Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden and the Death of Nuance
Trailrunner7 writes "As the noise and drama surrounding the NSA surveillance leaks and its central character, Edward Snowden, have continued to grow in the last few months, many people and organizations involved in the story have taken great pains to line up on either side of the traitor/hero line regarding Snowden's actions. While the story has continued to evolve and become increasingly complex, the opinions and rhetoric on either side has only grown more strident and inflexible, leaving no room for nuanced opinions or the possibility that Snowden perhaps is neither a traitor nor a hero but something else entirely."
Because a traitor wouldn't have the balls to go public, exposing him/herself.
"World isn't black and white"
News at 11. /facepalm.
-Styopa
How have people not noticed that we live in a society where EVERYTHING is a false dilemma. EVERY debate we have politically is a false choice.
The biggest one is this constant claptrap of socialism vs. capitalism. If you think that we should have a national health system immediately you have a backwards yokel yelling about socialism. The U.S. isn't pure capitalistic and never has.
Every debate is derailed because there is someone that can't think in a shade of gray. If you want to do something that a business doesn't like then you are anti-business. Conversely if you want to help a business then you're a capitalistic pig.
We really HAVE to get past this if our society is going to move forward. The answers are almost never at the ends of the spectrum.
I can't say I've seen a non-editorial account in the Guardian or the Washington post that paints Snowden as a hero. Certainly not to the same extent that the NSA and GCHQ paint the very acknowledement of the documents' existence as treason. One side is stating cold, dry, unpleasant facts, while the other is engaged in a bunch of red-faced howling about traitors and national security.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The saddest part of the tale is that he would take it all back now if given a Mulligan.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Does God settle out of court? Hell no! God is fucken God almighty! Unconditional surrender, obviously, the hell are you thinkin, nigger?
If you believe that Crap then wasn't sending Jesus to undo the sentence for eating the apple settling out of court?
We laud Snowden exposing NSA spying on citizens, but on the foreign actors. But then, the guy is a refugee now, and I suppose he has to throw a few bones to those who may consider giving him an asylum.
In the end, it tells us we need better whistle-blower protection laws, so that the next Snowden needs not flee abroad and bargain with the devils.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I suppose that the lack of "nuanced" approach to "the right attitude re: Snowden" is really a symptom of the "discoursive radicalisation" of US politics...
The more the Right and the Extreme Right parties in the US monopolize the political discourse, and are really very very close in anything that really matters, the more the supporters of each part of the political theater demonize the other part.
So telling that Edward Snowden was not a traitor in act or intention since his actions really didn't put the US in jeopardy, and he didn't want to, but wanted the US to change it's policies is not compatible with being conservative, nor even with being "responsible" in the current administration, since it would be a critic of the current president, and critics are not acceptable ever...
Or alternatively telling that just maybe the process ES used was not the right one will put you "in bed with koukou warmongers"....
In practice "not hurting anybody sentiments" makes it impossible to have any sane political discussion in the US except with a very small set of open minded persons who are able to disagree with you without thinking that this makes you a bad person, and are even able to believe that you or they might, just might change their mind if we go on discussing...
I just hope that at some point enough people in the US will agree to vote for anybody except somebody who was already elected, and then maybe they will talk together about "what should we do next ...."
but not holding my breath, for the time being it's just "YACOMTIE" (Yet another country only managed through its economy"
Valerie Plame, enough said.
Actually, the good news here is that there is a widespread discussion about the story. And it looks like something will come of it.
Taking sides seems to be the way of American culture these days. If a subject ain't divisive, it ain't news. Snowden is no different than scientific research, urbanization, abortion, welfare, drone surveillance, labor unions, farming, and the myriad other issues people line up on either side of. How often do people take the middle road, or the path less traveled on an issue, compared to the path of least resistance of aligning on one side or the other?
Perhaps this isn't the place to bring it up, but in all of these surveillance state and Snowden release articles, I don't see many people asking what I think are much more important questions:
If these revelations are almost all timestamped from 2009-2011, what new and scarier capacities have the relevant parties (NSA, GCHQ, primarily) developed since?
The people managing the Edward Snowdens within these organizations, and their bosses, must think about the implications of collecting so much data. What's the end game using these wildly advanced surveillance and data collection/storage capabilities? It's most certainly not about (or no longer about) something as relatively simple, ambiguous, and short-sighted as thwarting the very rare threat of "turrism." I suspect there's some longer, much more insidious play, but I can't quite grasp what it might be.
Mate, it's us versus them and it's always been this way. And if you don't believe this then you can go fuck yourself.
All these terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I have no problem accepting the view that Snowden betrayed his government by his actions, making him a traitor to it. I also have very little problems with these action to be classified as the actions of a hero.
Betrayal of the corrupt, warmongering, anti-privacy, bullying US government is something to aspire to for every American.
Like an alien?
and neither are the answers. The implied question is whether it was right or wrong to publish these documents. It isn't a matter of Snowden's personality or his motives. So by saying Snowden is a hero or a traitor, people give their opinion on the actual subject: The revelations about the surveillance. Can you have a nuanced opinion about that? Sure, but in the end you decide whether these things should come to light or not, and that's a binary decision.
