Skip to main content

Sigh.

Look, Edward Snowden is no traitor. To be a traitor, one must be aiding an abetting a national enemy of the United States. Edward has done nothing of the sort. Has he broken the law? Yes. In an act of civil disobedience and to make a political statement. For that, in my view, he should be willing to face prosecution. However, he disagrees. He thinks he can't get a fair trail so therefore he decided to take his chances as a fugitive. Whatever. That part is a small part of the story. What happens to Snowden is fucking irrelevant. Stop giving a fuck where Snowden is.

Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. There is no question about this. He worked sources, wrote for a well known publication on a matter of public policy. Matters he has studied and written about extensively. You might not like Glenn Greenwald or his writing. I certainly do not. But Greenwald broke this story in way that almost every established media outlet (save the good people at McClatchy who have been on this for years), has not. Considering the impact of this story and his work, Greenwald deserves a fucking Pulitzer. But this is a small part of the story. What happens to Greenwald is fucking irrelevant. Stop giving a fuck about Greenwald's credentials.

The story here is about personal data and secret laws. It is about the boundaries between personal privacy and the security of the nation. It is about global diplomacy and surveillance. It is about technology and modern life in the 21st Century. And it is about corporate and governmental power versus personal liberty. That is what we ought to be talking about because that is what is really at issue here.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Disagree n/t (0+ / 0-)

    The Green Tea Party is as dangerous as the original Tea Party.

    by Walt starr on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:54:54 AM PDT

  •  Oh Oh.....You stepped in it BBB....INCOMING!! (4+ / 0-)
  •  There's way too much reverence ... (14+ / 0-)

    among our mass-media elites for the wielders of American power. Greenwald's work is a reproach to them for their negligence of the highest duty of their profession.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:58:03 AM PDT

  •  Well, this isn't new. This is about the 10,000th (6+ / 0-)

    time I've heard somebody say exactly what this diary says.

    It isn't an either/or.

    Of course the massive surveillance is the overwhelming issue.

    But the drama and controversy concerning Snowden and Greenwald are also good stories.

    And they're easier to follow.  The surveillance issue is almost impossible to talk about because so much is secret and the government presents a lockstep campaign of lies.

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.-Bertrand Russell

    by Timaeus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:58:25 AM PDT

  •  yup. I could have devils advocated all your (10+ / 0-)

    points (cause I'm not super impressed with snowden, and loathe greenwald) but these two statements would remain the same, with edits to one:

    Whatever. That part is a small part of the story. What happens to Snowden is fucking irrelevant. Stop giving a fuck where Snowden is.
    Considering the impact of this story and his work, Greenwald deserves a fucking Pulitzer. But this is a small part of the story. What happens to Greenwald is fucking irrelevant. Stop giving a fuck about Greenwald's credentials [or whether he's a fucking asshole].

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:59:15 AM PDT

    •  or whether he's written policy apers for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mallyroyal

      the koch brothers' cato institute?

      Stop giving a fuck about Greenwald's credentials [or whether he's a fucking asshole].

      Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson. (-9.75 / -9.05)

      by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:11:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah. that doesn't matter in THIS case. (1+ / 0-)

        thats for the "is greenwald a progressive" argument.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:12:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  does it matter - and yeah, this may be a little (0+ / 0-)

          out there - if this situation splits the dem vote, allowing rand paul to rise alittle higher?  the 'situation' sure has mangled the obama presidency, will make younger voters turn against the dems as well as the gop,and more likely to suport of third column of libertarianism.

          i can see the koch brothers diabolically laughing at all this.

          Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson. (-9.75 / -9.05)

          by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:56:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what you're saying is... (0+ / 0-)

            'Your principles DO NOT MATTER. What is actually happening DOES NOT MATTER. The only thing that matters is POLITICS. If something makes Democrats less likely to be elected, WE MUST NOT DO IT. If you find a Democrat murdering a woman, you must help him hide the crime. If you find out that the Democrats are secretly stealing children and sending them to be processed into SPAM, you must close your eyes and go volunteer for the reelection campaigns, because Republicans would be stealing TWICE AS MANY!'

