Gladwell's biggest omission is the stories of Thomas Drake and William Binney. Two predecessors that Snowden was well aware of, who tried to be, as Gladwell puts it "leakers as insiders". They were systematically shut down, and Snowden learned that was no longer an option for him, so he became a "leaker as outsider".
The nature and style of Snowden's whistleblowing is not because he loves the hacker-chic style. It's because the CIA and NSA proved they were perfectly capable of covering up the most damaging "insider" whistleblowers and he still thought this information was worth releasing to the public.
I've made this argument for a long time: any damage to the US from the Snowden leaks was because the government refused to clean house when they became aware of problems through internal channels. Snowden was merely a concerned employee revealing to shareholders that business executives were willfully defrauding investors and breaking fiduciary duty, to use an analogy. The reason he didn't use internal channels was executives up to the board level had previously targeted other leakers as part of their criminal conspiracy.
I just grep'd for Prouty and nothing showed up. Even his wikipedia page [1] is a bit scrubbed and buries his important act of blowing the whistle on the shadow government [2]. Btw, Prouty discusses Ellsberg directly in his book. It is 'interesting' reading for sure.
While I agree that Drake and Binney were "leakers as insiders", I do not agree that this impacts the narrative of the article. Snowden wasn't an NSA outsider because he didn't want to be an insider. He was an NSA outsider because he was an NSA outsider --- his attempts to be an insider failed.
Moreover, there's more to the point Gladwell is making than that Snowden wasn't an insider. The core point of the piece is that Ellsberg's insider status enabled him to leak carefully, and to redact strategically. Snowden demonstrably did not do this: not only did things get published that weren't in the American public interest, but other things that were (for instance: traces of the Juniper/Netscreen backdoor, or implants in other VPN products) were never published.
It's not just that Snowden wasn't an insider, but that he lacked the ability to leak carefully and strategically --- and so the public outcome was inferior to the Pentagon Papers.
Why should we take Gladwell seriously on this? Why does anyone think he is qualified? He is a windbag famous for writing the most base and insulting form of literary clickbait: pop science novels that tell a series of 'just so' fables which add up to give the reader a satisfying sense of the world which is completely opposed to the world the way it is. He is a propaganda artist at best, insidious at least.
And now he writes on Snowden, omits hugely important pieces of the story, warps the narrative in service of his hip contrarianism and unsurprisingly misses the point completely but distracts with cute anecdotes about Ellsberg.
I guess the question we should be asking ourselves is why is he given a spot to write a long-form article like this in the New Yorker? Why does anyone still take him seriously at this point? Has intellectualism in this country truly failed this hard?
Perhaps a good thing could come from this: people who have done their due diligence and read about Snowden will read this and recognize Gladwell for the hack he is.
In my opinion, he's given this spot to write his article because he is a good writer and his stories are compelling. You are right, he typically writes fluffy pop science that's almost as misleading as it is entertaining. On the other hand, that too is bought and consumed in large quantities, fueling his success.
To my mind the shame is that there could be some interesting stuff in here but it gets glossed over. The contrast between Ellsberg and Snowden interest me greatly but I find little satisfaction in the piece. Gladwell implies Ellsberg cries over how far "the leaker" has fallen, perhaps he cries for the crime that is everyone above Snowden in the organization chart turning a blind eye to something so morally wrong. For me, it's easy to assume Gladwell is more interested in a appealing ending rather than something that educates or informs.
I share your opinion of Gladwell in general, but I read the piece without knowing he wrote it, only seeing his name at the very end. I was actually surprised and impressed; I felt that Gladwell actually gave the topic much better attention and research than most of his pop-sci nonsense.
My two disappointments: his forcing of the dichotomy between Ellsberg as an insider-elite vs. Snowden's outsider/college-dropout perspective, and his praise of governmental support/intervention in things such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic (which is ridiculous; it took forever to actually convince the Reagan administration that AIDS was a big deal)... but otherwise I found the article to be pretty fair.
Could you be more specific about how he's "warped the narrative" in this piece? I feel like I've done my due diligence on this topic and I felt like it was both well written and made a pretty compelling point.
