SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
From Ellsberg to Snowden -- From Risks to Hacks
Sharing the stage today with a video feed of Edward Snowden, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg noted that the new generation of whistleblowers has improved his reputation. Government officials and others seeking to discredit Snowden and Chelsea Manning have claimed Ellsberg's historic leak as more legitimate than, and somehow different in kind from, the leaks of the new generation. Ellsberg of course rejected such claims as ridiculous and intentionally misleading.
Jul 20, 2014
Sharing the stage today with a video feed of Edward Snowden, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg noted that the new generation of whistleblowers has improved his reputation. Government officials and others seeking to discredit Snowden and Chelsea Manning have claimed Ellsberg's historic leak as more legitimate than, and somehow different in kind from, the leaks of the new generation. Ellsberg of course rejected such claims as ridiculous and intentionally misleading. He emphasized the similarities, and also cited all sorts of ways in which the recent leaks have been even more daring than his.
In the course of their conversation, however, differences between the two figures did emerge, and maybe those differences say something about the rest of us.
" Technology enables dissent," Snowden postulated at the start of the dialogue, which took place at the tenth Hackers on Planet Earth conference, or HOPE X, in New York City. He warned against the tendency to "sleepwalk into new protocols, into new applications" and implored the geek-heavy audience to "encode our rights into the protocols you write." He also called for hackers to help "shift the ground of technical literacy" in society as a whole, promoting more widespread adoption of such practices as public-key cryptography. "We don't want a high priesthood of technology."
Although Snowden pointed out that technology played an important part in Daniel Ellsberg's 1971 leak -- the technology of the photocopier -- Ellsberg himself didn't focus on that part of the story. "I have less optimism about technology than you have," he said. The word he used again and again was risk. He meant human risk, human choice. He spoke of the sense of solidarity he felt with Manning and Snowden when he saw the risks to comfort and safety they were willing to take for truth. What motivated Ellsberg to take his own risk, by his account, was less to spread information or even enforce the Constitution than to end what he saw as a horrendous moral evil: the Vietnam War.
Just as Snowden claimed Ellsberg as an influence, Ellsberg found common cause with his inheritors today. He made a lengthy and passionate speech denouncing the ongoing evils of the modern U.S. security regime, and calling on more people in the security services to take risks and speak out. "A lot of blood has flowed because people bit their tongues or swallowed their whistles," he cried.
When the floor turned to Snowden after that, he fell quiet at first. "I'm still politically pretty moderate," he began by saying. (He'd earlier described his political philosophy as "almost Stallman-esque," referring to the anti-copyright, free-software advocate Richard Stallman.) He stressed that he doesn't blame fellow contractors who haven't followed his lead; rather, he put the burden on the hundreds of hackers in the room to create tools that will make whistleblowing easier and safer. Whereas Ellsberg spoke of resistance as a matter of moral urgency and heroic choice, Snowden saw it as an engineering challenge.
Maybe the difference between these two is a matter of personalities, or of life circumstances. But I wonder if it might also in some respects be a matter of generations. I wonder if there is some respect in which a more thoroughly computerized society is one in which information politics passes for politics as a whole, in which it's harder for us to notice the importance of human agency -- including one's own.
Near the end of the conversation, Snowden lost his train of thought. "I have a really short working memory," he said, and attributed the lapse, at least half-joking, to "a lifetime of memes and lolcats."
"What can I say? I'm a child of the Internet."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Nathan Schneider
Nathan Schneider is a writer, editor, and professor of media studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. He is the author of "Thank You, Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse" (2013) and "God in Proof: The Story of a Search From the Ancients to the Internet" (2015).
Sharing the stage today with a video feed of Edward Snowden, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg noted that the new generation of whistleblowers has improved his reputation. Government officials and others seeking to discredit Snowden and Chelsea Manning have claimed Ellsberg's historic leak as more legitimate than, and somehow different in kind from, the leaks of the new generation. Ellsberg of course rejected such claims as ridiculous and intentionally misleading. He emphasized the similarities, and also cited all sorts of ways in which the recent leaks have been even more daring than his.
In the course of their conversation, however, differences between the two figures did emerge, and maybe those differences say something about the rest of us.
" Technology enables dissent," Snowden postulated at the start of the dialogue, which took place at the tenth Hackers on Planet Earth conference, or HOPE X, in New York City. He warned against the tendency to "sleepwalk into new protocols, into new applications" and implored the geek-heavy audience to "encode our rights into the protocols you write." He also called for hackers to help "shift the ground of technical literacy" in society as a whole, promoting more widespread adoption of such practices as public-key cryptography. "We don't want a high priesthood of technology."
