Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/world/europe/snowden-sees-some-victories-from-a-distance.html

by dankohn1 • 11 years ago

112 144 11 years ago

olefoo• 11 years ago

We'll know the American government has truly gone sour if an earnest attempt on his life is traced to the "Intelligence Community". Until then, he is our beloved revolutionary sweetheart telepresent in our thoughts.

spacehome3• 11 years ago

Who are you kidding? The intelligence community has been rotten for at least decades.

cyphunk• 11 years ago

"ISIS was one of the terrorist groups that learned from Snowden, and it is clear his actions played a role in the rise of ISIS"

Despite how seriously misleading this statement is I can't help but laugh. Been rolfmao way too much since the Snowden leaks. From the .gov puppets desperate to find a angle on the debate, to the FBI desperate to counter the tides of technological evolution.... im laughing. Will probably continue laughing even after their baton's hit my back because some citizens actually took these absurd statements from the CIA/NSA/FBI/WhiteHouse as something other than a joke.

higherpurpose• 11 years ago

Jesus, I promised myself I would stop upvoting any NYT or BBC (usually propaganda) stories, but that's just ridiculous.

mlrtime2• 11 years ago

It is a quote from a book sourced in the article, not a quote from the article itself.

nl• 11 years ago

The OP should have made it clear that the NYT was quoting a book by Morell. The entire quote is as follows:

“ISIS was one of the terrorist groups that learned from Snowden, and it is clear his actions played a role in the rise of ISIS,” Mr. Morell writes in “The Great War of Our Time,” offering no elaboration.

I think the fact that the NYT editorialised with the comment "offering no elaboration" changes it entirely.

sbt• 11 years ago

That is classic Michael J. Morell. I can't take anything he says seriously. Listening to Mr. Morell is like listening to some of the right wing republicans describe the administration as socialist. US public debate should be above this, nobody benefits from this nonsense.

realusername2• 11 years ago

It's the usual "put everything on terrorists" argument, Snowden is now responsible of the rise of ISIS ! (and also of the world hunger ?) The last decade of war in the middle-east is just a coincidence apparently.

zz1• 11 years ago

Unable to read it with TorBrowserBundle, I get redirected to http://www.nytimes.com:8123/glogin?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyti...

Anyone else, any clue?

jgrahamc• 11 years ago

I sometimes think that HN is pro-Snowden. Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain?

blumkvist4• 11 years ago

I can't say I see him as a villain, but definitely not a hero. I hold back my judgement, because we are just too far away to know what's going on.

He did expose some pretty bad practices to the general public, but asylum in Russia afterwards? Are you kidding me? That just looks super fishy to anyone with at least an ounce of critical thought in his brain. Especially in the context of the Crimea debacle.

jules3• 11 years ago

What should he have done instead?

asddubs• 11 years ago

Could you expand on that? Why is it fishy?

deciplex2• 11 years ago

If currently-serving national-level politicians are calling for your extrajudicial assassination, Russia is one of the safer places on Earth for you to be.

realusername2• 11 years ago

What other choice does he have ? He asked almost every European countries for asylum and they all refused him.

pluma4• 11 years ago

He only had to take asylum in Russia because the US revoked his passport and prevented him from going anywhere else. Russia was never intended to be more than a stop-gap.

Considering how disgustingly subservient all of Europe has been to bend over backwards to the US (e.g. forcing the landing of a presidential plane because someone suspected it was carrying Snowden) you can't really blame him. Russia is the only country in the region that doesn't care whether the US wants him or not (and would even refuse to co-operate simply to flip them off).

Heck, I'd love to see him be granted asylum somewhere else but all of Europe would drop him like a hot potato the second the US told them to hand him over.

wongarsu• 11 years ago

I don't see how asylum in Russia was fishy.

Snowden probably doesn't like the Russian government, but he was stuck in a Russian airport with a revoked passport. Even if he had free choice, Russia is one of the few countries willing and able to withstand US pressure to extradite him. Being on trial in the US isn't an option for him because what he did may have been just, but was striclty illegal.

Russian-US relations were at a low and Russia generally likes sending little fuck-yous. Granting Snowden asylum is also good PR for Russia because they appear strong against perceived US injustice.

For both sides the choices appear completely rational without implying any foul play or hidden relations.

kr43• 11 years ago

Crimea debacle? You should go read GlobalResearch.ca, CounterPunch.org, WSWS.org ETC – non-MSM news outlets to get the other side of the picture.

Crimea is a very strategic area to get hold of which NATO wants to break into Russia through color revolutions ETC just because Putin refused to be US dog. When Ukraine democratic government was forcefully overthrown by a US-backed Nazi military coup what choice Russia had? Just imagine how US would respond if China or Russia back coup takes place in Mexico or Canada? Why pivot to Asia, why redrawing Middle East, dividing Iraq into three small states? Supporting rebels against Serian government while helping Saudi dictatership to kill Yemen civilions just to suppress another rebels. All sugarcoded IN the name of democracy and freedom? which even US is failing to provide to its citizens.

We're listening about China aggression, Russian aggression, while US is at war in almost the whole world directly or through proxies.

US has accumulated enough bad karma to insure its decline, those who don't remember history are bound to repeat it. This war game and greed for hegemony by bullet at all cost has happened countless times in the past and has always resulted in complete destruction of empires and civilizations sooner or later.

But public is sleeping as always, only with a vein optimism that "this won't happen to us, we're unique in the human history!" You're not unique, you're just a spec of dust in the cosmos which has eternal law of upholding justice. It's just that it comes at the right time when the bucket is full.

csandreasen8• 11 years ago

It doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion on HN/Reddit/etc. I've noticed a couple other people besides myself, although casting it as hero/villain is a bit of a simplification - I think what he did was reckless and I don't think he's been forthcoming about his motives. I've seen a lot of people downplay the comparison between Snowden's actions and Manning's actions. As I see it, Manning took thousands of sensitive documents that he didn't read and handed them over to Julian Assange, but on the hand Snowden took thousands of sensitive documents that he didn't read and handed them over to Glenn Greenwald. Personally I think the biggest difference is that Manning owned up to what he[1] did, but Snowden washed his hands of all responsibility and insists that any harm that may have come from his actions is the fault of the media, neglecting the fact that he was responsible for the media having those documents to begin with.

Then there's the issue of the reporters he chose to give the documents to, who I think have been sensationalizing the issues in order to milk these documents for as long as possible. If Snowden had stopped at the first document that was released, I'd probably have a different opinion. It seems like just about every release following has been purely about legitimate foreign intelligence operations, with some language thrown in to say "there is no indication as to how many Americans or innocent civilians have been targeted under this program," with the implication that you, your family and loved ones may have been spied on by the NSA. It's a scare tactic to bring in more viewers and more advertising dollars. Every time a news outlet does actually reveal groups actually being targeted (like Russia, China, Al Qaeda, etc.), I tend to think that it's exactly the kind of people I want the NSA to be spying on.

[1] Preemptively: yes, I am aware of the Bradley/Chelsea thing. No, I am not trying to make a statement. At the time that Pvt Manning plead guilty, he was known as Bradley. Now she is known as Chelsea, and it just gets confusing trying to figure out which pronoun to use when referring to events in the past.

toyg5• 11 years ago

sensationalizing the issues in order to milk these documents for as long as possible

That's the only way to fight politicians who know how the news-cycle work: just sit tight for a couple of weeks and anything will be forgotten. By "refreshing" every few months, they kept the issue on the agenda. Recent legislative wins in this area are almost entirely due to this strategy: in the first month after release, there was massive support behind Feinstein and her likes; now that side has slowly been eroded down to a few securocrats and the usual hawks, which is why wins are happening in courts and in Congress.