            No, you wouldn't say that. Because you have principles that you think shouldn't be violated. If you saw a Democrat murdering a woman, you wouldn't keep quiet about it and go work for his reelection campaign, because that would be too big a violation of your principles. (I hope!)

            Do you not understand that to some of us, this surveillance thing is the same way? I mean, it clearly isn't to you. But I know you understand that other people have different moral/ethical codes than you do, and that no one person's is privileged over everyone else's. So how is it that you don't understand that some of us are horrified by this revelation, and don't feel that we can continue with 'politics as usual'?

            I mean, sure, you can argue that our moral codes are wrong, although let's face it... that argument doesn't get a lot of traction, usually. But you are acting like somehow we don't have a right to our own moral codes, and that we should just shut up and follow yours. Don't you think we might find that a bit offensive?

  •  Good post. I agree with a lot of it, especially (14+ / 0-)

    this:

    Has he broken the law? Yes. In an act of civil disobedience and to make a political statement. For that, in my view, he should be willing to face prosecution. However, he disagrees. He thinks he can't get a fair trail so therefore he decided to take his chances as a fugitive. Whatever. That part is a small part of the story. What happens to Snowden is fucking irrelevant. Stop giving a fuck where Snowden is.
    People get off on heroes and villians, seeking to make this a TV story.  The real issue is the correct balance between security and freedom and whether the current programs infringe too much on privacy rights.   People can agree or disagree on that, and it does matter.    

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:59:58 AM PDT

  •  I actually agree with most of this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, mallyroyal, Gooserock, Eric Nelson

    But I think it might be too late. At least in the media Snowden is the story now. His actions are not helping himself or his cause.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:00:27 AM PDT

    •  And on the Daily Kos rec list. (10+ / 0-)

      "Snowden the hero/traitor" pushes the information he disclosed into the background.  

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which actions? Trying to hide? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx, OldDragon

      If he gave himself up, do you really think the media circus over him would subside? Hell, he'd have cameras on him 24/7 and analysts poring over his fingerprints as he went through processing.

      Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
      Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
      Code Monkey like you!

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      by Code Monkey on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:05:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, but, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        that would have prevented him from opening the idea of Snowden=traitor.
        Elsberg stood and faced the consequences of his actions. That's how a hero does it.
        Running to, of all places, China then Russia (maybe) then (maybe) Cuba or wherever was like an iconic tour of our symbolic enemies, tarnished not only himself but his message.
        It also may have afforded him the chance to control his story. As it is, he's now public domain and he'll have a hell of a time trying to control the narrative.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:36:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Eh. Maybe. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OldDragon

          I suppose it might have been preferable if he'd turned himself in, true.

          But given that he doesn't want the U.S. to get at him, that leaves him with countries that the U.S. is not overly friendly with. And really I have a hard time blaming him for not wanting to trust the U.S. government to treat him fairly. After all, if we could trust it to follow the Constitution, he wouldn't have had anything to leak to begin with.

          Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
          Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
          Code Monkey like you!

          Formerly known as Jyrinx.

          by Code Monkey on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:40:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Meh (0+ / 0-)

          So what you're saying is that, knowing that the US would imprison and torture him (yes, literally torture him for months), he should have still given himself up?

          Look, I understand that we are all willing to armchair quarterback what sacrifices other people should be making for the good of the country, and I have even been guilty of it myself at times, but 'he should have had the guts to give up the rest of his life to prison, and to be tortured until he loses his mind, if he wanted to seem credible' kind of goes a little bit past my limit as far as that is concerned.

    •  Nothing Can Be Done About the Media. (0+ / 0-)

      We have a corporate state, corporate media, and therefore the free press is the state press.

