Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You.

Shame his Cantonese wasn't better; as far as cities to disappear in go, Hong Kong ain't a bad choice.

Yeah but he was able to start in Hong Kong, having gone there before he started leaking, so why didn't he just go to a Latin America country before he started leaking? That way he wouldn't have to go anywhere.

edited 25th Mar '14 3:57:07 AM by SilasW

Didn't Think This Through on Snowden's part?

Or he didn't know asylum would be granted in South America.

Look, whistleblowers are not treated kindly in America. If Snowden had stayed in the U.S., you can bet he would have had his home raided by the FBI (and they would've possibly used any excuse to arrest him on unrelated things), would've had a smear campaign done to harm his reputation and credibility, probably would go to jail, and after all that, none of his suggestions for improvements/oversights would've been used anyway. As far as I'm concerned, in this current anti-whistleblower environment, Snowden had no choice but to run. We wouldn't be having this conversation at all had Snowden only expressed his concerns internally (and need I remind you, he already tried that dozens of times, to no avail).

Admittedly, it's probably true that he could've remained anonymous when giving the sources to journalists, but on the other hand, by flat out saying who he was and what his role was, it gives a touch more credibility than the newspapers just saying "A little birdie told me that the NSA is doing this..."

edited 25th Mar '14 9:29:26 AM by speedyboris

Look, the fate of Snowden as an individual is important in some ways, but doesn't really interest me on a personal level. It is clear, however, that he took a lot of information, and that leaking it all at once wouldn't have the desired impact. If he wanted to remain able to expose it over a period of time, then fleeing custody was his only option.

I have to contest how whistleblowers are somehow persona non grata in the US. Look at the whistleblowers who came out against the NSA under the Bush administration, and what happened to them. Nothing.

Whistleblowing as an affirmative defense has only been strengthened in the last few years, and counting Manning and Snowden, at the time Manning was sentenced, there had been a total of seven convictions with Manning's being the longest to the code of military justice (the longest sentence otherwise was 30 months).

I really have to say anyone who thinks Snwoden had 'no choice' but to run off as he did when there's no evidence he even made an attempt to go through proper channels has read way too much Greenwald and is accepting very biased narratives given by Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, who have shown themselves very willing to twist the truth on multiple occasions. It rarely takes long for the sensationalist headlines to result in an outcry that's never mitigated when mitigating factors come out.

the Obama administration did not formally declare Snowden guilty and sentence him to summary punishment. Snowden himself has been openly declaring it for the world to see. And the hyperbole on this whistleblower thing is not really helping matters.

^ William Binney.

@light how is saying he should face trial declarin him guilty?

That arguably breaches broader issues of how our justice system tends to favor whoever can pay for more lawyers. 'If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear' may sound nice on paper, but our justice system has a poor track record of adhering to it in practice.

That aside, however, I think it's worth noting that, in order to avail himself of the legal protections currently given to whistleblowers, Snowden would have had to confine his whistleblowing to arguing with the people responsible for the secrecy in the first place. By going public with the information, he abandoned any pretense of legal defense in return for issue exposure. Whether you think he was doing so out of a sense of moral obligation or out of a misguided sense of his own importance really is irrelevant.

edited 25th Mar '14 9:21:41 AM by Karkadinn

One could argue that's more of a fundamental of capitalism than our justice system. Lawyers don't grow on trees; they provide a service in exchange for compensation. People with more money can afford to pay more to hire skilled employees with more experience and knowledge of their field. People with more money can also hire better doctors, better food preparers, etc.

As long as legal defense remains a private enterprise, it will continue to favor those who can afford to pour more money into it for better results. In a capitalist society, the sun shines brighter for the wealthy.

edited 25th Mar '14 9:26:57 AM by TobiasDrake

To continue on the thread of how our country treats whistleblowers in general, this is the best overall look at the whistleblowing atmosphere I've found so far.

Whistleblowers against non-government entities in the US seem to fare a bit better, overall, but it wouldn't be hard to do better than that kind of track record anyway.

The fundamental issue revolves around 'leaking' versus genuine whistleblowing. Snowden and Manning were more of the former.

I also think if Snowden did come back, he'd likely face conviction. His own statements would doubtlessly be used at the trial level. That said, there are many, many others in American history who faced worse consequences and didn't run to a country even worse than the Us on the issues he claims to care so passionately about.

