Snowden Leaks: a Public Service

[OL FU]

It is clear. The government was doing something it should not have been doing. We can't trust the government to do the right thing. Snowden knew that the government was doing something it should not be doing and that you can't trust the government. He leaked it. We now have proof of it. It was a public service.


Otherwise, we will never uncover the shit the government does.

[GannonFan]

It is clear. The government was doing something it should not have been doing. We can't trust the government to do the right thing. Snowden knew that the government was doing something it should not be doing and that you can't trust the government. He leaked it. We now have proof of it. It was a public service.


Otherwise, we will never uncover the **** the government does.

Of course he should've leaked it, does anyone really dispute that? The debate is over the methods undertaken to do the leaking. I think reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of how he did it.

[CID1990]

This is a creative and elaborate tapout

So feel free to point out EXACTLY how Snowden's disclosure harmed us. You can't because it would have to come from the Obama administration. You know...that evil government that should not be trusted except in this case.

Before accepting such claims at face value, let’s remind ourselves of what the leaks so far have not contained. They didn’t reveal anything about the algorithms that the N.S.A. uses, the groups or individuals that the agency targets, or the identities of U.S. agents. They didn’t contain the contents of any U.S. military plans, or of any conversations between U.S. or foreign officials. As Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who broke the story, pointed out on “Morning Joe” today, this wasn’t a WikiLeaks-style data dump. “[Snowden] spent months meticulously studying every document,” Greenwald said. “He didn’t just upload them to the Internet.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass ... -is-a-hero

I must have struck a nerve with all that word salad you did

and then a quote from the New Yorker right after poo poohing someone else's biased news source

and then a fallacious question - that's pretty much classic you

Here's a news flash for you klam-

If the government spies on its own people - thats bad

If it spies on other governments - thats necessary

If you blow the whistle on the first one - thats good

If you release the second one to foreign governments- thats espionage.

Snowden did both.

I'll let you go take a deep breath and then go back and look at what's wrong with that stupid question you asked me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

So feel free to point out EXACTLY how Snowden's disclosure harmed us. You can't because it would have to come from the Obama administration. You know...that evil government that should not be trusted except in this case.



http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass ... -is-a-hero

I must have struck a nerve with all that word salad you did

and then a quote from the New Yorker right after poo poohing someone else's biased news source

and then a fallacious question - that's pretty much classic you

Here's a news flash for you klam-

If the government spies on its own people - thats bad

If it spies on other governments - thats necessary

If you blow the whistle on the first one - thats good

If you release the second one to foreign governments- thats espionage.

Snowden did both.

I'll let you go take a deep breath and then go back and look at what's wrong with that stupid question you asked me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk about striking a nerve!

Keep on trusting the government in this you big, lovable, liberal, you...

[CID1990]

I must have struck a nerve with all that word salad you did

and then a quote from the New Yorker right after poo poohing someone else's biased news source

and then a fallacious question - that's pretty much classic you

Here's a news flash for you klam-

If the government spies on its own people - thats bad

If it spies on other governments - thats necessary

If you blow the whistle on the first one - thats good

If you release the second one to foreign governments- thats espionage.

Snowden did both.

I'll let you go take a deep breath and then go back and look at what's wrong with that stupid question you asked me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk about striking a nerve!

Keep on trusting the government in this you big, lovable, liberal, you...

I DON'T trust the government, klam

but I also have a security clearance and I work for the executive branch

which should make you and everybody else very worried about the fact that I don't trust the government

and that I know Snowden is both a whistleblower and a traitor

which is why he should get a medal to hang on his cell wall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Talk about striking a nerve!

Keep on trusting the government in this you big, lovable, liberal, you...

I DON'T trust the government, klam

but I also have a security clearance and I work for the executive branch

which should make you and everybody else very worried about the fact that I don't trust the government

and that I know Snowden is both a whistleblower and a traitor

which is why he should get a medal to hang on his cell wall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's simply your opinion that he is a traitor. You don't "know" that he is.

Unless you can come up with reliable evidence...from the Obama administration.

[Ibanez]

He did break the law to do it, though, while other, non-criminal ways to do the same thing were available to him. Holder even spoke to that in the interview

What were these "non-criminal ways" exactly?

Holder says that he should have "gone to Congress with his concerns."

It was illegal for him to download any of the data/evidence in the first place. It would be illegal for him to give any of the evidence to members of Congress, no?

So, he was just supposed to... what? Just write a letter to his Congressman saying he had "concerns" with no evidence?

Do you think he would be taken seriously or anything would be done at all? Without any evidence, he would sound like expandspanos.



So, is there a "non-criminal way to do the same thing" that I'm missing?

Or is it just and extremely vague "go to Congress with his concerns"?

