Demonizing Edward Snowden
m.newyorker.com
m.newyorker.com
It's completely possible to question or dislike some of this guy's decisions and/or motives, and also be thankful of some of the things that he has revealed and the other disclosures that have followed (via government leaks) due to it. It's also not a contradiction to think that some of his leaks were useful to the American public and some were harmful. You can be glad at the outcome some of his actions have brought about (such as the increased knowledge we now have) without having to label him "a hero" and reserve your skepticism or judgement for other things he might do or will do.
I work for a giant oil and gas comp in Houston and we did this awkward dance of trying to figure out where each stands before i blurted out, "I'm rooting for Snowden."
That simple statement communicated a lot into my co-workers mind of what my values are especially deep in the heart of Texas.
It seems like Americans like to black-and-white every decision, binarize every election (leading to two political parties; any alternative is disregarded). That mentality is taught since generations and cultivated by those press articles and many cultural products. It eases the herding of mass opinion, and by denying immediate access to intellectual subtlety, it makes philosophical though more alien and generates anti-intellectualism in scientific and cultural areas where subtlety and self-criticism are key.
Maybe my indirect reading is biased by the most prominent cultural exports of the US, or their the most vocal representatives. I would welcome the opinions of insiders.
Certainly there's a lot of binary thinking in the US, but I don't think we're unique this way. An inability to handle subtlety is endemic to humanity as a whole.
Probably more likely that people who hold a strong opinion either way tend to be the most vocal. People who haven't decided or don't have a strong opinion stay silent.
Then, as a result even those who don't voice an opinion or haven't formed one are likely to read the perhaps lopsided information presented and takes a side based on that.
Most of the cultural exports of the US are driven by economics, i.e. what can sell to worldwide audience.
Having lived in the US and traveled extensively throughout the world, it is my opinion that the average people in most countries are much more similar than different. People are people. The people in power may have slightly different agendas and by pushing slightly different things, but that doesn't fundamentally affect the citizenry.
Snowden is not a demigod who descended, perfect and fully formed, from the benevolent Lord of Hackers. He's not a tech messiah coming to herald an end to political abuse.
He's a dude. A perfectly fallible dude with strong politco-technical convictions, who did something big and now has a spotlight. That's literally all of it in a nutshell. He is allowed to make mistakes and still do a really cool thing. But human beings are pattern-searching creatures and have this neurosis with categorizing people as good or bad. That's my hypothesis, anyway.
People seem to be losing sight of this fact and acting as though there's no legitimate reason to argue for the NSA's actions. That's childish and unintelligent - if you don't agree, at least try to hold both sides of the argument in your head and entertain both before you argue one of them. It's fine to disagree, just don't insult a mass of people arguing against you as being misinformed sheeple.
It's not like Snowden destroyed the program. All he did was tell us that it exists. The program still operates freely and "protects us" as much as it did before. Why would a citizen now be unhappy that he's burdened with the knowledge of such things?
Terrorists aren't now saying, "oh crap, I better be more careful with my communications now." I'm sure they were already taking proper precautions. The existence of the program was probably already safely implied by the people it's targeting the most.
I don't think anyone who thinks Snowden is a traitor actually has considered it at all, they are just eating up the standard post-911 narrative that has been driving this country for over a decade now. The problem is that being anti-terrorism is such a political bi-partisan pillar that even appearing to rationally consider the cost-benefit (let alone the constitutionality!) of something as obscene as the NSA's domestic spying program in its current form is political suicide . It's a sad state of affairs, but the public debate driven by politicians is based on the strength of Twitter-length arguments. Based on current sentiment, can you can concoct a stronger sound bite pro or anti NSA surveillance? Critical thinking doesn't enter into it at all.
That's why only the people can change this debate. We need to convince each other of the slippery slope we're on, and the futility of an ever-increasing police state in 100% prevention of terrorism. Then we need to make the politicians aware that we do believe in the first and fourth ammendments, and that we will not allow our proxy power to be used to spy on ourselves en masse, and we will vote out of office any politician who does not respect the limits of government power.
A little help from the media would be nice, but big media is almost as beholden to political winds as politicians are these days.
This isn't black and white. There are legitimate reasons for and against the NSA spying program (I happen to fall on the side of it being too unchecked, but I can entertain the core idea of it). The Americans who believe the surveillance program is a good idea aren't sheeple you can just write off as a symptom of hysteria culture.