It seems like just about every release following has been purely about legitimate foreign intelligence operations

We really don't know how "legitimate" those descriptions of people hacking equipment in transit were. Besides, there is a world beyond the US -- Greenwald publishes from Brasil, he doesn't have to follow the wishes of the US government. Would you have kept quiet on the Bay of Pigs operation just because it was a "legitimate" foreign operation from a US-gov perspective?

Journalism is not about covering government press releases.

dTal• 11 years ago

Every time a news outlet does actually reveal groups actually being targeted (like Russia, China, Al Qaeda, etc.), I tend to think that it's exactly the kind of people I want the NSA to be spying on.

I'd be interested in seeing some links.

Be careful where you get your leaks from. If "a news outlet" isn't the Washington Post, The Guardian, or The Intercept, then it's not a primary source. In particular, if it's a 'leak' that hasn't even been reported by any of those three, then you're actually reading propaganda and not news.

It seems quite unbelievable, but we actually have proof that NSA/GCHQ are willing to leak their own legitimate activities to the media, provided they are reported as being leaked by Snowden:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gove...

I strongly suggest you read at least the first paragraph of that article and ask yourself "where did The Independent get that 'leak', and why did they attribute it to Snowden when that's clearly a lie?"

JupiterMoon4• 11 years ago

If Snowden had stopped at the first document that was released, I'd probably have a different opinion.

This is true. You'd have have no idea about the full scope of the extent of the NSA's activity and this whole thing would have just blown over. For several weeks after the first leak the US or UK government denied something one day and the next day another leaked document was published showing that they were lying. They would have found a cover up much easier if only one document had been released. Or even if all had been released at once.

Regarding pronouns. Just use she. Manning has made it clear that she thinks of herself as a woman at least give her that.

dimino10• 11 years ago

Almost everyone I talk to in person thinks Snowden is a criminal. These people believe the US government was caught doing something it shouldn't have, but Snowden himself is a bad guy to these folks because he's seen as betraying his country.

I think HN is much more pro-Snowden than the general population is, but I think the general population doesn't deny the value of exposing what the US government did. I live in DC however, so there's certainly a pro-government feeling in this down, possibly more so than many other places in the US.

Edit: To add some support for my anecdotes, here's a somewhat recent poll I found from April 21st citing 64% of people hold a negative opinion of Snowden [0].

[0] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowde...

toxican• 11 years ago

I guess this is kind of where I'm at with him. Although I don't really think he's a "bad guy". What he did was treason and it was "wrong", but I think in this case the ends justify the means. What he exposed was far worse than how he did it.

atom-morgan3• 11 years ago

These people believe the US government was caught doing something it shouldn't have, but Snowden himself is a bad guy to these folks because he's seen as betraying his country.

That logic should scare the living hell out of people.

deciplex2• 11 years ago

Honestly, the fact that it's only 64% raises my opinion of Americans slightly. The barrage of propaganda you have to put up with there is truly remarkable, and especially considering the rivers of bullshit that streamed out of every single major media outlet in the wake of this, the fact the over one in three Americans still thinks he's an alright guy, with one in ten considering him a hero, speaks volumes for their resistance to it. Nice work, America.

derf_• 11 years ago

Would this be the same population polled in 2010 when 41% of them could not name the vice president of the United States in an open-ended (not multiple choice) question? [0] Or last September when 64% of them could not name the three branches of government? [1] (35% could not name a single one)

My favorite poll is this one: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/03/16/americans-privacy-stra...

Buried near the bottom is, "60% believe it is acceptable to monitor the communications of American leaders."

Raise your hand if you think it's good for a healthy democracy for the executive branch to monitor the private communications of congresspeople, senators, and federal judges?

[0] http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s...

[1] http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-know-su...

ionised2• 11 years ago

I get the impression that the general population doesn't actually fully understand what the government has done.

JupiterMoon4• 11 years ago

What is wrong with being pro-Snowden?

karmacondon• 11 years ago

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices and should be held accountable for them in a court of law.

If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wrong, man.