There are avenues to report fraud, waste, abuse & suspicious activity I worked at Booz Allen when this went down. There were legal ways to bring all of this to light. BAH actually does a good job of protecting its employees.

However, a simple understanding of security clearances tells me that he didn't act alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I DON'T trust the government, klam

but I also have a security clearance and I work for the executive branch

which should make you and everybody else very worried about the fact that I don't trust the government

and that I know Snowden is both a whistleblower and a traitor

which is why he should get a medal to hang on his cell wall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's simply your opinion that he is a traitor. You don't "know" that he is.

Unless you can come up with reliable evidence...from the Obama administration.

Good job with the fallacious logic klam

I guess you'll just have to remain blissfully ignorant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Talk about striking a nerve!

Keep on trusting the government in this you big, lovable, liberal, you...

I DON'T trust the government, klam

but I also have a security clearance and I work for the executive branch

which should make you and everybody else very worried about the fact that I don't trust the government

and that I know Snowden is both a whistleblower and a traitor

which is why he should get a medal to hang on his cell wall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your assessment of Snowden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

He woke us up to the fact that the government can't be trusted.

At least he woke up a small percentage of us.

The people that set our government up told us as much......if we would just listen to them.

[kalm]

It's simply your opinion that he is a traitor. You don't "know" that he is.

Unless you can come up with reliable evidence...from the Obama administration.

Good job with the fallacious logic klam

I guess you'll just have to remain blissfully ignorant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rand Paul (I assume he also has some security clearance) called Snowden a civil disobedient along the lines MLK and compared Snowden's actions to those of James Clapper.

Unless you have some evidence beyond what's been reported in the news, it is merely your opinion.

Sorry that upsets you.

[Skjellyfetti]

Of course he should've leaked it, does anyone really dispute that? The debate is over the methods undertaken to do the leaking. I think reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of how he did it.

Cool.

And, I'm still curious to hear about your "other, non-criminal ways" and methods available to him as a whistleblower.

[OL FU]

It is clear. The government was doing something it should not have been doing. We can't trust the government to do the right thing. Snowden knew that the government was doing something it should not be doing and that you can't trust the government. He leaked it. We now have proof of it. It was a public service.


Otherwise, we will never uncover the **** the government does.

Of course he should've leaked it, does anyone really dispute that? The debate is over the methods undertaken to do the leaking. I think reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of how he did it.

and I have admitted my lack of knowledge on what the other methods would be. But, my guess is other methods might have ended badly, without the leak.

Now, if someone can explain the alternatives (and I am not talking about working for a defense contractor)

[OL FU]

He woke us up to the fact that the government can't be trusted.

At least he woke up a small percentage of us.

The people that set our government up told us as much......if we would just listen to them.

Yes and unfortunately we stopped listening a long time ago

[CID1990]

Good job with the fallacious logic klam

I guess you'll just have to remain blissfully ignorant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rand Paul (I assume he also has some security clearance) called Snowden a civil disobedient along the lines MLK and compared Snowden's actions to those of James Clapper.

Unless you have some evidence beyond what's been reported in the news, it is merely your opinion.

Sorry that upsets you.

Your ignorance doesn't really upset me, to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Of course he should've leaked it, does anyone really dispute that? The debate is over the methods undertaken to do the leaking. I think reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of how he did it.

Cool.

And, I'm still curious to hear about your "other, non-criminal ways" and methods available to him as a whistleblower.

There are various IGs he could've gone to. The old sit outside your Congresspersons office.

When this first happened, I said he should've exhausted AND RECORDED all attempts to go through the proper channels. Then when that failed, go to the press with the information and the evidence that the govt didn't take this seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Cool.

And, I'm still curious to hear about your "other, non-criminal ways" and methods available to him as a whistleblower.

There are various IGs he could've gone to. The old sit outside your Congresspersons office.

When this first happened, I said he should've exhausted AND RECORDED all attempts to go through the proper channels. Then when that failed, go to the press with the information and the evidence that the govt didn't take this seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're out of our depth around all these experts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

There are various IGs he could've gone to. The old sit outside your Congresspersons office.

When this first happened, I said he should've exhausted AND RECORDED all attempts to go through the proper channels. Then when that failed, go to the press with the information and the evidence that the govt didn't take this seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're out of our depth around all these experts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only the government mandates ethics and whistleblower training for contractors every year.


Oh wait...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Of course he should've leaked it, does anyone really dispute that? The debate is over the methods undertaken to do the leaking. I think reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of how he did it.

Cool.

And, I'm still curious to hear about your "other, non-criminal ways" and methods available to him as a whistleblower.

So I assume you aren't listening to any of the other posts in this thread if you still haven't heard about the other methods. Heck, he could've walked into a news agency with this story and he would have accomplished the same good that he did without all the bad and potential bad that he did the way he chose.

