Naomi Wolf: My Creeping Concern That The NSA Leaker Is Not Who He Purports To Be

https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be-/10151559239607949

by ferdo • 13 years ago

110 114 13 years ago

facebook.com

tptacek4• 13 years ago

Open speculation about intelligence programs is a little bit like numerology. If you start looking for patterns to fit narratives to, you'll find them.

e3pi3• 13 years ago

No Such Agency --> New Spotlight Agency is a 180 degrees turn-about.

Why?

She offers:

"...From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?"

More than tinhat?

tptacek4• 13 years ago

No.

antiterra• 13 years ago

Maybe they're trying to trick us into thinking that they're trying to trick us so that they can trick us by trying to trick us into thinking we're being tricked!

tptacek4• 13 years ago

Shit.

pasbesoin• 13 years ago

Buffalo buffalo buffalo... Oh, never mind.

----

P.S. Ok, for the downvoters: I tend to engage in humor on HN in very limited amounts. (Yes, the way things "used to be", here.)

I knew the risks in making my comment. But, the parent reminded me of the linguistic (and logical) tangle we can start entering in discussing conditionals upon conditionals.

Which in turn reminded me of this other linguistic tangle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...

That's the context of my remark.

stcredzero• 13 years ago

Really, they've just tricked us into not having enough levels of recursion.

Breakthrough• 13 years ago

Sounds like Daniel Suarez' novel Daemon.

TL,DR: Programmer dies but his program manipulates the world after his death, then the US government spreads word that the program is a hoax, so later in the novel most people disbelieve that such a program can even exist (because the government "disproved" it!), hindering any chance that society would even believe that something like this existed, let alone was possible.

I just wanted to throw it out there to illustrate the parallels of the plot in the novel with the current things happening right now...

nostrademons• 13 years ago

Never argue with a Sicilian when death is on the line!

lawnchair_larry2• 13 years ago

This actually describes intelligence based on overly-broad data collection as well.

tptacek4• 13 years ago

It can, yes. But the narratives NSA comes up with are falsifiable; that's the function of the agencies who are NSA's customers.

e3pi3• 13 years ago

crypto adj. Secret; covert. gon suff. A figure having a specified kind or number of angles.

Governments, Corporations and Media are out of control.

These prominent components of our society are increasingly driven by hypocrisy, corruption and greed. They have never been more powerful than they are today, and their ability to shape the outcome of events goes mostly unnoticed by the public at large.

The Cryptogon refers to the hidden structure underlying and interconnecting the political, economic and perception management systems currently in operation on this planet. When John Ralston Saul states that, “In reality, we are today in the midst of a theology of pure power—power born of structure, not of dynasty or arms,” the “structure” he is referring to is what I am calling the Cryptogon.

http://www.cryptogon.com/?page_id=2

CognitiveLens• 13 years ago

This is an interesting take on the situation, although it's one that I would normally dismiss as tin-foil hat thinking. Given the source and clear reluctance in making these assertions, however, it's definitely a perspective worth including in the discussion.

If Wolf is right, it certainly seems like a risky move on the part of the NSA (or related organization) - one that could easily backfire, since for the most part it's just fomenting more negative sentiment toward government in general. The shock of these "revelations" will subside and the country will likely go back to business as usual (as it does after most shocking revelations"), but with even less trust in its leadership.

As for discouraging whistleblowing, they have so far missed the mark - for the most part Snowden has come across as pretty difficult to hate, even for people who disagree with his actions.

streptomycin• 13 years ago

This would be better on /r/conspiracy than Hacker News.

_pmf_• 13 years ago

This would be better on /r/conspiracy than Hacker News.

Shallow reasoning ... check

No understanding of subject matter ... check

Usage of pseudo psychological nonsense instead of any hard evidence ... check

rsync• 13 years ago

I'm suspicious too. The Hong Kong part is what irks me - I cannot imagine making that choice, given a world of asylum options. His line of reasoning is borderline incomprehensible.

