John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

[Brainonska511]

Vandalism at a Revolutionary War memorial for POWs.

 

[BoberFett]

So some people in this thread believe that Snowden, as apparently the only NSA insider with any conscience whatsoever, should have personally reviewed tens of thousands of documents? And his only other option was to do nothing?

I'm glad he took the route he did. The fact that the government was collecting as much as it was is the fault of the government. If they didn't want their international spying leaked, they shouldn't have been spying on private communications between US citizens. Stop shooting the messenger.

 

[Subyman]

So some people in this thread believe that Snowden, as apparently the only NSA insider with any conscience whatsoever, should have personally reviewed tens of thousands of documents? And his only other option was to do nothing?

I'm glad he took the route he did. The fact that the government was collecting as much as it was is the fault of the government. If they didn't want their international spying leaked, they shouldn't have been spying on private communications between US citizens. Stop shooting the messenger.

I find it funny that the people calling him a moron, traitor, etc are the ones that say he should have personally vetted the documents.

 

[fskimospy]

So some people in this thread believe that Snowden, as apparently the only NSA insider with any conscience whatsoever, should have personally reviewed tens of thousands of documents? And his only other option was to do nothing?

I'm glad he took the route he did. The fact that the government was collecting as much as it was is the fault of the government. If they didn't want their international spying leaked, they shouldn't have been spying on private communications between US citizens. Stop shooting the messenger.

He should have reviewed every document he was planning on leaking. The options available were:

1. Leak everything and let other people figure it out.
2. Leak nothing.
3. Review the documents and leak only the things he thought constituted government misbehavior. (this is clearly the right one)

He chose an extremely irresponsible option, and he should pay the price. Maybe that's exile, maybe that's jail time here. The idea that he didn't feel like expending the effort to see if what he was leaking was important or not is totally unconvincing to me.

 

[norseamd]

He should have reviewed every document he was planning on leaking. The options available were:

1. Leak everything and let other people figure it out.
2. Leak nothing.
3. Review the documents and leak only the things he thought constituted government misbehavior. (this is clearly the right one)

He chose an extremely irresponsible option, and he should pay the price. Maybe that's exile, maybe that's jail time here. The idea that he didn't feel like expending the effort to see if what he was leaking was important or not is totally unconvincing to me.

Fucking shit you need to get a grip with reality. He only released documents to a few journalists who he felt would take care about what they decided to tell everyone.

 

[Subyman]

He should have reviewed every document he was planning on leaking. The options available were:

1. Leak everything and let other people figure it out.
2. Leak nothing.
3. Review the documents and leak only the things he thought constituted government misbehavior. (this is clearly the right one)

He chose an extremely irresponsible option, and he should pay the price. Maybe that's exile, maybe that's jail time here. The idea that he didn't feel like expending the effort to see if what he was leaking was important or not is totally unconvincing to me.

I'm curious if he even had the capacity to properly understand the documents. You've got a couple of things going on here. He's alone. He can't collaborate with anyone on the project. He has a stack of 1000+ government technical documents to try to go over, but he is not privy to the actual projects outside those documents he secured. His choices are:

1.) Leak everything to the public
2.) Try to understand the entirety of all of the NSAs programs and how they fit together so to not reveal anything damaging all by himself.
3.) Release the documents to the world's most prominent investigative journalists and let them collaborate on the project.

The misstep in your proposal is that he had the capacity to do all of the vetting by himself. He trusted prominent journalists from venerated news groups which could put lawyers and man power behind the problem more than himself.

I don't think there was a perfect choice, but he made a decent choice for the path he was walking down.

 

[fskimospy]

Fucking shit you need to get a grip with reality. He only released documents to a few journalists who he felt would take care about what they decided to tell everyone.

And the leaks that have come out pretty clearly show that trust was insanely mistaken. This should not be surprising to anyone and was easily foreseeable. Hence, he was extremely irresponsible.

 

[Perknose]

He should have reviewed every document he was planning on leaking. The options available were:

1. Leak everything and let other people figure it out.
2. Leak nothing.
3. Review the documents and leak only the things he thought constituted government misbehavior. (this is clearly the right one)

He chose an extremely irresponsible option, and he should pay the price. Maybe that's exile, maybe that's jail time here. The idea that he didn't feel like expending the effort to see if what he was leaking was important or not is totally unconvincing to me.

He purloined documents and truly didn't know how much time he had until he was apprehended. So he did the best he could, under very difficult circumstances. Please note how long it has taken journalists going through the documents to release anything before you cavalierly say "he didn't feel like expending the [months long, years long?] effort."

He reviewed them as best he could under severe time pressure. As soon as he took the documents, he was a marked man and the clock was ticking. SO he gave them to journalists he trusted to do the right thing.

Perfect? No. But he ruined his life to do what he decided, on balance, was the right thing to do.

Given the exigencies, what would you have done?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm curious if he even had the capacity to properly understand the documents. You've got a couple of things going on here. He's alone. He can't collaborate with anyone on the project. He has a stack of 1000+ government technical documents to try to go over, but he is not privy to the actual projects outside those documents he secured. His choices are:

1.) Leak everything to the public
2.) Try to understand the entirety of all of the NSAs programs and how they fit together so to not reveal anything damaging all by himself.
3.) Release the documents to the world's most prominent investigative journalists and let them collaborate on the project.

