31–40 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You mean the most sensitive government secrets that are about warrantless total surveillance of everyone on earth? The proof that the US government has lost all control over their spying apparatus? Where would be a sensitive place to take them instead in your opinion?
10 years on, Snowden remains arguably the most important whistleblower in the US after Daniel Ellsberg. The fact that the government pursued Snowden and effectively drove him into exile in an unfriendly country shows how serious the revelations were, and exposes the dangers of an unchecked government. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Snowden single-handedly changed public perception against the NSA and the do…
> The fact that the government pursued Snowden They had to. He broke the law. He would have had the chance to go to trial and defend himself and seek whistleblower protection status. Given the politically charged nature and public opinion at the time, he might have had a pretty fair shake and could have been living comfortably in the US working for the ACLU or something. Instead he plotted an escape to an openly host…
Is this what you would've done in Snowdon's shoes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-c... How is this whistleblowing? He also participated in Putin's call in propaganda show, I don't believe for a second that he's said anything that upsets Putin or the FSB particularly if mild criticism is useful for them in maintaining the fiction that he is not under the control of the Russian security services. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia…
First one was not published by the journalists Snowden chose, whom he directed as to the kinds of things he wanted published and not. The NYT got the archive from the guardian against Snowden's wishes and knew better. Your criticism is of the NYT. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowd... And plenty more. How are your criticisms of the CIA, NSA and Dept of homeland security coming along? Or you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that the government pursued Snowden They had to. He broke the law. He would have had the chance to go to trial and defend himself and seek whistleblower protection status. Given the politically charged nature and public opinion at the time, he might have had a pretty fair shake and could have been living comfortably in the US working for the ACLU or something. Instead he plotted an escape to an openly host…
> He would have had the chance to go to trial and defend himself and seek whistleblower protection status. Is this what you would've done in Snowdon's shoes?
Any major US news publication or the EFF would have put their legal team to work protecting him. He could have fled to a friendly country like France that has strong civil liberty protections. He could have gone to a neutral country like Switzerland. Instead of trying any of these things, he went right to Russia and horse traded information for protection - which plays a lot more like an asset coming home than a legitimate whistleblower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First one was not published by the journalists Snowden chose, whom he directed as to the kinds of things he wanted published and not. The NYT got the archive from the guardian against Snowden's wishes and knew better. Your criticism is of the NYT. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowd... And plenty more. How are your criticisms of the CIA, NSA and Dept of homeland security coming along? Or you…
Let's forget about publishing. He took a top secret document on NSA spying on China to Chinese territory and then on to Russia. The fact that the Times published them and not his preferred journalist is besides the point. The damage was already done when he took them to Chinese territory and then on to Russia.
False.
The only people who saw the documents that Snowden had were the journalists chosen by Snowden. In any country, including the USA. Some were less responsible than others hence the nyt got a copy. Hong Kong is wholly and totally irrelevant.
The fact the times decided to publish is 100% their responsibility.
Again, what criticisms do you have of the NSA, CIA and dept of homeland security? List them all briefly here, please.
10 years on, Snowden remains arguably the most important whistleblower in the US after Daniel Ellsberg. The fact that the government pursued Snowden and effectively drove him into exile in an unfriendly country shows how serious the revelations were, and exposes the dangers of an unchecked government. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Snowden single-handedly changed public perception against the NSA and the do…
> The fact that the government pursued Snowden They had to. He broke the law. He would have had the chance to go to trial and defend himself and seek whistleblower protection status. Given the politically charged nature and public opinion at the time, he might have had a pretty fair shake and could have been living comfortably in the US working for the ACLU or something. Instead he plotted an escape to an openly host…
The fact that he's now in Russia is 100% on the US.
Also, he didn't bring any stolen information to Russia. He says he was contacted by Russian intelligence but that they pretty quickly figured out he had nothing more to give them than what he gave to the journalists.
10 years on, Snowden remains arguably the most important whistleblower in the US after Daniel Ellsberg. The fact that the government pursued Snowden and effectively drove him into exile in an unfriendly country shows how serious the revelations were, and exposes the dangers of an unchecked government. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Snowden single-handedly changed public perception against the NSA and the do…
The article makes the case that Snowden was NOT a whistleblower: “ "I want to emphasize this: my active searching out of NSA abuses began not with the copying of documents, but with the reading of them. My initial intention was just to confirm the suspicions that I'd first had back in 2009 in Tokyo. Three years later I was determined to find out if an American system of mass surveillance existed and, if it did, how i…
Your definition of whisleblower seems to be closer to a government bureaucrat's definition.
I'm curious why you brought that up?
The weirdest thing is that Drake had already whistleblown about the program in 2005. It was front page on the NYT and WP. But 8 years later everybody seemed to have completely forgotten that and acted like Snowden was revealing something new.
"Wow, you must wear a tinfoil hat, you really think the government is tapping your phones?"
"Wow, you didn't already know that every phone is tapped? You're so behind the times. Every cool person is already jaded about that."
There's almost no will from voters to fight this, so the discourse instantly leaps from "impossible" to "acceptable".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> His behavior isn't what a whistleblower does. You need to explain this. Why should a whistleblower have to go to prison? Don't deflect with whataboutisms.
[flagged]
So it's 100% on the US government that he ended up in Russia and not Ecuador
10 years on, Snowden remains arguably the most important whistleblower in the US after Daniel Ellsberg. The fact that the government pursued Snowden and effectively drove him into exile in an unfriendly country shows how serious the revelations were, and exposes the dangers of an unchecked government. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Snowden single-handedly changed public perception against the NSA and the do…
The article makes the case that Snowden was NOT a whistleblower: “ "I want to emphasize this: my active searching out of NSA abuses began not with the copying of documents, but with the reading of them. My initial intention was just to confirm the suspicions that I'd first had back in 2009 in Tokyo. Three years later I was determined to find out if an American system of mass surveillance existed and, if it did, how i…
That likely isn’t “by the book” whistle blowing since governments can and do make what they do in the shadows “legal enough” to avoid scrutiny.
Guess it’s weird it’s that much of a discussion but many people care more about laws than morality.