Hacker News Reader

> I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically, and I think the manner in which he is releasing the documents has elements of narcissism and carelessness in regards to the sensitivity of the information.

Could you expand on why you think this? From my perspective, what's caused tremendous damage is the way U.S. agencies have acted. I'd like these policies to at minimum be up for a vote, but we can't vote on something if we have no idea what's being done.

Absolutely. Ill clarify here and state that I think what the US government was doing was wrong, and that by uncovering the illegal (in my mind, though there is some debate about this point) activities of our spy agencies the world is better off. Of course, leaking the information could not have happened if the original programs had never existed, but the leaks were the proximate cause for the damage to the U.S. geopolitically.

However, that doesn't negate the fact that by having their dirty laundry aired the U.S. has gotten a tarnished reputation. Its given ammunition to anti-US groups, lent legitimacy to other state actors acting poorly when it comes to cyber-intelligence/warfare, and damaged the economic interests of U.S. tech companies trying to have a presence internationally. I will leave it up to you to pass your own judgement as to whether this damage to the U.S. was appropriate/justified/legitimate/deserved, but I think we can agree that it has happened.

Now, to expand on my comment that there are elements of carelessness and narcissism. I think - and this is just my opinion - that Snowden has demonstrated an enjoyment of the limelight, and has started to model himself as a digital champion. I don't say this to condemn him, merely to point out that he is a human who has an ego, and isnt so selfless angel. Second, the carelessness that I refer to is things I have heard regarding failures in redacting information[1]. This doesn't necessarily mean that such failures aren't a cost that is negated by the public gain of knowing about these surveillance programs, but it is still a cost that must be recognized.

[1]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140128/08542126021/new-y...

Are you holding Snowden responsible for the New York Times' failure to properly redact documents?

Who gave the documents to the NYT? Obviously this is a failure on the part of the NYT, but given that Snowden talks about how security conscious he is then he should bear at least some of the responsibility for not controlling the release.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150518/13193831041/us-of...

And when other people leak far more relevant information? (by topic and by time)

I wasn't talking about whether other leaks have been more damaging, I was talking specifically about the lack of nuance contained in the Edward Snowden hero/villain dichotomy.

We can talk about the White House's absolutely shameful wrist slapping of Petraeus, or the leaks mentioned in the article you source, but that still doesn't address whether Snowden messed up when he facilitated the NYT in releasing unredacted information. Just because hypocrisy exists doesnt mean that anytime we critique someone we have to also bring out a laundry list of other people who messed up even worse.

> I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically

I also think these MRIs that show the spead of cancer have done tremendous damage to the body medically.

I can see how it would be easy to read my post as a judgement as to whether the Snowden leaks were worth it, but I wasn't trying to make that point. If I was to rephrase my original comment using your analogy, I would say it something like this.

"The doctor who used chemotherapy to remove the cancer in America's body has caused spillover damage to other organ systems, but this course of action was only necessary because recommendations in the early stage of the disease to remove the tumor before it spread were ignored. When we ignore the warning signs early on it forces subsequent treatments to be far more indiscriminate"

Hopefully that clarifies

>I tend to dislike the hero/villain dichotomy that is usually held up. I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically

If I report someone for a crime and they are arrested, is the damage to their life my fault or their own?

I see the point you are trying to make, but the analogy misses some nuance. A question that captures more of the muddiness of this is "If I find out someone is committing a crime and I prove it by indiscriminately publishing their emails, is the embarrassment that is created when it is revealed they were having an affair my fault or their own?"

Even then, they choose to have the affair. While I do like privacy, I don't like blaming others for the consequences of exposing one's own misdeeds (even when they are not illegal).

Determining an acceptable level of collateral damage is a very, very tricky problem. In the Snowden case I think the damage that was done is acceptable in order to root out illegal activity, but that doesn't mean that collateral damage wasn't done, or that perhaps steps could have been taken to minimize that damage.

But ultimately, the calculus for what is acceptable when it comes to collateral damage is extraordinarily subjective. I don't know of any concrete way to judge it so I am usually forced into using my own value system as to what is important in my life.

I also prefer a nuanced view to this issue.

Yes, Snowden's leaks did end up causing damage to US interests, and some would rightfully condemn him for it.

But we also need to keep in mind that there really wasn't any other viable option to shed light into these programs and raise public awareness (and yes, the public did absolutely need to be aware of these programs). The agencies were set up to hide information about their programs from the public at all costs and it was clear that traditional whistleblowing wasn't going to get any results.

I'd think another important consideration for Snowden when making this decision was that a more persistent effort at traditional whistleblowing from within the US could in fact have led to even more dire personal consequences.