Hot debate on Ed Mazlish's Facebook page over this.  Great comments from those who disagree. 

"Voltaire Press "By disclosing the methods used by the NSA, Snowden made it easier for those targets to evade future surveillance." (PS)

That is like saying that because Joe revealed that the government conducts random, warrantless searches of peoples homes, Joe makes it easier for criminals to evade future capture. If so, then blame the government -- not the person who exposed the evil methods. The ends does not justify the methods.

When it comes to evaluating Snowden's *specific* action, i.e., his disclosure of the government's wholesale spying on Americans (and Greenwald's reporting on it), his motivation and his broader philosophic convictions are irrelevant. Whatever contradictions he (and Greenwald) may hold are just that -- his contradictions. He is not being evaluated qua his character or his intellectual consistency. He is being judged (in my view as a hero) for a *concrete* action: for revealing the government's egregious violation of our rights.

I might save a child from drowning because I'm motivated by a desire to be a big shot in the local papers. And I might be a socialist professor. Neither of those are relevant to the fact that my action is good: I saved a child from drowning."

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EHL "Yeah, I guess its an evil thing for Snowden to tell us what our government is doing to us, without our consent or warrant. If Objectivism has gotten to the place where it now approves of Soviet-style totalitarian government, then it has become irrelevant if not downright evil itself. One does not have to agree that Snowden is a hero to understand that what the US government is doing goes far beyond the scope of its charter."

"Ayn Rand did not approve of Libertarians. So what? She didn't like a lot of people. Again, so what? 
She's dead, and the kind of pretzels her more dogmatic followers twist themselves into to approve of violating the rights of Americans by their own government may keep her philosophy pure and uncontaminated by those awful libertarians, but again, so what? 
It also makes Objectivism irrelevant to the everyday lives of people who are rapidly losing their liberty and are waking up to it."

Government doesn't have "rights." Snowden should be left unmolested by any charges.

Government doesn't have moral rights - those can only belong to an individual.  But it does have some legal rights that are just - and even a kind of just legal property right.  For example, it would be okay for government to fine or jail someone if they broke into a court house and stole furniture.  

And if Snowden released a document that disclosed the identity of an FBI agent that was undercover attempting to gather information on a terrorist cell, then Snowden should be prosecuted for that.  What about those individuals that sent information to Nazi Germany about when a convoy of ships sailed so the the submarine wolf packs could sink them?  If they were giving out that information, while working for the government, and after signing confidentiality agreements, then shouldn't they have been punished for that?  What about the scientists on government payroll who gave the Soviets the classified technical documents on the atomic bomb?  There are some legal rights the government has that arise out of self-defense and whose exercise doesn't violate Objective moral rights.

The problem with making a hero out of Snowden is that there is too much baggage.  Why did he run to China which is the exact opposite of a nation that respects individual's right to be secure in their property and free of government surveillance?  Why go to Putin, a former KGB officer and still a thug?  Why did he release a mixture of things that are appropriate for our government to do relative to terrorists, things that did not involve any American citizens, along with those things that the government should never be doing?  I see such a mixture in his actions, that his revealing NSA's crimes stands out as a valuable thing, rather than a heroic thing - to be heroic it needs a clearer motive, a more explicit principle, and someone who was heroic in this context might have left the country, but NOT to go to those nations.  I can be very happy that the NSA and others were exposed, without feeling any inclination to put Snowden up on a pedestal.

Edward Snowden is a friend of freedom and individual rights. He did something outstandingly heroic in defense of the American government and its people. It's as simple as that.

And not incidentally, he seemingly ruined his whole life in the process. Mostly in the name of high principles and liberty. What could be more socially virtuous? That blog entry about him was poor and ridiculous.

Cultist monster and pseudo-Objectivist Peter Schwartz writes of Snowden's "motivations" and desires." But these are fairly trivial and hard to know. So too Snowden's "philosophy." What counts are Snowden's actions.