Snowden was essentially in charge of doing data backup transfers from the pacific to Washington, DC. This means that the NSA trusted him like many of us are trusted every day. The world would descend into chaos pretty quickly if we all decided to start reviewing and passing judgement on the data that we're in charge of, instead of just making sure that it goes where it's supposed to go without incident. No matter how noble his intentions or how despicable the actions of others were, what he did was unethical, illegal and immoral.

It's not about heroes and villains. We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. We can't make exceptions because someone is popular or because we agree with their motives. If a jury of Edward Snowden's peers are so taken by his celebrity and upstanding moral character that they find him not guilty, then so be it. But all of us should be hoping that he comes home to face that jury. Because it's the right thing to do.

rantanplan2• 11 years ago

We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us

Might want to rephrase that? Or be more specific about which "good" you're talking about and who's "all of us"?

jordigh8• 11 years ago

We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us.

Off the top of my head, here are some ways that laws have been broken:

* By refusing to sit at the back of the bus.

* By refusing to pay taxes on tea.

* By housing Jewish refugees.

* By helping runaway slaves.

* By marrying someone of a different ethnicity than your own.

* By declaring a country's independence.

* By telling people what their government was doing.

* By writing software that could be covered by patents.

Not all of these had or could have had a resolution in courts. Breaking laws is sometimes the only way to make any progress.

In conclusion, laws should be broken when they are unjust. For the good of us all.

Spooky23• 11 years ago

We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. We can't make exceptions because someone is popular or because we agree with their motives.

Oh yeah, like the former General turned CIA Director who provided classified material to his mistress/biographer and was able to avoid felony charges?

If the fate of US security was undermined by Snowden, we're fucked anyway. Everything revealed from a threat POV thus far has been predicted by security experts in the public domain since the 90s, and by the government itself in warnings about travel in China. I think the reaction to the Snowden documents makes it very clear that there is no bright line from a moral POV. The fact that the government hasn't really been able to discredit him is evidence in my mind that he is what he says he is.

Snowden will almost certainly end up imprisoned as part of some sort of deal with the Russians someday. History may bring clarity (assuming it isn't classified forever or destroyed), but some kangaroo court or "jury of peers" certainly won't.

rndmind• 11 years ago

"Those who do nothing while witnessing injustice and wrong-doing do worse than those who commit acts of injustice."

"When you see injustice and do nothing, you are an accomplice."

This is not about Edward Snowden, anyway, this is about the violation of our constitutional rights on a massive scale.

UweSchmidt2• 11 years ago

Saying "no matter what this is about, not following any rule/breaking trust" is automatically "unethical, illegal and immoral" is wrong. If that was true, the concepts of ethics and morals wouldn't exist much in the first place. In some situations breaking a law or disobeying an order is a must, i.e. when ordered to commit a war crime. So, why not have a look at the specifics of the situation at hand instead of dismissing it outright?

What are you trusted with? Safety inspections? Overseeing any compliance issues? I could see many areas and many scenarios where I would hold you accountable to not just do as you are ordered, but speak out against wrongdoings.

rorykoehler3• 11 years ago

We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us.

This line refutes the whole premise of your argument. Clearly the rules were not being enforced so Snowden had no choice but to leak the mass and systemic breaking of those rules or be complicit. Snowden wouldn't get a fair trial so it would be reckless for him to come home.

Ao7bei3s• 11 years ago

for the good of all of us

Except for us who are not US americans. Whose rights the US routinely tramples. Snowden is a hero.

If a jury of Edward Snowden's peers are so taken by his celebrity and upstanding moral character that they find him not guilty

Like he'd get a fair trial.

sopooneo• 11 years ago

Theft of the King's tea?

Lawtonfogle8• 11 years ago

but what he did was wrong.

It was illegal. Illegal and wrong are often at ends.

Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances.