[Skjellyfetti]

Heck, he could've walked into a news agency with this story and he would have accomplished the same good that he did without all the bad and potential bad that he did the way he chose.

Huh?

You do know that he didn't release any documents on his own, right?

He released them through the Guardian.

He essentially DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING.


(And, that's beside the point that - handing over documents to journalists is exactly the illegal activity that he is accused of. )

[OL FU]

You guys know more about this than me. But there are different types of whistle blowing and this was a biggie. Some one said go to congress well if he had walked into Lindsey Graham's office. Wonder what would have happened? Go to the press well we know what would happen . I don't get the impression too many in govt would have been very sympathetic .

I'm not saying he did it the right way but I wish there were more like him. Maybe those in govt would be a little less likely to violate our civil liberties.

[SeattleGriz]

I didn't know Snowden worked for Dell. You hear "NSA contractor" and one certainly doesn't think Dell...at least I don't.

[Baldy]

Just as I thought. You don't like Snowden purely due to politics and you rely upon the likes of Breitbart and the ever loving and benificent government to fuel your fire... Shocker!

Mistrust the Obama administration and everything government except for this because...'Murica!!!!

Oh yes, and Glenn Greenwald is the foundation of objective and unbiased media. He is the North Star of objective journalism...our guiding light.

[kalm]

Just as I thought. You don't like Snowden purely due to politics and you rely upon the likes of Breitbart and the ever loving and benificent government to fuel your fire... Shocker!

Mistrust the Obama administration and everything government except for this because...'Murica!!!!

Oh yes, and Glenn Greenwald is the foundation of objective and unbiased media. He is the North Star of objective journalism...our guiding light.

Excellent! I'm so glad you mentioned this (even though I haven't linked to Greenwald at all in this thread )

There is very little wrong with a journalist having bias as long as his writing is based in facts.

I've linked to this before but here's a reminder:

n the original concept, in other words, the method is objective, not the journalist. The key was in the discipline of the craft, not the aim.

This point has some important implications.

One is that the impartial voice employed by many news organizations – that familiar, supposedly neutral style of newswriting – is not a fundamental principle of journalism. Rather, it is an often helpful device news organizations use to highlight that they are trying to produce something obtained by objective methods.

The second implication is that this neutral voice, without a discipline of verification, creates a veneer covering something hollow. Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in a form of deception. This damages the credibility of the craft by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased.

There is tons more information at this link to help you through this.
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/ ... jectivity/

And here's an excellent debate between Greenwald and former NYT editor Bill Keller on what constitutes good journalism and the importance of adversarial journalism.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... newspapers

IOW's "fair and balanced" sounds great, and is a deceptive slogan for feeble minds.

The negative reporting on Snowden is based entirely on what establishment media is spoon fed by the government. Thinking he is a traitor is simply an opinion based on trusting the government.

[Skjellyfetti]

And, declassified documents verify that Snowden did voice his concerns internally before seeking out The Guardian.



https://news.vice.com/article/edward-sn ... -exclusive

It has been a consistent position of the federal government that Snowden made little or no attempt to address his concerns through official channels. This claim has allowed them to portray the former contractor as a renegade with little concern for the rule of law.

But according to new documents uncovered by Vice News through the Freedom of Information Act, Snowden did try to alert the National Security Agency to his concerns. He did try to use proper government channels and the government failed not only him, but the American people.

Then proceeded to act like it never happened after they left Snowden with no other options but to go public.

As late as April of 2013, just months before his leaks, Snowden had sought clarification regarding the “interpretation of legal authorities” in relation to the surveillance programs. Among these programs were PRISM and XKeyscore. PRISM allows for direct access to the accounts of users from several major websites, including Google and Yahoo. XKeyscore is a tool that allows access to most contents on the Internet, which Snowden has himself described as essentially granting access to anyone on the planet.

On April 5th of that year, Snowden e-mailed the NSA’s Office of General Counsel regarding a training question that implied presidential executive orders carry the same weight as statutes. A special agent assigned to the NSA counterintelligence division also had discovered additional e-mails with Snowden expressing his concerns.

This contradicts numerous claims by various figures in the government who stated Snowden hadn’t tried to resolve his concerns privately. But not only do the documents Vice News acquired show that did occur, but the revelations that they may have lied about this sparked panic up the ranks.

The information contained in the more than 800 pages of documents paints a deceptive picture of those within the government handling the Snowden revelations. From the White House press secretary to various leaders within the National Security Agency, there has been an effort to deceive the people about the handling of the entire situation.

It’s not only disturbing the things Snowden revealed in the last few years, but also the lengths that various levels of power have gone to to protect power and deceive the people.