LordRahl2
-
Posts
2953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by LordRahl2
-
-
It is a huge perception change. The facts remain almost the same though.
-
Kemal and I are glad that you and Roz do not believe in scientific polls.
Just so yall know. Even if Trump wins: he will be getting between 40 and 50% of the popular vote.
A more interesting poll, OP, would be to divine the number of electoral votes.
-
You may re-read my post above that has a different argument, it was a one-line thing anyways.
Again, I don't care if it is 3 or 3 billion.
The 60 gig number is suggested by multiple sources.
As long as he took and shared unrelated and dangerous information with the Russians (he did) then he is a traitor. The question on whether he started as a paid spy or was turned later is interesting but doesn't really change the facts that much.
-
If ya'll are curious the answer is almost certainly 40-50% although there is a very very small chance it is 30-40 (like 39).
-
3
-
-
Not according to the sources above. From what I understand, the main idea of what he stole is from what he released to the press.
Yeah, you need to read those critically. They are saying we will not know if he stole 3 gigabites of data or far far more. That is irrelevant to my point.
-
Rahl, you didn't reply to this. Claiming he stole gigabytes is unknown, it's only possible.
Nope. It is known.
-
Snowden claims to be acting with the best interests of the US public in mind.My argument is against his hero worship - not as you may think - that I find the activity he informed on legal.If he took the information solely to use as leverage then why did he not use it as leverage? Again, his actions demonstrate his intent. H parleyed it first to one enemy then another almost instantaneously. Almost as if his goal was espionage.If he found the social value of releasing the information so high then he could have done so and NOT committed espionage. Then he would have a far more secure ethical foundation - which he lacks entirely now. So the social calculus explaining his treachery is - does he value a personal jail sentence over the real life security of his friends and neighbors.
-
I guess you think the Whistleblower Protection Act defines the concept we know of as whistleblower. Else, I do not see where the conventional definition of whistleblowing includes the presupposition of "just carry the minimal amount of necessary data." I see whistleblowing as informing the public of illegal acts. Edward Snowden did this. Do you dispute this?
lmgtfy: whistleblower definition
whis·tle-blow·ernounnoun: whistleblower- a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.
Bolded the key word.
What is the definition of one who engages in acts to obtain intelligence of a political, military or intel and provide them to a potentially hostile power in exchange for something? Do you deny that Snowden did this? Did he have to in order to revel the illicit activity?
Nope nope nope. He broke a law because he knew he would be considered a criminal (thanks to this law from WW1 that I forgot the name of) in any case. Like, if I intend to cross Tayyip, I wouldn't mind stealing some other data that might incriminate Tayyip to use as leverage. He will be out for my head anyway. The same turned out to be true for Snowden, with people talking about putting him on the "kill list."
Copying data does not imply that you will sell/give it to the enemies. It's leverage as long as you have it. I don't see the logical fail since you are assuming this whistleblower must (1) maximize the society's well-being, (2) copying the data is bound to lower the society's well-being moreso than not revealing the illegal acts.
You are again claiming that "whistleblower" as defined by the US laws must be what the public means when they use the word whistleblower. This is false. Same people can be called freedom fighters or terrorists by different governments. One person might be called a whistleblower by a civilian and a traitor by the government. The governments definition of the concept w.r.t. its laws is not the only legitimate usage of the word in common language.
Absolutely not. He broke a law (several actually). His motivation is opaque for doing so. He would like you to see him as a whistleblower. However, to be a whistleblower did not require breaking other laws. In fact by breaking those laws he obviated his potential legal (though tenuous) and ethical basis for being a whistleblower. It is the ethical that interests me here as it is tied into the first post itt. Snowden bamboozled himself into many people's minds as a hero of the people.
If you would steal information that endangered Turkey and her people while informing on Erdogan then I would classify you as a traitor. Would you give the Kurds information to easily blow up markets filled with civilians just because or for money? I think this is where you go astray in your thinking. He delivered data to Russia that is probably devastating for America. He did not simply reveal an unsavory potentially illegal program. He did that on the side as he committed one of the largest acts of espionage in US history. At least Benedict Arnold was instrumental to winning the battle of Saratoga before he tried to sell out the country.
Copying is copying. Providing is providing. He did both.