Seeking a false balance between the truth and the lies, is a common strategy when the lies have failed.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I think of it as the death of meaning. People nowadays rush to use words purely for their emotional flavor regardless of their meaning. Sort of like how "terrorist" now gets applied to all sorts of stuff that has nothing to do with attempting to spread terror. "Racist" or "sexist" have no meaning other than something a victim group doesn't like. In Snowden's case, calling him a traitor is absurd. No matter what you think about what he did, he didn't aid and abet the enemies of the US. That's what "treason" would mean in this case, it is very specific.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
The building in SLC is so large, you can see it from space. Everyone knew about it. NSA just needed to make sure it was operating without a risk of a future shut down. They manufactures the Snowden controversy the same way all political scandals are manufactured -- first you are presented with the false choice that absorbs all the steam of opposing public opinion and then you are presented with the real choice of what they want to do when everyone is too jaded to oppose it. Harriet Miers/John Roberts was probably the most obvious exercise of this pattern. Here's a psychologist explaining the experimental evidence which demonstrates this pattern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
the opinions and rhetoric on either side has only grown more strident and inflexible
It's a good thing that doesn't happen around here. Luckily, extreme opinions here are moderated by moderate moderators whose moderation moderately moderates the most immoderate opinions and rhetoric, no mater how strident and inflexible they may be modulated.
leaving no room for nuanced opinions or the possibility that Snowden perhaps is neither a traitor nor a hero but something else entirely
Can Snowden be called anything but a first-class patriotic hero of the highest order? Say what you will, but I, for one, ain't ever gonna buy it.
(Note for immoderate moderators: the preceding was satire, not trolling. Please don't take it personally.)
Not to mention that in the Gospel of Mathew Jesus specifically advises people to try and settle court cases rather than pursue litigation whenever possible !
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
As easy as it is to keep labeling terrorists as "extremists" only, we are all turning into extremists. Divisiveness has become such a huge part of our daily life that everything has to be one extreme pole or another. Common ground, understanding, compromise, etc. are forgotten concepts. Division makes it easy to sell to a group, it makes appealing to a group politically much easier, it makes ruling a populace much easier. We are letting this happen to ourselves. Instead of quickly flying to one extreme or another, realize that there is a vast middle ground and aim for somewhere in there.
He's the villain Gotham needs today.
John
God forbid you offer "nuanced" opinions on /. -- you'll get downmoderated as a troll. There is no tolerance here, even though most of the readers and moderators would tell you they are very tolerant.
People have their prejudices, and those color their views on every bit of information they receive, and if your opinions don't agree, then you must be the idiot. This is as true on /. as in the real world, though perhaps it is more obvious here than in RW, the vitriol spewed in various flame wars here go beyond what would be considered "fighting words" if uttered to a person's face.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
highly prosecuted & persecuted. nominated for peace prize, getting offers of reconciliation etc... world wide. do we not already have words to describe that type of folks?
we never get to applaud anymore? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scott%20olsen&sm=3 not even allowed to use chalk... outdoors...
Though he started by revealing NSA collection programs that some judges have now declared illegal, such as the metadata program,
Following the link, one finds another article on the same site which states:
The [Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board] is an independent committee that operates within the Executive Branch
For those who do not understand what that says, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is not a part of the judicial system and is not "some judges". The PCLOB can claim something is illegal until they are blue in the face, the ONLY part of the government that can make a determination that something is truly illegal is the judicial branch. The executive branch can believe a program is illegal and not implement or end it. But, it can't determine actual legality. If it could, then anyone who did anything the executive branch said was illegal, this means anyone ever charged in federal court, would be automatically guilty. There would be no need for a court or judges and we would be ruled by a totalitarian king, not a president.
This factual error, which appears to me to be a deliberate and outright lie, invalidates the author's entire line of reasoning and calls into question all the premises upon which it is based.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got 'em. However, they are *just* opinions and thus should not be incorporated into your decision making process. Even the grossly ignorant have opinions after all, should we start incorporating those in to the equation too?
Snowden's status is remarkably simple; The US government is violating the 4th amendment. Snowden exposed this at great risk to himself. ie; Hero.
Of course with Snowden being the hero and patriot in this little tale, what does that make our government?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Snowden perhaps is neither a traitor nor a hero but something else entirely
Is he actually a woman trapped in a man's body? Has he asked to have his name changed to Jenna?
a nuclear-armed federal government
Can't tell if trolling, or if you're just that large of a dipshit.
But I'll bite. Tell me again how the Federal government would be able to deploy nuclear weaponry against its own citizens, even in the midst of a civil war, without losing every last shred of legitimacy it might have had? Yes, you'll need to account for the global ramifications.
"Deal with the devil" isn't meant to be taken literally; it's a reference to all the Faust-esque stories out there.
Having nobody to fuck, finally he can fuck Uncle Sam as much as he wants and any time he wants.
Uncle Sam actually likes that and even offered him to go out to a nice room in Gitmo Hotel.
the loss of nuance is only in the readers of this article, namely Slashdotters, to impune this to the wider educated populace is an affront. Believe it or not mature and educated individuals of moral character "get it", get it? In fact were most likely aware of NSA surveilance long before it was outed by the national media circus. After all it was common knowledge reported in public domain, although non specific to details on how it was being done. And, gee, what's changed, really?