Add that to the concerted effort of the powers that be to paint China as our cyber-terror-enemy ... and he is aligned with China now, vis-a-vis HK ... you know very well that j6p already refers to him as "that nerd that defected to China".

sramsay2• 13 years ago

I agree. This is the weirdest part of this whole thing. Surely there are a dozen countries less inclined to want to extradite Snowden to the U.S. for the grounds stated.

Why not flee to a country that is a weak (but not too weak) ally of the U.S., thoroughly outraged by the PRISM program, and which doesn't have an extradition treaty that could possibly be construed as permitting extradition under the stated terms (as Hong Kong arguably does with the U.S.).

I'm not try to defend Wolf. Just sayin' . . .

at-fates-hands2• 13 years ago

I actually thought the weirdest thing - how was a guy who was a high school dropout get a gig at the NSA?

Even small businesses won't hire someone unless they have a four year degree. I know its possible for developers to get a job based on being self taught. I highly, highly, doubt a government agency like the NSA would hire someone with such sketchy credentials.

My other real concern was brought up in the article. Once you're about to feel the full brunt of the United States Government coming after you, it's usually standard procedure to lawyer up. Considering this guy hasn't done so indicates he's not scared of whatever bad guys are coming after him. Which means, either he's really stupid, or he has no reason to be afraid.

tsjackson• 13 years ago

Leave it to a #slatepitch to explain why Snowden would choose Hong Kong:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/10/hong_kong_...

To expand on this scenario: Snowden knows that the bureaucratic wrangling to get him out of Hong Kong by the book would be significant. He assumes he'll get at least several months of effective asylum in Hong Kong while having easy access to high speed internet, professional filmmakers, etc., all of which are crucial for waging an international public relations campaign. Meanwhile, he's geographically adjacent to China, home of the only government in a strong enough global position to openly vie for him to release state secrets in exchange for protection. This puts the U.S. gov't into a difficult position: they can extract/assassinate him illegally, which of course is a public relations nightmare. They can wait six months to extract him legally, and take the chance that he'll make a deal with China (or be illegally extracted by the Chinese). Or they can look the other way while he pursues another option - asylum in a country like Ecuador for instance. That last option is his only real hope. Basically, that he's able to put enough pressure on the U.S. gov't through public relations and international positioning that they don't pursue backdoor sanctions against a country granting asylum.

wisty2• 13 years ago

From wikipedia:

Having worked at a U.S. military base in Japan, Snowden reportedly had a deep interest in Japanese popular culture and studied the Japanese language.[15] He also has a basic understanding of Mandarin, was deeply interested in martial arts, and claimed Buddhism as his religion.[16] Before his disclosure of top secret documents to the public in 2013, Snowden had travelled to Hong Kong for a holiday with his girlfriend Lindsay Mills.[17]

He speaks some Mandarin (which would be somewhat useful in HK, especially if he can read it, which he probably can since he's studied Japanese), and he's been to Hong Kong before. All his justifications about HK's legal system is probably relative to the other choices he was considering (presumably Japan, HK, Taiwan, mainland China).

He worked in a start-up which sold anime. "Anime nerd flees US, resurfaces in East Asia" is not really surprising. I guess he picked HK because it has a lower US presence than Taiwan and Japan; and mainland China was a bit too scary.

He could have picked a more secure place to flee to, but most of what he's done hasn't been totally rational.

ezequiel-garzon• 13 years ago

Don't Mandarin and Japanese use different symbols entirely?

stfu• 13 years ago

HK was a brilliant idea!

Just look at how the pirate bay guy was deported from Cambodia to Sweden. You need someone really ballsy to stand up to the U.S.. If you don't want to end up in some 3rd world clusterfuck (e.g. North Korea, Venezuela) your options are pretty much limited to Russia and China. Hong Kong combines a relative first world living standard wit the backing of a true superpower.