Based on moral outrage, and evidently in the cause of liberty, he exposed the NSA's wanton and egregious violations of the US constitution and law. He especially acted in defense of the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights. And he surrendered his high income, beautiful girlfriend, and wonderful lifestyle in Hawaii to do so. Now he's a hunted and beleaguered man -- unwelcome, and threatened with death, pretty much everywhere on earth.

Despite the article's smears, the evidence suggests that Snowden went to China and Russia because he had no choice. He doesn't look to be "cozying up" to tyranny. And he seems to vastly prefer living in a semi-free, Western state. But evidently none will give him sanctuary, due to US pressure. So he reasonably seeks out, and openly thanks, the only states which will publicly support him in his desperate hour of need -- however dubious their natures and motivations.  

That question at the Putin t'v' press conference also seems to be legitimate, and even important -- not an act of sycophancy. As for Snowden "identif[ying] for Chinese officials which of their computers had been penetrated by the NSA," I never heard of this before, but even if true, maybe he was forced to do so.

As for Snowden "disclosing the methods" used by the NSA criminals, how else could he report on their behavior and actions? He had to reveal how they were doing it; that was the relevant point. 

As for Snowden and his colleague Glenn Greenwald having a confused political and general philosophy, well that would also apply to over 99% of America and mankind, in our vast, irrational, illiberal, Dark Age time period. The fact that Snowden and Greenwald identify with, and support, Ron Paul and the libertarians, is a significant and remarkable good thing -- not bad. How does Schwartz not get this?

Peter Schwartz's whole article was tendentious, ignorant, foolish, hateful, and depraved. Just like his massive support for "Objectivist" religiosity, and his entire wretched, fatuous, malicious life.

There is no question that what Snowden did in revealing the NSA's massive violations of our constitutional rights was an act that will have a significant impact in fighting for liberty.   But when you watch his news conferences and see the choices he made, and look at the countries he held up as supporters of liberty, and notice that he revealed things that were not violations of the constitution and were helping to fight terrorist organizations, then in those acts he did our nation a great disservice.

Peter Swartz said that what NSA did in spying on Americans was wrong but that what Snowden did was worse.  I agree that what NSA did was wrong, but I don't agree that Snowden's wrong doing was worse.  I'd say it was far less egregious.  That was either hyperbole on Mr. Swartz's part or a case of getting his priorities wrong.

It is true that Snowden ruined his life, but that is only of interest if we are in agreement with his philosophical principles and the context in which he acted. For example, the Boston bombers also ruined their lives when they went on a killing spree and that isn't a thing that makes them heros.  I'm not equating Snowden with them.  I'm just saying, particularly as an Objectivist, that his 'sacrifice' isn't a measure of heroism by itself.  I deeply admire those founding fathers who took on great risk when they publically supported the revolution - because their act arose out the right principles and was appropriate in its context.  Snowden?  Not so much.

My personal take on this is that Snowden's hatred for the government, not just the wrong-doing aspects of the NSA, took him to a place where he wanted to do damage. That's not the same as having a real love of liberty, and an understanding of individual rights. Or, maybe he is just a very damaged individual and not acting on any clear set of principles.  Or maybe some of his principles are right, but he is just immature, and when he tried to do the right thing, he screwed up royally.

I didn't find that much to object to in Peter Swartz's blog:  http://peterschwartz.com/snowden-and-the-nsa/

Is it possible that he was under a time constraint?  Perhaps he didn't have time to separate the data so instead of leaking nothing he just lumped it all together before it got erased?  I have no idea just a conjecture on my part.

Steve, 

But it does have legal rights. Legal rights do not arise from our nature, but from the laws that are passed.  A cat or dog can have legal rights.  Government has the legal right to arrest anyone who violates a law.