Theft to survive? A child betraying an adult's trust by reporting abuse?

pdkl952• 11 years ago

This isn't about who the NSA (or anybody else) chose to place their trust, and it certainly isn't about some right-wing-authoritarian[1] desire for social order (the world isn't going to descend into chaos if critical thinking starts taking over from blindly following orders.

This is about our duties to the great ideals of freedom that this country was founded upon... and the oath Snowden took[2] to defend the same. The question you should be asking is why isn't everybody else that took this oath doing something similar?

The oath in question: (emphasis added)

    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will *support and defend the Constitution*
    of the United States against all enemies, foreign *and domestic*; that I will bear true faith
    and *allegiance to the same*; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
    or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the *duties of the office*
    on which I am about to enter.

Note that it does include a reference to the duties of the office. The problem is when those duties are in conflict with the first part of the oath, to "support and defend the Constitution". This oath is very clear about what you're supposed to prioritize ("I will bear... allegiance to the [Constitution]").

So no, Snowden's actions were not unethical, illegal, or immoral. In fact, it may be one of the few things anybody could do that is by definition patriotic. Any law he may have been in conflict - and certainly any duties he had to the NSA - are lower priorities than his defense of the constitution.

I do not envy anybody who is placed by his superiors into a situation that forces a choice between following those same superiors or following an oath to a greater ideal. That has to be one of the hardest decisions to make.

[1] meaning Bob Altemeyer's term, not the usual political meaning

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-e...

jugad• 11 years ago

Our laws should be based on our sense of morals and justice - not the other way around. You currently seem to have them reversed.

An important line from stage 6 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development - "Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws."

Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of...

The linked page describes a theory of moral reasoning and ethical behavior ( and their various developmental stages ).

Your view corresponds very closely with level 4 (copied below) - you believe that laws should be absolute, inviolable and should be applied equally and blindly.

Some of the replies to your comment are speaking at level 5 or 6. They do not believe that the police, justice system or the government are absolute moral authorities and can make no mistakes.

Copy paste from wikipedia follows:

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would — thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Post-Conventional

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles — principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms — ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people." This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.

An example of a stage 6 behaviour... a colleague at the office was offered a place in the list of authors of a patent that was being filed. This colleague had joined the team almost immediately after the 'invention' had been invented, but he helped a lot with the implementation and solving a lot of critical problems around the main invention. Thus, at the time of filing for the patent, it was obvious to the team that his name should be included in the 'inventors'. The team members didn't even ask for the colleague's permission... they put his name as one of the inventors and approached the colleague for his signature on the patent application. However, the colleague refused to be included, giving the reason that "I cannot justify my name being included in the inventors list to myself. I didn't invent that. I am sorry but I must refuse". Young people in the team thought that he was nuts.

Edward Snowden has acted at stage 6... but it "can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level" by people who themselves do not understand the stages 5/6. There is no doubt that he is a hero... and if the press releases the documents idiotically (who were given the documents by Snowden with the utmost faith), its their mistake. But it will not change the fact that Snowden acted morally and rightfully.

Nadya2• 11 years ago

A chef of a wealthy businessman helped steal leftover scraps and give them to me. I used the food to feed a starving child on the streets. The food was going to be tossed into the trash, so there is no negative impact towards the wealthy businessman by my stealing of it. It is a victim-less crime. The chef and I are breaking the law. Should we go to jail for what we are doing? Is what we are doing 'wrong'?

In your world of absolutes - yes. The chef and I would go to jail or be fined for theft and the child may starve to death. All over food that otherwise would have been trash. That doesn't seem logical or moral on any level.

To allow for my lazy analogy, let's pretend we asked the wealthy businessman if we could donate any scraps to an orphanage and he was a Scrooge and said no.

If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wrong, man.

That sounds like something the mafia might say of a rat. "Dude, I trusted you. WTF? Why would you tell about our drug smuggling to the police?" The important thing about Snowden's whistleblowing is that they were violating the law.

The world would descend into chaos pretty quickly if we all decided to start reviewing and passing judgement on the data that we're in charge of, instead of just making sure that it goes where it's supposed to go without incident.