SkyMarshal2• 13 years ago

Exactly, I don't know why this reasoning isn't more obvious to people. He didn't have a "world of asylum options" at all, realistically very few countries could resist US pressure to extradite him, China and Russia being the top two.

And he gives China a huge reason not to extradite him - reciprocity for the US granting asylum to Chinese dissidents, and further the ability to use his case to advance their argument that the US government is being hypocritical when it criticizes China for all manner of things, from civil rights violations to cyberespionage.

He is a huge political coupe for the Chinese government, that just sort of fell into their hands, and as the Xinhua article supporting asylum for Snowden shows, they are going to milk it for all it's worth.

He's playing a dangerous game, and there are no guarantees anywhere for him, but I'm pretty certain he put himself in the best possible place with the best possible odds. Better to play one superpower off another, than to put yourself in the power of a country that may share your sympathies but have no power to protect you.

copx• 13 years ago

Hong Kong is a favorite among libertarians because of the economic order there. I hear those guys praising HK all the time. For an American libertarian fleeing the US HK is a natural choice and I have read Snowden is a libertarian.

China is not an US ally, very powerful, easily offended and aggressively nationalistic i.e. no US special ops team is going to kidnap Snowden on Chinese territory. That would most certainly start a serious international conflict with China and arresting Snowden is not worth that.

There are many anti-totalitarian government activists in HK. There has already been a pro-Snowden support rally in HK: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1261433/live-upda...

English is a common language in HK so Snowden doesn't necessary need to learn a new language.

Overall HK looks like a logical choice to me.

hobs• 13 years ago

Let's have more articles of pure speculation. I am interested in the topic of the NSA spying program, but it feels like I am reading post after post of articles that are just reinterpretations of facts that were already presented and interpreted numerous times. People have already insinuated that Snowden is working for the chinese/russians/whoever you care to name, and its an interesting theory, but we need some evidence.

dguido• 13 years ago

More here: "5 Ways NSA leaker Edward Snowden's story isn't holding up." Nearly every statement in his video interview is vastly exaggerated.

http://news.yahoo.com/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens-stor...

MattyRad• 13 years ago

I would advise against going to this link, or even posting the link. It is bad form to give such poor articles any traffic or credibility, and posting the link will up its ranking in search engines.

munin• 13 years ago

citizen censorship is so ironic

lawnchair_larry2• 13 years ago

Sounds like you didn't watch the video.

nickodell• 13 years ago

Snowden overstated his salary... by a lot

It's possible that Snowden was including reimbursements, a medical/dental plan, a pension, a company car, life insurance, that sort of thing. BAH may also be reporting his pay after taxes.

He reportedly left his home on May 1

Why does this matter? Has he ever claimed that he went straight from his house to HK?

Snowden didn't have 'authority' to wiretap anybody/He might not have had the ability to do so, either

How do we know? If he had root access to a mail server, or a single-sign-on server, he could have leveraged that into access to much more of the network. You're not supposed to send passwords over email, but people do it all the time. I don't think he's saying that he could have also gotten away with it, merely that he had the capability to, in contrast to earlier NSA testimony that the NSA did not have the ability to collect those communications.

Snowden's résumé is fishy

Why does it matter that Snowden is a dropout? He clearly worked for BAH. The only question is what his capacity was there:

and that the terms Snowden used to describe his agency positions did not match internal job descriptions.

What does this mean? Does it mean, literally, that the job title that he had didn't exactly match what he said in the interview? Why aren't they stating what his actual job title was? Privacy concerns?

mtgx• 13 years ago

Greenwald was talking to him since January or February. So yeah, I think he had time to prepare what he'd say in front of a camera for a few minutes in this historic moment...Wouldn't you do the same? Or would you rather sound like a blabbering idiot?

cwisecarver• 13 years ago

He worked for Booz-Allen for three months. June - Three = March. So ... Greenwald and him were just chatting about the weather for a month or two?

waterlesscloud• 13 years ago

He had worked for other intel contractors prior to that, quite possibly in exactly the same job.

brown9-22• 13 years ago

This is one curious bit of the story that I am surprised other journalists haven't yet harped on Greenwald to reveal.

