This is happening in all the news media now. I listen to NPR every day and it's almost insufferable to listen to when they talk about the NSA leak. Very little of the debate is about the actual NSA monitoring program itself, most of of the time they talk about why this leak happened and why Edward Snowden is a "strange" guy. It's completely unbelievable.
I am so tired of people abusing the phrase <i>ad hominem</i> -- it is not a fallacy to bring in personal details which raise legitimate questions about the credibility of what's being said.<p>Snowden did have a difficult time in HS and he does not possess a formal CS/technical education. He was a <i>sys admin</i>, not an engineer. His claims, in that light, <i>do</i> seem bizarre and uninformed. I mean, ffs he seemed to insinuate in the Guardian interview that the NSA keeps a list of undercover assets and <i>he</i> had access to it!? These are the people who created selinux -- if I extend him some credibility, I doubt greatly that he had any real idea what it is he was looking at.<p>Elsewhere he talks about every machine being bugged and things like that. And the tapping he claims to have intimate knowledge of -- that kind of stuff would be happening inside of some kind of data store, maybe like Apache Accumulo which the NSA also developed. Let alone the implications of what he's saying on the security of all crypto systems everywhere -- how many uneducated sys admins do you know who can inspect a data store and actually understand what they're looking at, and also understand deeply how consumer encryption works.<p>And this all presumes that the NSA's systems are so poorly configured that a contractor in HI could access all this. My verdict is that all he had was some slideshow that he turned over to the Guardian, the rest is a bullshit story.
The fact that he didn't have to complete high school, (he does have a GED) to get a job at Booz paying $200k/year should be speak to his intelligence. I know people with graduate degrees from Harvard that made less than that at the same company.
Just to add some insight as to why the press is doing this. First of all, there is a legitimate reason to snoop into his personal and past life: checking for source integrity. Frankly, this should end with "Did he work where he said he did, is he mentally ill, does he have an axe to grind?"<p>The media has clearly gone beyond this, though. David Brooks' rather pompous style could be mistaken for going too far, but instead I think he was stepping just an inch or two over this line, while other sites and outlets are mentioning things like his lack of a high school diploma casually and without any real need or purpose.<p>At this point in the life of this story, there is little to report on that doesn't require deep knowledge and GREAT sources. Sources are the lifeblood of journalism. Right now, there's only one, and most of the media has had no access to him. It's jealousy, I expect, that leads them to denigrate him now.<p>The newsroom thinking is like this, and it's not entirely a conscious level thing: "We did not break this story. We do not have anything to add to this story. We are too technically inept to comment on this story. There still exists a possibility that this whistle-blower is wrong, and that's something we can investigate because we know his name and we have Google/LexisNexis... Well, shit, we gotta have something to fill the airwaves for 24 hours!"<p>It's not like they're being directly controlled by the NSA, here. Outside of a few folks, like Brooks, the media is just being inept and lazy, not viscous and conspiratorial.
So, to clarify, it's only called 'smearing someone' if that someone is someone we're on the same side of, right? Otherwise, its called activism or journalism or some other, vaguely more pleasant verb?<p>If you don't think that the fact that Snowden's claims are tempered slightly by the fact that he doesn't have a formal high school or computer science education; hell, why not?<p>I'm not saying that Snowden won't be dragged through the mud, but that's irrespective of what he did, besides the fact that he did anything at all. It's 2013, and 24-hour cable news channels need content: they will say and find anything and everything if it means finding or saying something new.<p>(Also, Brooks and Toobin are both respected journalists and academics. They've both spoken <i>vocally</i> against the current administration, against the PATRIOT Act, and other things.)
I wouldn't call David Brooks' quotes smears. His whole article, perhaps, but not the quotes. The quotes are pieces of evidence in his thesis, which is that Snowden doesn't participate in a community --- Snowden has isolated himself, and that this leak is behavior consistent with someone that has isolated himself from a community. Brooks' outlook on the world tends to be built on models of culture, community, and psychology, and this article is just an application of those models to the particular topic of Snowden. Someone that writes columns tends to have some models that they've developed, and produces new columns by applying those models to current events. In that sense, he is profiting from Snowden's dilemma, and taking advantage of it --- if what Brooks says is true, then what Snowden really needs is support.
The sub-headline of the dead-tree version of the St Paul Pioneer Press yesterday bothered to point out that he didn't have a high school diploma. Sigh.<p>We must find SOME reason someone would report that America is spying on its own citizens. Couldn't possibly be patriotism. And there must be SOME reason that a guy who isn't formally credentialed by the appropriate authority figures could land a high-paying, important job. Couldn't possibly be talent.
Reading this thread, I see that it works very well :)<p>People arguing, dividing, burying themselves into the details of exact salary figures and GED scores.<p>Spies, they know their craft :)
Ad hominem much? This is inevitable, from what I've seen there aren't any substantial claims being made against him. Conduct in his personal life really sets him apart from Assange.
