"@wikileaks "The Inside Story of Edward Snowden", by Someone Who Never Met or Spoke With Edward Snowden"
-The initial leaks were two days before a US/Chinese summit on digital espionage.
-Many of the leaks are in no way whistleblowing. Things like a TAO handbook, or exposing exact ways and targets do not fall under whistleblowing.
-I really don't understand why he chose to go to China. I know he said they have a long tradition of supporting free-speech, but that is bullshit. He had control over the timing of the leaks presumably. Why not go to Ecuador or Iceland? They certainly seem to fit his ideals better.
-Many of the leaks have been timed intentionally to embarrass the USG. This has not gone unnoted by other independent, respected researches (such as Matt Blaze) who predict Snowden leaks with pretty reasonable accuracy.
-I understand, but don't like, the medias obsession with the NSA. From the Snowden leaks, I've seen worse abuses of power from GCHQ, CSIS, and AT&T, yet these don't fit the narrative and are being discarded.
Just because he said "they'll try to paint me as a spy" doesn't mean that the fact don't heavily point in that direction. That isn't a defense.
Here is a senior editor at the Economist who says roughly the same thing: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303519404579350481345357224
Here is another respected journalist who questions Greenwalds connections to Ebay Dude: http://pando.com/2013/11/27/keeping-secrets/
The point of all these articles and objects isn't that they're correct necessarily, in fact I'm sure they contain biases or errors. The point is that the reply to all of these arguments is: we'll clearly you have an agenda and you're trying to smear him. This is not a refutation of the potentially valid points they make.
So yeah, while I personally think Snowden is either incredibly naive and being manipulated by other people or just straight forwardly a spy, I'm open to having my view changed, presuming that someone can explain some of the above with things other than "you're trying to smear him". Considering the above, I think that's a reasonable to shifting the burden of proof.
Also, if Snowden ever was a spy, I'd guess he was a spy for the CIA on the NSA.
« Older Worm study suggests that activity in mitochondria ... | "Exploring Gender Bias in list... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt