This question also decides whether he's a coward or a traitor. If there's been a way and he didn't made an afford to take it, I think he's a traitor. What would you say, @Sputnik_Monroe @Whiplash775 @iamoldlob @pappet365 and everyone else who participated in the discussion Happy Birthday Snowden that was closed or any interested people?
I wish you a happy new year 2023! I don‘t know how I could be helpful at answering the question. But thanks for believing in me.
@HelSpi I disagree with your phrasing "whether he's a coward or a traitor."
As if these are the only categories.
He could also be considered a patriot, and a martyr for personal privacy.
Anyway, who thinks he was a coward?
What he did, regardless of your opinion of it, took guts.
Theoretically he could get a capital sentence, if he is ever put on trial (execution).
He was aware of the risks, but he acted despite of them, ergo he is per definition not a coward.
He could not have informed others of this, without also revealing some information.
Who would believe him without proof?
He most definitely would have been caught, had he stayed in the USA. Even if he didn't reveal any information to the press/public, the footprints he left on the servers would have been noticed eventually. You can't just download 60gigabites of data, on a secure server, without it will raise a flag.
And if he was caught prematurely, then the information would not have gotten out.
Also, keep in mind, he doesn't have access to the information anymore, he gave it away to respectable journalists, because he trusts their judgement, and he doesn't think this information, should be in the control on one single man. (Not even if that man is himself)
Moreover, only a portion of it has been published.
And none of it, have put any American agents or citizens in danger.
On the contrary, it have helped protect their private information.
As for being a traitor.
You could argue, that he broke the law and his security clearance. On those accounts, he is a traitor to the American government.
However, he only broke the law, to inform the American population of the crimes their government did (still does) against them.
And this, to me, makes him a hero and a patriot.
On a different note. I am surprised that the American government haven't so far, been charged for industrial espionage by the European Union.
As if these are the only categories.
He could also be considered a patriot, and a martyr for personal privacy.
Anyway, who thinks he was a coward?
What he did, regardless of your opinion of it, took guts.
Theoretically he could get a capital sentence, if he is ever put on trial (execution).
He was aware of the risks, but he acted despite of them, ergo he is per definition not a coward.
He could not have informed others of this, without also revealing some information.
Who would believe him without proof?
He most definitely would have been caught, had he stayed in the USA. Even if he didn't reveal any information to the press/public, the footprints he left on the servers would have been noticed eventually. You can't just download 60gigabites of data, on a secure server, without it will raise a flag.
And if he was caught prematurely, then the information would not have gotten out.
Also, keep in mind, he doesn't have access to the information anymore, he gave it away to respectable journalists, because he trusts their judgement, and he doesn't think this information, should be in the control on one single man. (Not even if that man is himself)
Moreover, only a portion of it has been published.
And none of it, have put any American agents or citizens in danger.
On the contrary, it have helped protect their private information.
As for being a traitor.
You could argue, that he broke the law and his security clearance. On those accounts, he is a traitor to the American government.
However, he only broke the law, to inform the American population of the crimes their government did (still does) against them.
And this, to me, makes him a hero and a patriot.
On a different note. I am surprised that the American government haven't so far, been charged for industrial espionage by the European Union.
"Could Snowden have stopped NSA's illegal activities without revealing secrets?"
No. Because nothing that he "revealed" was being kept a secret in the first place.
No. Because nothing that he "revealed" was being kept a secret in the first place.
What makes you believe the nsa have stopped spying on everyone illegally?
The only way you can stop government agencies from doing things they shouldn't be doing, that nobody wants them doing is if the president takes emergency powers and orders the military to arrest everyone that work in the agencies for treason.
No whistleblower leaks or congressional hearings can stop them.
The only way you can stop government agencies from doing things they shouldn't be doing, that nobody wants them doing is if the president takes emergency powers and orders the military to arrest everyone that work in the agencies for treason.
No whistleblower leaks or congressional hearings can stop them.
lol of course it was being kept a secret. that's why they hounded him to Russia.
@AntiLiteracyActivist
yeah, this has been demonstrated over and over.
@AntiLiteracyActivist
yeah, this has been demonstrated over and over.
What makes you think Snowden stopped them?
@NaturalBornTraveller said in #3:
> @HelSpi I disagree with your phrasing "whether he's a coward or a traitor."
> As if these are the only categories.
> He could also be considered a patriot, and a martyr for personal privacy.
>
> Anyway, who thinks he was a coward?
> What he did, regardless of your opinion of it, took guts.
> Theoretically he could get a capital sentence, if he is ever put on trial (execution).
> He was aware of the risks, but he acted despite of them, ergo he is per definition not a coward.
>
> He could not have informed others of this, without also revealing some information.
> Who would believe him without proof?
> He most definitely would have been caught, had he stayed in the USA. Even if he didn't reveal any information to the press/public, the footprints he left on the servers would have been noticed eventually. You can't just download 60gigabites of data, on a secure server, without it will raise a flag.