"Absolutely no questions asked" is a dangerous policy and once again smells of a criminal ring. "Don't ask what's in the package. Just get it to where it needs to be." What if someone is paid to transfer a trojan to your computer. Should they simply move the payload without questioning what it is or why or the legality of it?

We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us.

The system is constantly revised, outdated laws are thrown out. Some laws are reworded. Laws are a reflection of the values of a society. These values can and do change. If it is the popular opinion that Snowden did the right thing then he did the right thing. That's that.

Zach_the_Lizard2• 11 years ago

Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain?

I see him as neither hero nor villain.

He has undertaken certain actions, such as leaking the NSA's illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans, that took a lot of courage and may result in positive changes if we really make use of what was leaked. For this he should be commended. He sacrificed his life in the US for this. Let's do what we can to make it worthwhile.

He has also undertaken certain actions that, in my opinion, do not relate to American civil liberties and could be damaging.

For instance, leaking how the US is spying on foreign nations, which is the whole reason for the NSA to exist. These actions make it easy to cast Snowden as at worst a traitor (not my belief) and at best misguided (which is what I personally believe; he should have been more discriminating in his leaks).

pyre2• 11 years ago

For instance, leaking how the US is spying on foreign nations, which is the whole reason for the NSA to exist.

True, but this also paints the US leaders as hypocrites. Snowden showed that the NSA was hacking Chinese computers at a time when the US was loudly proclaiming innocence while denouncing "Chinese hacking."

UweSchmidt2• 11 years ago

For instance, leaking how the US is spying on foreign nations, which is the whole reason for the NSA to exist.

Similarly how a military is designed to potentially fight against other nations, but is usually not doing that all time in an all-out fashion, intelligence agencies have their place but should not necessarily spy indiscriminately on everyone, all the time.

While we are mostly civilized enough not to have random troops roaming around like in the Thirty Years' War, the concept of using restraint in surveillance, or cyber warfare in general is not developed very much.

jules3• 11 years ago

Why is leaking a massive spying program on innocent Americans courageous, but leaking a massive spying program on innocent non-Americans misguided? Morality doesn't stop at the border, people on the other side of it are humans too.

ionised2• 11 years ago

For instance, leaking how the US is spying on foreign nations, which is the whole reason for the NSA to exist.

As a non-US citizen I wholeheartedly thank Snowden for doing this, as it also shed light on the threat to me from the US (NSA) and from my own UK government (GCHQ).

There is nothing I could ever think badly of him for in this situation.

treetoppin7• 11 years ago

I tend to dislike the hero/villain dichotomy that is usually held up. I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically, and I think the manner in which he is releasing the documents has elements of narcissism and carelessness in regards to the sensitivity of the information.

That being said, Snowden probably would not have absconded with this massive trove of information if the US government did not suppress the whistleblowers who came before him. Binney [1], Weibe and Loomis tried to stop the precursors to the NSA's current activities back in 2002, and they paid for it with legal harassment. Those three men were real patriots, and did not dump thousands of documents about intelligence activities that were going on.

Unfortunately, when you don't let pressure bleed off gently in a system things build up until then next opening results in a catastrophic failure.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_%28U.S._intellig...

spacehome3• 11 years ago

I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically, and I think the manner in which he is releasing the documents has elements of narcissism and carelessness in regards to the sensitivity of the information.

Could you expand on why you think this? From my perspective, what's caused tremendous damage is the way U.S. agencies have acted. I'd like these policies to at minimum be up for a vote, but we can't vote on something if we have no idea what's being done.

Lawtonfogle8• 11 years ago

I tend to dislike the hero/villain dichotomy that is usually held up. I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically

If I report someone for a crime and they are arrested, is the damage to their life my fault or their own?

random28345• 11 years ago

I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically

I also think these MRIs that show the spead of cancer have done tremendous damage to the body medically.

lewisl9029• 11 years ago

I also prefer a nuanced view to this issue.

