'Pardon Snowden,' one tech exec tells Obama, report says

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57616044-38/pardon-snowden-one-tech-exec-tells-obama-report-says/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

by fraqed • 13 years ago

150 104 13 years ago

news.cnet.com

contextual2• 13 years ago

Edward Snowden is the Martin Luther King Jr. of my generation. History will vindicate this man and hail him as a hero. It's great to see at least one tech exec with the courage to speak up for him.

mdemare• 13 years ago

But why did it have to be Zynga's Mark Pincus...

brianbreslin• 13 years ago

I was kind of surprised Pincus was in that room. Are our virtual farming habits being analyzed by the NSA too?

Theodores• 13 years ago

Instead of all of them! Why weren't they unanimous?

dpratt• 13 years ago

"The Obama administration has stated that if Snowden were to return to the United States, he would receive protection under due process laws."

That sure is nice of them.

How did it get to a point where this is actually up for debate? It sure sounds to me like that's a statement from somebody who thinks that they have options in how Snowden should be treated by the government.

timje12• 13 years ago

Was Manning's treatment due process? Because it seems she was stripped naked and kept in isolation for several years.

I think I'll take the exile, thanks Barry.

disposition2• 13 years ago

Pretty sure the precedent was set before Barry was even in politics.

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

exit• 13 years ago

referring to Obama by "Barry" is off putting, in the way referring to Manning as "he" would be.

antiterra3• 13 years ago

Manning was in the military, and the operating interpretation of Article I is that Congress and the President have the power to regulate the Armed forces, the rest of the US Constitution and civilian law largely notwithstanding. Draconian punishment and treatment, while concerning, is nothing new for those subject to the UCMJ, even if the code itself appears to prohibit it[1].

The scary scenario would be the classification of Snowden as an enemy combatant, who would then be subject to military justice. I hope that all three branches of the US government consider that to be a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

[1] http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-pre...

phaus3• 13 years ago

The judge in his case ruled at one point that he was being illegally mistreated. What I find outrageous about that is that they only cut a small fraction of the time he had already served off of his sentence as a result. In America, such severe misconduct by the authorities is supposed to result in the defendant walking (And I say this as a person who believes that he was otherwise guilty of SOME of the charges due to his wholesale leak of 700000 files that had nothing to do with government crimes).

If we compromise our values in the name of defending freedom, there is no freedom left to defend.

contextual2• 13 years ago

It's hard to know if a statement like that is serious or satirical, especially considering the many broken promises and human rights violations Obama is responsible for.

For example, didn't Obama promise to close Guantanamo Prison? http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas-promise-to-cl...

wavefunction3• 13 years ago

To be fair, the GOP blocked closing down Gitmo like they've done pretty much everything else the past 8 years. Not that I don't think President Obama needs to head back to a remedial course on the Constitution...

wil421• 13 years ago

he would receive protection under due process laws

Reminds me when DOJ sent an entirely redacted document in response to a FOIA request.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/justice-departm...

headgasket• 13 years ago

Pedro offers you his protection

saosebastiao• 13 years ago

Due process laws like requiring warrants for wiretaps.

cryoshon• 13 years ago

Due process really doesn't mean that much when legal guilt is known beforehand and the defendant is a government enemy. After the hit job on Manning, I wouldn't be at all surprised for "due process" to include months and months of torture-detention in solitary confinement pre-and-post-trial-- all legal of course.

dragonwriter2• 13 years ago

How did it get to a point where this is actually up for debate?

Its not actually "up for debate", the President's statement is a way of making noises that sound reassuring when formed into a soundbite that passes through in a stream of media stories while being devoid of substantive content.

Its specifically designed to be revealed as empty of any commitment beyond what is already undisputably mandatory when analyzed rationally (so that in any case where it would be a source of "unfulfilled promise" political damage that would be the least concern), but to be soothing when heard in the typical media context which is pretty much designed to maximize emotional response and short-circuit rational consideration.

batemanesque• 13 years ago

well, if a tech exec says it...

cschmidt• 13 years ago

Here is the list of people who Obama has pardoned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bara...

It looks like many of them were just erasing the record of those who committed minor crimes a long time ago. I wonder how you get to be so lucky.

jnbiche• 13 years ago

I don't know, but Obama's been pretty stingy with the pardons compared to past presidents.

basch• 13 years ago

wait until his last day in office

Draco6slayer• 13 years ago

With all that's being said about the NSA, and how we should add self-restraint, with all that the government is admitting about the current state of the NSA being bad, why not?

If it's that clear that Snowden did the right thing, why not pardon him? I feel that not pardoning Snowden is roughly equivalent to making a statement that people should be in the dark about the government's spying programs, and that the government should be free to spy on its people, unchecked.

sneak7• 13 years ago

roughly equivalent to making a statement that people should be in the dark about the government's spying programs, and that the government should be free to spy on its people, unchecked.