If you can't spend 10 minutes thinking about the NSA program and come up with reasons why it's a good idea, you're either not thinking hard enough or you're massively biased. The core idea is not stupid or unreasonable. It has a liability for abuse, which is the real problem with it, but the program stands on its own merit as a benefactor to homeland security with a few key changes.
My point is, you're writing off Americans who support this as being uninformed and outright wrong, but that's not fair to them. They have reasonable and legitimate reasons to support the NSA surveillance. They might not feel powerfully about it but they're not wrong just because it's vogue to hate this program. Open this as a conversation, not one where you have assymetrical, priveliged knowledge and a superior opinion of these things.
Also, are these Americans you're talking about supporters of the NSA surveillance, or do they simply oppose Snowden? In my opinion, there's a huge difference between the two groups, namely one is at least slightly informed, and the other is being fed lies by mainstream media.
You're completely dismissing the fact that he took an oath to keep certain secrets, and a few months later decided to take it upon himself that the entire world needed to know what he was working on. There are avenues to report these things, to voice concerns without completely going against your word. Call your government representatives, go up the chain. There are phone numbers to call and people to contact if you're uncomfortable.
It's people like you who make the whole issue a "black-or-white", "for us or against us" situation. Probably shouldn't assume that just because people have a different opinion on an issue are "just" anything.
Have you seen what happened to every whistleblower who did what you suggest? You'd have to be an idiot to follow them and expect different results.
In the real world, people get angry at things even if they don't cause lasting change. It doesn't matter if Snowden dismantled a program they like - people get angry just because you criticize their favorite candidate, and he did so much more than that.
It's naive to try and argue nothing is different or impacted because of Snowden just because he didn't dismantle the spying program. Snowden is antagonistic to the program itself and is publicly standing against it. As such, he is didactically opposed to Americans who support the program and vice versa.
In politics, being opposed in such a way fuels anger and resentment. You don't need to change anything - its your existence as a player on the other team and your potential to rally against something other people agree with that makes you a target.
I think many Americans assumed such practices likely existed, and believed them to be useful tools against terrorists and criminals. They believe that Snowden has reduced the effectiveness of these tools.
For example, most people know we have spies. But I think these same people would be upset if someone said, "We have two spies in Pakistan working with this group. And a common technique for this group is to infiltrate via this mosque, where we have several spies, etc...". While this isn't a list of the names of the spies, people would probably believe at even this high level of specificity that the effectiveness of their intelligence gathering would be reduced.
I personally have mixed feelings about it. I do think that to the extent that the gov't is doing something illegal, whisteblowers should be empowered to stop it. On the other hand, I think the capability of our intelligence gathering should be as secret as possible. It's not just what can they do that should be secret, but what they can't do.
Some people think that terrorists are hyper-aware and practice perfect security. I suspect that they make a lot of mistakes and have a lot of assumptions.
Is Snowden a hero? I think history will decide this question. If we see a freer US as a result then I think he may likely be viewed that way in the future. If instead it turns out that our intelligence agencies were practicing disciplined filtering and thwarting attacks, and in the future we're outmaneuvered due to these leaks then I think history will view him in a different light.
Don't wars with Iraq and Afghanistan prove that the public can have a totally incorrect view of truth?
China is a bad_guy nation. Anyone going there has got to be a bit dodgy.
It makes no sense. If he was looking out for himself, why would he do anything but keep his high-paid contract with the NSA and go to work like the rest of us? It's a much better life than hopping the world trying to stay one step ahead of the US Government, where the best possible outcome involves accepting political asylum and eventual obscurity in a foreign country.
Yet this is an actual thing that real people getting lots of media time have said in a serious manner.
It's obvious that there is simply no thought involved in this whole business, not at the top, not at the bottom, not anywhere in between. The reactions are purely emotional.
If his stuff turns out to be completely 100% true, awesome. If it's mostly true, but somewhat skewed, then whatever, okay. If it's mostly false, a giant pile of hyperbole, and it turns out they don't have our SSL cert keys, they're not gathering all possible social network data(or even most of it), etc etc? Then I'm just gonna shake my head.
That big wheel just keeps on rolling...
Apparently it isn't a valid option to not particularly be a fan of either one.