General Keith Alexander. Meant well (trying to protect Americans), lied under oath to congress, violated federal laws. Knew it was wrong. Should be punished.
James Clapper. Meant well (trying to protect Americans), lied under oath to congress, violated federal laws. Knew it was wrong. Should be punished.
Edward Snowden. Meant well (trying to protect Americans), stole and released classified materials, violated federal laws. Knew it was wrong. Should be punished.
The fact that Snowden is being pursued for what he did, while Alexander and Clapper appear to be getting off scott-free is the biggest hypocrisy ever.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
No matter what you do or think. Someone, somewhere, will have a problem with it.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Was anyone else thinking that they were talking about Nuance software and wondering what the two had to do with each other? Capitalized words change the nature of the word if it's not meant to be a capital.
We must eradicate the terrorist insurgents to preserve our freedom!
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
the opinions and rhetoric on either side has only grown more strident and inflexible, leaving no room for nuanced opinions or the possibility that Snowden perhaps is neither a traitor nor a hero but something else entirely
We've seen this before; it's called false balance.
no actual NSA employees support him, and these are the absolute smartest people in the world, doing far more insane innovative things than anything in private industry.
there! so it was all a lie and they are not at microsoft!
(or ... maybe you even work for the nsa or [put equivalent gangster institution here] and are just another asshole enjoying the few crumbs of privilege and/or perceived superiority he can scrub off of what he spouts as being "deriving his own strength from power". and, you post it on ./, of course. hilarous).
There seem to be recurrent posts concerning the sexuality of african-american men on Slashdot. I wonder, is this a way for you to express your fears, or rather, your secret desires and wildest dreams? Maybe you should visit a gay bar and approach a black man, to get to the bottom of it. Life is short and you might miss out on things which you may come to regret for the rest of your life.
Don't dream it, be it.
digits are nearly meaningless unless the author uses the language of the heart? just more S&M never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to one another & our lonely spirits...
Nuance requires looking at both sides of an issue, weighing the information, then coming to a conclusion that there are situations which don't fit a template. In America, our educational system is reduced to teaching to the test, so only basic pieces of information matter. Critical thinking is discarded, because it does not produce good semi-automatons who trot out every two years and fill in the bubble next to a D or an R. All thought has to be as part of a template, because we are urged to give up our individual identities, priorities, and heuristics to become sheep-like consumers, citizens of sports-team and music "nations," and so on. Really, to be honest, to understand the Snowden situation requires having enough depth and background in political history to see where mass surveillance inevitably leads, the dangers of the state which grows too large, etc, and then to be able to analyze the present stage by using those facts to form some sort of model. Sadly, that's a skill which is vanishing in America, because we have been on top so long that few people feel "hungry" enough to learn and think for themselves.
I see other posters have already covered the black/white rhetoric, the false choice scenario, and removal of the rose colored glasses. My suggestion falls a little on the 3rd example there, but bare with me.
Snowden and what he has done, is best described as an inconvenience. But not in the way you think. He has moved the spot light to alliances, and an information sharing infrastructure, that has likely been in place for more than 40 years. That isn't necessarily the big reveal. The big reveal, is that, that infrastructure, is wholly used for acts that generations of children have been taught, that this country doesn't do. Spy on its own citizens. He has shown the light that the US Government, administration to administration, really does only care about power, control and money. That the core values preached by the founding fathers, taught in 8th grade Government class to millions of kids for the past 100 years, are to be trampled and cast aside. In short, he has shown America to be a farce. That the emporer, truly, does not wear clothes. And that it's not a king at the top, but a very large corporation that colludes individually, and as a whole, keeps its position secured.
That's the inconvenience. That even if we replaced most of the Senate, or Congress, or even put a semi-transparent POTUS in place, the machine is too big to fix overnight. It's that convenience, knowing that there is no simple solution that a piece of legislation that can reorder it all, showing that true failure of America, is what most people have a problem with. It's not that we invade countries abroad, or that we're hypocritical, despite us losing moral ground in the last 2 decades, or that we likely never had any to begin with. It's that when it comes down for our system of Government to knuckle down, and implement changes that the majority of people in the US know are better overall, and that the politicians themselves know are overall, they simply won't do it. Weak will? Fear of the unknown? Corruption? Legislative complexity? Skewed unimportance? There are others like line item, and Citizens United ruling that makes things worse, but those are only accomplices to the bigger problem.
And what is that you might ask? That as of right now, our system of Government, isn't working. Sure, it keeps the trains running, and it got us to where we are today, and WWIII hasn't commenced, but can you say with a straight face that things are right and just in the US? Can you say that the behavior that has come to light, against you, will get better in the present, or near future? No, you can't. No one can. That's the inconvenience. That's the limitation that Snowden has brought to light. That the majority of us have no say in the scheme of things. Our power is impotent. Yes, we can cast a vote, and that itself is a power, however there's a problem there. That power? Our little vote, is on a timetable. And it isn't something that can be changed.
I don't want to sound pessimistic, or defeatist, or even anti-American. That isn't my point. My point is that, what Snowden has shown, has made a lot of people uncomfortable. Other than that powers that be. He's shoved the unthinkable, right into the face of people who would have rather had their head in the sand. And now they're faced, without a corner to go to, to decide just how they want to participate in the country that they so vocally love. They've been forced to join the discussion. And that, is an inconvenience.