Speaking as someone well acquainted with many public servants, there are also many, many, many great lawyers in public institutions. Not to say the system is perfect- those people will be the first to tell you it isn't for a variety of reasons, but Snowden is almost assuredly guilty of what he'd be accused of. There's a genuine conversation to have over a variety of details of thye case, though

edited 25th Mar '14 10:05:43 AM by Lightysnake

If you're going to condemn anyone who refuses to be a willing martyr for their cause, you're going to catch a hell of a lot of unnecessary fish in that net. As for which countries he chose to seek asylum in, it's been discussed before, but is an unfortunate truth that if you disagree with the American government on major issues like this, your only safety lies in these 'bad' countries, because all the 'good' ones will simply do the US government asks, as we saw with New Zealand and Kim Dotcom.

At a fundamental level, whatever you may feel Snowden did wrong about the actual intel leaks, I don't think it paints anyone's character in a bad light to not want to go to prison for half their lives or more.

With respect to lawyers, I'm not trying to comment on their relative competence. But it's a well-known fact that appointed lawyers are absolutely flooded with work and frequently recommend that their clients plead guilty. It's a bleak world out there if you're accused of something and can't afford to defend yourself on your own funds.

edited 25th Mar '14 10:34:50 AM by Karkadinn

I think this is where I have to take a step back. 'Half his life' or more? 'Martyr?' Remember the Bush-era NSA whistleblowers who said, flat out, to public sources, they'd been ordered to break the law? They didn't flee to Russia or Iran, and where are they now? Living their lives. How many leakers have been prosecuted? Not many, and some were left over prosecutions from the Bush administration Holder's DOJ inherited. How long have theys erved? Before Manning, 30 months maximum. To claim he was facing an enormous amount of jail time strikes me as unsupported. He's a civilian, Manning a soldier. Different standard of laws apply.

Also,. Snowden has been leaking way more than just things related to the NSA's surveillance or data-gathering. He has outright offered to help other countries evade it, revealed surveillance on other nations (which is not unconstitutional), the NSA's 'black budget,' he outed an NSA agent's identity which is ridiculously irresponsible.

Also, Snowden was making over 100,000 dollars a year with Booz Allen. He couldn't afford a halfway decent lawyer? Heck, Glenn Greenwald's a lawyer.

Though not a very good one, which may or may not have something to do with why he is now a journalist. Speaking of Greenwald.

He's also well connected with the ACLU and his former law partner. Him getting a good lawyer for Snowden would not be difficult.

Anyways, Greenwald's issue? Ego. The man has an enormous one and it hinders his reporting. He is not capable of objectivity.

Greenwald's opinion articles are biased as hell, but his more factual and objective reporting is good.

Not especially. He's prone to distortion when the facts don't gel with his view.

The Heathrow incident is a prime example. He flat out lied about details of his husband's detainment

President Obama on proposed ending bulk collection of telephone records by the government with a proposal that he said addresses "core concerns" about surveillance.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said he takes some credit for President Obama’s decision to end the National Security Agency’s metadata collection program.

Yeah, that one was bad. Still, you have to admit most of his more objective articles are good.

Obama: US must 'win back the trust of ordinary citizens' over data collection.

No shit, Sherlock.

edited 25th Mar '14 12:23:47 PM by Quag15

One hopes that Obama's proposal is genuine and not just window dressing. One also wonders how much support it'll get in Congress, given that many Republicans and not a few Democrats think our surveillance programs are just hunky dory.

A cause is only as strong as the convictions of those who fight for it. What Snowden has done is effectively hit-and-run activism; make a fuss, then run away and hope someone else does something about it.

If I start pushing you, and you tell me to stop, what do you do when I say no? If you stand there and take it, I'm going to keep pushing you. Sure, you can run away and leave the area, but then I'm going to start pushing other people. You're out of the situation, but the cause of getting me to stop pushing people has failed. You can stand there, far away, and shout at the people I'm pushing, "Stand up!" but they're not going to listen to the coward who ran away.

And I'm just going to keep pushing people, because I can. If you want your convictions to have any weight, then the most important thing you can do is stand for them. History is not shaped by people who had strong opinions; it's shaped by those who fought for them.

''Yeah, that one was bad. Still, you have to admit most of his more objective articles are good.

Obama: US must 'win back the trust of ordinary citizens' over data collection.

No shit, Sherlock.''

Here's the issue for me...Greenwald has very few objective articles. A lot of his version of journalism relies on unsupported insinuation, logical gaps, fallacious reasoning our outright fabrication. He outright lied about the Democratic Party's voting record more than once, among other things (including his defense of Julian Assange where he made insanely inaccurate claims on Sweden).

furthermore, his role as an activist is undermined by his failure to criticize Russia over anything. And Brazil. Brazil is especially important because the spying system there (note I use 'surveillance' for the NSA and 'spying' for its Brazilian equivalent- this is deliberate based upon the activities) has no oversight, is quite corrupt and outright spies on citizens. Greenwald lives in Brazil.

Did you just compare one jerk pushing kids on the playground to a massive government agency with far more damaging capabilities?