Edward Snowden, We Love You: Why We Should Resist the Hero Worship
by Michael Moynihan Jun 10, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
... Even a generous reading of the programs exposed by Snowden should deeply trouble those of us who are skeptical of the ever-growing American security state. And even if the administrations explanations and justifications of the NSAs snooping programs are to be trustedthe program foiled terror attacks, was focused only on foreign nationals, and no calls were listened to, etc.it nevertheless raises ethical and moral issues that demand further public debate ...
But even after Snowdens disclosures, do we even understand what, exactly, the NSA is engaged in? As journalist J.M. Berger rightly points out, the information we lack vastly outweighs the information we have. We should be cautious in interpreting data summaries we dont fully understand. And when we do understand that information, as the story thickens and clarifies, its possible that the worst-case readings by journalists and independent analysts were too cautious. But even in the past few days, some aspects of the program originally reported as terrifying and incontrovertible fact have changed.
For instance, the Post claimed that the NSA was tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies with the express consent of the companies involved. The Guardian made similar claims. But as one intelligence source told CNET, the program is not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian. None of its true. Its a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do. The Post updated its story, no longer claiming that major tech companies such as Google and Facebook provided the NSA with direct access to their servers. As tech journalist Ed Bott wrote, Almost no one who reacted to the story initially did so with any skepticism about the Posts sources or its conclusions.
Indeed, ZDNet, along with Gizmodo, Forbes, The Week, TechCrunch, and many others, reported last week that the hacker collective Anonymous also was getting in on the NSA action, having leaked a series of classified documents. But the tedious material released by Anonymous was publicly available white papers and PowerPoint presentations, available to anyone who cared enough to spend their evenings trawling government websites. Last month, something similar happened when a number of media organizations fell for a WikiLeaks leak of documents long available of the National Archives website ...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-we-love-you-why-we-should-resist-the-hero-worship.html
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)rtracey
(2,062 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)The author wants us to resist applauding Snowden but doesn't give a good reason why? He may not be a saint? He may not be perfect? Who cares? Nobody's perfect.
Snowden did what he felt was right at great risk to himself. I can admire and appreciate that without deifying him. Not all people who do good things need to be saints.
Ultimately, I think this essay fails to accomplish its goal (silencing those of us who value government transparency over dubious and dangerous security).
-Laelth
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)and it has already changed some in the first few days, as have other similar stories in the past
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... the underlying fact that Snowden just announced to the world that the NSA was collecting and recording all digital data coming into the country and all meta-data on phone calls coming in and out of the country? That essential fact will not change.
-Laelth
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)So you may find you need to shake a bit of salt on whatever he says
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Although there may be many out there who will claim Edward Snowden is a hero, many of us will also claim he is a criminal and belongs in jail. I believe what he did may have adverse effects on out national security...yes ok ok many will say oh no he just said this or that and it wont effect us at all, well that will have to be seen in the future. Sorry, but I do not, or cannot believe the founding fathers could ever vision what the terroristic aspects of our lives we live with, when they crafted the 4th amendment.