I was recently reminded in a conversation with my in-laws how far we have to go. Not only do they not really understand what the NSA is doing or why it matters, but they still see both Manning and Snowden as "traitors."
Coming out in support of whistle-blowers may seem non-controversial on HN and similar sites, but we do have a long way to go before swaying public opinion. We can help a little by discussing it with friends and family, and by letting our politicians know we're not OK with it.
I'm not sure what else to do or whether it's even helping. I wonder what kind of response we will get to the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I expect it to be one-sided nonsense.
It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. I'm reminded a little of the rabid followers of Ron Paul... they couldn't understand why the general public ignored their candidate when they were so beyond certain that he was not only the best choice, but self-evidently the only choice for the continuation of the American experiment. Their supporters called on each other to pester their friends and family and hijack every poll and discussion on the Internet, which is very similar to what I'm seeing called on in many threads here and on reddit.
It could also be that a small majority do agree with you, but simply don't care. I'm sure you can think of some policies of the federal government you don't like, but you just don't spend any time trying to fight, other than the occasional Internet comment (you have gone beyond the occasional Internet comment on this issue, right?)
When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way.
"It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you"
It is possible but almost certainly not the case. Most people do not know enough about computers to understand what the NSA programs even entail. It is pretty hard for the general public to make informed decisions about computer or Internet policies, laws, or government involvement.
>"When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way."
Would you like to point out where I made such an idiotic claim? I didn't mean or intent to imply that the only reason people don't agree with me is because they don't know. My point was simply that a lot of people are ignorant. What's not useful is this sort of straw-man pedantry.
As for those who agree but don't care: it's hard to blame them. I signed petitions, I sent letters to my elected representatives. I tried to attend a protest, but it was so pathetic that I left. I try, but there's a sense of futility to it all.
I'm very open to suggestions on how we can have a greater impact.
Were they stuffed with cash? Nothing talks like campaign donations.
All the vote promises in the world don't mean squat if they can't print enough flyers so that Joe Blow will recognize their name when they step into the booth.
Of course, no politician is going to care about donations on the level that your average middle-class American can afford to give. Maybe crowd-fund a large sum for donation whose receipt is contingent upon an agreement to vote a certain way on certain issues, with highly public and embarrassing repercussions if they do not?
It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you.
Disagrees based on what? Labeling someone as traitor doesn't constitute a rational counter-argument to concerns regarding privacy and government checks and balances in this case. Such argument should start with something like "I feel these programs are necessary because" and end with something that doesn't involve ultra-generic buzzwords.
I figured, but I feel as if sidestepping the politics here defeats the point. That said, I'd love to be proven wrong. I think when it comes to this particular topic my background brands me bias and hence unable to contribute objectively.
> but we do have a long way to go before swaying public opinion
At least in the case of Snowden, public opinion is against him and he is labelled as a "traitor" because people think it is perfectly fine for the government to spy on them, because unless they are doing something wrong, they have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. This dangerous argument is the reason that most people do not seem to care enough on why your government spying on you is a very bad thing and the ramifications of it, even if you are not doing something wrong. Throw in the "extreme" threat of terrorism on top of this, and most people are totally OK with the NSA programs: "I have nothing to hide and this helps prevent terrorism and therefore Snowden is a traitor for putting Americans at risk."
"public opinion is against him and he is labelled as a "traitor" because people think it is perfectly fine for the government to spy on them"
I think it is more that the majority of people do not believe that the government is spying on them. Most people do not understand that it does not take a team of government agents to spy on a person. The issue is not merely that people think they have nothing to hide, but that they do not even understand that they are being watched.
That's fairly straightforward and it's getting tiresome hearing the term "whistle-blower", which is intended more for dog-food factory workers reporting the use of rotten horse meat, rather than people releasing gigantic, undifferentiated masses of state secrets.
Second, releasing data securely is so trivial that both of these guys must have had a specific reason for not doing so. I mean, a humanitarian impulse would have led them to use the dark net and other channels, but neither of these guys did so.
In Manning's case it could have been a simple matter of a personality disorder, which he clearly had:
...in Snowden's case, being a sane, smart guy, he either thought he could get away with high crimes through a clever escape, or he was an agent for China, Russia, or even the NSA itself. There's no serious defense for either. And as has been said before, nothing that has been released is the least surprising to anyone paying attention.
Maybe there needs to be a new word for a person who releases information outside of the established channels, which have been crippled by those who would be affected by the disclosure, yet still benefits the citizenry? That is, a revelation that is good despite legality?
I think this is a common experience for anyone who interacts with the rest of the world. And, since there always seems to be Texas sharpshooter response as to why anything you describe is somehow perfectly reasonable, perhaps the best aproach is to ask, "what wouldn't you want the government to collect, or how wouldn't you like it to be used?"
If there's nothing, then you can dismiss them as not a serious person. If they have an answer you have a beginning point for a conversation that may not be a waste of time for both of you.
"Russia's action today is a disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the United States." - John McCain
The US needed no help to embarrass itself. It chose the course it has taken with Guantanamo and Manning and Binney and Drake, chose to lie repeatedly to Americans about what it's been up to, chose to subvert the FISA's original purpose. It's up to Congress to end the embarrasment.
Imagine if the NSA creates all this terrorist hype in order to maintain funding...You know, in order to protect American's we must maintain our surveillance and to do that we must create all the hype, just in case the real thing comes along (like Boston?).
So I wonder if they reduce program size if all the sudden there will be terrorist attack. Wouldn't that be interesting.
Also, if we spend 10 billion on the NSA and what does our terrorist enemies spend?
Well, it gets a bit more sinister when you learn that the FBI actually creates "terrorist plots" by sending spies into mosques etc to radicalize otherwise ordinary Muslim men.. this is common knowledge to those following what's been happening to the civil liberties of Muslims. The NYPD does this also [1] but you can easily websearch for either case.
Coming out in support of whistle-blowers may seem non-controversial on HN and similar sites, but we do have a long way to go before swaying public opinion. We can help a little by discussing it with friends and family, and by letting our politicians know we're not OK with it.
I'm not sure what else to do or whether it's even helping. I wonder what kind of response we will get to the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I expect it to be one-sided nonsense.