For instance, did GG know if Snowden planned to take the BAH job for the purposes of taking documents?

tome• 13 years ago

So the NSA is this organisation which can tell what you are saying to anyone else, yet it failed to realise that Snowden was talking to Greenwald for about six months?

liljimmytables• 13 years ago

the fact that the NSA routinely monitors certain channels does not turn them into an omniscient boogieman that can read everybody's minds. in fact, being aware of the channels that they monitor puts you in an excellent position in this respect

etherael• 13 years ago

I read about him asking Greenwald to setup PGP some time ago and him not actually communicating with him until that happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-glen...

So, reading between the lines, PGP is safe, but that's hardly headline news.

mcantelon• 13 years ago

1. Create Hotmail-type account at web cafe

2. Use this account to contact Greenwald and exchange encryption keys for future communication

bpatrianakos• 13 years ago

But there's more to it than that and I for one am glad someone expressed their doubts while everyone else seems to be taking the facts we have and either believing them totally or speculating to the point where its an exercise in spreading FUD.

I don't doubt the authenticity of the leaks and I don't doubt Snowden saw abuses of power. My question is, is this really big news? I remember hearing about it in 2006 and since then I thought we all knew the government was vacuuming up phone and Internet data like it was going out of style. This leak is more confirmation of what we already knew with a few new surprises sprinkled in, but nothing that could overshadow the big problem which was that the government is intercepting about all communications within the US.

What I doubt are some of Snowden's motivations and the amount of information and power he really has. He addresses the question of why he chose to not be anonymous by dancing around the question with some hand wavy answer that just about translates to "because I'm gonna be a patriot and/or a hero". He calls a lot of attention to himself very unnecessarily too. It's almost like there's a part of him that wants to feel important.

Another thing that doesn't fit the narrative around this story is Snowden's role before he became a whistleblower. We're very quick to jump on the idea that the US government is this incredibly powerful, nefarious organization that's been competent enough to conduct a truly massive global and domestic secret spy program for 8 to 15 years depending on your sources. If that's the case, how do you let individuals like Snowden, with what we know about him so far (he's a young high school dropout hopping from job to job somewhat frequently, working for a contractor, who even describes himself as no one special with no special skills - ie an "Everyman") have as much power and access as he claims to have? If you're trying to keep a secret you make damn sure to compartmentalize the hell out of your organization so that no one person can see the big picture without having to go on a wild goose chase to put all the pieces together. Hell, even I don't have access to things you'd think I should have access to at my job and there's not a damn thing secret about it.

There's no defending the NSA though. What's happening is wrong and there's no gray area there. However, I don't think Snowden can be any help to anyone anymore beyond simply getting attention and having something to talk about in the absence of any other concrete facts. I see Snowden as the guy who brought up an issue we should have never let go back when it first came out and because of that I'm glad he came forward. Other than that, I think he overstates his role and maybe even some of the particulars relating to this spy program.

discostrings2• 13 years ago

My question is, is this really big news? I remember hearing about it in 2006 and since then I thought we all knew the government was vacuuming up phone and Internet data like it was going out of style. This leak is more confirmation of what we already knew with a few new surprises sprinkled in, but nothing that could overshadow the big problem which was that the government is intercepting about all communications within the US.

Is it news in the sense that people didn't suspect it was going on? No. Are the details news? Definitely.

Things came to light before in a way that was easy to sweep under the rug. This guys seems to want to make sure we have a conversation about it.

He addresses the question of why he chose to not be anonymous by dancing around the question with some hand wavy answer that just about translates to "because I'm gonna be a patriot and/or a hero". He calls a lot of attention to himself very unnecessarily too. It's almost like there's a part of him that wants to feel important.