      The press is a phenomenon that cannot be repaired working within our system.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:48:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, did you make that graphic yourself? (4+ / 0-)

    awesome!

  •  Agree and I plead (5+ / 0-)

    guilty to getting involved with diaries debating Greenwald and Snowden, thus helping to steer the conversation off track.

    I don't agree necessarily with the idea that Snowden should stay and face trial , but I will stay here instead of fleeing to Drudge or Red State and accept whatever is coming my way.

  •  Senate about to do it's immigration thingy.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    enough Snowden for a day.

  •  Very good diary. (0+ / 0-)

    I believe the even bigger picture is that the story here about personal liberty/government power is just another example of how the US government betrays its people (see: Wall Street bailout with no criminal persecutions of those who tanked the economy).

  •  Clearly, you are a Libertarian! (3+ / 0-)

    Given that you expect personal freedoms afforded to you in the constitution.

    Sorry to distract. Indeed, the conversation should be about personal data and secret laws. I for one am outraged that the government I help to keep functioning is putting me in a position where I would be stupid to trust it. Think about tat for a second. Their actions are corrosive to our society. Things have gotten real, real bad.

    Slap happy is a platform.

    by averageyoungman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:10:10 AM PDT

    •  Things have gotten real, real bad. (2+ / 0-)

      And we're EXPECTED to just sit back and tolerate with smiles.

      •  To me, the most disturbing thing (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rivercard, Eddie L, Rusty SpikeFist 2

        Is the oppressive effect this all has on dissent. We can't have a healthy, functioning society, let alone government, like this. The government has officially declared that it believes it cannot trust any citizen beyond - and in fact some within - its walls. It's time for everyone, including the government, to step back from that edge. The kind of absolutist language I'm hearing from the President as it relates to "saving lives" is extremely disturbing in the context of what he's using it to facilitate. If we head that direction, we won't recover from it. It's as simple as that. We can't be on negatively spiraling trajectories on multiple fronts at one time and expect to maintain.  

        Slap happy is a platform.

        by averageyoungman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:21:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with a lot of this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rivercard

    Though I think it was empirically impossible for Snowden to get a fair trial in the US.

    Unfortunately we're going to continue to get the misdirection for a long while on this site (and the general blogosphere in general) and in the corporate media.

    Fortunately we've got alternative media outlets willing to talk about the real issues at hand and not make this all about personalities. The Real News, Al Jazeera, the Guardian UK, et al.

    It appears that the only ones having a problem with discussing 4th Amendment rights are some of us in the USA, and that's a problem.

    The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

    by cybrestrike on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:11:19 AM PDT

    •  Sorta simple , in a way (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rivercard, averageyoungman

      The Issue is 4th Amendment and Govt Spying/Data Collection [term of one's choice for spying, not further specified here].

      If and when "Snowden" or "greenwald" enter the conversation it's no longer about "the 4th Amendment and Govt Spying/Data Collection [term of one's choice for spying, not further specified here]".

      Lampooning this has already gotten old so ignoring it and expending the effort to re-route the conversation BACK onto the 4th Amendment and Govt Spying/Data Collection [term of one's choice for spying, not further specified here] is the thing to do.

      •  The 4th Amendment wouldn't apply here. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TracieLynn, FG

        Know why? Because the government searched data that belongs to private corporations, not individual citizens. Data those corporations are by law required to turn over to the government. Again, I know I sound like a broken record here, but this is about much more than the NSA surveillance program. It is about surveillance in general.

        Something has to be done about how data is handled in the first place. At the point where it is first gathered by a private business.

        •  Where is the fine print in which I surrender (0+ / 0-)

          Rights to all of that data, and ownership exchanges hands, and how does an interpretation go as to dual ownership of the data under the 4th amendment. I realize these are different companies so the scope is wide and I don't expect some ridiculous level of detail.

