Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[AndyH]

There was a lot of stuff made "public" that was damaging to US interests, which are also OUR interests (To the extent that you think of your country's government as acting on behalf of you, the voter).

Classification is supposed to protect sources or methods, not prevent embarrassment. And not to allow circumventing the Constitution.

If we cannot maintain rule of law or our constitutional rights, we don't have any 'OUR' interests left to damage.

Think of it like Maslow's hierarchy. We're not talking about 'self actualization' here...

[klapauzius]

There was a lot of stuff made "public" that was damaging to US interests, which are also OUR interests (To the extent that you think of your country's government as acting on behalf of you, the voter).

Classification is supposed to protect sources or methods, not prevent embarrassment. And not to allow circumventing the Constitution.

If we cannot maintain rule of law or our constitutional rights, we don't have any 'OUR' interests left to damage.

Think of it like Maslow's hierarchy. We're not talking about 'self actualization' here...

I think it is not that simple (it never is).

[AndyH]

There was a lot of stuff made "public" that was damaging to US interests, which are also OUR interests (To the extent that you think of your country's government as acting on behalf of you, the voter).

Classification is supposed to protect sources or methods, not prevent embarrassment. And not to allow circumventing the Constitution.

If we cannot maintain rule of law or our constitutional rights, we don't have any 'OUR' interests left to damage.

Think of it like Maslow's hierarchy. We're not talking about 'self actualization' here...

I think it is not that simple (it never is).

It's often very simple.

Take your situation for example: As a foreign national, you're a legal target of monitoring and therefore aren't the beneficiary of changes that result from Snowden's efforts.

For the rest of us, however, we'd like our Fourth Amendment back.

See - very simple, but not easy.

[klapauzius]

It's often very simple.

Take your situation for example: As a foreign national, you're a legal target of monitoring and therefore aren't the beneficiary of changes that result from Snowden's efforts.

For the rest of us, however, we'd like our Fourth Amendment back.

See - very simple, but not easy.

If you look at the fallout from these scandals, no, it isn't simple. It was all very costly, for the US as whole, and for the two whistle blowers in particular.

And the gains are somewhat obscure at the moment. As you point out, my life isn't going to change, but so isn't yours.
As long as the results of all that spying aren't actively being used to curtail people's freedom, what is the difference? As long as this is a democracy with the rule of law firmly in place, nothing bad should happen to you and me.

Sure, if this democracy ever fails, a potential police state will have the instruments of suppression ready for them, but as history tells us, dictatorships usually create secret polices faster than you can blink.

Anyways, since the US is a democracy presently, there is a chance for meaningful reform. I wonder though, if there had been a better way, i.e. one that had not completely destroyed the whistle blowers lives....although Snowden at least has a bigger prison cell than Manning.

[AndyH]

If you look at the fallout from these scandals, no, it isn't simple. It was all very costly, for the US as whole, and for the two whistle blowers in particular.

In the most sincere and gentle way possible, Klap, you're missing a couple of pictures here. First, the 'powers that be' decided after 9/11 to take a pretty dramatic turn. That was a conscious decision/series of decisions that We the People didn't get to vote on. Additionally, Snowden and Manning also made conscious decisions and were willing to pay the price for that.

And the gains are somewhat obscure at the moment. As you point out, my life isn't going to change, but so isn't yours.

I agree that some gains are obscure but some aren't. I agree as well that you're life isn't likely to change - you'll continue to be in the 'target pool'. My life, however, has already changed as a result of this. Nearly all of my web interactions now are done on encrypted connections. I've changed my on-line security practices and done other things as well.

As long as the results of all that spying aren't actively being used to curtail people's freedom, what is the difference?

If you think this is an accurate statment, you're not paying attention.

As long as this is a democracy with the rule of law firmly in place, nothing bad should happen to you and me.

The point, Klap, is that the rule of law has been twisted and things are already happening.

Sure, if this democracy ever fails, a potential police state will have the instruments of suppression ready for them, but as history tells us, dictatorships usually create secret polices faster than you can blink.

Gilded cages are still cages.

Anyways, since the US is a democracy presently, there is a chance for meaningful reform. I wonder though, if there had been a better way, i.e. one that had not completely destroyed the whistle blowers lives....although Snowden at least has a bigger prison cell than Manning.

Speaking as someone that spent a career in their world, having done both of their jobs at different points in that career, and having tried to fix things from the inside, it's my assessment that they did exactly what needed to happen to catalyze change. But they can't do it alone - they need the rest of us to get of our butts and do our parts. At least some of us are.

[klapauzius]

I agree as well that you're life isn't likely to change - you'll continue to be in the 'target pool'. My life, however, has already changed as a result of this. Nearly all of my web interactions now are done on encrypted connections. I've changed my on-line security practices and done other things as well.

May I ask why you encrypt stuff, now that are you are no longer a target?
Dont get me wrong, I value my privacy, but I have not heard yet of a case, where people got persecuted (in the US) based on information obtained e.g. by the NSA in an unconstitutional manner?

In real dictatorships (like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, to name a few examples ), they don't need to be that sophisticated. They simply make something up and throw you into jail (or worse). Its much cheaper than scanning millions of emails per day.

Sure, if this democracy ever fails, a potential police state will have the instruments of suppression ready for them, but as history tells us, dictatorships usually create secret polices faster than you can blink.

Gilded cages are still cages.

You seem to misunderstand me (like so many times)...
What I meant to say: A democracy will not fail due to some rogue agency. It needs more than that.

[Nubo]

As long as the results of all that spying aren't actively being used to curtail people's freedom, what is the difference? As long as this is a democracy with the rule of law firmly in place, nothing bad should happen to you and me.

That our leaders and agencies would even THINK of doing what they've done, means we are a hair's breadth away. That they would even THINK of doing what they've done means there are a lot of people with power in this country, who don't believe in the same country or concept of justice that I was raised to believe in. Either I was duped, or these folks are un-American.

"If you're not guilty there's nothing to worry about..." Well, I don't like the track record of societies where that's been a mantra.

[Nubo]

What I meant to say: A democracy will not fail due to some rogue agency. It needs more than that.

Not just a rogue agency. I remember watching members of Congress when the Patriot Act was going down. You could see they didn't like it. But they were afraid of appearing "un-patriotic". The one moment where they should have stood up for what they believed in, and they just sat there and stared at their shoes.

[klapauzius]

That our leaders and agencies would even THINK of doing what they've done, means we are a hair's breadth away. That they would even THINK of doing what they've done means there are a lot of people with power in this country, who don't believe in the same country or concept of justice that I was raised to believe in. Either I was duped, or these folks are un-American.

"If you're not guilty there's nothing to worry about..." Well, I don't like the track record of societies where that's been a mantra.

Agreed.
But, isn't it obvious that if you are guilty, you should have to worry?


Guilty of course is an interpretable word....Also obviously, the perpetrators of 9/11 were not "guilty" BEFORE they did what they did?

How could a constitution, written over 200 years ago foresee the world we find ourselves in today?

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the total surveillance state, but I have the uneasy feeling that this isnt the black and white issue that some people seem to think it is.

One the hand we want to protect the individual from the state as much as possible, on the other hand we now live in a world, where a handful of individuals can cause death and destruction on an unprecedented scale, if left unchecked.

[AndyH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording “100 percent” of a foreign country’s telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place, according to people with direct knowledge of the effort and documents supplied by former contractor Edward Snowden.