The idea that one needs to choose sides reduces every part of this debate to a binary decision which I think is foolish.<p>It's completely possible to question or dislike some of this guy's decisions and/or motives, and also be thankful of some of the things that he has revealed and the other disclosures that have followed (via government leaks) due to it. It's also not a contradiction to think that some of his leaks were useful to the American public and some were harmful. You can be glad at the outcome some of his actions have brought about (such as the increased knowledge we now have) without having to label him "a hero" and reserve your skepticism or judgement for other things he might do or will do.
What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? The legality and morality of the spying program shouldn't even have to be an issue when one is determining whether to support Snowden or not. If an American supports the spying program, how is it any better or worse now that he knows of its existence?<p>It's not like Snowden destroyed the program. All he did was tell us that it exists. The program still operates freely and "protects us" as much as it did before. Why would a citizen now be unhappy that he's burdened with the knowledge of such things?<p>Terrorists aren't now saying, "oh crap, I better be more careful with my communications now." I'm sure they were already taking proper precautions. The existence of the program was probably already safely implied by the people it's targeting the most.
I genuinely don't care about Snowden. I want him to force Greenwald to give us some more fucking information instead of this pussyfooting, because at this point all I'm seeing is those two skewing a lot of facts and getting a lot of this horrifically wrong. Except they've completely clammed up, so now we get no clarifications or additions to the story.<p>If his stuff turns out to be completely 100% true, awesome. If it's mostly true, but somewhat skewed, then whatever, okay. If it's mostly false, a giant pile of hyperbole, and it turns out they don't have our SSL cert keys, they're not gathering all possible social network data(or even most of it), etc etc? Then I'm just gonna shake my head.
"His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the U.S., not to advance Internet freedom and free speech."<p>Perhaps the only way you <i>can</i> advance free speech necessarily involves injuring the US national security?
As noted, this is a false dichotomy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma</a>. Human actions are a complex and spectral subject and cannot be binarized. We are completely eating out of the hands of media on this issue (not commenting on the integrity of the New Yorker - just in general).<p>Though I agree that Snowden's affairs are an issue warranting discussion, media outlets are rapidly (and perhaps vapidly) distancing themselves from the core issue of the huge fucking datacenter in Utah SLURPING UP EVERY BIT OF DATA IT CAN TOUCH. There are so many other facets of this conversation that can generate pageviews for journalists that don't have to do with following some dude's plane flights across the planet and obvious bureaucratic troubles.<p>Where is the discourse on the history of similar surveillance states? Where are the people working to decipher the architecture of PRISM, the datacenter, and its complete capabilities (I'm assuming they're waiting on Snowden to tell them)? Where are the journalists that went to the ends of the earth to speculate on the political connections and underpinnings of our previous, numerous, dubious national actions?<p>I hope this doesn't become another oil spill and drop out of peoples' minds. It's too important. I'm afraid most people don't care though, and will eat up the latest gossip rather than meaningful commentary. We should aspire to more.<p><pre><code> [PHOTOS] Snowden orders ungarnished tuna sandwich, Gordon Ramsay comments</code></pre>
Can an unbiased person explain to me how this revelation is a threat to national security? Are terrorists going to stop saying, "Ok we blow up white house tonight!" over Skype or something? Are people just afraid of the bad publicity that goes along with spying on citizens and other nations? If that's the case, it's really sad: It's like a mother yelling at her children for speaking up about her once-secret abusive nature. I fail to see the danger or wrongdoing in this.
Media observers will note that snowden has become the story... Very little is being reported on the actual whistle blowing (or gutless treason, if you listen to the media).<p>As i watch this massive PR engine start to tear apart Snowden,,,, I'm finding it very hard to post anything critical of the government. It's just a little too easy to flip a binary switch somewhere.<p>I wonder if this is how it started with those countries we consider repressive?
> Snowden Snowden Snowden<p>There should be a prize for ad hominem journalism. Whether Snowden is evil or not is as important as the president's hair color.
"...and significant damage to our country and to our allies."
You mean the kind where the "terrorist" now know this too ?
Or the PR kind ???<p>If your laundry wasn't dirty it wouldn't be a problem if it hung out in public !
<i>I'm on the side of good, justice, and the American way. I just can't decide which side that is.</i> (Joking)<p>The truth is Snowden committed a crime and those guys are never going to let it slide or else their whole secret community falls apart. Am I glad that this information came to light? Definitely. Would I ever do the same thing he did? Never. I would never take an oath to keep something a secret and then expose it to the world, knowing full well I was going to do it from the beginning. That's deceitful and I think that explains the caution around Snowden. We need to see the <i>whole</i> story come out over time before making judgements. But I can dislike the NSA programs and also dislike Snowden's maneuvers. They are separate issues.<p>In other words, simply claiming it's black and white doesn't make it so.
I don't have a "side." I don't care about Snowden, although I wish him the best in his country-hopping endeavours. What I care about is that these leaks are analyzed and outrage pours in from the public.<p>That hasn't happened, and the media is concentrated on Snowden's activities rather than the leaks themselves.<p>It's shameful, disgusting, and the only one doing anything about it is Greenwald. Unfortunately, not many others are.
While it's not a popular view on HN (to say the least), I am hugely looking forward to Snowden spending the rest of his life rotting in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.