Look, Hitler was a fucking hero, to the Germans. There's no ultimate, single, universal scale of heroism. This isn't all being judged in God's eyes, and He isn't telling us who the heros are. Caesar was a hero, to the Romans, but not to the followers of Christ. That said, we owe more of the modern world to Caesar than we do to Christ. So we should render unto Caesar some credit for that.
There are some clear cowards in this story. It's cowards who spy and lie. God has personally identified these cowards to me. But heroism, by contrast, is always relative to point of view. Charles Manson was a hero. Justin Bieber is a hero. The congressman threatening to throw the reporter off the balcony was a hero. And everyone who is a terrorist to us is a hero to other people. Similarly, our heroic troups are terrorists when they enter civilian homes at night and kill the people there.
This doesn't mean there aren't "real" heros and terrorists. Just that the reality of both depends on who you are, and where you're looking at them from.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The article to which this piece points is an opinion piece. The author points out that Snowden's "latest revelations" may compromise current field operations and/or operatives.
The central problem with that claim is that SNOWDEN HAS MADE NO NEW REVELATIONS. *All* of the revelations from "Snowden" are actually revelations made by one or more of the journalists to whom Snowden gave copies of his stolen documents. All of them. Snowden himself has refused to reveal ANYTHING that THEY have not already published, on the grounds that he considers himself to be unqualified to properly strike the balance between preserving national security and revealing information that is clearly in the public interest. Instead, he has left it ENTIRELY up to the journalists to whom he gave the information to make those decisions.
But don't take my word for it. Listen to the man himself.
Check out my novel.
I think you mean: "no actual NSA employees whom those in charge of the NSA have allowed to speak on the subject" support him.
Since, from past experience, your normal NSA employee is not able to speak out without being persecuted internally and externally. Those whom the press has been allowed to speak to will certainly have been carefully chosen by those in charge of the NSA. Is anyone really surprised that officially sanctioned NSA spokespeople are anti-Snowden?
"Snowden perhaps is neither a traitor nor a hero but something else entirely"
This is just nonsense of the highest order; there is a strong legal argument that he was required to expose the crimes our government has committed under our various treaty obligations which, according the U.S. Constitution, have the full force of law and in fact trump any domestic law requiring him to keep silent.
Of course, he would never be allowed to use that argument, or any other effective defense, in court were he to return to this country, but from an objective point of view, Snowden should be the star witness in the prosecution of everyone involved in national security from the last 2 presidential administrations.
"He who has no enemies has no friends and no place in court."
No, wait, polarization massively sucks!
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Give us a break. We're shredding as fast as we can.
And at this point, the rest of the globe probably would say we deserved it.
My first thought with this headline is what did Snowden do to kill Nuance, the speech recognition company?
Then I realized they capitalized a wrong word.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Who gives a flying fuck about what entirely different thing the messenger is? You don't shoot the messenger, why would you over analyse the messenger? This is the crux of what makes ad hominem a fallacy. THE MESSAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT. The leaks revealed that our worst fears had come true. Everything else is bullshit indirection.
Focus on the solution, not the problem.
Nuance is out, and so seem to be reassessment and compromise.
I'd certainly agree that is my impression of a lot of issues in the US - you seem to have two extremes with no middle ground and while I no longer live there it does seem from the outside that the problem is getting worse and not better. It exists elsewhere too but nowhere near to the same extent as the US. However with Snowden I think you have an issue that is very likely to force people to one side or the other.
Snowden broke extremely serious laws and severely embarrassed the US government and damaged US reputation worldwide. He comes across as an intelligent person knowing full well exactly what he was doing and why so there is no possibility to claim that it was somehow inadvertent or he could not foresee the consequences. So either you have to really choose between whether or not he was justified in breaking the law and that pretty much forces you into one camp or the other....but that does not have to mean that your opinion is a "fixed belief" it just means there are few tenable middle positions for this topic.
Too much news, too fast, the TV presenting them with headstrong showmen instead of analytical journalists
You can also add to this the fact that with so many media sources to choose from you can select only the news and opinions that you want to hear so your opinion is never, or rarely challenged.
A few months ago I ran across a study about the polarizing effect of internet forums. As I understood the theory, they thought that we all have these black/white ideas, but they're normally moderated by social interaction. Unfortunately the ease and anonymity of internet communcation allows us to express the exremeties of our beliefs without any social cost.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Nuance died years ago in this country. The Republican's killed it, and the Democrats allowed it to happen through their ineptitude.
If Snowden had taken the job at the NSA for the sake of taking the job and doing the job, then saw all these things that were happening and decided to blow the whistle, maybe we could call him a hero.
But he didn't. From the moment he got the offer he knew he was going to go dig up as much dirt as possible, get out of Dodge, and spill the beans.
To be sure, those beans needed to be spilled. The extent of what the NSA doing was stunning, but not in and of itself surprising. "Open Secret" as the saying goes.
He may not be a hero, but he's not exactly a villain either. I think we'd be better of giving him a 'slap on the wrist' serious enough to make sure that others that have this self righteous idea think twice about it (a few years in prison and a healthy, but manageable fine, to be paid out of pocket without outside fund raising). But 20+ years, excessive.
