Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

I know this is going to get me labeled as a Snowden "demonizer" by those who take the G.W. Bush approach of "you're either with us or against us"...but these specific allegations, if true, should not be taken as just trivialities.

The OP seems to be implying the possibility that Snowden purportedly took the Booz Allen job with the explicit purpose that of exposing what he perceived as NSA's unethical practices. Now, replace "Snowden" with...well, a hypothetical whistleblower, and "Booz Allen" and "NSA" with [company/institution you respect]

e.g. Henry Ford joined Tesla Motors to get the access to documents that prove that Elon Musk is cutting corners just as Ford suspected.

There have been unfair and trivial criticisms of Snowden, but this particular angle is not completely trivial. Note, however, that even if true, it does not dismiss Snowden's claims or findings...but it's the kind of pre-condition that must be weighed as it would be in any controversy.

Complete Speculation. Is there video evidence that he said this?

But yes, even if true, lets hold proles to the word of the law, while writing new laws that demonize all whistleblowing and the exposing of corruption.

I find it funny how we always get into the character attacks. Lets talk about the leaks.

Bradley Manning -> Traitor

Julian Assange -> Rapist

Edward Snowden -> Spy(?)/Traitor/Ethical Person who knew about the abuses and attempted to follow through with uncovering them?

You can call it by different names all you want, but ultimately we can either support the act, or demonize the individuals.

OK, if the accusation is false, then there's not much to talk about...it's just a smear. I was only speaking of the condition in which this accusation is true. If so, it does not mean that Snowden was wrong or that he is being nefarious. However, it's not just an ancillary demonization...at least for those of us who interpreted his story to be of someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices.

In otherwords, he's less of a whistleblower, more of a muckraker. Both are capable of bringing about needed reform

"someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices"... and then wanted to collect enough evidence about what he saw.

I can understand where you're coming from. The definitions are outdated.

With the government being able to request your confidential sources, and with the government being able to see all forms of electronic communication, my idea of a whistleblower is the following:

"Anyone who peacefully and in good faith informs the public of government or corporate wrongdoing."

You can definitely agree that Snowden did not violently do this, and we can debate whether or not he has done this in good faith, however, people should be innocent until proven guilty in a free society.

So my opinion right now is that he is a whistleblower. If the government can prove that he is a spy or is subverting the government for nefarious purposes, then the actions they're committing would be justified, but as of now, they are not in the slightest.

So, what's the significance? Even if true, he can still be "someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices," he just purposely went a bit deeper to get better evidence.

Can you only be a whistleblower if the evidence serendipitously falls into your lap? Is it less ethical to make a conscious choice to pursue it further? Sure, you're not exactly acting in good faith toward your employer, but only because you believe they are not acting in good faith toward the American people.

I suppose it could turn out that he had some personal axe to grind and got a bit delusional in putting together a conspiracy theory. This news could lend credence to that interpretation, but I find it less likely based on what we know.

I don't care what anyone thinks of Snowden or of his motives. I care about the illegality he has revealed. Weigh it against the fact that there was vanishingly little chance for this information to have been revealed without breaking someone's rules.

Even if its true, there is a long American tradition of people working undercover to expose wrongdoing.

Upton Sinclair took a job at a meatpacker so that he could get the information to write The Jungle.

Its totally different than the scenario of Ford spying on Tesla.

The Ford/Tesla example is completely different. Booz is a government contractor, and so is already sharing information with the NSA. If it is true that he took the job just to get the documents, he probably already knew about PRISM, but just didn't have access to all the details.

A better example would be someone from Ford getting a job at one of their suppliers (e.g. the brake manufacturer) to expose something.

I don't see how we conclude that he knew anything about PRISM before Booz Allen. It's entirely possible that he planned to get some documents without knowing what he would get. Or that he was primarily interested in other documents.

Given the amount of planning Snowden put into this, and that he only had 4 weeks at Booz Allen, the timetable for having a revelation that he wanted to become a whistleblower is almost implausibly compressed. It seems very plausible that he knew what he wanted to do before he took the job.

Or it could have been "Snowden, your job is being outsourced to BAH, you'll still do the same thing, the checks will come from someone else."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com