Perhaps the only way you can advance free speech necessarily involves injuring the US national security?
that he is not a citizen of them. He actually cares about what he personally is responsible for, what is done in his name, rather than what is easy to bash and a useful distraction from one's own crimes.
Hah, that was easy...
Though I agree that Snowden's affairs are an issue warranting discussion, media outlets are rapidly (and perhaps vapidly) distancing themselves from the core issue of the huge fucking datacenter in Utah SLURPING UP EVERY BIT OF DATA IT CAN TOUCH. There are so many other facets of this conversation that can generate pageviews for journalists that don't have to do with following some dude's plane flights across the planet and obvious bureaucratic troubles.
Where is the discourse on the history of similar surveillance states? Where are the people working to decipher the architecture of PRISM, the datacenter, and its complete capabilities (I'm assuming they're waiting on Snowden to tell them)? Where are the journalists that went to the ends of the earth to speculate on the political connections and underpinnings of our previous, numerous, dubious national actions?
I hope this doesn't become another oil spill and drop out of peoples' minds. It's too important. I'm afraid most people don't care though, and will eat up the latest gossip rather than meaningful commentary. We should aspire to more.
[PHOTOS] Snowden orders ungarnished tuna sandwich, Gordon Ramsay commentsThey don't care that the program hadn't been dismantled as a result of Snowden's actions. Their reaction is out of principle, and it's actually very reasonable and consistent with their side.
If surveillance is a good thing and they are right for supporting it, they are also right in being opposed to Snowden because he can potentially dismantle the program or discredit it. He can weaken public perception of the government. He literally prompted the whole NSA conversation. He is a lightning rod spearheading all public discussion of this topic.
Saying people shouldn't demonize him is like saying you shouldn't demonize a presidential candidate before he's had a chance to impact you in office. Sure, okay, but that's not how human beings operate.
As i watch this massive PR engine start to tear apart Snowden,,,, I'm finding it very hard to post anything critical of the government. It's just a little too easy to flip a binary switch somewhere.
I wonder if this is how it started with those countries we consider repressive?
If you tell someone the same message over and over, they begin to believe it. I don't mean that in a cliche way, I mean literally and clinically. IIRC, the average you had to pad a message was 60 repetitions before it "sunk in" to someone.
If anyone has a citation or the study, please, supplement this comment :)
I'm not being so brazen as to say the media intends this effect. But I think humans know it exists on some level and have always exploited it.
There should be a prize for ad hominem journalism. Whether Snowden is evil or not is as important as the president's hair color.
That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibility based on a person's history, intelligence, knowledge or expertise.
For example, questioning if Snowden understood the documents he leaked because he does not have a high school diploma or certifiable, checkable expertise (aside from landing the access) in mass surveillance is not ad hominem. It's a reasonable way to express doubt and question someone's ability to be capable as a whistleblower. It's also reasonable because whistleblowers should be both accountable and rigorous.
Character defamation on the other hand is bad. I'm not against Snowden, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not unreasonable to question him.
If your laundry wasn't dirty it wouldn't be a problem if it hung out in public !
The truth is Snowden committed a crime and those guys are never going to let it slide or else their whole secret community falls apart. Am I glad that this information came to light? Definitely. Would I ever do the same thing he did? Never. I would never take an oath to keep something a secret and then expose it to the world, knowing full well I was going to do it from the beginning. That's deceitful and I think that explains the caution around Snowden. We need to see the whole story come out over time before making judgements. But I can dislike the NSA programs and also dislike Snowden's maneuvers. They are separate issues.
In other words, simply claiming it's black and white doesn't make it so.
It may be that Snowden did an immoral thing. But I think it is possible to hold allegiance first to a higher ideal, and break later promises to uphold it.
I think that's what really ticks me off about this whole thing. That there was no mechanism in place to voice concerns about the system and our representatives completely failed us by writing a blank check to the watchers. So we get vigilantes.
That hasn't happened, and the media is concentrated on Snowden's activities rather than the leaks themselves.
It's shameful, disgusting, and the only one doing anything about it is Greenwald. Unfortunately, not many others are.
Maybe if you actually stated why you were "hugely looking forward" to someone being imprisoned for a crime that hasn't yet been proven in any way, according to any legal body or representative (charged yes, convicted no.), they'd be more inclined to debate the point, and your view wouldn't be quite so unpopular (to say the least).
As for my "homophobic" joke, I'm merely quoting Office Space.