re: #293 triple

Well, it’s more apt than you might think.

Dark knight, batman has this massive cell phone spying operation. He NEEDS it to find the joker, and he does.

Morgan Freeman wants nothing to do with it, but says he’ll do it to help stop the threat.

Batman says okay, and after he catches the joker - does he use the massive cellphone database to fight more crime in gotham? No. He destroys the machine. Because it’s the right thing to do.

So yeah, he’s basically batman.

I stand by it.

This is hilarious twice over.

First, as entertaining as Batman is as a comic character, viewed in a realistic focus he’s terrifying. A non-state actor implementing a parallel justice system with no oversight. Extra special funny because Batman may shut down the giant privacy-invading machine, but is still a guy who will go beat up lowlives for information (and occasionally kidnap an guy from a foreign country).

Second, the entire Batman premise is rooted in fictional shortcuts about the nature of crime, surveillance, and the moral authority of the individual actor. The conceit of Batman as hero-concept is that this individual has applied unlimited resources to creating a personal surveillance system and a massive personal armory, but that this isn’t terrifying because, as viewers/readers, we can see the inside of Batman’s head and understand his moral clarity. Batman is a purity fantasy—one incorruptible man is a dirty world—as much as a power fantasy. Emphasis on fantasy.

Edward Snowden is not a fictional construct. I have no idea what’s in his head, or his motives. Because I can’t see the corresponding thought bubbles, I have no reason to assume that his motives and his declared motives are identical. In fact, all I can do is make assessments based on his actions. And his actions don’t impress me as straightforward or acting out of conscience. He didn’t leak documents that showed wrongdoing; he and his representative have created narratives that don’t sync with the materials released; and rather than simply distribute information as proof, he’s made a bunch of claims he hasn’t backed up.

And because of his choice to flee the country with information in tow, I can’t even assume that his motives is whistle-blowing as opposed to espionage. Snowden fled directly to a nation which keeps getting caught probing and hacking US data; he then moved on to another country with the same issue. And why would I accept a naked assurance that his materials are secure? I don’t know the man. You don’t know the man. So why are you speaking as though your image of him is more than a mythos you’ve bought into?

And furthermore, intentions are not magic. Many, many, spies believe that they’re making the world a better place by their actions. Snowden could be a wholly altruistic actor and I’d still think he’s fucked up, because he’s blurred his own status as a whistleblower and conscientious objector. By fleeing the country, he’s opened himself to being marked a spy rather than a whistleblower. By telling rather than showing us what he’s taken, he’s suspect of being a liar or exaggerating for effect. By having a spokeperson who exaggerates, insults, and tosses out threat…and who has specifically made this story about Snowden, himself, and their “persecution”…he’s dulled the impact of anything that might be revealed.

Frankly, whether you’re liberal or conservative, you’re apparently not processing the gulf between what you strongly feel…and the narrative you’ve created to sync your feelings to the current situation…and what information is actually available.