Discussion
  • Read More
    BreakerBakerHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 10:03am

    "No alternative" is obviously a self-serving rationalization. There are literally always alternatives when it comes to the choices one makes. That's what makes them choices.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      I'm here mostly for the chicksBreakerBaker
      6/17/13 10:12am

      Indeed. For instance, he had the very clear alternative of shutting the fuck up, doing his job, and diddling his flexible girlfriend in Hawai'i for the rest of his life. Instead, he turned traitor.

      /they'll say I'm trollin, but they simply hatin

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Graby SauceBreakerBaker
      6/17/13 10:16am

      Just once I'd like to hear a so called whistleblower say, "I found a lawyer well versed in national security/security clearance matters to discuss my options."

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    brandonjayeHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 9:54am

    But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.

    So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.

    One said this, too.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Graby Saucebrandonjaye
      6/17/13 10:05am

      Nuance is not important on this issue for some reason.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      tnsofkingsqnzbrandonjaye
      6/17/13 10:10am

      I did wonder why only two of the three were quoted here on Gawker. Thanks for pointing that out.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Freddie DeBoerHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 9:43am

    The anti-Snowden contingent is looking more and more ridiculous.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      davvvvvvveFreddie DeBoer
      6/17/13 9:46am

      You mean the government?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      UncleCCClaudiusFreddie DeBoer
      6/17/13 10:08am

      Did you read the entire thing? There are some problems with our whistleblower.

      "But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service."

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    granimalsHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 10:48am

    I read The Shadow Factory a few years ago, and it seems Bamford really did hit the nail on the head with a lot of his predictions/ analysis', many of the stories coming out in the wake of Snowden's leak are connected to topics covered in the book. Also, its a great read because it tells the story of 9/11 hijackers/plot and the intelligence that was gathered. I got the impression more information is not better information, and the application of intelligence gathered and judicious use of resources is far more important than literally wading through all the data in the world. One aspect of this whole intelligence debate, which I think this leak has opened the doors for, is this blind acceptance of "all of these programs make us safer," " do you want to be safe?" "there are bad guys out there and we have to catch them," as the standard responses to any inquiry into the efficacy of these programs. There are clearly brilliant technicians, analysts, strategists, working for our government and I think they can give us a better solution to combatting terrorism than "wade through everything." I can see people from all parties trying to whip up this dichotomy of "good v. bad" that we all knew was a fairy tale from early adolescence. Sen. Chambliss literally said; "significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys" . Like this is a game of cops and robbers, and personally, yes- I would rather risk some safety for more freedom, that is the entire point of freedom, it comes with a cost. However, I do not believe if we re-evaluate and reform these programs we will necessarily be less safe, I think systems with unlimited budgets and virtual carte blanche are probably less effective. Where does the impetus for reform exist in a virtually closed system? It is extremely upsetting to me as a young American that people are so accepting of "it's for your own good, trust us." I was in 7th grade on 9/11 and my dad was running very late to a business meeting at WTC that morning, he keeps his security pass as a grim luck charm. At school we watched news footage in silent shock, I was heartbroken. I saw kids who had parents/family friends who worked in NY/DC breakdown. I understand the threat all too well and there are real dangers but danger also exists in giving the government unquestioned access to all of our information. And yes, businesses and the private industry make tens of billions trading all the information we freely give on the net, and that is why I do not social network/etc. but as a consumer, I understand, if they misuse the information (or it gets out that they do) people will take away their business or patronage, there is some vague level of accountability. There is at least some mechanism of market oversight, and businesses have that all powerful motivator of profit to change their ways. But its very difficult to take your business away from the government and it has the power to ruin your life, or take your life, if it so chooses. That is why we have a strong constitution, to protect the citizens from the government. The constitution is our "consumer's rights". And I do believe government is a good thing, having strong state and federal governments is vital to keeping the invisible infrastructure of society going. Private industry, justice, all must be regulated in some form to protect the weaker from the more powerful and having a system of governance with strong checks and balances allows this. However, having extremely concentrated information and power that is invisible to the people it is supposed to "protect," that can force private industry to comply, that is regulated by a "secret court" which operates on "good faith" with those it oversees, and reportedly accepts all presented information as accurate and true is, I believe, an extreme threat to personal liberty and one that must be taken seriously.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Graby Saucegranimals
      6/17/13 11:23am

      granimals, paragraph breaks would make your writing so much easier for us.