I showed you my definition of whistleblower above. I use the definition definition.
And I don't mind the debate. It sharpens my argument for when it is more important.
-
-
My source says empty line?
I told you I tldr earlier. I just copied and pasted
"Whistleblowers only take specific data" -- Ach so. He should have talked with Whistleblowers United and take only what Lord Rahl allows, xd. (i.e. I don't buy that statement)
I am sorry that Kemal inc. does not buy a basic premise of whistleblowers limiting their leak to activity that is illegal. However, definitionally it does require that limitation.
"LordRahl" is open to the consideration that a specific program was illegal (thought that is open to debate). "LordRahl" is 100% positive that the MASSIVE and UNFILTERED data stolen and released was not 100% illegal. Therefore Snowden is not a whisleblower- by definition.
I proposed one potential reason: he took the data for leverage. I proposed another potential reason: if you are going to be called a traitor anyway, why not? After all, he could erase it later if he didn't want to use it. It's rational to keep your capability set large.
So he broke the law in order to defend himself from accusations of breaking the law. Interesting theory.
Why not, if you feel that one particular aspect or activity of your government is wrong, use that as justification steal loads of information unrelated to the offensive actiivity and sell/give it to your countries enemies? Sure. Makes good logical sense. I will protect people's freedoms by endangering them. You see the logical fail of this argument yes?
Again. Actions. He did not use that data as leverage. He, at the very minimum, attempted to give it to the Chinese and succeeded at giving it to the Russians.
This is not a "LordRahl" opinion on what was legal, what a whitleblower is by definition, nor the fact set. It is a legal definition, definition definition, and a fact set.
You admit that it is possible for him to started as a whistleblower, which is exactly my claim. I said that the data does not prove that he is a spy, which you also agreed to earlier. I don't see what you are disagreeing with?
As long as you are happy with a low order probability that he was an incompetent boob trying to be a whistleblower and failing? Cool with me.
I hate the quote system on this forum. ghhhhh
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2014-6
This is what unsuccessful whistleblowing looks like?
Yes, basically.
///////////////////////////////////////
Snowden was a back end server tech at the NSA. He had access to TS/SCI material. He copied almost all the data he had access to and fled with it. He released a very small portion of the data to wikileaks. He took the rest of it with him first to China, who rejected him, then to Russia who took him on. He currently receives funds from the Russian government. He had the data with him in both China and Russia. It is certain that Russia, at a minimum, received access to the data. He did not leak 60 gigabytes of data to wikileaks.
(All of the above are facts - do you dispute any of them?).
I note that your source says:
That is incorrect. Or at least it does not convey what happened with accuracy (which is important). Here is an open source document (first one I found on my google search):
The "and leaked" is what is at issue. Again, he did not leak 60 gigabytes of data. It was far far less that he gave to wikileaks.
So as follow up questions for you:
Why do you assess that he took 60 gigs of data with him? Where did this data go and why?
Again, lets review:
Snowden stole gigabits of data indiscriminately. Whistle blowers only take specific data.
Snowden fled to China and sought to use the stolen data to gain asylum and $.
The Chinese rejected him but passed him off to the Russians.
He was transferred to Russia where the FSB debriefed him.
He currently has asylum in Russia and is paid by the Russians.
It is possible, but unlikely, that Snowden started as a whistle blower but was too incompetent to pass his data to wikileaks without discovery forcing him into paid Russian service. More likely is that he started as a paid agent.
I will entertain that he only became one once he screwed up on multiple occasions, however, that still does not explain why he stole so much data
This returns me to the more logical analysis that he was in the pay of foreign service agents from the beginning.
-
Again, competent spy or incompetent whistle blower.
I provided a tldr on this already.
-
Yes, we judge people by their actions, and the fact that he stole additional data is by no means conclusive proof that he was a spy at the outset. You like to believe it to be as such, but it unfortunately isn't.
Oh I agree.
"Conclusive proof" is a very high standard. Strongly suspect with supporting evidence is more like it.
I fully accept that he could be a criminally incompetent boob. I would like to say that his position reduced the chance of that, but considering my coworkers....it is a valid possibility.
What I do have conclusive proof of is that he did not act in a manner consistent with a compotent conscious whistle blower.
