and utter bullshit".

IMHO we should be open to alternative ideas. Also we should know that Snowden is going to be described as so many things in times to come. Mostly bad things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com