      But I agree with most of what you wrote. During the Bush administration after 9/11 many intelligence professionals argued that very point: "more" information is not always better information. Having information doesn't always mean we're going to interpret it correctly. There is still a very human element at the end of all that information which means that it can be misinterpreted, missed altogether, misused, misunderstood, etc. I don't remember the intelligence community clamoring for access to everything, because as you said, more information is just more shit to sift through.

      If anything, it was the people at the top who decided that the only way to be "safe" was to try to be everywhere in the world and listen to everything in the world as if that were even possible. I honestly believe they panicked.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    casenHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 9:57am

    Ok, so at first it seemed like he was "an American hero." Did anyone's opinion changed when he leaked that the British government was spying on G20 members?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Leo_11casen
      6/17/13 10:25am

      I have never considered him an American hero, he is, just a hero.

      Nothing American about being a hero.

      What you have to understand that him and people like him, including me, we are starting to transcend nation state loyalties. We consider ourselves human beings first and [insert nationality] second.

      As such we try to do what is best for humanity, not what is best for any particular country.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      casenLeo_11
      6/17/13 10:32am

      I didn't mean that a hero had to be an American. By "American hero" I meant he was revealing to Americans that US constitutional rights were being violated by our own agencies. That was his own reasoning and explanation for why he did what he did. But now revealing the spying activities of other governments and things that are not related to violations of the US constitution just make him look like an idiot, an attention whore, or both.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PetyrBaelishHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 9:55am

    But doesn't everyone assume the NSA is spying on us. I mean that's what they do.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      CorlinPetyrBaelish
      6/17/13 10:50am

      Yeah but I rather wish they wouldn't. The reason I chose to immigrate to the US and not the Soviet Union years ago was because America is supposed to represent the idea of freedom of its citizens, its supposed to be the antithesis of a police state that monitors are every action.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PetyrBaelishCorlin
      6/17/13 11:13am

      To me the issue is what they do with the information. The fact that they listen to everyone's phone calls is sort of irrelevant. Its not like the give a fuck unless you're planning a terrorist attack. I think its inherent in having an agency of super computers programmed to spy, that inevitably they will spy on US citizens. I don't think they could prevent it, eventually the data would get pulled in.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    NegrilGirlHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 9:51am

    This man is no hero. If really is concerned about freedom, why go to China, a communist country? He is in this for himself.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      IrugaNegrilGirl
      6/17/13 11:24am

      he went there because he would be safer, as in less likely to easily be extradited.

      Also china is not truly communist.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    OkGotItHamilton Nolan
    6/17/13 10:39am

    Oh come on! He's no hero! He gave classified info to newspapers in UK and China, he left the country "he loves so much he had to do it" to hide in a territory of China, well known supporter of anything freedom. Right.

    Now, what I really want to know if how those corporations use my data. I heard that they sell it, buy it, use it to determine if I get a loan, insurance, can buy a house, etc. But it's quite murky. Why aren't there any whistleblowers from private firms? What are they doing to my personal info? For some reason, that's more important to me than details about a legal gov't program I totally "knew" about (i.e., nothing new since W.).

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      mark042656Hamilton Nolan
      6/17/13 12:11pm

      Spill everything about how the NSA infringes on the American citizens but STFU about what the NSA/CIA does to other countries. Blabbing about anything other than our rights will only give the detractors ammunition to discredit any good he may have done.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        ChunkLovesSlothHamilton Nolan
        6/17/13 10:44am

        Nobody finds it amusing that he is supposedly against bully governments, big brother, etc. and glorified China and wants to move there? Nobody?

        Reply
        <