That's been the clear attitude of both the Bush and Obama administrations, illustrated through many actions completely unrelated to Snowden.

rfnslyr3• 13 years ago

This is the United States government. By pardoning snowman they set a dangerous precedent.

Let's say they pardon snowden, in the future, if more whistleblowers appear, all they have to do is say "but snowden was pardoned!" And then what?

actionscripted• 13 years ago

I understand the potentially precarious position this puts the government in with regards to handling leaks and whistle-blowers in the future but I'm okay with that. Pardon Snowden, pardon (encourage?) future whistle-blowers.

adventured• 13 years ago

If more people do what Snowden did, and reveal the kind of violations he has, then they too should be pardoned for the same reason he should be.

The proper response by the government to future cases is to judge them each case by case.

venomsnake• 13 years ago

Don't do stuff that makes people become legitimate whistleblowers is a good start.

The US public is not stupid. There is very little goodwill towards Manning about what he did compared to Snowden[1]. And for good reasons.

So people are pretty good from separating whistleblower and leaker. So I think it will be non issue.

[1] There is a lot of sympathy for Manning about the way he was treated, which may or may not be a good case for clemency in the next administration.

danso• 13 years ago

Kind of strange that in a discussion that is ostensibly related to the disastrous Healthcare.gov, that you'd invite the CEO of a gaming company that thrives off of manipulating users through gamification. I know Zynga has been successful in many ways that most could only hope to emulate...but really, there weren't more relevant CEOs to bring to the table?

But good for Pincus for asking the question. How embarrassing it is for Obama to equivocate on morality and principles with a CEO whose gaming company is often criticized for having neither.

eplanit• 13 years ago

"Kind of strange that in a discussion that is ostensibly related to the disastrous Healthcare.gov, that you'd invite the CEO of a gaming company that thrives off of manipulating users through gamification."

Not strange nor a surprise at all when that CEO is a major campaign contributor.

just2n• 13 years ago

To remain off topic:

It's not just him. The full quote:

"Obama met Tuesday with 15 tech executives, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, and Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, with the official purpose of discussing how his administration can improve its Healthcare.gov Web site."

None of these people seem particularly good candidates for a discussion on how to make healthcare.gov better. It's also highly questionable that only highly ranking executives were invited. It feels to me this was more of a face saving publicity stunt or a talking point. It would've been more useful and cheaper for Obama to just have Google or Yahoo build a replacement healthcare.gov website, or open source the task and ask them for contributions.

Where's the "let's get shit done" focus?

wavefunction3• 13 years ago

Until that exec is willing to state their support for a pardon in public, this is all just a bunch of PR for Obama and the big tech companies.

ilamont2• 13 years ago

This is a self-serving opportunity for Mark Pincus to look like the good guy, after years of acting like a tyrant when he was in charge of Zynga. I'm not just talking about pushing games designed to exploit users in various ways. Remember the incident where Pincus "demanded certain employees surrender some shares or be fired"? (1) He also laid off more than 500 people earlier this year,(2) managed problems by "address(ing) the symptoms rather than the root causes"(3) and padded his own nest while loyal investors who stuck with Zynga stock got roasted.(4)

Appearing in a photo opp with Obama and saying "free Snowden" is a low risk way for him to improve his image among his peers (rich Silicon Valley people) and the public.

1. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020462190...

2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/06/03/zynga-l...

3. http://www.fastcompany.com/3007544/where-are-they-now/mark-p...

4. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/07/01/the-fall-of-m...

ankitml• 13 years ago

If someone is doing seemingly morally correct thing with a self serving intention, he still takes the credit.

wavefunction3• 13 years ago

He can try to take credit all he wants, it's up to the rest of us if it means anything.

sneak7• 13 years ago

There's a big fat line between being a dick of a manager (it's not illegal to say "surrender shares or be fired", simply asshole-tinted capitalism) and imprisoning someone for life for performing a heroic act (involving sacrificing his own personal freedom) to uphold some of the most important ideals of our society.

Please learn the difference between "asshole" and "evil".

You can be a stark raging asshole (e.g. Pincus, or weev) and still not be criminal, such as the activities of Obama, the DNI, and the NSA.

LordKano2• 13 years ago

By that rationale, it's also not illegal to enforce an unfair but legally valid statute.

pessimizer2• 13 years ago

Your big fat line may be legality, but it's not safe to assume that other people's moral judgements consider legality in any way.

Please learn the difference between "asshole" and "evil".
You can be a stark raging asshole (e.g. Pincus, or weev) and still not be criminal, such as the activities of Obama, the DNI, and the NSA.

I'm not sure how you can more clearly equivocate between "evil" and "criminal," and it's telling that the post you are responding to has absolutely no mention of legality. It's just something that you introduced in order to equivocate.

walshemj4• 13 years ago

I think the average man on the google shuttle bus or any SV employee would consider "surrender shares or be fired" to be evil.

phaus3• 13 years ago

The Weev actually is a criminal, it just so happens that the act that finally sent him to prison shouldn't have.