The likely answer is he revealed himself because he's scared and so the U.S. or China will have to treat him like a human being. Having a public profile affords a great degree of safety. I don't know that talking strategy about his safety would have been the best use of an opportunity in the introduction video interview.

We're very quick to jump on the idea that the US government is this incredibly powerful, nefarious organization that's been competent enough to conduct a truly massive global and domestic secret spy program for 8 to 15 years depending on your sources. If that's the case, how do you let individuals like Snowden, with what we know about him so far (he's a young high school dropout hopping from job to job somewhat frequently, working for a contractor, who even describes himself as no one special with no special skills - ie an "Everyman") have as much power and access as he claims to have?

This is one of the bombshells of the story. If this is true--the government is building the programs and infrastructure that has been revealed, and this IT consultant had access to the information he claims he did--it's all we need to know to conclude these programs are extremely dangerous and that we shouldn't be running them, at least as they're currently conceived and implemented.

I see Snowden as the guy who brought up an issue we should have never let go back when it first came out and because of that I'm glad he came forward. Other than that, I think he overstates his role and maybe even some of the particulars relating to this spy program.

Again, his point seems to be to bring back the conversation. So far, it seems "his role" is more a safety thing than an attention thing.

cickpass_broken• 13 years ago

He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling.

When I watched this, the assumption I made was that he was carefully prepared to take on this massive endeavour – better to be prepared for the consequences and media than to foil the effort.

But, really, we have no fucking idea.

calhoun137• 13 years ago

This article is complete and utter bullshit.

Disregarding the obviously silly idea that he is a fraud because he is organized and well spoken, her basic point seems to be that since he doesn't have a lawyer present during media interviews, then Snowden is an actor basically playing a role in a news story created by the NSA whose purpose is to scare people from becoming whistle blowers.

Give me a break.

fleitz• 13 years ago

Snowden is seems like a student of machiavelli far more than american idealism. He has an objective and is doing the best job he can to make that objective happen.

Which would contrast highly with most whistleblowers who believe that doing the right thing will result in their objective happening.

discostrings2• 13 years ago

Perhaps he looked at the results of other recent whistleblowers "doing the right thing" and realized that releasing information without the right choreography would end in no attention from the media or public about the issue and a ton of trouble for himself?

In an ideal world, he could release the information and each individual would engage with it, analyze it, make determinations about it, and judge whether or not it is important.

In our world, if he had followed the path of previous whistleblowers and given the information to a newspaper and returned to his house in Hawaii, he likely would have been immediately arrested, and the newspaper would have published very limited yet broad information in a single article in a way that would be easy for the rest of the media to dismiss. Then the character attacks would have overwhelmed the story.

Like it or not, presentation is important. Snowden has claimed his objective is making sure people know about these programs so they can decide about them. That objective, and his path thus far, seems perfectly in line with American idealism.

rz2k• 13 years ago

Isn't Machiavelli generally accepted to have proposed a recipe for strategically achieving political aims, while he himself supported republics? Do you mean that Snowden is being strategic in how he attempts to further American ideals, as opposed to thinking its the thought that counts, or do you mean that he has some other goal that is not necessarily related to American ideals?

mst• 13 years ago

So far as I can see he's basically doing what Assange did, only more so.

Assuming his goals are to (a) maximise exposure of the things he's blowing the whistle about and (b) minimise his likelihood of getting screwed over, this seems like a pretty decent strategy

(I think other respondents are reading your comment about 'doing the right thing' as indicating that other whistleblowers are somehow more morally pure rather than hopelessly naive; whether you intended it or not I'm definitely on the side of the latter interpretation :)

fnordfnordfnord4• 13 years ago

So, the US Judiciary seems rather Machiavellian these days. He's got several recent examples of whistleblower treatment to consider.

claudius• 13 years ago

Well, she is essentially accusing him of being intelligent and not a total dork. One wonders why…

rmrfrmrf• 13 years ago

Why the hostility? So many people on the Internet seem to have this urgent need to 'react' to every piece of information that is fed to them. The author presents her points in a thoughtful and well-articulated manner--why not extend her the same courtesy? Keep in mind, too, that this person seems to have a lot of experience in this field and probably knows a bit more about the whistleblowing process than we do.

obstacle12• 13 years ago

I can't imagine Naomi Wolf has that much specialized experience with whistleblowing. She is a pop feminist by trade and her political consulting work dealt with reaching female voters, not state secrets.

