Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgalt212 | Hacker News Reader

I commend Manning for sticking around to face the music and not going AWOL. As such, in my eyes, he's way more of a genuine activist than Snowden.

There can be no Letter from Birmingham Jail without the jail.

View on HN

The strategy one employs to deal with being punished for revealing wrongdoing has nothing to do with how "genuine" the activism is. To suggest that Snowden, who has given up his life to alert humanity to the worst surveillance program in the world's history, isn't a "genuine" activist is, frankly, ridiculous.

> the worst surveillance program in the world's history

"worst" in scale, certainly. What other criteria is it "worst" on?

>What other criteria is it "worst" on?

That's a state secret.

The manner in which it's being used at current is largely unknown to the public.

It's worst in breadth and likely quite bad in terms of depth given their resources (and the ability, IIRC, to listen through landlines and cell phones). Surveillance depth will likely get much worse in the future, however, as they strongarm more companies into baking surveillance capabilities into mass-market devices (although they'll be competing, in this regard, with foreign manufacturers who will be/are also doing the same thing).

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/

Aristotle drank the hemlock. Who is/was a better philosophical mind, Edward Snowden or Aristotle?

Socrates drank the hemlock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

Oh shit, sorry. I'll leave the error so all this makes sense.

This is a false dilemma and disingenuous stance. You are basically saying that "unless you are willing to suffer, the problem you're talking about can't really be a problem".

(Actually you're saying that you can't be an activist without suffering, and the implication is that if it's not worth activism, it's not a big deal. So basically what I said).

I guess that's exactly what I'm saying: You cannot be a true activist without taking heat from the powers that be and not running from them. So I guess we must agree to disagree. That being said, I think if you look at activists that have been studied and/or revered throughout history most have paid a steep price (many with their lives) for causes they support.

The idea that Snowden, by giving up his entire life and making himself a refugee, isn't "taking heat" is an illogical talking point designed to smear him. You try fleeing your country permanently, leaving behind friends and family, and living stateless for weeks with the world's foremost superpower trying to bargain for you and tell me you're not "taking heat".

"jgalt212" takes that position, eh? Have you read the book from whence your name comes? Taking the heat aint exactly part of the objectivist stance. I'm no objectivist, but I am an activist. Sometimes going to jail is a useful part of activism. Sometimes it is a waste of time, money, and life.

I'd rather Manning were not in jail. The information he revealed is his activism. Act of civil disobedience with the intention of being arrested has its place...it definitely has its place. Many dear friends of mine were arrested at the Texas capitol during the recent anti-abortion bill fracas, and I fully support their actions (one chained herself to the railing in the gallery; absolutely amazing and inspiring and impressive given that state troopers were confiscating everything suspicious going into the gallery, including tampons and condoms...she managed to get chains and a lock in). Their arrest was a source of massive media attention, including front page of the Austin Statesman...and that was the goal: making people aware of what was happening at the legislature.

Manning didn't need to be arrested to bring that attention to the leaked information, and it's unfortunate that our government, all the way up to the president (who promised openness, transparency, and to defend whistleblowers), are cowardly enough to shoot the messenger rather than address the crimes revealed by these leaks.

Throwing yourself upon a pyre is only furthers your cause when very specific conditions are met. For Rosa Parks and MLK, those conditions were met. For Snowden, they surely were not.

There is no reason to throw yourself upon a pyre if it does not further your cause, and indeed many reasons not to.

I'm not willing to die because I think drug laws are too harsh (largely because I no longer use them), so obviously random people getting shot by mistake isn't a problem!

Never mind that I am willing to participate in less violent activism for that cause, I'm not a true scotsman.. er I mean activist.

Also, since I don't see you lining up to die for your stance on Snowden and Manning, you must not actually mean it - by your definition of course. Why should anyone care about it?

Which is why the founding fathers decided it was best to get arrested by the British.

Why should someone have to lose their freedom for exposing another's wrongdoing? We should incentivize whistleblowers, not make them risk rotting in a jail cell for the rest of their lives.

Er, Manning would likely not have been caught without Lamo ratting him out. Manning 'sticking around' has been entirely outside of his control since that happened.

I think Manning probably lacked the sophistication to have as many options as Snowden.

Snowden, could have remained anonymous a lot longer, too, though probably not indefinitely. What do you think about him disclosing his identity before he had to?

I also don't think Snowden had the same options as Ellsberg to have his contributions to public debate so quickly recognized since there are different attitudes in Congress right now. Quite likely, as long as he remains safe for a few years, he'll get powerful senators as protectors, too.

Snowden's activism is quite different from MLK's so I don't think that's a very fair comparison. MLK was specifically advocating for breaking unjust laws. The whole point was to get arrested and then show the world "this is how African Americans are being treated." The point of Snowden's leak is to reveal unconstitutional spying, it's not necessarily about the plight of whistle-blowers. Getting himself arrested and put on trial does nothing to further his cause.

Here we go again with the "your convictions aren't real unless you're willing to be tortured, imprisoned, and murdered for them" bullshit. As if black people weren't actually oppressed until King was jailed in Birmingham.

First off, he was exposed by someone else. Unlike Snowden who stepped forward on his own.

Not that it matters, though. Manning is still a hero in my book!

Does this apply to Aaron Schwartz as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com