          I also don't agree with that strict interpretation, because there's the way a law is written and basic logic on how it should apply to a new paradigm or medium. We own the method of transportation collectively, and lease it to private corporations. Once it lands on an entities server, as data, it may be owned by that entity, but its content still belongs to me.

          There is a ton of granular nuance obviously depending on how you look at it.

          Slap happy is a platform.

          by averageyoungman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:49:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh its in there! Trust and believe, (1+ / 0-)

            that data is most certainly NOT yours. And its in the terms of service agreements, or sometimes you just concede. You think when you swipe your Visa card the record of that transaction belongs to you? Read your Visa agreement. It most certainly does not.

            •  My question was more rhetorical (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brooklynbadboy

              I know they're claiming they own it, but that doesn't mean they've properly expressed exactly what they own. The definition of "data" can be a wildly expansive number of things. There have got to be a hundred holes that could be poked into whatever that language is. Who owns the protocol, the wrapper, the format, the data center across which it passes...is it compressed when stored? Who owns the codec?

              My usage of things like credit cards is tailored to what you're talking about. If I wanted to hide a purchase, which is basically never, I'd use cash. Sometimes I do merely because it's easier. I'm not buying that they actually own the info. There are too many easy holes to poke.

              Slap happy is a platform.

              by averageyoungman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:09:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  or that you have any right to use that means (0+ / 0-)

              of payment any way you see fit.  as we saw with credit card and paypal donations to wikileaks.

              we're being herded like sheep.  

              Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson. (-9.75 / -9.05)

              by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:18:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Then we are on the same page. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brooklynbadboy

          That so-called "private data" of those corporations are US.

          I have comcast cable for internet. I pay them a fee.

          My connection is rife with information on their servers.

          So it's "my" data too.

          It IS about surveillence or SPYING - some word games - and that is wrong because of our protections - allged protections - of the now quaint 4th amendment (unreasonable search and siezure, the right to be SECURE in our papers and shit.

          NSA surveill-spying violates that on purpose.

          We should NOT have our data tracked for any reason whatsoever.

          The will of all government to want to oppress their people 'should' make anybody with an IQ north of room temprature nervous about siad governments having massive chunks of data on you.

          PArtly the goverment is mean-spirited, and to no small extent its defined by rank incompetence over half the time. (Wrong house/right search warrant, anybody?)

          They do not deserve to be trusted one inch with this shit.

          •  Comcast shouldn't be tracking you. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xxdr zombiexx, YucatanMan

            Why do they need to keep track of what channels you watch? Is what channels you watch your business or theirs? Is what websites visit your information or theirs?

            If its both of yours, why aren't they paying you for it? Or giving you service for free in return for keeping it?

            The government isn't tracking YOU. It is tracking corporate data. If you were to sue, that would be the first thing they say. You have no standing because this data isn't yours to begin with.

            •  What they are trying to do (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan

              which is the purview of full-on dimwits, is trying to search "algorhythms' for shit:

              Doc watched UFC these nights, then every other tuesday he ate at this restaurant where the friends of one of the shady fight promoters that Doc e-mailed (not knowing they were considered shady) about MERCHANDICE.

              So we can see doc is actually palling around with some bad hombres.

              I suggest we make Adam B do a history of the Church Committee as a Sunday feature to help remind people WHY we are so nervous about these dingalings having all this informational power....

            •  PS (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan
              The government isn't tracking YOU. It is tracking corporate data. If you were to sue, that would be the first thing they say. You have no standing because this data isn't yours to begin with.
              It is my hope that they aren't tracking me.

              Its not the old "I have something to hide" its the "you have no clue what they can or will do at any given moment".

              We have, I believe, no real assurances this isn't happening We get lip service and "trust us" but only fools believe the government at face value.