That said I still think this article has value as a think piece.

chanux• 13 years ago

IMHO we should be open to alternative ideas. Also we should know that Snowden is going to be described as so many things in times to come. Mostly bad things.

spikels• 13 years ago

I agree these arguments are worthless (but no need to curse).

Naomi Wolf's theory that Snowden is part of a propaganda effort by NSA/CIA/FBI/??? to make people fearful makes no sense. There is no secret "intelligence/police state" in the US but a state that has police and intelligence functions. It is run by actual people and we know their names: Obama, Holder, Panetta and Clapper. Naomi is either saying these people planned this or some rogue group inside NSA/CIA/FBI/??? planned it. Neither scenario is plausible because any possible benefit is outweighed by the political, career and diplomatic risks. These are not stupid people.

The accusation that Snowden's "very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend" is running a PR campaign is hilarious coming in a post on Facebook hilarious from a supposed feminist and PR expert.

Actually you are right calhoun - this is "complete and utter bullshit".

staunch• 13 years ago

It's probably a good idea to question everything, but this analysis is so weak it's laughable.

vivin• 13 years ago

There is way too much speculation in this article. Actually, that's all there is.

michaelfeathers• 13 years ago

Posted on Facebook. :) Waiting for the article that says that Naomi Wolf may not be who she purports to be.

robotresearcher• 13 years ago

Facebook post since no respectable editor would print such silly stuff.

ferdo2• 13 years ago

Bad metric. I recall respectable editors pumping the "WMDs IN IRAQ!" story quite frequently once upon a time, for instance.

gcb0• 13 years ago

So what we claims is that he is a Goldstein in the making?

That would be interesting. Is there any studies on how those figures come into being? I bet there are a few real Goldstein in history. Do they start already protraited as failures or at some point they have the popular opinion on their side?

skore• 13 years ago

a) Or he might just be a regular Nerd who cares about details.

b) Or he might just be a regular Nerd who took a long time to think about this stuff.

c) Or he might just be a regular Nerd with the typical emotional detachment from what he is doing while still being deeply intellectual invested.

d) Pure speculation without any weighting.

e) What?

f) Ah good, it's not like he addressed this point in particular.

g) Meta Speculation.

h) Well that doesn't even begin to make sense.

It's funny - she actually has a point. But the point can stand on its own, all the points she is clearly making up actually serve to cheapen that point.

alex_doom2• 13 years ago

Basically it's a really nice compliment. In a roundabout way.

You're smart enough to look at history, prepare, be presentable and don't even need a lawyer. BOOM.

davidcuddeback2• 13 years ago

Reminds me of the populists who tried to enact change in ancient Rome. One of them would call for reform and end up murdered. The next one would find protection before calling for reform, but ended up murdered anyway. Each successive would-be reformer learned from the mistakes of his predecessors and changed his strategy accordingly. A couple of the reformers whose names I can remember are Tiberius Gracchus [1] and his brother Gaius Gracchus [2]. One of my favorite podcasts has an excellent six-part series on the fall of the western Roman empire, which introduced me to this very topic [3].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Gracchus

[3] http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php?page=hharchive

nsns• 13 years ago

By why do all these pseudo-lefty celebs (Wolf, Maher, etc.) make it a point to smear Snowden? They seem to be doing it of their own volition.

chipotle_coyote• 13 years ago

There's two kinds of conspiracy theories, I think. There's the ones that actually exist and end up getting exposed in a few years: the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra scandal, the trumping up of "Iraq has WMD," and (apparently) now PRISM.