I wish he hadn't come forward. There was no real reason for him to release his name or tell his story yet. This is going to distract us all from the real issues at hand.
Thomas Jefferson had an interesting strategy for activating the consciousness of the nation prior to the revolutionary war. It's important to remember that divorce from england was a final step- they were british subjects trying to find justice until it finally became apparent that secession was the only solution.<p><i></i> We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen, as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting & prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distress in the war of '55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help, therefore, of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the portbill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert us from the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament to moderation and justice <i></i><p>I'd love to see a day of fasting over prism. It might help people move beyond just posting their opinions on facebook/reddit/twitter/the bar.
I'd be surprised if the government was even behind any of the "smears". To some people, he's a hero. To some, he's a traitor. The people at either extreme have a reason to spread their viewpoint; those who don't care, or who want to wait for more information to come out, simply don't give a voice of reason for the most part. On the other hand, maybe the government can simply call up 5-10 journalists and run the "standard smear campaign".
Some of Brooks' conclusions should have never been printed. They defy logic.<p>For instance,<p>>He betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there >is a leak like this, the powers that be close the circle of >trust a little tighter. They limit debate a little more.<p>Considering the project itself was a secret, I'm not sure how exposing something that would never have been exposed otherwise could be construed as damaging to "open government", a position I doubt Mr. Brooks has ever endorsed without mind-numbing qualification.<p>>He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security >agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably >revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods.<p>Gee, and I guess if Dr. Oppenheimer hadn't built The Bomb, we'd have to have used incendiary bombing to win the war.<p>>He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create >the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could >make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed. >Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the democratic >structures of accountability, putting his own preferences >above everything else.<p>So what Mr. Brooks says here is that government regulations trump individual conscience, and that Snowden should have just followed orders. I think they hanged a few Germans and Japanese for following orders too.<p>But before someone scorches me for DARING TO COMPARE PRISM WITH THE HOLOCAUST, to whom did Snowden really have to turn?<p>The Founders (Hallowed Be Their Names), maybe?
I suspect that the type of person who is capable of becoming a whistle-blower, is also a lot less institutionalized. I'm not surprised that he didn't finish high school, if he is an extremely critical thinker. There are a ton of things that don't make sense about our education system. It certainly doesn't make him dumb.<p>Whistle blowing can be considered an extremely irrational act. It is basically ruining this guys life. Most people would never accept that sacrifice on the off chance that their small action might contribute to positive change in the world, for future generations. It takes a certain type of person to do it. Someone who is so irrationally devoted to the truth that they can't help but ruin their own lives in the name of what they perceive as the truth. If he is sincere in his motivations, then I'm sure this isn't the first time that he has bucked a system.
And what if quite simply Snowden isn't the leak, he's a character created specifically for this to occur. Whether you're defending or attacking "Snowden", the reality is you're not focusing on the bigger issue at hand.
While I completely agree with most of this article, there was one thing I found utterly repellent. This line - 'People largely stopped talking about what Wikileaks revealed years ago, & now discussion of Assange is dominated by the usual cliches about him being arrogant, a rapist, etc.'<p>Oh yes, those usual boring cliches - arrogance and rape. Repulsive. People talk about Assange being creepy because he has been accused of rape by two female (former) supporters, not because of a series of subtle derogatory digs in the mainstream media. And arguing that these rape cases are a fabrication to bring Assange to justice for what happened over wikileaks (which I don't believe at all) isn't an argument in this instance, because the two cases are so unlike each other it seems ridiculous to make the comparison. I'm not disagreeing that Edward Snowden is being subjected to unpleasant ad hominem attacks, he is and it's outrageous, but to compare him to the treatment that Assange has received is ridiculous.
Anything remotely political has been transformed by the media into this name-calling garbage. Elections turn on people's impression of the character of the candidates, much of the time fueled by irresponsible rumor-reporting by the media.<p>It seems that all you have to do to win the public opinion battle is to resort to schoolyard bully tactics. Maybe it won't work this time...
One note I would make:<p><i>Another whistleblower, Julian Assange, received even more brutal treatment. Here’s another hit piece on him, again run by the NYT, filled with subtly negative phrases like “dwindling number of loyalists”, “notoriety”, “erratic and imperious behavior”, “delusional grandeur” et al.</i><p>Those same accusations are leveled against Assange by people who used to work with him. For example, read James Ball's account:<p><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-former-wikileaks-employee-james-ball-describes-working-with-julian-assange.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-f...</a><p>Many of these 'smears' are essentially irrefutable facts ("Snowden did not complete high school"), and while I agree that many will try to smear him, regarding <i>any</i> negative coverage of him as an attack against liberty is not very productive.
