He said also that he has to be part of the disclosure process because otherwise it wouldn't work. He said, leaking exists and the government approves of it where it gets them positive results, but that whistleblowers are "typically maligned, y'know, it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they're against government." His quest does not begin and end with truth. He's "come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies." And he goes on to say:
Originally Posted by JocktheMotie
"But, at the same time, you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living, uh, living unfreely, but comfortably is something you're willing to accept--and I think many of us are, it's, it's the human nature--uh, you can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your, your large paycheck, for relatively little work, uh, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows, but... if you realise that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, uh, you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk, and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied."
He doesn't say what freedom is, nor what is oppression. With only the things we know so far, then for him surveillance is oppression. Which seems an odd position. But he's speaking in terms of generations. He doesn't say generations of what. It may just be generations of leaders. And for American presidents that's four years, right? But he's talking as if the terms are larger and place further into the future. From that perspective, it's actually kind of weak to finish up on, oh well, better let the public decide. But on that point he said a weird thing earlier.
"When you are subverting the power of government, that, that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy, and, if you do that in secret consistently, y'know, as the government does, uh, when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it'll kind of give its officials a mandate to tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side, but they rarely if ever do that when an abuse occurs, that falls to individual citizens. But, they're typically maligned...."
Now, he says that right after saying the public is owed an explanation for the motivations of people who make disclosures. So, when he goes on to talk about subverting the power of government, who is he talking about? Who is the subversive? Is he talking about himself? A few words later he stresses "as the government does", suggesting a change in sentence subject. As in, now he's talking about the government. But here's the other thing. He says subverting the power of government is fundamentally dangerous to democracy. What does he mean? Subverting an elected government's mandate to decide for the governed?
His quest centers around visions of the future and how those visions come true.