Then there are the theories like "9/11 was an inside job" and "JFK was killed by the CIA," ones that would require an order of magnitude more people to do things an order of magnitude more reprehensible and keep perfectly quiet for many, many more years, yet make slip-ups that only amateur sleuths can find (or at least dare to report on) -- all for claimed ends which are, to say the least, dubious. There are common psychological threads to these theories (the Illuminati run the world, but we know the truth and that gives us some power back), but the most fascinating thing about them is that you literally can't disprove them: they're not making falsifiable claims. Scant or contradictory evidence just shows how successful the conspirators have been; lack of mainstream reporting just shows how the media is part of it.

The thing is (to get back to your actual musing), once you get into that mindset, it's turtles all the way down. It's not really a left/right thing, it's a "fringe" thing -- I suspect the more you feel that your voice is shut out of the mainstream discussion, the more likely you are to suspect it's because the Powers That Be don't want to hear your voice. You may be right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's because they can't face the holy light of your truth. Even if she hasn't gone full Alex Jones, Naomi Wolf has often seemed to me to be flirting with that kind of conspiracy mindset.

I can't speak to Maher (I can't find any comments he's made on Snowden), but he seems to have a different set of biases, not as much conspiracy-based as a kind of reflexive skepticism.

PavlovsCat• 13 years ago

re:9/11, the official story is basically that building 7 collapsed because of burning office furniture. You believe that? "once you get into that mindset, it's turtles all the way down", huh? But sure, why even bother to actually investigate the catastrophy such huge changes are based on, when you can just ship off the debris and constantly talk about living in a "post 9/11 world"... those conspiracy theorists would ignore and and all investigations or scientific facts anyway, for circular reasons°. So let's not have any of those, it will help. Instead let's have presidents pose on coffins wrapped in flags, shuffling our feet in moments of silence as decent citizens would.

° They're on the fringe for reasons that don't interest, not really, because they're on the fringe. Where they are because that's where they are. Not that you or anyone knows this, but this topic "fascinates" you so much that you "suspect" it. That's either hardcore trolling or awkward irony, you decide.

lazyjones• 13 years ago

She has a few good and a few weak points there. Especially the last point is important and some peculiar reactions to this scandal can be better explained with it - for example, the odd way the Congress seems to show no interest in the mass-surveillance, as if they knew that it's a fabricated story to trigger the panopticon effect.

On the other hand, I wonder what the NSA is doing in all those huge buildings, if not spying on all Americans and the rest of the world. Perhaps they're empty? Not very likely, but it would make a great story.

subsystem• 13 years ago

That people are focusing on the wrong things are nicely illustrated by people claiming him to be an amateur and too professional at the same time.

rollo_tommasi• 13 years ago

This is how James Jesus Angleton drove himself insane.

darkpicnic• 13 years ago

(yawn)

mark_l_watson• 13 years ago

+1 I at least give her credit for thinking outside of the box. It is OK to speculate and look at things from a different perspective, even if you might be wrong.

danbmil99• 13 years ago

I think it is more likely that he has the backing of a loose confederation of anonymous civil disobedients, young & media savvy, and they took some time to develop the story in a way they thought would achieve maximum impact.

I admit the expressive neo-feminist pole dancing gf seems a bit gratuitous.

fbru02• 13 years ago

People still listen to Naomi Wolf? I was really wanting to like the "Shock Doctrine" but being from South America, I found the history she portrayed of SA to be totally inaccurate.

paulsmith• 13 years ago

That's Naomi Klein.

smutticus• 13 years ago

On one hand she speculates that Snowden isn't a genuine whistleblower beacuse he is too organized(a, b, c). Then she speculates that Snowden isn't a genuine whistleblower because he is not organized.(f, h)

Which is it? Seriously, this article does more to decredit Namoi Wolf than anything else. I had more respect for her prior to reading this piece.