> And if he was caught prematurely, then the information would not have gotten out.
>
> Also, keep in mind, he doesn't have access to the information anymore, he gave it away to respectable journalists, because he trusts their judgement, and he doesn't think this information, should be in the control on one single man. (Not even if that man is himself)
>
> Moreover, only a portion of it has been published.
> And none of it, have put any American agents or citizens in danger.
> On the contrary, it have helped protect their private information.
>
> As for being a traitor.
> You could argue, that he broke the law and his security clearance. On those accounts, he is a traitor to the American government.
>
> However, he only broke the law, to inform the American population of the crimes their government did (still does) against them.
> And this, to me, makes him a hero and a patriot.
>
> On a different note. I am surprised that the American government haven't so far, been charged for industrial espionage by the European Union.
Sorry, I thought I'd have written hero. Seems like my mind mixed attributes used to described Edward Snowden up. There was this guy who said "He's a coward, a traitor, and he's betrayed his country."
> @HelSpi I disagree with your phrasing "whether he's a coward or a traitor."
> As if these are the only categories.
> He could also be considered a patriot, and a martyr for personal privacy.
>
> Anyway, who thinks he was a coward?
> What he did, regardless of your opinion of it, took guts.
> Theoretically he could get a capital sentence, if he is ever put on trial (execution).
> He was aware of the risks, but he acted despite of them, ergo he is per definition not a coward.
>
> He could not have informed others of this, without also revealing some information.
> Who would believe him without proof?
> He most definitely would have been caught, had he stayed in the USA. Even if he didn't reveal any information to the press/public, the footprints he left on the servers would have been noticed eventually. You can't just download 60gigabites of data, on a secure server, without it will raise a flag.
> And if he was caught prematurely, then the information would not have gotten out.
>
> Also, keep in mind, he doesn't have access to the information anymore, he gave it away to respectable journalists, because he trusts their judgement, and he doesn't think this information, should be in the control on one single man. (Not even if that man is himself)
>
> Moreover, only a portion of it has been published.
> And none of it, have put any American agents or citizens in danger.
> On the contrary, it have helped protect their private information.
>
> As for being a traitor.
> You could argue, that he broke the law and his security clearance. On those accounts, he is a traitor to the American government.
>
> However, he only broke the law, to inform the American population of the crimes their government did (still does) against them.
> And this, to me, makes him a hero and a patriot.
>
> On a different note. I am surprised that the American government haven't so far, been charged for industrial espionage by the European Union.
Sorry, I thought I'd have written hero. Seems like my mind mixed attributes used to described Edward Snowden up. There was this guy who said "He's a coward, a traitor, and he's betrayed his country."
I've read and recommend "Permanent Record" as an introduction to the current state of digital state surveillance. What I think is missing is how state surveillance (NSA, CIA and so on) and for-profit surveillance (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, your fav game app, and so on) are often the same thing. (read Cody Doctorow's stuff for excellent explanation)
There is a clear and old conflict of interest between on the one hand research journalism, which in an age of big amounts of data, will by definition involve big amounts of data, and on the other hand secret services who obviously rely on secrets. There is a line, when these amounts of data themselves become a tool that is used unlawfully in both letter and spirit, on the population or parts of it. I am convinced that Snowden honestly believed that line was being crossed and that it was his duty to break secrecy to reveal that.
Real court cases, lost by state agencies, all over the world every year, prove that today, intelligence agencies cross those lines on a global scale, often breaking the law in spirit and in letter. Technology often allows loopholes through century old legal protections such as requiring a court order to search someone's belongings, or secrecy of correspondence as a civil right. In the digital age our belongings and correspondence are digital. They should be protected by the same laws, but increasingly aren't.
It's important people are informed of this continuous decrease of their own rights. But arguably it wasn't really a secret. What puzzles me is that if people are informed, which they are, why the regression continues. Some reasons come to mind:
* Perhaps they are intimidated into handing over their rights and led to believe that doing so will help protect them, for which there is no evidence that I know of.
* Meanwhile trading our data has become a trillion dollar market, which means it's become large enough to greatly influences policy.
* Also there is international trade agreements, which are tighter between nations who agree to the n-eyes agreements (like 5-eyes, which I believe was the first one), so policy makers try to appease the n-eyes agreements too.
Privacy-related laws, often as old as the country, were deemed necessary to protect the freedoms required for democracy. Squander them at your peril.
There is a clear and old conflict of interest between on the one hand research journalism, which in an age of big amounts of data, will by definition involve big amounts of data, and on the other hand secret services who obviously rely on secrets. There is a line, when these amounts of data themselves become a tool that is used unlawfully in both letter and spirit, on the population or parts of it. I am convinced that Snowden honestly believed that line was being crossed and that it was his duty to break secrecy to reveal that.