High school diploma or no high school diploma. It doesn't matter because that was 11 years ago and the things he has done in those intervening years were sufficiently impressive that both the NSA and Booz Allen, after reviewing what he's done since high school considered him capable of doing the work they asked of him by hiring him. Not only did they hire him, but they kept him on for several years, implying that his work was satisfactory to them.<p>I know someone who ended up freebasing meth freshman year of college, cleaning himself up, going to another university, improving his grades, transferring to a better university, doing research that eventually got him a full-ride offer for a masters or PhD in biomedical engineering at Harvard. People can and do change and they can change so much in 10 years to have practically nothing in common with the person they were 10 years ago.
The US is about as Democratic as Iran or Russia. Let's face it, in the US, no matter who is 'officially' in power, it's still the same institutions, the same people in charge.<p>Dissent is censored by a creating a consensus in society, which itself is a product of indoctrination and propaganda. Examples would be the communist and Muslim scares.<p>The American population is not only powerless to stand up to their institutions, they have convinced themselves that the very institutions that oppress them are necessary. The 2 party system, and various security agencies are examples.<p>Now the 'average law-abiding citizen' is going to convince themselves that the NSA is preventing 'terrorism' and that Snowden is a 'traitor', and eventually, by demonizing the anti-surveillance elements of society, the US will become even more oppressive, with the full support of the population...
A few points:<p>1. I don't like that this is being said about Edward Snowden, but Occam's Razor implies it's not necessarily a conspiracy (yet). I'm sure it will be, at some point, but as a software engineer who made it without a college degree, I can personally attest that it's <i>not unnatural for people to bring up and question a lack of education.</i> People love to do this - before I was making any real progress in engineering, and even after I succeeded, people thought it was unusual and strange that I didn't pursue a degree. The only people exempt from this are people like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, David Karp, et al.<p>2. On citing use of the "fallacy" <i>ad hominem</i> - just stop. You're not doing it properly. Yes, the literal definition means bringing in personal qualities, but personal qualities and background can be relevant. Just as the appeal to authority is not a fallacy if you cite a legitimate expert with established research, it is OK and legitimate to question a high school dropout's ability to understand what he leaked. This should be self-evident - the person is being questioned because they don't have an obvious legitimatization of their expertise. That said, I don't agree with the fact being explored more than the leaked information itself. I'd also like to note that you don't sound any more convincing to people because you just say "ad hominem" - it makes people defensive, causes an audience to think you're pompous (sometimes) and conditions you to try and rebut an entire argument by citing a fallacy and ignoring the <i>substance</i> - which is a method that tends to fail utterly. For more on this, see [1].<p>3. Finally, it is sad they're talking about his neighbors and school life so much. They have nothing else to go on and they're grasping at straws. It sounds arrogant to say, but that's what most people do. They react to a big crisis and their fear of the unknown causes them to grasp ar <i>any</i> conversation points they can, legitimate or otherwise.<p>The community of people who recognize this (i.e. Hacker News for one) would benefit from being in a position to correct this mentality and steer the conversation towards the <i>hard issues</i> - the things that really matter. Dump all that shit about his high school diploma, let's start talking about the NSA.<p>[1]: <a href="http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html" rel="nofollow">http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html</a>
Can we conclude from this that it is better to leak anonymously? On one hand, anonymous leaks might be more immune to character assassination attempts. On the other, having a real live person stand behind the information adds some credibility and possibly deeper understanding of surrounding conditions.
Jefferey Toobin calls Snowden "reckless", "irresponsible", "grandiose narcissist". Jeffery would know since he is very familiar with all of these character flaws.<p>According to news reports after he got his long-term mistress pregnant he tried to bribe her to get an abortion. When she refused he abandoned her until a court forced him to take a DNA test and acknowledge his son. Only agreeing to contribute to his support after being threatened with having his wages garnished at CNN. You can't make this stuff up.<p><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/baby-drama-cnn-star-jeffrey-toobin-offered-casey-greenfield-money-abortion-sources-article-1.446944" rel="nofollow">http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/baby-drama-c...</a>
I just heard this weird moment on "The World" radio program [1]. Discussing Russia's offer of asylum to Snowden, at 25:02 the announcer says, "But last year Julian Assange was given his own show on the state TV channel, propaganda channel, Russia Today..."<p>RT surely is a propaganda channel, but if you listen to the clip, the announcer forgot to say "propaganda channel" at first, then hastily corrected himself. It sounded forced, and odd for them.<p>This, from a show co-produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation, a famous propaganda organ, and PRI, a not as famous one.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/</a><p>(edit: grammar)
Many of the comments here debate whether the news media should be reporting about his lack of degree or other facts about him.<p>Consider the corollary, though. Should the media be omitting parts of his life or credentials? We have a man who took a significant unilateral action and as we debate that action and the proper response to it, issues like his motivations and qualifications need to be reported, not hidden.<p>Given the magnitude of the revelations, Snowden himself shouldn't be the media's primary focus, but information on cell phone data grabs and PRISM for everyone except his leakees is very hard to come by.<p>We're at the early stages of this debate and we're just scratching the surface.