              •  Well, let me clarify: (0+ / 0-)

                When I say "you" I don't mean specifically you, but individuals. So when the government says, "we want to track this person" they can then tap that persons phone data directly, with or without the telephone' company's cooperation. If they want to track your email, with that sort of warrant they don't need Google's cooperation or permission. They can go get it from Google.

                But what they are doing here is basically the same thing, only its blanket coverage of everyone, using the exactly same Google owned data. Only this way, Google just gives it to them.

                So the privacy issue is a distinction without a difference. What matters here is who owns what data.

            •  What is interesting here, though, is how that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Nelson

              "meta data" (data that corporations hold about their customers' activities) becomes identifiable back to the person who undertook those activities.

              No, I don't really mean the name on your account.  

              What I mean, and many smarter people than me have pointed this out, is that once the government assembles enough information about your activities from a wide variety of sources, they can actually construct a very clear image of who you are, who you know, what you do everyday, where you go and when all this occurs.

              In other words, yes, the data is corporate data, but when assembled in volume, a portrait is painted of a US citizen and everything about them.

              That's a frightening tool for the government to hold:  contents of our Emails, records of our contacts, our financial transactions, our Facebook comments, activities, and friends, locations via mobile phone signals.

              Pre-collecting data on everyone, all the time, has a stifling influence on public discourse. For example, sources for reporters are already being less cooperative, because they know the government knows all the numbers they've called and been called by, all the time.

              I completely agree the data being gathered, at the time of gathering is "corporate data," but once the volume achieves a surprisingly small level, it paints a complete picture of "You" the citizen.  

              To me, that is contrary to the definition of a Free Society.

              "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

              by YucatanMan on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:06:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'm with BBB (8+ / 0-)

    and I probably should put my money where my mouth is and write some more about the 702 issue as much of my informed speculation has been confirmed by subsequent reports.

  •  I actually think Snowden is an important part (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, Rusty SpikeFist 2

    of the story.

    He is a little person. He did something BIG. I think that's an important lesson - that every little bit can count.

    History is a bore because we don't laud the people, the little people - and that's by design - it's all Harriet Tubman, Rockefeller, FDR & MacArthur, and you son, are no MacArthur...

    Should the hat be hung on his morality holding up? I don't think so, but this rush to deny him any play in the story has rubbed me the wrong way.

    I agree it's about all the tech spy vs spy stuff, but I do think Snowden and Greenwald are germane to the story - if for anything, the lengths they had to go to navigate the National Security State and International Law and the discussion about safe havens and extradition. Hong Kong's terse question to close the recent communiqué as an example...

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:17:00 AM PDT

    •  But thre is nothing about him (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rusty SpikeFist 2, YucatanMan

      that needs to circumvent the importance of what he has done.

      The important stuff is the crimes he alerted us to.

      Any other focus is truly misplaced IF one is worried about the crimes reported.

      Those who think it's no big deal will focus on Snowden.

      •  Those who think it is important will also focus on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rusty SpikeFist 2

        him.

        Fine toothed comb doesn't do it justice. They will focus there. He will be something... America doesn't shoot the messenger, we tarnish him - his story will be told over and over and who he is will be defined, like it or not - with or without our input.

        Not addressing him whatsoever sends what kind of message to future whistleblowers? "Thanks for taking one for the team, bro... Sucks to be you..."

        Now it sounds like I'm trying to be his PR guy, I'm not. It's just that this whole 'forget about the person' who did - hell is doing - this amazing thing in shining a light on the American security state's unmentionables - doesn't sit right with me.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:29:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is TRUE that America has perfected (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          k9disc, Rusty SpikeFist 2, YucatanMan

          character assassination: we no longer whack people.

          In the 1960's Clinton would have been killed by a sniper.

          In the 1990's he was simply drug through the mud.

          The internet and the freer exchange of information helps balance some of that but they can still ruin your life to the point it takes years and more money than you have to unfuck it.

          I cannot find an excellent article on this from the Bush era.