Further, the places where Gladwell departs from the message board orthodoxy on Snowden aren't at all out of step with what other reporters who covered him had to say. For instance: read Fred Kaplan's review of the Snowden movie, which recaps many of the points Gladwell made here, but is far more acidic.
Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. More than 40 years after my unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, such leaks remain the lifeblood of a free press and our republic. One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden’s leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts.
This story oozes elitism. It's also rife with misinformation and misleading tangents. The claim that various government organizations are solely responsible for AIDS elimination and cancer research is ridiculous. How many NGOs research these things? How many private industries? Then to follow that up with the idea that taxpayers foot the bill for the NIH so why not foot the bill for the NSA??? I just don't follow this reasoning.
I was astounded at how classist and elitist Gladwell comes across in the article. His point is essentially, because Snowden didn't have a PhD and didn't talk to the right people, the civic value of his leaks are mute.
The difference in Ellsberg's leak and Snowden is that Ellsberg had support within the government (the military) for the public knowing the truth. I'd argue that the difference with Snowden's leaks is that they were inherently against the state and in defense of the constitution. Because the leaks were solely in the interest of citizens, and not the political elite, is the reason he drew the ire of the state.
Maybe Leaker 2.0 is inferior to 1.0. It perhaps parallels America 2.0 (indefinite detention without trial, torture, and maybe a few other crimes against humanity) being a bit inferior to America 1.0.
I was never a great history student but I am certain America 1.0 isn't as rosey as you paint it. I can think of genocide of indigenous people, slavery, increased use of capital punishment and mob justice tactics like tarring and feathering just off the top of my head depending on when you draw the line.
I imagine the kinds of things you listed are only coming to light now. I can't see what's unique about the people in power now that makes it likely they are the first acting like this, with maybe the exception of surveillance. I think the earlier American government had less problems keeping these activities secret.
However, despite that cynicism that doesn't mean Americans shouldn't fight for those improvements too!
a long and bloviating article, complaining essentially that hackers refuse to wear ties, and that they really should wear ties because the computer engineers of the old days wore ties.
instead of "ties" we're talking about niceties regarding whistleblower behaviors regarding leaks.
my response: the public is kept in the dark intentionally by malicious actors who run their country; leaking is an ethical path to disrupt those malicious actors.
I personally used information in the Snowden documents to highlight a vulnerability in IKE installs that was being actively exploited. It is now dying, and any exploitwd targets provably dried up. The EU found and removed several bugs from its printers because of information found in the Snowden docs.
PRISM was a codename for collection done in accordance with FISA revisions debated at the time. Ultimately the only program changed was the phone records program which was placed on a sounder footing by elected reprentatives.
Lots of programs that were clearly what the NSA should be doing were exposed, and as a result ended. We'll never know the damage done, but it was substantial.
Targeted leaking can be justified. Indiscriminately stealing information can not be. I think that's a better summary of the article. Now, there are a lot of subtleties to this, especially in regards to what Snowden actually did. But I don't think it's fair to boil down the article's premise to "hating on hackers."
Your response actually agrees with the author. I don't think the author would deny that leaking can be and is a necessary part of a free society.
Gladwell has written a predictable hatchet job of a perceived libertarian hero. Surprised that it was him, not surprised it was done in the NY-anything.
More interesting question is: if one were going to orchestrate a pseudo-intellectual takedown of the forces of popular discontent, who would one go after next?
[+] [-] rqebmm|9 years ago|reply
The nature and style of Snowden's whistleblowing is not because he loves the hacker-chic style. It's because the CIA and NSA proved they were perfectly capable of covering up the most damaging "insider" whistleblowers and he still thought this information was worth releasing to the public.
[+] [-] SomeStupidPoint|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eternalban|9 years ago|reply
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Fletcher_Prouty
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Team
[+] [-] wallace_f|9 years ago|reply
> When he emerged and when he absconded with all that material, I was puzzled, because we have all these protections for whistleblowers."
Source: https://freedom.press/news-advocacy/fact-checking-hillary-cl...