Everyone seems to think that it is a coordinated smear campaign. I think it is basic human psychology at work. People tend to group other people into "us" and "them" categories.<p>When there is too much cognitive dissonance in relation to what people want to think about their country or institutions, the easiest way to appease the psychological tension is to move the promulgator into the category of "them."<p>The smears as are attempt by people to humanize Snowden.. make him less scary, and simultaneously one of "the other."
Congratulations! We've done it!<p>1. Government being attacked releases information about alleged enemy of the state.<p>2. The forth estate does its duty and publishes the information. In order to draw in eyes, the information is sensationalized.<p>3. Someone totally against the piece writes an article as a counterpoint, adding plenty of backlinks and precious relevance to an article nobody wants to see gain traction.<p>4. Social aggregates like HN pick up the story, giving relevance to the article that gives relevance to an article we all disagree with.<p>Ads are viewed, money is made, and an agenda is fulfilled.
So what's the link here? Are these reporters actually agents? Are they in the pay of the security services? Are they being blackmailed by the security services? Are they doing it voluntarily, but in partnership with the intelligence services, out of an IC-cultivated sense of patriotic duty? Or is it all just coincidence and these reporters all genuinely think like this of their own volition?<p>I mean, obviously the answer is "all of the above," like it always is, but I'd like to hear some informed speculation.
This is not entirely on-topic, but there are a lot of comments on how journalism should be actually performed. It is advocacy journalism, but western journalists might use it as an example Anas Aremeyaw Anas: <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/anas_aremeyaw_anas_how_i_named_shamed_and_jailed.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/anas_aremeyaw_anas_how_i_named_sham...</a>. Sorry, just trying to turn this topic into something positive.
Oh, he is a unfriendly neighbor and sort of undereducated. Probably he even killed a cat when he was a child! Well, in this case I have no problem with being spied on.
When quoted, he sounds fairly intelligent and thoughtful. I think the only mistake he made is not going directly to Sweden, but HK was closer, and it's not like there is a "whistle blowing for dummies" book. If you want to assess him personally, go read his words.<p>Ultimately he provided documentation to support his assertions. If another whistle blower steps up, we can reassess.
I see how these articles don't have comments sections. FWIF they are not having the conversation - but telling what to think.<p>I wonder if there is some sort of way to punish these large publishing houses in terms of destroyed credibility etc. To produce news is a right and when you have large audience you have responsiblity and when you behave like an bumhat you make it worse for everyone.<p>my 2c.
Terrorism's premise is that those in our culture were so self-absorbed in their private world, that they would be unable to suspend some of their privacy to achieve a collective good, i.e. safety from the terrorists. Luckily, most Americans are able to see the complexity of the issue, and have chosen safety. Not so Snowden. He is a criminal, period.
Sometimes I wish whomever downvotes/moderates submissions (not comments) would post a note about why they are doing so. This submission has a 20.86 score presently but it's in position 11 on the home page. The article seems a decent piece that links to some interesting sources. No better or worse than the average submission in my estimation.
The way he spoke in the video from Hong Kong, his articulateness, the vocabulary used, and demeanour, attests to his honesty, integrity and character. It is saddening to see so many journalist-stooges come out of the woodwork and attack him.<p>Shame on these "journalists". Julian Assange is a journalist, not these pathetic talking heads.
I am very glad that people like Elsberg, Assange, Manning and Snowden exist in the world. They are exactly the type of people that stand between the imperfect and unfair world we live in, and absolute tyranny. I don't give a shit what they are like over a beer or if they are overbearing narcissist assholes.
I don't care about his education, his salary, his friends, or his demeanor. What I care about are the documents he showed the Guardian and/or the Washington Post.<p>Anyone can shoot the messenger, but as history has shown, it just doesn't kill the message as intended.
I care exactly zero about who Edward Snowden is. As far as I'm concerned, he could be a dick who loves kicking puppies and taking candy from children. What I do care about is, you know, the NSA spying on my phone calls and emails.
It's very funny when they say he is not educated enough, etc and it was not a problem when he was hired and got access to top level secrets. The more he is defamed, the more
Look at the fact that we had to rely on a British newspaper to break the NSA scandal. A foreign newspaper is doing the job that our news organizations are supposed to be doing.<p>Pathetic!
It takes Assange-level arrogance to believe that the only reason someone would think that Assange is arrogant is that he's been the victim of a media smear campaign.