Election Discussion

[Kemal Ergenekon]

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.

 

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.

[LordRahl2]

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.

[Beatrix]

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.

[LordRahl2]

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.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

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.

 

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.

[Beatrix]

He could've thought in advance.

He could've had to download the extra information because it was part of the whole server.

He could've done it to find more proof for his claims.(or other claims beyond what he exposed)

 

I mean, hell, you can think of so many reasons that are much more likely than him being a spy... 

Edited October 21, 2016 by Beatrix

[Beatrix]

Actually, Snowden passed polygraph tests and went through pretty strict backround checks. Infact, it was the CIA that offered him a position, he didn't apply. He trained and instructed top officials how to defend from Chinese hacker attacks. He had unlimited access to the NSA data for years, and he also significantly improved their defences. 

 

If he was a spy, you wouldn't expect him to significantly enhance the security of the NSA. There wasn't any evidence that his defence mechanisms were flawed - which you would expect a spy to do. Down playing him as a low-level analyst that took what he could get and left is false.

 

The most interesting thing is that no one knows what he downloaded, only what he may have downloaded. The way he did it was untraceable - the NSA only knows what files he accessed in general. 

[LordRahl2]

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.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

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.

 

How so? If his aim was to leak the stuff, he succeeded admirably. So why is he incompetent?

[LordRahl2]

Again, competent spy or incompetent whistle blower.

 

I provided a tldr on this already.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Again, competent spy or incompetent whistle blower.

 

I provided a tldr on this already.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2014-6

 

This is what unsuccessful whistleblowing looks like?

[LordRahl2]

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):

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/how-much-did-snowden-take-least-three-times-number-reported-f8C11038702

 

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.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

My source says empty line?

 

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.

 

"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)

 

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?

[LordRahl2]

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

 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

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 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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

You should have asked: "Kemal, do you think he is more likely to be a spy?" My answer would be yes. I'm just poking holes in the bad arguments as usual.

 

Yeah, I hate it too.

[LordRahl2]

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·er

noun

noun: whistleblower

1. 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.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

"a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."

 

not

 

"a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity who does not to any other illegal stuff."

 

 

Did he inform on a person or organization engaged in illicit activity? Yes. The items listed in the Business Insider article I linked to earlier is sufficient to fulfill this definition.

 

You say that being a whistleblower did not *require* him to copy the remaining data. Correct. You claim that copying the remaining data disqualifies him as a whistleblower. Incorrect. Copying the remaining data and handing it to other nations does disqualify him from being a Whistleblower protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. It does not disqualify him from fulfilling the "definition definition."

 

Again, being a whistleblower did not require him to copy the data, but it gave him more options. It gave him a credible punishment, hence leverage. It gave him a trove of information from which he can nitpick new stuff to publicize. It expanded his capability set. I think anyone in his position should have obtained a copy, as long as he or she believed that it could easily be destroyed. Or encrypted -- though that makes it more likely for him to be tortured.

 

All of your suppositions depend on two things as I mentioned. You are assuming that Snowden must be acting with the best interests of the US public in mind. This is not a requirement of being a whistleblower, though they would obviously claim so. Secondly, the social calculus there is subject to debate. Maybe he thinks revelation of the illegal activities of the US is more important than giving Russia and China some tactical advantages in the short term. Depends on how you value stuff, which is subjective.

[LordRahl2]

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.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

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.

 

 

There is no reason for Snowden to claim he is not acting in the best interests of the US public in mind. So he does. Also, Trump will MAGA, Hillary loves minorities, and bears shit in the woods.

 

I don't think he is a hero either.

 

Good question. Maybe he did? Not against the US, but so that he was useful enough to China/Russia for them to not return him to the US? Do you know for a fact that he handed all the information? Maybe provided access to different encrypted archives over time? I am not quite familiar with how you know what else he stole, and whether China/Russia has full access to it.

 

You mean if he was a completely selfless person and thought he would have 100% success in releasing the files. I doubt both. I don't think he wants to be a martyr. He is selfish.

[Beatrix]

Actually, Snowden passed polygraph tests and went through pretty strict backround checks. Infact, it was the CIA that offered him a position, he didn't apply. He trained and instructed top officials how to defend from Chinese hacker attacks. He had unlimited access to the NSA data for years, and he also significantly improved their defences. 

 

If he was a spy, you wouldn't expect him to significantly enhance the security of the NSA. There wasn't any evidence that his defence mechanisms were flawed - which you would expect a spy to do. Down playing him as a low-level analyst that took what he could get and left is false.

 

The most interesting thing is that no one knows what he downloaded, only what he may have downloaded. The way he did it was untraceable - the NSA only knows what files he accessed in general. 

 

Rahl, you didn't reply to this. Claiming he stole gigabytes is unknown, it's only possible. 

[LordRahl2]

Rahl, you didn't reply to this. Claiming he stole gigabytes is unknown, it's only possible.

Nope. It is known.

[Beatrix]

Nope. It is known.

http://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/interview-transcriptformer-head-of-the-nsa-and-commander-of-the-us-cyber-command-general-keith-alexander-20140507-itzhw

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-never-know-extent-of-snowdens-leaks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

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.

[LordRahl2]

http://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/interview-transcriptformer-head-of-the-nsa-and-commander-of-the-us-cyber-command-general-keith-alexander-20140507-itzhw

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-never-know-extent-of-snowdens-leaks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

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.

[Beatrix]

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.

 

 

Why do you assess that he took 60 gigs of data with him?  Where did this data go and why?

 

 

 

You may re-read my post above that has a different argument, it was a one-line thing anyways.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Beatrix

[LordRahl2]

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.