When Krushchev said "we will bury you" at the UN, he *meant* "we will be around after you are gone" like "a son buries his father". It was a common Russian expression, and we had access to fine, nuanced Russian translators. Instead it became this famous threat of nuclear Armageddon, please pass the collection plate for more nukes of our own.
You can see similar rush-to-exaggerate in rhetoric that led up to WW1. I'm trying to think of a time when leaders in particular did NOT want to paint their side of a political dispute as heroism and the other side as villany. Coming up dry. Anybody? Is there a history major in the house who can point to us some long-lost "Age of Nuanced Political Dispute" ?
"Remember, the central meaning of life is to gain power, of which everyone does in ever little thing they do."
wow ....
Hey guys, I think I found the ass hat that's fucking up the party for everyone else.
The Founding Fathers were considered traitors by the British.
Patriots by the Colonials.
Snowden is considered a traitor by NSA and government cartal and the Americans that support that system.
Snowden is considered a hero and patriot by Americans who believe in liberty and that our government should not be abusing power.
Going out pretty far into unrealistic/questionable conspiracy theory here, but the method discussed amongst that crowd is not to wait until a revolt is in progress. Use the nuke as a false flag operation, blame them nasty other guys, then implement a police state since the populace would already be decimated. That crowd will also claim it's part of a depopulation plan for the world.
This of course is also not very sensible, because if "them bad guys" set off nukes in US cities it would leave the US weak and depopulate a country already in decline.
I don't agree with those theories mind you, just read enough about them to have some knowledge.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Remember, the central meaning of life is to gain power, of which everyone does in ever little thing they do.
Obviously you are a very shallow and mentally disturbed person. No need to read the rest of your post. If this was meant as a joke you should have indicated such. As it is, you appear to be a very deranged person writing some sort of deranged manifesto.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Are you really claiming that giving stolen documents to journalists (including Chinese "journalists" after he headed straight to Hong Kong with them) is not revealing anything? Okay.
Tell me again how the Federal government was able to deploy nuclear weaponry against Japan's civilian population without losing every last shred of legitimacy?
Oh, it's not like the argument that "we had to kill lots of people to save lots of people" could ever be used in a domestic context.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Be careful here. We must distinguish the difference between "extreme" and "principled."
Snowden's initial leak showed violations of the law and the constitution. If that was his only leak, lots more people would call him a whistleblower. But other leaks by Snowden show perfectly good, legal, constitutional countintelligence programs. It is perfectly valid to say he is a whistleblower for one leak but a traitor for the other. THAT ISN'T NUANCE.
Nuance is "a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound." If one leak was completely black, and another completely white, we should not mix them together and call the result gray and nuanced. If someone murders person A then saves person B, we don't compromise and call it manslaughter. We say they are guilty on one count, and not guilty on another. We need to look at Snowden this way.
Do we have a lack of nuance, or a lack of principles?
In the US, we have a constitution that lays down the basic theoretical philosophical principles of government. People who react loudly when the government violates those rules are principled. Principled means "acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong based on a given set of rules." Principled is not the same as extreme. Being principled is a good thing. If you are outraged by what the NSA did, do not let someone label you as "extreme" in order to bargain you away from your beliefs.
But we have people in this nation who want to be able to get away with this stuff, while still claiming to follow the rules. They want the issue to look "nuanced," so that there is wiggle room to violate the principles. Do not let the "nuanced" view turn into a slippery slope that the government uses to skirt the law and erode the constitution.
From the article:
Saying that there may be some middle ground or grey area is seen as a sign of weakness, of moving off the party line.
That is true. People need to be able to change their opinions, or not forced down an extreme side. That tendency is why we have these two ridiculous parties in America. People follow banners more strongly than they follow principles. But Snowden's leaks are not about party. It isn't flip-flopping to say leak A is one thing and leak B is another. These leaks are about our principles. This is not the time to back down. Back down on gray things like immigration, healthcare, spending, and tax codes. But for this one, follow the principles.
The right to bear arms does not preclude private citizens from owning nuclear weapons. We need parity between the People and the regime in power.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Assad has used chemical weapons against Syrians, and yet he is still in power. Even though there are forces against him, he is still the recognized leader of the country.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
It's true for all "Great Men", isn't it?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
"Seems like subtlety and nuance
Might just as well be dead.
Traded for a moment
In the spotlight overhead."
-Winter
-Michael Stanley
Also, does that mean that there's no longer any support for Omnipage?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
"World isn't black and white". Sure -- but you wouldn't know it from spending any amount of time in the Slashdot comments.
Here, people have been absolutely fucking _crucified_ for daring to even suggest that Snowden is something less than the greatest hero the world has ever seen.
So now I'm daring to say that while Snowden's revelations have started a valuable debate about what is fair and what is foul for the signals intelligence community; I still think he's an incredibly naive, vain young man, he has OBJECTIVELY caused an incredible amount of damage to our ability to defend ourselves against our enemies -- and has broken some very serious laws. He's a dick, our enemies are laughing, and the good guys are being hung out to dry for merely doing their jobs.