Personally, I'd argue that anyone who tries to incite people to rape women has crossed the boundary between simply being an asshole, and becoming evil.

A_COMPUTER• 13 years ago

When you pay someone in shares instead of commensurate wages because you want employees to bank on your future success, then yank the shares when there is future success...I consider this to be real damage. He basically robbed those workers of their fair reward. Yeah it's not killing people, but it's still very wrong.

Pxtl• 13 years ago

He also laid off more than 500 people earlier this year

His company is tanking iirc, so I don't think he can be lambasted for that. You can't live in startup-growth-mode of ignoring the balance sheet forever.

antiterra3• 13 years ago

In Sarajevo Blues, Semezdin Mehmedinović writes about seeing Radovan Karadžić on television, stirring up genocidal sentiment with vicious lies. Mehmedinović angrily grabs his son's copy of Karadžić's poetry book for children and begins ripping it apart. The son cries, and Mehmedinović tapes the book back together and returns it.

People are more complex than 'bad guy' or 'good guy' despite our attempts to canonize them one way or the other (Jobs, Churchill, Lincoln, JFK.) Sometimes the bad guy does the right thing, sometimes even for the right reason. That doesn't mean you have to let go of your criticisms.

pessimizer2• 13 years ago

Karadžić writing good poems does not make him more than a simple 'bad guy.' Being talented is not a good act.

wissler• 13 years ago

This is rank cynicism. You are trashing his motives without any evidence whatsoever. And no, evidence that he is a bad manager is not evidence that he doesn't believe in what he says about Snowden.

saraid216• 13 years ago

I'm not sure having an unofficial company motto of "Be evil" is evidence of being a bad manager.

bmelton• 13 years ago

This is a self-serving opportunity for Mark Pincus to look like the good guy

So what if it is? Who's to say that Bill Gates isn't just spending all the money he's spending on charity to "look like" the good guy? If somebody does the right thing, that's enough. If they do it enough times, that makes them a "good person".

If they also happen to look good in the process, who cares?

Judge the action, not the motive.

fiatmoney• 13 years ago

Let me introduce you to my friend Andrew Carnegie, raging asshole & builder of amongst other things the world's largest free public library system, or my other friend Howard Hughes, raging asshole and founder of one of the world's largest medical charities, or my other friend Werner von Braun, responsible both for massive civilian casualties and also bootstrapping human exploration of space.

Oh what a piece of work is man, to be able to do both good and bad things.

ilamont2• 13 years ago

Agreed. You could fill out that list with many more names.

But what has Pincus done, beyond appearing in a photo opp and asking Obama to do something that others have already demanded?

Bahamut• 13 years ago

Just a note, the president cannot pardon someone who has not been convicted yet I believe.

nknighthb8• 13 years ago

Have you heard of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford? What about Jimmy Carter and the Vietnam draft evasion pardons?

dllthomas• 13 years ago

That is incorrect.

znowi• 13 years ago

Now wait and see how top tech execs will be gaining cheap karma points during this "call for reform" campaign.

walshemj4• 13 years ago

The last thing Ed Snowden needs is a shady character like Pinicus vouching for him what next will Donald Trump get in the act or gorgeous George Galloway MP.

He needs some higher quality supporters if he does want to negotiate a way out of his predicament

mikeash• 13 years ago

My first reaction was, "Cool!"

Then I got to thinking about it a little more, and I can't figure out why this is the least bit interesting.

"Pardon Snowden" is a pretty common sentiment among the tech crowd. And tech execs generally follow the same sort of opinions as the rest of us. I'm sure there are substantial differences, but there's no surprise that there would be tech execs who think Snowden should be pardoned.

So then what is the supposed surprise? That the guy was brave enough to actually voice his opinion to the President? This is not the USSR and you don't get thrown in the gulag for expressing an opinion that the President disagrees with.

pablovidal85• 13 years ago

Obama cannot pardon somebody who's not a criminal, in any case he may be a witness or a liar.

peatmoss• 13 years ago

Pardoning Snowden has practical upsides for the President and NSA apart from morals, ethics, or scoring popularity points with tech execs. Namely, by pardoning Snowden, there's a good chance they can get him back on U.S. soil and possibly prevent more leaks that are damaging in other ways.

It strikes me that much of Snowden's original leaking was protecting civil liberties for U.S. citizens--let's call that patriotism. And it seems that reasonable people and federal judges agree that knowing about and fixing these abuses is a Good Thing.

As it stands now, the heavy handed government rhetoric / smear campaign, combined with the threat of legal (or worse, extra-legal) penalties at home, might make anyone skittish. And a skittish guy with a whole lot of government secrets seems like a Bad Thing.

So, let's bring this guy home and throw him some parades before Russia, China, Iran, and everyone else knows everything about our cyber warfare capacity--i.e. "legitimate" spy stuff that all nations take part in.

'Pardon Snowden,' one tech exec tells Obama, report says

Related Stories