The Snowden Principle | Hacker News Reader

The Snowden Principle

pressfreedomfoundation.org

102 pointsshill22 comments

I don't really disagree with the principle, but it seems to more or less be a statement of the idea of "whistleblowing". Snowden is a high-profile current example of a whistleblower, but it might be going a bit too far to credit him with the principle itself! Even sticking to relatively contemporary U.S. history, you could call it the Buxtun principle, among other names.

On the topic of naming: I didn't realize until some googling just now that "whistleblower" itself is a neologism, dating to the '70s, and coined by Ralph Nader. He wanted to give the concept a positive spin by analogizing it to a referee pointing out dirty play, vs. alternatives like "leaker" and "informant" that have negative connotations. I'm not much of a fan of Nader's subsequent political career, but in retrospect that was a pretty successful move.

An example (in a different domain) of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

Yep, and now all the major media & blow-hards have to back pedal on their smear campaigns, as little by little everything he claimed turns out to be true:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-lis...

I think the Founding Fathers would approve of this. Despite their being the elite in society they identified that there must be a a design for a government that discretely limited its ability to screw the people at will. The Bill Of Rights was their way to make it obvious that government must be limited and that its existence is dependent on the people's will, not the other way around.

Most of Founding Fathers were also slave owners. Could we stop bringing people of the past with their dubious morale into the modern times when we all are more educated? Otherwise, we could equally use What Would Jesus Do principle.

http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Fou...

morale, morals, and education are three separate things that you seem to be confusing together.

Because people in history were different from us, we can learn nothing from them? This is one of the most anti-intellectual non-sequiturs I regularly see, and it makes me sad and fearful for our democracy.

Being a good lawyer and a defensor of good principles does not imply living a good life. At all.

Also, do not think they understood slavery exactly as you do. As a matter of fact, what they wrote probably paves the way to where we are today.

How can people not see the parallels between the anti Snowden crowd and Nazis who were "just following orders" when they took part in the pogroms?

Everyone who takes part in this latest abrogation of the US Bill of Rights is no better than the Nazi exterminators.

Some will say that the authors of the US Constitution had no concept of electronic communications ergo we should not expect the 4th Amendment to extend to electronic communications, yet the wording of the 4th Amendment includes the communications methods of their day, which would be "papers and effects," and that the lawful search thereof must be accompanied by "Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Others will say that the authors of the US Constitution had no concept of "terrorism," yet England viewed the revolutionaries as such.

Perhaps if our government weren't meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, those foreign nationals would not feel a need to engage in "terrorist" acts?

So, instead of using some fictitious son-of-the-invisible-sky-person principle, we could apply the "What would a Nazi do" principle.

1/3 of that list are non-slaveholders and of the remaining 2/3 at least Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin seriously opposed slavery.

Generally I'd say they were well ahead of their time.

"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them"

Must read for anyone interested in understanding the principle behind Snowden's acts. As requested in the article I also joined https://optin.stopwatching.us/ campaign.

For the sake of argument -- This should be called The Snowden Principle.

For the sake of argument let's say we don't call this the Snowden principle, because that would mean we are in an argument with uninformed people who are so arrogant that they think they are the first generation to wrestle with tough decisions and lofty ideals. Forty years ago my parents could have called this "the Ellsberg Principle" and I am sure that HNers from other countries can easily come up with examples from not so recent history in their country. Can we please try and raise the level of dialogue and expect a little more of ourselves before running to twitter/blog/HN?

I would prefer not to call it this, merely because the combination of "snowden," "secrets," and "catch-22" really screw up search results.

I see a lot of people conflating the messenger with the message.

Forget about your tendencies towards fascination with a "cult of personality" and see these abuses of our 4th Amendment rights for what they truly are.

The problem with this is that it assumes perfect judgement from the whistleblower. I explain this more here: http://danielmiessler.com/blog/why-its-dangerous-to-call-whi...

"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

Ah, but I don't believe his actions have been consistent with this motive at all - and actions do speak louder than words. Since publicly revealing himself as the whistleblower, he's made a significant portion of the story about him and not about the issues he claims to care about - for much of the media and public, it's become just another human-interest saga with Snowden as the star.

If your sole motive is truly to inform the public about a cause, leak your leaks and then do whatever in hell you can to stay out of the way and not blow it. Perhaps he's just a glory hound, perhaps he really means what he says and didn't realize what effects his actions would have - but either way, Snowden did his cause a lot of damage when he put himself at the center of the story. We'd all be a lot better off if we'd never heard his name.

I've heard many people say this, but it's not that simple. By putting a face to the story, he made the story more appealing to mainstream media and interesting to the average citizen. Yes, his stepping forward diluted the dialogue a bit -- but it also increased the exposure of the dialogue immeasurably.

He explained why he stepped forward in the original interview: he felt that since he was breaking the law, he owed Americans an explanation as to who he was and why he was doing it. I, for one, really appreciate it. He's taking the high road and doing all that much more damage to the liars and criminals in government.

A slightly different take:

"My Creeping Concern that the NSA Leaker Edward Snowden is not who he Purports to be…"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-ns...

That is slightly different?

Well coached PR person for the purpose of making us all aware of how scared we should be, to spread public fear is not just slightly different from courageous whistleblower.

By making himself publicly known he made his assassination a very awkward proposition. Don't forget that Nixon tried to have Daniel Ellsberg killed.

While I too have had moments of wishing he had stayed anonymous -- the story has become more about him than I would like -- I think he probably made the right call by outing himself. Had he simply continued in his job and life, he would probably have been identified eventually -- and then treated like Bradley Manning. Had he gone on the run without exposing himself, he would have been identified quickly, and then the question would be, how long could he last as a fugitive? I think he really took the best path: in the short run, it was wise to be outside US jurisdiction, and in the long run, public opinion will be his best -- possibly only -- protection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com