The idea goes back to the days of Aristotle, at least
(linky to wikiquote.org)
Snowden was blackmailed.
At some point it very likely that he did indeed have altruistic motives, but there's no denying that Snowden's hubris got him mixed with shady characters who were not at all looking out for his interest.
I was very happy to see this article come across the /. feed. WE NEED MORE OF TFA.
the hero/villain narrative is completely reductive and not fit to use for examining Snowden's actions.
Thank you Dave Raggett
The idea that Snowden is neither a hero nor a traitor is not supportable. However, the idea that he is both a hero and a traitor is reasonable. There is no doubt that he is a traitor. Traitor is not some vague fantastic concept, as other commenters have suggested. It is clearly defined in law, and there is no doubt that Snowden violated the oath he took when he accepted work at the NSA. He has publicly divulged sources and methods that the NSA uses. Therefore, he is a traitor and subject to whatever punishment the law prescribes.
Whether he is a hero as well is less clear, but a defensible position. Certainly, he made Americans aware of what the NSA is doing and the scope of their investigations, and many would say he is a hero for this. Whether he is a hero is anyone's mind or not, there is no doubt that he broke an oath and will be punished for this if he puts himself within the reach of the U.S. government.
yeah I got this treatment...
I think it's bots and paid commenters who work for PR companies that make the wave of comments, like in the Snowden example.
Look at the comments on *this* article...several well reasoned, non 'black and white' comments...but look back at an older Snowden article and the commenters are rabidly on-sided.
I really think we've entered the full on 'brave new 1984' territory with these sockpuppet accounts, AC bots, and paid commetors
Thank you Dave Raggett
You are forgetting we have tactical nukes that can take out as little as a couple blocks, just perfect for a false flag. As for why they would use them? Because when the stock bubble bursts the US dollar will be worth about as much as a Zimbabwe buck and they'll have a re-enactment of the French revolution on their hands.
Why have they gotten away with all the shit they have pulled the past decade with barely a peep from the populace? Bread and circuses, a concept as old as empires. With the exception of the teabag nutters (who think they are all Andrew Ryan and can build a Randian "utopia" if they were just allowed to stomp them peasants, idiots forget the poor outnumber them a good 150k to 1) those in power know that a well fed and entertained populace is a docile one, hard to get somebody with a full belly and a roof over their head to riot.
That is all gonna change when the bubble pops, without being able to just print paychecks for the poor they are gonna have millions of people with no jobs, homes, no reason not to riot and THAT is when things will get ugly. I personally think the military will be the X factor, I know many soldiers and they care about the constitution, not protecting the riches of the elite. If they try to roll the tanks it is quite possible they will end up with another Libya, where half the military turned on their commanders.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I've heard through reliable sources in DC that the NSA specifically DOESN'T hire the smartest people. In fact, those who are "too smart" are passed over for promotions, awards, etc.
Smart people tend ot figure out true right and wrong, and the NSA does not want that. The NSA wants loyal drones who will obey. Therefore we can conclude that NSA employees are staggeringly average in their intelligence but have some decent skills.
Did snowden Betray The corporation Nuance and Slay Dragon Naturally Speaking and become a hero?
+1 Interesting, just for the sake of troll argument and the awesome sperging replies 'hurr durr, you're so much next unabomber' when parent obviously plays the devil advocate, albeit a bit over-the-top.
This is apparently about "nuance," not "Nuance." The former is a term for "subtle distinction," while the latter is a company that makes products for transcribing speech to text. The headline is misleading because some of the products made by Nuance ship the audio being transcribed to systems outside the product user's control, where it might be more easily obtained by the NSA. Capitalization in the headline makes it difficult to distinguish at a glance that the company is not being hurt by Snowden's ongoing revelations.
Every headline and news story seems to be a false dichotomy between two extremes. Has nothing to do with Snowden other than timing. Look at the technology industry - we get a constant stream of "is this a category killer?" articles for meh technologies. Everything has to kill something else, nothing can co-exist. Everything has to be either as good as possible, or as bad as possible. That's the media these days. Unless a reporter is using a press release as a news story, they're incapable of thinking at all and just apply formulas like "is this the absolute best ever, or the worst?"
He's not a traitor, or a hero, he's a whistleblower.
He points out what appears to be wrongdoing, and it's up to our system of justice to determine if that's true and fix it.
After he points it out, the issue stops being about him. Except for people who are offended that they've been made accountable for crimes, and try to make the issue about him instead.
Its author is an idiot.
However, the idea that he is both a hero and a traitor is reasonable.
A typical Nobel Peace Prize winner, in other words.
Where this becomes very unstable is when you consider what happens to Military and Police when nukes get used against the populace. If in fact they could somehow feasibly blame it on a terrorist group, that would defeat the purpose of imposing martial law on the citizens. If they took blame and tried to impose martial law, the majority of the military and police would turn against them.
I agree that the bubble has to burst, anyone that evaluates our current debt and fiat situation could understand within minutes. But if the bubble bursts police and military would be lacking paychecks just like the rest of the populace, so again it does not benefit the controllers to have this happen.
It's easy to misdiagnose the problems and ramifications. People tend to use Hitler and Stalin as the template, but there is no correlation. The German economy was in the tank for decades before Hitler rose to power and started generating an economy. We could say similar about Lenin and Stalin, who had a populace that had nothing for a very long time.