Yes, Snowden's leaks did end up causing damage to US interests, and some would rightfully condemn him for it.

But we also need to keep in mind that there really wasn't any other viable option to shed light into these programs and raise public awareness (and yes, the public did absolutely need to be aware of these programs). The agencies were set up to hide information about their programs from the public at all costs and it was clear that traditional whistleblowing wasn't going to get any results.

I'd think another important consideration for Snowden when making this decision was that a more persistent effort at traditional whistleblowing from within the US could in fact have led to even more dire personal consequences.

pekk3• 11 years ago

More than population, it is a matter of whether they have learned not to say anything about it because of heavy moderation and flaming.

rorykoehler3• 11 years ago

I find it amazing that the messenger gets shot when unveiling a massive criminal conspiracy that goes to the highest levels of government. If there was no crime in the first place there would be nothing to unveil and Snowden would still mostly likely be sitting at his desk in an NSA data center somewhere doing his job. Do you also want any witnesses to petty crime and more serious personal crimes such as murder locked up because they happened to witness someone else committing a crime?

shit_parade23• 11 years ago

I'm sure all the statists in this thread would be singing snowdens praises if he had only been a senator or maybe worked at a large international bank, cause those people break all sorts of laws all the time and these apologists don't seem to mind.

fweespeech• 11 years ago

I think its a huge gray area Snowden walked into and while he could have handled things better I suspect operational constraints have more to do with the flaws in his plan than an actual desire to disclaim ownership.

I'm pretty sure Snowden believed the NSA [among others] would catch onto him very quickly and he had to dump everything to keep it from falling into "hostile" hands as soon as practical. Given that, I think he made the only practical choice he could but he isn't a "good" guy in the sense of a hero. More of just a guy who made mistakes, like anyone else.

The hero/villain dichotomy is very...cliche. Good and evil are really points of view that depend on your perception of reality and the position you occupy within the framework of a global society. The reality is the US Government is as much a villain as Snowden is. At which point, is it really fair to call Snowden a villain as the weaker party?

To most of the world, Snowden was a clear "good" as its brought the spying of the US into the light where Governments no longer have to react privately [ I'm pretty sure every Government that claimed ignorance had some clue of the capability, they have spies too after all ] but can take proper public steps to counteract the US's capabilities.

From a US nationalistic perspective, Snowden harmed the national prestige and possibly tipped off what few adversaries the US has that were too small to have the capability to accurately estimate the US's capabilities. And no, that isn't a group like ISIS. I'm talking small groups. I'm pretty sure ISIS has a good estimate on the practical capabilities of US intelligence pre-Snowden.

But honestly, the US public [the tech illiterate ones who were oblivious to what was going on] needed to be aware of it to make an informed decision to consent to it. Sadly, the outcome is they care more about the illusion of perfect security, bread & circuses than they do being informed citizens.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowde...

The part of all this I honestly find frightening is this:

The reality is the majority of the US population holds a negative opinion of Snowden. I find it frightening that the majority of the country happily makes an opinion formed entirely on propaganda. The reality is the US's security forces are the greatest to its citizenry. The fact the general population blindly takes their side is...disturbing on a level I can't really express.

http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-ki...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/police-killed...

INTPenis• 11 years ago

Wait, he appeared before the Swedish parliament to receive and award?

As a swede, I had no idea this happened. Also, it surprises me considering the hunt of Assange began here. I really have to see if there's video of that award ceremony.

Tepix• 11 years ago

I'm glad to see that Snowden gets to witness the changes that his revelations have initiated.

The failure of governments worldwide to protect their citizens from being spied upon by foreign intelligence services is distressing. Thanks to Snowden, everyone is aware of it and the administrations can no longer pretend to be clueless.

peter303• 11 years ago

He is called "Snow-dumb" around here. Exiled for life with the possibility of assassination for saying what everyone knew what was happening.

nitrogen• 11 years ago

Where is "around here"?

Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

Related Stories