  See, that's the whole horrible thing about it. Laws that violate rational principles aren't legitimate. Laws exist, in principle, to protect the rights of citizens, not government bodies. I don't see laws that violate the rights of people as legitimate. They aren't legitimate. Government isn't my God. I won't accept what government hands down by faith.  Arresting Snowden would be another terrible mistake made by government, and supported by people like you who should know better. 

What you're advocating, Steve, is equivocation in the law. Equivocation in principle, too. 

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/28, 7:05pm)

Teresa,

Laws that violate rational principles aren't legitimate.

I never said otherwise. I said that the NSA was in violation of the constitution.  Why do you try to make it appear that I am in favor of wholesale surveilance of American citizens?

----------------------

Laws exist, in principle, to protect the rights of citizens, not government bodies.

I haven't disagreed with that.  But we have laws that protect the institutions that protect us - and if they are rational laws and the aspect of the institution they protect is one that is defending our rights, then it is a proper law.  Government itself is a product of the law and any aspect of government that protects individual rights should itself be protected.

----------------------

I don't see laws that violate the rights of people as legitimate.

Nor do I.

----------------------

They aren't legitimate.

I agree, and it is very frustrating to be treated like I was arguing in favor of irrational laws, or laws that violate individual rights.

-----------------------

Government isn't my God.  I won't accept what government hands down by faith.

It is sickening to see you imply that those are my beliefs - they aren't!

------------------------

There is no equivication in my positions.

If you want to have an honest discussion tell me how you'd answer the questions I asked. What would you do to the person who worked for the government and who betrayed the time and location of the D-Day landing?  Are you unwilling to answer that?

If you don't think that there would be anything wrong with making that information public, then it would be senseless to continue this discussion. If you are honest enough to acknowledge that government should keep that secret, and that it should imprison a person that exposed it, then you are faced with attempting to understand how one relates this business of classified material to Objective principles.  That is what I have been making an honest attempt to do.

If you can't grasp that a war where American lives are being lost will at times require secrecy, and that secrecy can be a part of the government doing its job to protect individual rights then I don't know how to communicate with you on this issue.

Vera,

Proper government does very, very little except for defend or retaliate against initiated force. So, in that sense it is hard to imagine legitimate government secrecy that doesn't involve defense or retaliation.

But here is a minor example. If the government is going to contract for work to be done on a court house and issue a request for bids, then they need to keep the bids secret till they have accepted one of them. Keeping them secret while the bids are being accepted is acting to protect the taxpayer's money, keeping it secret afterwards would be acting to protect bureaucrats from taxpayer's awareness.

Notice that my example used a court house. That is because protection of individual rights by a government requires the existence of courts and they have to be in a building and a building will on occasion require some work done and the work will cost money and it is only common sense that the government should attempt to use sensible business practices to get a reasonable price for the work. This is a case where protecting individual rights requires lots of activities that aren't directly using force in defence or retalition.

--------------

You agree that in the WWII D-Day scenario it is right for the government to convict and imprison solely for revealing information. Then how to explain that as a proper principle? (The same kind of thing applies to the FBI putting an agent in undercover to break a bank robbery gang.)

Note that there is a distinct difference between creating a secret, and using force against a person that reveals it. Two distinct acts. In the case of the contract bidding, the temporary secret part is okay, but if a government clerk revealed the bids, is there a sound position for putting that clerk in jail?  In this case, I'd say that if the clerk gave the secret to a contractor for cash, it is participation in a fraud on the taxpayers and he should be jailed.  But if the clerk made the bids public, the most that should be done is to fire him. He violated employment terms (a contract) but he wasn't complicit in the initiation of force, fraud or theft.

The D-Day traitor was actively aiding the enemy who were initiating force against us and thereby shares the guilt of the initiated force.

So, I'd say that for the government to use force (imprison someone) they must be able to make a case that the revealing of the secret actively, and materially aided individuals who initiated force, or that the revealing of a secret was itself part of an intentional fraud scheme. That's not so hard. But how to say where it is proper for government to have a secret and where it shouldn't is not so easy.

