So Freedom only got a slap on the wrist, basically
This is the problem, why should you not take dubiously legal or moral action, if there isn't a significant deterrent?
On a micro scale, not wanting to be an asshole will cause people to follow the laws. On a macro scale, the only way to make people follow the law is to make breaking the law costly.
Yes, it'll go wrong. It'll also go right. I don't think we need to structure our society like a prison just because it has the capacity to be worse than we like it to be.
HSBC got slapped on the wrist for laundering cartel money.
"If you’re suspected of drug involvement, America takes your house; HSBC admits to laundering cartel billions, loses five weeks’ income and execs have to partially defer bonuses"
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/outrageo...
happens all the time with corporations.
That argument for moral complacency is largely self-fulfilling, because if nobody thinks that one person defecting will change anything, you'll never get more than one defector at once, and nothing will ever change. In that way everyone will march in lockstep to hell and deserve every bit of the torture that's waiting for them.
The foremost thing that Snowden achieved was that he quit doing the bad thing. There is some value in not being an active contributor to the suffering in the world. Sure, if you quit littering that won't clean up the parks, but at least you won't be a litterer anymore. The first thing Snowden did to improve the state of the world was reducing the number of NSA employees by one; and he improved himself by switching from NSA employee to unemployed. Too many people overlook this, thinking that all that matters is whether or not the world is good on average, while ignoring whether or not they themselves are good.
Secondly, Snowden hasn't been forgotten. It might take a few more to follow in his footsteps before the lesson sinks in to the public, but the things he revealed are still out there.
Finally, there actually have been some changes because of his actions (I saved the most concrete point for last). Nobody on HN discounts the reality of malicious state attackers anymore - it used to be that nobody expected to be on the receiving end of a state level attack (and we never secured appropriately), but now it's common knowledge that Public Enemy Number One is actually the public itself. Snowden definitely helped push forward HTTPS rollouts, for example.
That's a lot to ask of anyone, and why I think Snowden will go down as among the bravest people in history.
A common fallacy is thinking that you only have to be a good person for matters less than $100. I can't explain it or present an argument in its favor but it is a very common sentiment.
Good is relative to average, and is a concept that society determines the baseline of.
So, Snowden's choice was between giving a traitor the easy life and facing hardship and uncertainty as a good person. Granted, he had to suffer a lot, but the alternative to suffering was providing comforts to a criminal that happened to be him.
If it wasn't worth it, you wouldn't know his name, and you wouldn't be talking about it today. Does that count for nothing to you?
You seem to value having your name remembered; i.e., you value fame, and you're projecting that onto Snowden. I don't know what Snowden values, but assuming he values fame as you do (or that the person you're responding to does) makes no sense.
If the person you responded to values only financial security and a peaceful life, then he's absolutely right to say he doesn't think Snowden's actions were worth it, because to him, Snowden sacrificed all that and got nothing in return but exile in Russia. (I guess it could be worse... there's worse places to live on the planet, but Russia is a pretty lousy place to live in my book.)
Total bullshit. Nothing I said implies any of this.
What I value is that we can have a discussion premised on facts. Snowden is a real person who exists, and we can discuss what he did and what the consequences are. The alternative is that we discuss a hypothetical whistleblower and have all our reasoning dismissed as fear-mongering or paranoia. That is what I value.
>Whether it's "worth it" is completely subjective, and differs from person to person based on their values.
To be clear, it is worth it to me to have Snowden be a whistleblower because I had to pay nothing for the privilege. There are not many people who would say it is not worth it for someone else to be a whistleblower unless they think whistleblowing is inherently objectionable.
Would that be worth ruining your life? I'm asking for your perspective.
>Would that be worth ruining your life? I'm asking for your perspective.
Would what be worth ruining my life for? Obviously one doesn't make such personal sacrifices solely for personal gain, so if I'm going to ruin my life, it will be because I feel that it could very well lead to the betterment of many other lives. There's no 'perspective' there to glean. The fact that you would personally not value my sacrifice doesn't really impact that, because frankly, I don't give a shit what you think. You're just some rando with an opinion.
How is it evidence of anything more than his fame? It's very counter-intuitive that being brought up as an example of an unaccomplished person is evidence of accomplishment. I don't see how that works.
If you want to argue in favor of Snowden having accomplished something important, point out his accomplishments. Your argument is bad and makes it seem like he has none.
Your argument is predicated on a category error.