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
Moreover, there's more to the point Gladwell is making than that Snowden wasn't an insider. The core point of the piece is that Ellsberg's insider status enabled him to leak carefully, and to redact strategically. Snowden demonstrably did not do this: not only did things get published that weren't in the American public interest, but other things that were (for instance: traces of the Juniper/Netscreen backdoor, or implants in other VPN products) were never published.
It's not just that Snowden wasn't an insider, but that he lacked the ability to leak carefully and strategically --- and so the public outcome was inferior to the Pentagon Papers.
[+] [-] smoyer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wfo|9 years ago|reply
And now he writes on Snowden, omits hugely important pieces of the story, warps the narrative in service of his hip contrarianism and unsurprisingly misses the point completely but distracts with cute anecdotes about Ellsberg.
I guess the question we should be asking ourselves is why is he given a spot to write a long-form article like this in the New Yorker? Why does anyone still take him seriously at this point? Has intellectualism in this country truly failed this hard?
Perhaps a good thing could come from this: people who have done their due diligence and read about Snowden will read this and recognize Gladwell for the hack he is.
[+] [-] cmiles74|9 years ago|reply
To my mind the shame is that there could be some interesting stuff in here but it gets glossed over. The contrast between Ellsberg and Snowden interest me greatly but I find little satisfaction in the piece. Gladwell implies Ellsberg cries over how far "the leaker" has fallen, perhaps he cries for the crime that is everyone above Snowden in the organization chart turning a blind eye to something so morally wrong. For me, it's easy to assume Gladwell is more interested in a appealing ending rather than something that educates or informs.
[+] [-] kelnos|9 years ago|reply
My two disappointments: his forcing of the dichotomy between Ellsberg as an insider-elite vs. Snowden's outsider/college-dropout perspective, and his praise of governmental support/intervention in things such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic (which is ridiculous; it took forever to actually convince the Reagan administration that AIDS was a big deal)... but otherwise I found the article to be pretty fair.
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
Further, the places where Gladwell departs from the message board orthodoxy on Snowden aren't at all out of step with what other reporters who covered him had to say. For instance: read Fred Kaplan's review of the Snowden movie, which recaps many of the points Gladwell made here, but is far more acidic.
[+] [-] makomk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ScottBurson|9 years ago|reply
Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. More than 40 years after my unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, such leaks remain the lifeblood of a free press and our republic. One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden’s leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts.
[+] [-] ranman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmiles74|9 years ago|reply
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reagan-s-AID...
[+] [-] DINKDINK|9 years ago|reply
The difference in Ellsberg's leak and Snowden is that Ellsberg had support within the government (the military) for the public knowing the truth. I'd argue that the difference with Snowden's leaks is that they were inherently against the state and in defense of the constitution. Because the leaks were solely in the interest of citizens, and not the political elite, is the reason he drew the ire of the state.
[+] [-] etiam|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigmar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squozzer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattnewton|9 years ago|reply
I imagine the kinds of things you listed are only coming to light now. I can't see what's unique about the people in power now that makes it likely they are the first acting like this, with maybe the exception of surveillance. I think the earlier American government had less problems keeping these activities secret.
However, despite that cynicism that doesn't mean Americans shouldn't fight for those improvements too!
[+] [-] cryoshon|9 years ago|reply
instead of "ties" we're talking about niceties regarding whistleblower behaviors regarding leaks.
my response: the public is kept in the dark intentionally by malicious actors who run their country; leaking is an ethical path to disrupt those malicious actors.
[+] [-] wbl|9 years ago|reply
PRISM was a codename for collection done in accordance with FISA revisions debated at the time. Ultimately the only program changed was the phone records program which was placed on a sounder footing by elected reprentatives.
Lots of programs that were clearly what the NSA should be doing were exposed, and as a result ended. We'll never know the damage done, but it was substantial.
[+] [-] GFK_of_xmaspast|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BoringCode|9 years ago|reply
Your response actually agrees with the author. I don't think the author would deny that leaking can be and is a necessary part of a free society.
[+] [-] fatdog|9 years ago|reply
More interesting question is: if one were going to orchestrate a pseudo-intellectual takedown of the forces of popular discontent, who would one go after next?
[+] [-] anit010|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]