  •  Snowden executed a complex plan to leak (0+ / 0-)

    some information about US surveillance and to sell more information to China in exchange for smth (protection? permission to leave HK?). I'm not sure what it makes him. Assuming of course that he actually gave this info to Chinese. But we will probably never find out the truth about that.

  •  I would add one thing: private contractors. (10+ / 0-)

    Snowden brought them into the picture. I'm not sure how much the public knows about them but more can't hurt.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:24:21 AM PDT

  •  What I now know about my government's actions (5+ / 0-)

    Makes me much less likely to participate in its healthy facilitation.

    Makes me question what petitions I sign and what opinions I express.

    Makes me wonder who will exploit my private information to control my right to life, liberty and happiness.

    Makes me distrust my elected representatives.

    Makes me suspicious of my government in any scenario in which it asks for my private information.

    Makes me suspicious of private entities that ask or require my private information.

    Makes me concerned that my political viewpoints can be used against me.

    On and on. We're in big trouble if this stuff is left unchecked.

    Slap happy is a platform.

    by averageyoungman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:28:05 AM PDT

  •  best diary on this subject (3+ / 0-)

    period.  

    Snowden is not a traitor (the constitution made it a specific crime with a very high bar for a reason); nor is he a hero (despite what may be his own visions of grandeur).  And I care not a whit about him either way. He will get his 15 minutes, or not; he will end up on a beach somewhere or on trial, or not.  He is simply not the issue.  But it's easy to chase the shiny objects, especially for our not so smart media.
    Greenwald is not the issue.  Much as I suspect he'd like to be. He got a good story and he did what he should with it.  But it's passing him by as well.  

    What balance we choose as a people between liberty and security is the issue...or better yet is there even a choice that needs to be made?  is this a real balance that we need to determine, or is a post 9/11 straw man?  I grapple with it myself (having gotten out of the towers that day eating shortly thereafter a lot of dust and whatever else). How much is real, how much is fear, how much is too much. Have I been played, or has the world changed more than I realize? What kind of country did we have, and what kind of country do we have now, and what kind of country do we want to have?  We are not the Great Satan; nor are we that shining beacon on a hill.  Again, it's something in the middle, but what exactly that is remains at times elusive and ever changing.  It's up to us to define it and to make it so.
     But those are the tough debates to have with others or with oneself.  And it's debates we should have with each other and with ourselves.  It's what this site is for IMO.

    Not name calling and hyperbole over the unimportant shiny objects.  

  •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

    We're supposed to be watching the watchers.

  •  Greenwald And Snowden Are BOTH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    Unsufferable, self-centered douchebags.

    But you correctly point out that they aren't relevent to the greater issue.

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:03:34 AM PDT

    •  At least they informed us of what our govt... (0+ / 0-)

      is doing. In fact, they informed Sen Wyden of the program and the fact he'd been lied to under oath by DNI Clapper. And the fact that President Obama hasn't fired him. Is President Obama's entire national security staff given  freedom to lie whenever congress asks something they'd rather not answer cause it could tip the public to existence of a program or tech not previously disclosed?

      I'd be very interested to hear there methods for finding, researching and, potentially, punishing the employees and agents who abuse their access and invade the privacy of the public-----are citizens ever alerted in aftermath?

      I'll leave it there. I don't want my government acting as free agents.

  •  It's show-biz again.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan


    ..too bad, because it sidelines the issues..

    It is about the boundaries between personal privacy and the security of the nation. It is about global diplomacy and surveillance. It is about technology and modern life in the 21st Century. And it is about corporate and governmental power versus personal liberty.
    ..and takes away the credilbilty of the informer's (in this case Snowden) actual information he/she has exposed when they choose publicity instead of anonymity, and we the public along with the producers of the "show" - the MSM - get caught up in it, questions of motive and other side shows inevitably become the narrative

    Aaaannnnnd...SCENE!

    Thx BBB - short and exactly on point

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site