Although Snowden pointed out that technology played an important part in Daniel Ellsberg's 1971 leak -- the technology of the photocopier -- Ellsberg himself didn't focus on that part of the story. "I have less optimism about technology than you have," he said. The word he used again and again was risk. He meant human risk, human choice. He spoke of the sense of solidarity he felt with Manning and Snowden when he saw the risks to comfort and safety they were willing to take for truth. What motivated Ellsberg to take his own risk, by his account, was less to spread information or even enforce the Constitution than to end what he saw as a horrendous moral evil: the Vietnam War.
Just as Snowden claimed Ellsberg as an influence, Ellsberg found common cause with his inheritors today. He made a lengthy and passionate speech denouncing the ongoing evils of the modern U.S. security regime, and calling on more people in the security services to take risks and speak out. "A lot of blood has flowed because people bit their tongues or swallowed their whistles," he cried.
When the floor turned to Snowden after that, he fell quiet at first. "I'm still politically pretty moderate," he began by saying. (He'd earlier described his political philosophy as "almost Stallman-esque," referring to the anti-copyright, free-software advocate Richard Stallman.) He stressed that he doesn't blame fellow contractors who haven't followed his lead; rather, he put the burden on the hundreds of hackers in the room to create tools that will make whistleblowing easier and safer. Whereas Ellsberg spoke of resistance as a matter of moral urgency and heroic choice, Snowden saw it as an engineering challenge.
Maybe the difference between these two is a matter of personalities, or of life circumstances. But I wonder if it might also in some respects be a matter of generations. I wonder if there is some respect in which a more thoroughly computerized society is one in which information politics passes for politics as a whole, in which it's harder for us to notice the importance of human agency -- including one's own.
Near the end of the conversation, Snowden lost his train of thought. "I have a really short working memory," he said, and attributed the lapse, at least half-joking, to "a lifetime of memes and lolcats."
"What can I say? I'm a child of the Internet."
Nathan Schneider
Nathan Schneider is a writer, editor, and professor of media studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. He is the author of "Thank You, Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse" (2013) and "God in Proof: The Story of a Search From the Ancients to the Internet" (2015).
Sharing the stage today with a video feed of Edward Snowden, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg noted that the new generation of whistleblowers has improved his reputation. Government officials and others seeking to discredit Snowden and Chelsea Manning have claimed Ellsberg's historic leak as more legitimate than, and somehow different in kind from, the leaks of the new generation. Ellsberg of course rejected such claims as ridiculous and intentionally misleading. He emphasized the similarities, and also cited all sorts of ways in which the recent leaks have been even more daring than his.
In the course of their conversation, however, differences between the two figures did emerge, and maybe those differences say something about the rest of us.
" Technology enables dissent," Snowden postulated at the start of the dialogue, which took place at the tenth Hackers on Planet Earth conference, or HOPE X, in New York City. He warned against the tendency to "sleepwalk into new protocols, into new applications" and implored the geek-heavy audience to "encode our rights into the protocols you write." He also called for hackers to help "shift the ground of technical literacy" in society as a whole, promoting more widespread adoption of such practices as public-key cryptography. "We don't want a high priesthood of technology."
Although Snowden pointed out that technology played an important part in Daniel Ellsberg's 1971 leak -- the technology of the photocopier -- Ellsberg himself didn't focus on that part of the story. "I have less optimism about technology than you have," he said. The word he used again and again was risk. He meant human risk, human choice. He spoke of the sense of solidarity he felt with Manning and Snowden when he saw the risks to comfort and safety they were willing to take for truth. What motivated Ellsberg to take his own risk, by his account, was less to spread information or even enforce the Constitution than to end what he saw as a horrendous moral evil: the Vietnam War.
Just as Snowden claimed Ellsberg as an influence, Ellsberg found common cause with his inheritors today. He made a lengthy and passionate speech denouncing the ongoing evils of the modern U.S. security regime, and calling on more people in the security services to take risks and speak out. "A lot of blood has flowed because people bit their tongues or swallowed their whistles," he cried.
When the floor turned to Snowden after that, he fell quiet at first. "I'm still politically pretty moderate," he began by saying. (He'd earlier described his political philosophy as "almost Stallman-esque," referring to the anti-copyright, free-software advocate Richard Stallman.) He stressed that he doesn't blame fellow contractors who haven't followed his lead; rather, he put the burden on the hundreds of hackers in the room to create tools that will make whistleblowing easier and safer. Whereas Ellsberg spoke of resistance as a matter of moral urgency and heroic choice, Snowden saw it as an engineering challenge.
Maybe the difference between these two is a matter of personalities, or of life circumstances. But I wonder if it might also in some respects be a matter of generations. I wonder if there is some respect in which a more thoroughly computerized society is one in which information politics passes for politics as a whole, in which it's harder for us to notice the importance of human agency -- including one's own.
Near the end of the conversation, Snowden lost his train of thought. "I have a really short working memory," he said, and attributed the lapse, at least half-joking, to "a lifetime of memes and lolcats."
"What can I say? I'm a child of the Internet."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.