Real court cases, lost by state agencies, all over the world every year, prove that today, intelligence agencies cross those lines on a global scale, often breaking the law in spirit and in letter. Technology often allows loopholes through century old legal protections such as requiring a court order to search someone's belongings, or secrecy of correspondence as a civil right. In the digital age our belongings and correspondence are digital. They should be protected by the same laws, but increasingly aren't.
It's important people are informed of this continuous decrease of their own rights. But arguably it wasn't really a secret. What puzzles me is that if people are informed, which they are, why the regression continues. Some reasons come to mind:
* Perhaps they are intimidated into handing over their rights and led to believe that doing so will help protect them, for which there is no evidence that I know of.
* Meanwhile trading our data has become a trillion dollar market, which means it's become large enough to greatly influences policy.
* Also there is international trade agreements, which are tighter between nations who agree to the n-eyes agreements (like 5-eyes, which I believe was the first one), so policy makers try to appease the n-eyes agreements too.
Privacy-related laws, often as old as the country, were deemed necessary to protect the freedoms required for democracy. Squander them at your peril.
@s2numbuq35i said in #9:
> I've read and recommend "Permanent Record" as an introduction to the current state of digital state surveillance. What I think is missing is how state surveillance (NSA, CIA and so on) and for-profit surveillance (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, your fav game app, and so on) are often the same thing. (read Cody Doctorow's stuff for excellent explanation)
>
> There is a clear and old conflict of interest between on the one hand research journalism, which in an age of big amounts of data, will by definition involve big amounts of data, and on the other hand secret services who obviously rely on secrets. There is a line, when these amounts of data themselves become a tool that is used unlawfully in both letter and spirit, on the population or parts of it. I am convinced that Snowden honestly believed that line was being crossed and that it was his duty to break secrecy to reveal that.
>
> Real court cases, lost by state agencies, all over the world every year, prove that today, intelligence agencies cross those lines on a global scale, often breaking the law in spirit and in letter. Technology often allows loopholes through century old legal protections such as requiring a court order to search someone's belongings, or secrecy of correspondence as a civil right. In the digital age our belongings and correspondence are digital. They should be protected by the same laws, but increasingly aren't.
>
> It's important people are informed of this continuous decrease of their own rights. But arguably it wasn't really a secret. What puzzles me is that if people are informed, which they are, why the regression continues. Some reasons come to mind:
> * Perhaps they are intimidated into handing over their rights and led to believe that doing so will help protect them, for which there is no evidence that I know of.
> * Meanwhile trading our data has become a trillion dollar market, which means it's become large enough to greatly influences policy.
> * Also there is international trade agreements, which are tighter between nations who agree to the n-eyes agreements (like 5-eyes, which I believe was the first one), so policy makers try to appease the n-eyes agreements too.
>
> Privacy-related laws, often as old as the country, were deemed necessary to protect the freedoms required for democracy. Squander them at your peril.
I also wonder why everyone keeps on living without privacy. I can tell my best friend which data's been collected and all that's said is why should they use my data. I mean, they analyse you automatically!
> I've read and recommend "Permanent Record" as an introduction to the current state of digital state surveillance. What I think is missing is how state surveillance (NSA, CIA and so on) and for-profit surveillance (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, your fav game app, and so on) are often the same thing. (read Cody Doctorow's stuff for excellent explanation)
>
> There is a clear and old conflict of interest between on the one hand research journalism, which in an age of big amounts of data, will by definition involve big amounts of data, and on the other hand secret services who obviously rely on secrets. There is a line, when these amounts of data themselves become a tool that is used unlawfully in both letter and spirit, on the population or parts of it. I am convinced that Snowden honestly believed that line was being crossed and that it was his duty to break secrecy to reveal that.
>
> Real court cases, lost by state agencies, all over the world every year, prove that today, intelligence agencies cross those lines on a global scale, often breaking the law in spirit and in letter. Technology often allows loopholes through century old legal protections such as requiring a court order to search someone's belongings, or secrecy of correspondence as a civil right. In the digital age our belongings and correspondence are digital. They should be protected by the same laws, but increasingly aren't.
>
> It's important people are informed of this continuous decrease of their own rights. But arguably it wasn't really a secret. What puzzles me is that if people are informed, which they are, why the regression continues. Some reasons come to mind:
> * Perhaps they are intimidated into handing over their rights and led to believe that doing so will help protect them, for which there is no evidence that I know of.
> * Meanwhile trading our data has become a trillion dollar market, which means it's become large enough to greatly influences policy.
> * Also there is international trade agreements, which are tighter between nations who agree to the n-eyes agreements (like 5-eyes, which I believe was the first one), so policy makers try to appease the n-eyes agreements too.
>
> Privacy-related laws, often as old as the country, were deemed necessary to protect the freedoms required for democracy. Squander them at your peril.
I also wonder why everyone keeps on living without privacy. I can tell my best friend which data's been collected and all that's said is why should they use my data. I mean, they analyse you automatically!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.