Earlier quoted context omitted.
My goodness, this reads like Stewart Baker is sock-puppeting. If you'd like to convince someone, perhaps sticking to the truth when stating "facts" would be a start. For instance, > - Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels. is simply false. > - Snowden fled to Russia, a currently not-so-cold competitor of the US. Nice innuendo. Please state your concerns in a concrete fashion. If it is that he fled,…
You ask for parent to provide proof in some places but don't provide it yourself which makes me think you're more interested in arguing versus being productive (which, to be fair, some of parent's points sound like they're coming from a similar place). But just in case I have a few questions >> - Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels. > is simply false. As far as I was ever able to find Snowden emai…
I have no opinion on the "district heads" thing. I've never worked in the non-private intel world. Most of what I know on the topic is here:
https://news.vice.com/article/edward-snowden-leaks-tried-to-...
This has been spun exceptionally hard in multiple versions of their story, and as best I can tell, "proper channels" as used by NSA flacks at this point means "people who could shut him up." This is based on the FIOA'd discussions found in the above-linked documents. Snowden's account hasn't changed and has matched details the NSA story only included in later versions (apparently because there were releases they didn't expect with contrary facts after their first version). Everyone, of course, will form their own opinions about this.
But let's say that Snowden never attempted to tell anyone inside, at all. Do you think the general population of the U.S. would have learned what is being done in their name? Do you think a single program would have changed, even the cosmetic renaming and budget-shuffling that allows spokesmuppets tell highly deceptive technical-truths in congressional hearings?
>> If it is that he fled, then it doesn't matter to where. >Why does it not?
You misread. I am not arguing that it doesn't matter; I'm parsing the GP's argument.
> I'm not sure I would consider that vetting.
Many people have differences of opinion. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear of a vetting scheme that would both satisfy critics and have informed the general public to the same degree.
My personal belief is that the damage done by an out-of-control intelligence regime is far greater than burning necessarily transient sources and methods. Even if it weren't, I'd grade the disclosure on a curve, because the spin coming out of any intelligence agency about this sort of thing is inherently untrustworthy, and intelligence has to be kept on a short leash. Add to that the incredible scale of the NSA/Five Eyes networks and the fact that the NSA is demonstrably harming (at least) civilian security by emphasizing offense over defense, and we have something incredibly frightening with intrusive capabilities the Stasi could only have dreamed of. You can have that, or you can have democracy, but I don't believe you can have both. And that's only looking at "official" uses; we know NSA employees also have used the data for, ah, call it personal reasons. Both anti-democratic uses are inevitable.
> I wouldn't be so quick so side with every single thing Snowden did to avoid being cast as a zealot.
You're clearly not. Oh, you're trying to politely advise me? I don't side with Snowden (or Greenwald, or Wheeler, or...) on everything (or even "a lot"), but I probably am a zealot by your definition, because I believe the "moderate" approach here is a vastly (as in arguing over orders of magnitude) scaled-back, retooled NSA/FBI/CIA.