Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  arcan, 3 Sep 2013 @ 8:27pm

  
  

  Jacob Applebaum is Edward Snowden

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  

  out_of_the_blue, 3 Sep 2013 @ 9:07pm

  
  

  Strange parenthetical.

  Here you've written only a little Mushy text to tack together some items you found on the net. And in your characteristic Muddly Mikeness, just raise various questions: "(all without revealing anything that appears to be truly damaging -- just embarrassing)" ... So... Do you think NSA officials are actually embarrassed? -- Is embarrassing some officals what Snowden risked his future for? -- Does that mean you rule out them going to be fired and jailed for crimes as should be? -- Or since not "truly damaging", do you agree with my conjecture that it's all a limited hangout that'll soon blow over?
  
  The more I read you, the less I know what you believe. Even your fanboys can't say, they just project their own hopes and opinions onto you. You're the leader of the Kibitzer Party.
  

  ---

  Masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2013 @ 9:10pm

    
    

    Re: Strange parenthetical.

    You're projecting your ability to contradict yourself within the span of a single comment on others.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2013 @ 9:40pm

    
    

    Re: Strange parenthetical.

    out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    beltorak (profile), 3 Sep 2013 @ 11:08pm

    
    

    Re: Strange parenthetical.

    Do you think NSA officials are actually embarrassed?

    
    
    It is embarrassing; the fact that the officials aren't embarrassed by it strongly hints that they are broken.
    
    Some alternate theories: 1) they are embarrassed, but in an effort to try and save face, justify their actions, or avoid lawsuits, they are hiding their embarrassment; 2) they feel very uncomfortable about something, but have not developed the normal adult introspective capabilities to identify their feelings as embarrassment, so they react like children often do - namecalling, shifting blame, and rediculous denials.
    
    I think we do however need to stop saying that it's "embarrassing". It's not really. Embarrassment is an emotional response to an accident. This is different. This is shameful, and they should feel ashamed.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 8:42am

    
    

    Re: Strange parenthetical.

    You are completely incoherent.
    
    You're like the crazy guy walking down the street talking loudly to no one in particular (in the days before cell phones).

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  That One Guy (profile), 3 Sep 2013 @ 11:00pm

  
  

  'Because to be a whistleblowers means exposing illegal and/or unethical actions'

  That is why some people still claim that Snowden isn't a whistleblower, because they still think the government did nothing wrong.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    saulgoode (profile), 3 Sep 2013 @ 11:26pm

    
    

    Re: 'Because to be a whistleblowers means exposing illegal and/or unethical actions'

    If the government did nothing wrong then there was no justification for hiding that they did it. Even those who support what the government did should recognize that hiding they did it was wrong.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 1:45am

      
      

      Re: Re: 'Because to be a whistleblowers means exposing illegal and/or unethical actions'

      Well supposedly even admitting that the programs were going on, not the methodology used, but simply the fact that the programs existed at all, even to those that were supposed to be overseeing things, would have presented a grave threat to national security, the effectiveness of the programs, or whatever other excuse they try to bring out to justify the lying.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 4:54am

        
        

        Re: Re: Re: 'Because to be a whistleblowers means exposing illegal and/or unethical actions'

        The "now everybody will use obscure foreign services and encryption on the connected tubes"-arguments!
        Somewhat there is an argument of industrial sabotage and defamation, but it is pretty hard not to point to NSA as the guilty party.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        saulgoode (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 8:28am

        
        

        Re: Re: Re: 'Because to be a whistleblowers means exposing illegal and/or unethical actions'

        Whether it's a threat to national security is a separate argument. An activity can mitigate a threat to national security and still that activity be "wrong".

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 9:13am

    
    

    Re: 'Because to be a whistleblowers means exposing illegal and/or unethical actions'

    It appears the government did do some things wrong. Unfortunately, the information being disclosed is not limited to just that. Some of the legal activity is interesting in that it confirms what has long been suspected, but confirmation cuts in many directions...one of them being towards people and countries having interests divergent from us.
    
    So, in one sense Snowden can be called a whistleblower. However, the information he took that is being publicly disclosed is much broader than just exposing illegal activity, and in this regard he has strayed into completely different territory.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 9:36am

      
      

      Re: Re: 'Because to be a whistleblowers means exposing illegal and/or unethical actions'

      Much broader like Pakistanis health workers being murdered after Obama disclosed how they got Bin Laden's DNA?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Lance Bledsoe (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 2:42am

  
  

  Speaking truth to power...

  I think that last line in the quoted paragraph is supposed to read, "Speaking truth to power has cost whistleblowers their freedom, family, or country."

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 10:11am

  
  

  Your comment unfortunately makes my broader point. The disclosure of matters other than USG illegal acts can have disasterous consequences. Obviously, Snowden is not the only one ignorant of such consequences, but his name arises here because the article is about him.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    John Fenderson (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:06am

    
    

    Re:

    His goal wasn't only to expose USG illegal acts. It was to expose wrongdoing, regardless of whether or not it was illegal. Also, he was exposing not just wrongdoing on the part of the US, but wrongdoing on the part of other entities but allowed or sanctioned by the US.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:24am

      
      

      Re: Re:

      Is it wrongdoing, as an example, to create a budget for the CIA and the NSA, and that this must be exposed for all to see...both those who actually pay the bills (taxpayers) and others who may benefit to the detriment of national security by highlighting areas of importance to these two organizations? Of course it is not, though reasonable minds may differ if money is being allocated and spent wisely. However, this is sensitive information that almost certainly should not be "shared" publicly. The very same can be said of many other items of information that have been made available by Snowden to news outlets. These disclosures may make for great news headlines and market share, but at a cost to our country's security that is not readily ascertainable.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 1:33pm

        
        

        Re: Re: Re:

        but at a cost to our country's security that is not readily ascertainable.
        
        Indeed. It's difficult to put a price on bringing liberty and freedom and respect for the Constitution back to the country, don't you think?
        
        Sorry, but for all your defense of the government, shining some light on abuses by the government is, absolutely and without question, whistleblowing. And, yes, that includes things like details in the black budget. Contrary to your bogus assertion, Snowden did not expose this info "for all to see." He passed it along to a reporter, who went back and forth with the US gov't to make sure that nothing revealed was too sensitive.
        
        Details. You should learn to get some.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 2:37pm

          
          

          Re: Re: Re: Re:

          "Details. You should learn to get some."
          
          Nuances. You should learn they exist.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • 

            Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 4:19pm

            
            

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Nuances. You should learn they exist.
            
            
            Funny. I understand nuances quite a bit. It's you who seem to think in all black and white. You really ought to educate yourself. You constantly spew incorrect things here, and then throw temper tantrums when shown to be wrong.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        John Fenderson (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 3:42pm

        
        

        Re: Re: Re:

        These disclosures may make for great news headlines and market share, but at a cost to our country's security that is not readily ascertainable.

        
        
        Exposing the budget is an important part of the deal, in my opinion, because it's helpful in determining nuances you speak of.
        
        As to the cost to our nation's security, I'm far from convinced that these program are a net positive for our security. They may (although it seems dubious) provide some measure of safety from those the government has declared to be evil, but at the cost of decreasing our security from the actions of government and large industries.
        
        It looks to me like, best case, it's a wash. We're just trading what group of people we're going to be abused by.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:20am

  
  

  Thank you Snowden, for attempting to save humanity from oppression and corruption. I pray your sacrifice will not be in vein.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 6:31am

  
  

  Snowden's actions are not an either-or situation. It is quite easy for one to be both a whistleblower and a criminal deserving of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. What is troubling about so many of the articles here is that they embody the "black and white" about which I stand accused. My sole point is that in matters of classified information black and white is not in my opinion the norm. I have seen over the years many classified documents that caused me to wonder "What were they thinking? No way this should be classified." Of course, as more data became available the reason for classification became quite apparent. I do not disagree that far too many documents are classified by the governing Executive Order, but at the same time I am mindful that what I may personally believe at first glance may eventually be proven completely wrong. Merely FYI, my observations hold true at every level, from FOUO to levels far higher than TS.
  
  IOW, in the mass of documents kept under wraps by the USG black and white is well in the minority and a broad continuum of gray is clearly the rule.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]