I'd say that there is a moral duty of government employees and leaders to not hide what they are doing from the citizens with the exception of "X".  But it is hard to define those different conditions that make up "X".  What we should have is a kind of legal, contractual arrangement with those in government about what they can keep secret. And we do have that... to a degree. We are supposed to have oversight by our elected representatives on secrets. And there are supposed to be definitions of what can be kept secret.  But that isn't working.

(And I agree with you that the government is upset with Snowden because he exposed their wrong doing, but their emotional reactions don't tell us what moral/legal principles should govern government secrecy).

I'm having a hard time defining the exceptions to what should be public. Aiding the enemy is clearly one - it derives from initiation of force. Another example is where the cops or the prosecutor withhold information, or will even lie to a suspect during interrogation:  "We know you and your buddy robbed that store.  He has already confessed."  

----------------

I have a moral right to say what I want.  Speech is an action taking place in a social context that should be free to exercise.  The First Amendment makes it a legal right as well.  But I am free to give up some part of that moral and legal right by choosing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.  And my freedom of speech doesn't wash away the effect of speech used in a fraud.   

-----------------

Snowden aided the American people by revealing government wrong doing, but he also aided an active enemy that we are attempting to fight. I think that exposing the NSA's wrong doing is far more important than Snowden's wrong-doing, but I think it is a failure to see his acts as all good, or to make a hero out what to me looks like confused and ideologically flawed individual.

------------------

With a truely tiny government that is only concerned with the defense of individual rights it is very unlikely that this would ever be a pressing issue.

Vera,

Why is it a requirement to have secret bids on a courthouse?

It's not. It is just a technique that works well in business to get the best bid in a reasonable amount of time. If one contractor knows what the other has bid, he can just underbid by a dollar - that becomes more like an auction which is a cumbersome technique for a single large project. The point I was making is that it's a benevolent and temporary form of secrecy done in the interest of the taxpayer.
--------------------

The best practice I heard of in building negotiations was from Switzerland: they request at least 5 offers - the cheapest and the most expensive are automatically stricken as exaggerated. The middle three are evaluated based on cost and quality or additional benefits offered. But all of it is public - no one hides what they can do and no one hides what they think their work is worth.

But those five offerees don't know what the others have bid. If it weren't secret in the beginning, no one would send in the lowest or the highest. They have to bid while in the dark about what others are bidding.  This takes some time because putting together a bid on a large piece of work takes time.  If the bids weren't kept secret for a period of time, the best strategy would be to wait till the first four bids were in and then don't be above the highest or under the lowest.
--------------------

I understand the sheeple do it on a daily basis, because they think they can 'get one over the other', but in a rational world it's not necessary. Rearden Steel was not getting rich off secret board room negotiations - that was the Boyle way.

You misunderstand. This isn't about 'getting one over the on other.'  It is having contractors make bids that relate to how much they'd charge and without being influenced by what their competition is bidding. And it isn't secret board room stuff - it is just the submission of sealed bids that are revealed as soon as the bidding is closed.
---------------------

Snowden never revealed any D-Day information (I'm curious how many such plans he actually got out and never told anyone ;) it's hard to make a case against him as a traitor to his country or that he 'aided forces that intended to initiate force against the U.S. of A..'

I'm not so sure that he didn't put some of our people at risk. We have yet to see all of the documents he stole.

I agree with you - I don't think that what he did merits capital punishment - but if it can be shown that he put our people at real risk, then I'd go for some prison time. People are making excuses for him - saying that he had to release so many in such a short period of time that he couldn't vet them all.  That's like saying that someone had to shoot so many bullets in such a short period of time that they didn't have time to aim the gun.  The saving grace for Snowden isn't in what he did, but in the massive abuse of secrecy and violation of the 4th amendment by the government.  His wrongs end up looking pretty small next to theirs.

I think that his release of documents that showed unconstitutional activities on the part of the government should NOT be used against him and instead should be evidence against those abusing the constitution.