-
Regardless, he exposed illegal activity, which was then repeatedly lied about under oath. That's more interesting to me than catching a 'traitor' that has nothing left to offer.
That is perfectly fine to discuss.
However, this discussion started because of the hero worship of the traitor not because of the activity.
-
Ethics is funny business. It is not impossible that he thought of himself as a whistleblower who was pragmatic enough to have an insurance policy. Would he turn over the data to China and Russia if the US reacted more mildly? You cannot know, since the US offered no viable exit.
It is possible. Then we have to go back to what actually happened to determine who he was.
I am sure Benedict Arnold thought he was being patriotic and Erdogan believes he is doing the right moral thing.
Hence we judge people by their actions.
-
2
-
-
I don't understand why it has to be a technical reason.
He could steal unrelated sensitive information to have leverage in case the government tries to punish him. And the government did. Looks like he did the rational thing?
I do not understand the "technical reason" thing at all. Hence my question.
Not really. It eliminates his case that his behavior was ethical. And he has already delivered the intel to the two parties that we want to keep it secure from. So if his goal was to avoid punishment - completely irrational.
What I meant was there could be other reasons for copying more other than "he was a spy".
You're assuming that his behaviour at the time was de facto logical, when that might not be the case. It's also not unreasonable to think that he thought that, regardless of what he published - he will never be able to make his case in court. This might mean he sought to trade information with the Russians(for instance) in order to save himself. Perhaps he thought the value of the information stolen wasn't worth his life or what he initially wanted to prove.
You could also assert that, given the fact he acted illegaly, was limited in what he could do. It's possible that he quite literally had to download beyond the neccesary amount. After all, there has been quite a lot he hasn't stolen and he probably could have if you claim he intended to.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel as though these things cannot be known to us. The only people who 'know' this stuff are the people directly involved in the investigation and Snowden himself.
Regardless of whether he was a spy or not, what about the mass surveillance, the lies and deceit to the elected officials that followed? That's more interesting to me.
I am a bit lost by your argument. So you do not mean there was a technical reason but an unknowable reason?
The technical argument favors my explanation. He downloaded and stole the maximum amount that his device could story or close enough.
I am not and have never been a fan of mass surveillance. That does not mean we should continue to blindly worship a treacherous spy.
-
Not something technical, but I would copy whatever I could just because of sheer curiosity. He was already a criminal, so why not copy more?
He had unlimited access and time before if he was curious. He worked in the server room where the data was stored. This was not mission impossible.
The reason not to copy more is because he, theoretically and so he claims, was a patriot and cared about Muricans. Again, real whistle blowers release the incriminating evidence only - their goal is to right a wrong not to hurt people.
This image rapidly falls apart if you steal massive amounts of data and trade it/sell it to the Russians. This looks like a paid spy trying to justify his treason.
I can think of no technical reason to steal all the data.
-
I believe there could be a lot of technical reasons for why Snowden downloaded more than was neccesary.
Like such as.
-
as
-
as
-
The closest to non-biaised information you can find, is to read both NYT and RT and find the middle spot. Which is what I actually do.
That is sorta like saying you only eat broccoli and Big Macs and are hence healthy.
I would broaden and consume a lot more from different sources. You will probably give up on the RT because it is terrible.
If you want foreign sources there are plenty that are far superior.
-
ISIS needs to git gud and stop complaining.
TEst would have rekt that puny coalition.
ISIS was not in your tier.
-
It's not US/Coalition fault that the Islamic State forgot to build planes. I understand ISIS' poaching of members from other alliances is annoying, but we shouldn't get OOC about it.
Point taken....
Still: The glorious IS fighters should be able to shoot down some at least some planes using just their faith in Allah.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
After speaking to Moreau I have become convinced that RL Air-force is too OP. The US/Coalition airpower is unfair to the IS fighters.
Please if the admin of RL could nerf this unbalanced mechanic that would be great. Thanks!
-
13
-
Yes, languish. Your posting there fell way off as your guy nose dived.
Anyway, wrong thread for this. I appologize.
I had nothing, directly, to do with the thread closing. Our combined shit posting may have.
-
1
-
Gun Control, Facts Vs Liberals
in General Debate
Posted
I would find it distasteful to kill American citizens.