I'm not claiming it's impossible mind you, but rather improbable when considering all of the impact to doing something this extreme.
There are other conspiracy theories that tell a similar story to the nukes and using bluebeam/haarp to make it look like aliens were attacking and nuking. Again, possible but not probable because this would have to be done world wide by every major government in order to work.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Otherwise, take the label from Paul Revere.
Saying "there are shades of grey" is a way to undermine the importance of the revelation and the incredible personal risk, undertaken to ensure this was revealed. The SecurityState will never back down from domination of everything - which is the chiefest learning of the Snowden revelation.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Thomas PM Barnett likened the run-up and justification (lies) for the Iraq invasion as being akin to a bunch of cops breaking thru a front door with one in the very back, not even thru the doorway yet, screaming: "he's got a gun!".
South Park said so!
Never mind we're all being spied on, and were lied to about it.
Never mind that multiple journalists have mentioned being approached and warned off reporting on things that there should be no way the 'authorities' should know about.
Never mind that a Journalist about to break a huge story on the CIA died in a car crash - and that the evidence surrounding that crash (including video footage that directly contradicts the 'official story' about colliding with a tree and blowing up Ford Pinto style - instead the security camera footage shows the car on fire while in motion and then running into a tree).
It's far worse than you think, and idiots are being distracted by the ministry of propaganda (sorry, mainstream media) focusing on the messenger.
i prefer nano.
if i have to edit text then all i want is a text editor
It's telling that no actual NSA employees support him...
If by that you mean, "no actual NSA employees remaining in the wake of the subsequent agency housecleaning"--yeah, it certainly is.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
>The death of nuance
Anyone else notice the irony of the post title?
Or maybe it's subtly brilliant, using hyperbole to trumpet the triumph of hyperbole / lament the decline of nuance.
Now my head hurts.
Disaffected youth #1: Here comes that cannonball guy. He's cool.
Disaffected youth #2: Are you being sarcastic, dude?
Disaffected youth #1: I don't even know anymore.
("Homerpalooza," season seven)
Say someone else did it
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
But something else entirely....a Legend... Mr. Wayne.
There is no proof of that. The best we know us that some sort of chemical killed some people. The area this happened in was strategically insignificant and the Syrians were not in a position to exploit it. It is possible that artillery hit a store of industrial chemicals or perhaps the rebels had the weapons and mishandled them. Regardless, we don't know either way.
Nuance doesn't make for good headlines.
Yes, I'm simplifying - the US government has no interest in admitting nuance here, for example. But if one party claims he's a traitor and another claims he's a hero, the media will report that and call it balanced.
But I give you space here to point out where your specific case resides.
Tell you what: head over to HufPo's comment system, and say something, anything, that's pro-2nd Amendment, or try and talk about one of the actual flaws of ACA, such as how its success is contingent on young people signing up for insurance they don't even need.
Even the most intelligent, insightful commentary will be instantly and constantly attacked by the regulars there, proving my point - it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or how well you posit your position; some people can't handle the idea that someone smart might actually disagree with them, so obviously you have to be a "backwards yokel." Go to Foxnews.com, flip the bits (anti-2nd Amendment, pro-ACA), and you'll get the same result, albeit instead of "backwards yokel" and "redneck" you'll get such gems as "bleeding-heart" and "commie."
Either way, I stand by my contention that such behavior is downright idiotic.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
This is complete crap. You can't get the smear to work so you go for some sort of Very Serious line like "perhaps both sides are at fault here". Sometimes "nuance is dead" because there's nothing to be nuanced about: the US intelligence apparatus is a bunch of out-of-control criminals (they may be True Believers who think they're saving the world, but that just makes them messaianic and deluded, it doesn't change the fact that they're criminals). They operate with the collusion of the President of the US, but that doesn't provide any legal sanction, they're still a cancer on the side of democracy. I hope we can somehow find a way to crawl back from the edge of this abyss, but that remains an open question, and it's looking like a pretty slow crawl.
Mr. Snowden put himself at great personal risk physically (from "extraordinary rendition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... and the like) and criminally (where he can have his liberty taken from him after some state action) and professionally (hard to work places where the US won't be looking for you).
That is just. What he did was to bring great pressure on the US government to act. 100's of millions of dollars worth of security blown. Years of effort destroyed. He acted against his oath and against his country. There should be very strong repercussions for his actions. It is not a thing he did lightly nor without great thought. I presume that BECAUSE of the physical, criminal and professional danger he thought VERY HARD.
Mr. Snowden acted knowing the dangers, to himself, to his country and to the citizens therein. He believed he had knowledge that others did not, that he had a duty to act as a result and that whatever the consequences to him personally, the good would outweigh the harm. Whether or not you agree that he acted wisely or not is what puts you in the hero / traitor camps. I believe there are gradations between the two. I believe Mr. Snowden falls there.
He is a hero in that he believed that lawmakers were being deceived by the NSA to approve acts that were against the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. He believed that if they really knew what was going on they would stop the NSA from those actions. I believe he was correct: that the NSA was wrong and the authority they acted under was gotten from Congress under false pretenses. That makes Mr. Snowden, in my mind, a hero.