The misstep in your proposal is that he had the capacity to do all of the vetting by himself. He trusted prominent journalists from venerated news groups which could put lawyers and man power behind the problem more than himself.

I don't think there was a perfect choice, but he made a decent choice for the path he was walking down.

He didn't need to understand the programs in their entirety, but he clearly released large amounts of information to other people that it doesn't take a genius to see was hugely inappropriate. Easy example, the fact that the US was spying on other governments. That's not interesting or novel, yet it damaged relationships between countries.

It wasn't like he screened them, threw out the ones he thought were reasonable secrets, leaked the ones he knew were bad, and then looked for help on those he was unsure about. He just dumped a big pile of files on other people. It's wrong, and he needs to pay the price.

 

[norseamd]

And the leaks that have come out pretty clearly show that trust was insanely mistaken. This should not be surprising to anyone and was easily foreseeable. Hence, he was extremely irresponsible.

You realize that it has been uncovered that there are more leakers than Snowden especially considering some of the material was after Snowden fled to Hong Kong? And that it is possible the US government has released some confidential information through their own leakers that would generate possible bad publicity for Snowden?

 

[smackababy]

The misstep in your proposal is that he had the capacity to do all of the vetting by himself. He trusted prominent journalists from venerated news groups which could put lawyers and man power behind the problem more than himself.

And, yet they didn't.

 

[norseamd]

And, yet they didn't.

What specific leaks are you and eskimospy talking about here?

 

[realibrad]

And the leaks that have come out pretty clearly show that trust was insanely mistaken. This should not be surprising to anyone and was easily foreseeable. Hence, he was extremely irresponsible.

To say it was irresponsible is to imply there was a better option.

The government is the one abusing power. You cannot think that going to the government who asked and is abusing the power to review their abuse of power. At some point, to stop the abuse, you will need to do something drastic. The media for a long part of history has been the resource to expose problems just like this. The sad truth is that we cannot really rely on the media as we once did, because its has been turned into entertainment by the viewers.

So you end up with a government that does not want to be held accountable and thus hides their abuses. A media who has become entertainers. People who see abuses and have nowhere to turn. We the people are responsible for this situation more than anything else. I dont see where Snowden could have turned other than the media.

 

[fskimospy]

He purloined documents and truly didn't know how much time he had until he was apprehended. So he did the best he could, under very difficult circumstances. Please note how long it has taken journalists going through the documents to release anything before you cavalierly say "he didn't feel like expending the [months long, years long?] effort."

He reviewed them as best he could under severe time pressure. As soon as he took the documents, he was a marked man and the clock was ticking. SO he gave them to journalists he trusted to do the right thing.

Perfect? No. But he ruined his life to do what he decided, on balance, was the right thing to do.

Given the exigencies, what would you have done?

He took about two weeks before showing documents to any other journalists. That is way more than enough time to set up a contingency to ensure someone else ended up with the important documents in case of his death/arrest/whatever.

I would have never just blanket dumped a whole bunch of files like he did. If I had my preferences his life will get to be a lot more ruined in the future.

 

[norseamd]

So you end up with a government that does not want to be held accountable and thus hides their abuses. A media who has become entertainers. People who see abuses and have nowhere to turn. We the people are responsible for this situation more than anything else. I dont see where Snowden could have turned other than the media.

And quite notable the nonmainstream media especially those that were not from America. Any contact to NBC or Fox or CBS or ABC or CNN would have got him shot dead by now.

 

[fskimospy]

To say it was irresponsible is to imply there was a better option.

The government is the one abusing power. You cannot think that going to the government who asked and is abusing the power to review their abuse of power. At some point, to stop the abuse, you will need to do something drastic. The media for a long part of history has been the resource to expose problems just like this. The sad truth is that we cannot really rely on the media as we once did, because its has been turned into entertainment by the viewers.

So you end up with a government that does not want to be held accountable and thus hides their abuses. A media who has become entertainers. People who see abuses and have nowhere to turn. We the people are responsible for this situation more than anything else. I dont see where Snowden could have turned other than the media.

How was Snowden leaking information about US surveillance of other governments required to remedy these abuses?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm curious if he even had the capacity to properly understand the documents. You've got a couple of things going on here. He's alone. He can't collaborate with anyone on the project. He has a stack of 1000+ government technical documents to try to go over, but he is not privy to the actual projects outside those documents he secured. His choices are:

1.) Leak everything to the public
2.) Try to understand the entirety of all of the NSAs programs and how they fit together so to not reveal anything damaging all by himself.
3.) Release the documents to the world's most prominent investigative journalists and let them collaborate on the project.

The misstep in your proposal is that he had the capacity to do all of the vetting by himself. He trusted prominent journalists from venerated news groups which could put lawyers and man power behind the problem more than himself.

I don't think there was a perfect choice, but he made a decent choice for the path he was walking down.