I could continue to rip this article apart but I'm hungry and need to cook dinner.

jabbernotty• 13 years ago

I was hoping to find a well-reasoned story here, but it isn't there. I don't find her reasoning to be logical, and she keeps calling things strange or abnormal based on either a single anecdote, or none at all.

plg• 13 years ago

tl;dr : if you don't like the message (or don't like the idea of believing the message to be true), then you attack the messenger

surrealize• 13 years ago

Wolf thinks Snowden is fake because he talks about all the bad things that might happen to him as a result of his leaking. She thinks that he's drawing attention to those bad things on purpose, to scare other potential whistleblowers.

But Greenwald was the one drawing attention to that stuff, by asking Snowden what he expected the US government to do to him. Snowden wasn't volunteering that on his own; it was Greenwald trying to play up the human-interest angle.

Myrmornis• 13 years ago

Greenwald has been in contact with the film maker Poitras for over 1 year. Presumably it was Greenwald not Snowden who introduced her. But surely this Wolf person knows that, if she's a media type who hangs out with Assange's entourage.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...

ferdo2• 13 years ago

"In The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining 10 steps necessary for a fascist group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy 2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place 3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens 4. Set up an internal surveillance system 5. Harass citizens' groups 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release 7. Target key individuals 8. Control the press 9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors 10. Suspend the rule of law

The book details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application of all the 10 steps in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf#The_End_of_America

gnu8• 13 years ago

How much does the NSA pay for this?

return0• 13 years ago

The only thing that can undermine his credibility is if the US government comes up with indisputable proof that NONE of what he said was true. Her arguments are a complete red herring

blendergasket• 13 years ago

To me this is one of those weird things. Basically all of this is an act of faith on our part. We either believe he's legit or we don't. We can't know what kind of weird psy-ops the government is pulling on us. I choose to believe that this is real but I can't know for sure and for all I know I could be part of some bigger, darker plot orchestrated by who knows who.

Not to get all metaphysical but the more that's hidden from us the less we're able to know what in the world is ever going on. It's weird being a human.

davidcuddeback2• 13 years ago

I think she has some interesting points, but they don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. Occam's Razor says that we should be skeptical of conspiracy theories and require a lot more evidence than a celebrity's hunch.

On the issue of hiring a filmmaker, a little investigation suggests that Greenwald might have had a prior connection with her. The filmmaker's name is Laura Poitras [1]. There's a New York Times article covering her involvement in making the video [2]. In April 2012, Greenwald wrote an article about the U.S. detaining her at the border [3]. I think it's reasonable to believe that Greenwald may have had a prior connection with her.

Also, as I mentioned in another comment [4], history shows that reformers learn from their predecessors' successes and mistakes. The way he orchestrated the release of the documents could be a symptom of his learning from previous whistle-blowers.

It's unfortunate that the best part of her post was at the very end. Regardless of the merits of the rest of her post, I think her last statement is worth remembering: "But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?"

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Poitras

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/media/filmmaker-l...

[3] http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5885959

garry• 13 years ago

That last point would be incredibly salient it if it weren't for the fact that East Germany had no claim to legitimacy via the will of the people or a Constitution that guaranteed life, liberty and and the pursuit of happiness. It had legitimacy because it was the state, and it had the guns.

The implication in the United States is more serious -- the secrecy and double-talk around surveillance means that a Big Brother state can be implemented, and that the people are lied to, and perhaps the Constitution is not being upheld after all.

fnordfnordfnord4• 13 years ago

Some things about Snowden's story feel more like spy fiction than reality. I have a feeling there is more to Snowden than mere IT guy for intelligence agencies. But any theory of what else he could be that I can come up with, goes off the rails into wackyland pretty quickly.

brucefancher• 13 years ago

My creeping concern is that Naomi Wolf is one missed dose of her medication from becoming a bag lady.

Naomi Wolf: My Creeping Concern That The NSA Leaker Is Not Who He Purports To Be

Related Stories