But I am an American with children that I wish to have sleep safely at night. It worries me that a person can do so much damage at such a low level of responsibility. I do not believe every whistleblower is right. I'm not sure it's something we should encourage. Because he did not use the channels already in place (with the Inspector General Act of 1978, Mr. Snowden could have attained the same goals at least in theory. http://www.dodig.mil/Programs/...) he could be considered a criminal. I blame him for not making the attempt.
There is a huge problem with the NSA in this country. Someone had to act. Someone did, in contravention to the law. Mr. Snowden acted by his own reckoning "selflessly." He knew he would pay the price. Thank you Mr. Snowden. You were right. But you can never come home again.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
Although it's certainly important to consider multiple viewpoints in a debate, it's wrong to assume that the truth must lie between two extreme positions.
Personally, I think the guy risked everything to expose what is clearly (to most people in the world) a bad and pointless system. He's certainly more deserving of a Nobel peace prize than Obama, who hasn't even shut down Guantanamo Bay yet. The ironing is delicious.
The assessment that polarization of the discussion over whether Edward Snowden is a traitor or hero probably has little to do with the details of the case. It is a process that is always part of our times. It has to do with the broken dialogues that happen in a society polarized over nearly everything and with how the media we have contribute to that sometimes intentionally. The nuances get lost as they do for many issues because of the pressure to arrive at a snap conclusion, it is the speed of the response demanded by instant media; sometimes caused by the conscious rush to be first into print with an opinion no matter how premature. It is kind of like the effect of CNN 24-hour news; people offering their views before all the facts are in, and the Short Attention Span Theater of news and blogs.
In the particular case the thing being overlooked most often and by the government agencies involved that there are no effective checks and balances on what information is justified to be gathered and what information and practices really merit high security. This is not a new problem at all, and if the Congress is supposed to have the oversight, it has not done its job, one of many jobs it has done but poorly.
I am very critical of the blogisphere and social media for their role in degrading civility and public discourse, and it isn't just the self-selection and fragmentation of the media seen most extremely in Fox News. It is the lack of a decent mechanism to really exchange views in a direct and to the point way. Because much of the "discussion" that happens on blogs or blog-like forums, people end up talking past one another and they do not have a structure or an incentive to answer one another's posts point by point. This an unwitting side-effect of social media trying to monetize public discourse, Mark Zuckerberg's stated desire for "Simplicity" and Google's less than honest desire to provide "open" platforms for discussion that it controls in captive market strategy. These factors do more to remove nuance from discussions than merely people shooting from the hip without taking time to think things through. If people replying to one another could really hold each other's feet to the fire, then pride would drive the incentive to stop and think, or even think first, before you spout off. That would be good, and what it would be better for is the vitality of citizenship in a democratic country. I sometimes think that contrary to what they say, lots of the business people who are promoting blogs and social media are anti-democratic conservative elitists.
There are limits to the applicability of the Rule of Law. Yes, Snowden is a "Traitor", for signing an agreement to protect classified materials under the Espnaige Act and then deciding to violate that agreement. That doesn't mean that he hasn't a right to violate that agreement for moral reasons. He felt that the power he was granting to the securing agency was being abused by them and that it was morally wrong and he seems to be accepting the consequence for that, staying out of the U.S. under threat of arrest for violating the law, but he also wants to inform the rest of us of the abuse, for our own good. Now, of course, we have decide if what he is telling us has value above and beyond his violation of the law. Some people, and that includes the AG and other officials, will discredit him primarily because he violated the law while not admitting that they abused the public trust. Snowden has shed light on the problem that regardless of what happens to him will result in a review of the practices and the Congress will have to discharge its duties of oversight. Does that make Snowden a hero? Only time will tell.
I would have probably resigned the position and let the clearances expire, but each of us has to find his own way, and I can tell you that the problem of classification being used to hide imcompetence, political favoritism, and violation of the law is not a new problem at all.
I'm an attorney. Often, my job is to find a crack in logic and widen it, put a lot of words to it and sell it. Based on the comments above, that potential is huge.
When a whistleblower has choices as to whom and where he is revealing information his choices determine his fate. Stay in the country vs. leave. Disclose domestic issues vs. foreign issues.
What did he do?
He left the country
Revealed details about domestic surveillance
Revealed details about foreign surveillance
In complicity with the Russian government
Leaving unanswered the FULL details of what he revealed to the Russian government or any other government
First, following the path carved by Daniel Ellsberg, Snowden could have tried to work within the government by going to elected Congress members to have them publish non-foreign domestic facts that would have provided him with some immunity. He could have crafted an agreement with a newspaper such as the NYTimes or WashPost with fall back alternatives, just as Ellsberg used.
The second issue is domestic surveillance vs. foreign surveillance. Revealing facts beyond domestic surveillance is likely a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. That's difficult for an American citizen to justify.
So, I would probably give him a pass on the domestic surveillance issues, but I would support prosecution for his complicity with the Russian government and his disclosure of foreign surveillance.
Just my opinion
JAF
However, the simplicity is that as whistleblower, he could had choices. He could have crafted a plan, similar to Daniel Ellsberg's, to ensure full publication of issues related to domestic surveillance.