Why would an investigative journalist be a better choice for vetting documents pertaining to national security than a contractor with security clearance? If we're arguing about who is best equipped to understand the documents and how they fit into the legal framework of surveillance as it butts up against Constitutional law, then he should have taken the documents to legal scholars. It seems like Snowden had an illusion that he'd be perceived as a Deep Throat character, but Deep Throat didn't throw Woodward and Bernstein thousands of documents and say "there's probably something in there, go see what you can find;" he vetted the information and gave them exactly what they needed.

 

[Subyman]

He didn't need to understand the programs in their entirety, but he clearly released large amounts of information to other people that it doesn't take a genius to see was hugely inappropriate. Easy example, the fact that the US was spying on other governments. That's not interesting or novel, yet it damaged relationships between countries.

It wasn't like he screened them, threw out the ones he thought were reasonable secrets, leaked the ones he knew were bad, and then looked for help on those he was unsure about. He just dumped a big pile of files on other people. It's wrong, and he needs to pay the price.

I think the difference is that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to the pressure he was under, the narrow timeline he thought he had, and the amount of data that he would have had to process. Even a first pass through the data may have been too much for him to handle, or he may have been too overwhelmed. He was just one man after all. IMO, his desire and choice to reveal NSAs mass domestic spying programs was well founded, but his process was not 100% perfect.

We can debate the intricacies of his timeline and decisions, but without being in his shoes at that moment, it is really hard to pass judgement. We can collectively say he should have done this or that, but in the moment, those things aren't so apparent.

And, yet they didn't.

That, however, is not on Snowden. That is on the news groups.

 

[Perknose]

He took about two weeks before showing documents to any other journalists.

In which time he furiously tried to review that MOUNTAIN of material as best he could.

That is way more than enough time to set up a contingency to ensure someone else ended up with the important documents in case of his death/arrest/whatever.

More than enough time to try and recruit a friend in treason? THAT'S why he gave the docs to trusted journalists, after risking the previous two weeks trying to vet them as best he could.

I would have never just blanket dumped a whole bunch of files like he did.

I don't believe that you or I or anyone else knows the full facts of the existential pressure he was under, nor exactly what we would have done had we been him.

I believe he did the very best he could -- one man, acting alone and risking all to expose the disgusting abuses of the mightiest security apparatus the world has ever known.

 

[Subyman]

Why would an investigative journalist be a better choice for vetting documents pertaining to national security than a contractor with security clearance? If we're arguing about who is best equipped to understand the documents and how they fit into the legal framework of surveillance as it butts up against Constitutional law, then he should have taken the documents to legal scholars. It seems like Snowden had an illusion that he'd be perceived as a Deep Throat character, but Deep Throat didn't throw Woodward and Bernstein thousands of documents and say "there's probably something in there, go see what you can find;" he vetted the information and gave them exactly what they needed.

Because one would think highly acclaimed journalists would have gone to scholars for help. Giving it to journalists guaranteed the public would end up seeing some of the documents. Perhaps that same idealism that drove him to release the documents also persuaded him to give them to those he thought would have the capacity and desire to properly vet them.

Snowden may have had dreams of being the biggest Deep Throat guy of all time, perhaps he was just a youthful idealist, in the end, he exposed one of the largest news story of the past 20 years. His process may have been flawed, but I think more good has come from this than negative. He pulled back the curtain on NSA spying. The tin foil hat guys were right.

 

[shira]

The fact you think this is a good strategy shows your gross negligence. If Snowden didn't have the luxury or time required to determine what in fact he was releasing, he shouldn't have released it.

If your idea of "good strategy" is the equivilent of "well, this is a bunch of pages, gotta have something good in it!" and throwing it out to the wolves, you're a fucking idiot and deserve to be in prison. That is exactly what Snowden did.

America frequently engages in drone attacks in which innocent bystanders are killed. I accept that benefit/loss argument made by the government in these situations.

Well, despite the vague claims made by the government, I have yet to hear of any huge losses - or ANY losses, for that matter - suffered by the U.S. government because of secrets exposed by Snowden. But I do know for sure of the huge benefit to America of Snowden's revelations about the collection of domestic information.

So as far as I'm concerned, Snowden's actions have resulted in a huge gain and virtually no loss. He's a hero to me.

 

[shira]

Someone - anyone, tell us what losses America suffered because of Snowden. No vague shit. Be specific.

 

[norseamd]

The tin foil hat guys were right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lu0G1xCjEM

 

[hasu]

Interesting conversation. Governments (read bureaucrats) all over the world (not just communist countries) are getting so powerful that no one can question them any more. It is not just one person or one entity. Democracy has lost its meaning. Who can prevent them from even killing people who raise voice, since it is all done in the name of nation's security!

All these monitoring activities could have been used for common good as long as the people involved were held accountable for what they do/did, but unfortunately that is not the case any more. It is all about power and money.

 

[norseamd]

Well, despite the vague claims made by the government, I have yet to hear of any huge losses - or ANY losses, for that matter - suffered by the U.S. government because of secrets exposed by Snowden.

They are huge but they were not loss of just or moral shit.