Edward Snowden Is A Hero, Not A Traitor

a reply to: Salander

Daniel Ellsberg released his info to the New York Times, huge difference between that and taking info to the Chinese and Russian Government. Daniel, by releasing to US sources gives the American people and the very system that your supposedly protecting a chance to fix it. Snowden could have very well started WW3 the way he did it, and he put members who were operating in the area in danger. Mannings leak was similar to Daniel Ellsberg and he's one I felt should have received no jail time at all, should have been separated from military (because how he did it) but the message should have been clear that we want stuff like this reported. His treatment sends the opposite message.

a reply to: swimmer15

Snowden did not take it to the Chinese and Russian governments. Your statement is incorrect.

Collateral Murder by Manning also exposed the crimes of government.

Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than Bush. Likely Trump's effort against whistleblowers will exceed Obama's.

a reply to: Vector99

He crossed the line when he told other countries the NSA's foreign spying policies, activities, and tactics.

This is why people call him a traitor and why I agree with them.

He seriously compromised America's security with that bit of info. He could have easily not stolen, much less not release, that info, but that was very much his intention.

I think he was hired to do what he did and that's why he's able to live in Russia. Probably even a Russian spy.

a reply to: Salander

I'm not saying your wrong or that I'm right. I admit I don't know. The opinion of everyone here is based on rumors and second, third and fourth hand information (mine included). I won't take his word for it, if you do that's fine. But your crazy if you think Beijing let him leave HongKong without knowing exactly what intelligence he had on the Chinese Government, and Russia would just take it if he didn't willingly hand it over.

First off, you guys don't know that he revealed anything to the Russians or Chinese, that's all speculation on your parts. Correction: some info he divulged willingly at least to the Chinese. This notion that he was 'caught up' and had to turn everything over to them, however, is pure speculation, or at the very least as yet unproven as far as I can see. If we believe what Snowden himself said, he no longer had any of that material in his possession after his meeting with Greenwald. You can say he was lying, but I expect that's about the best you can do.

Next I want to add my thoughts on him revealing spying information to the European nations and such. I've done a little thinking on this issue, and I still can't fault him for these things. Here's why:

These European nations that Snowden revealed the surveillance of all have constitutions with similar strong privacy protections to our own. Once again then, if he's warring with enemies of the constitution I have a hard time faulting him for that. It would be another thing altogether if our and their governments weren't lying to our and their people and guaranteeing freedoms from oppression that we don't actually enjoy.

That's not what's happening here, though. Maybe most people are okay with it, or whatever. Well I'm not okay with it, and I'm pretty sure there are some other people here and in these other so called 'free nations' who aren't okay with it. The fourth amendment is pretty clear in its wording. Likewise violations of the fourth amendment are clearly violations of the constitution.

I think it's also important to point out that the Snowden caused chilling of US relations with these countries has also probably hampered the intelligence sharing that was going on between the US and these nations. A lot of that intelligence sharing was undoubtedly foreign spying on US citizens, which would then be passed along to our intelligence agencies. Thus he may have at least partially closed this loophole whereby our government has been spying on us by proxy through foreign intelligence agencies. Once again, this helps defend the constitution, and serves to confound her enemies.

Bravo Mr. Snowden! Well done sir! Thank you once again for fighting to help restore our jeopardized liberties.
Edward Snowden is a hero, not a traitor.

a reply to: swimmer15

There is no evidence that Beijing even knew or cared that he was in Hong Kong. They've made at least 2 documentaries about this. One is called Citizen Four. You should check them out if you're curious.

The Chinese cannot check out every single thumb drive carried by every single passenger into Hong Kong.

a reply to: Salander

If you do some research you will find out that even his lawyer believes Beijing was involved. And I agree they cant check everyone but he was on their soil and released intel via HongKong journalists/media. He even stated publicly that he had a lot more but wouldn't release until he could insure what was there (that's his words not mine). Beijing would have no doubt been interested in what information he had, and it would have created a great deal of problems for HongKong had they not involved the Chinese government, especially since the info he released publicly involved US spying on China.

Also how could the Russian and Chinese governments decrypt information if they supposedly don't have it?
If the information he released to journalists was all there was, what is there to decrypt?

China and Russia crack Snowden Files

a reply to: Neith

Wait a minute, I thought this was the freakshow...

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: TheBadCabbieThis is the prime reason I can't fault Snowden for his actions

If he had evidence they were abusing American citizens by the misuse of the information collected than yeah he was a hero.

He has said as much in interviews. The way the whole thing's set up, you're essentially a few mouse clicks away from crawling up any American's butt with a microscope, as I understood it. Any available digital information, essentially. Not just records, but actual phone conversations and mic captures. Sure you're not supposed to push those buttons for Joe the Plumber, or The Bad Cabbie, but I think it's a safe bet those buttons still get pushed, and that there's insufficient oversight of those buttons to prevent abuse. The very nature of those systems makes it a certainty that they will be abused.

originally posted by: swimmer15
a reply to: Salander

If you do some research you will find out that even his lawyer believes Beijing was involved. And I agree they cant check everyone but he was on their soil and released intel via HongKong journalists/media. He even stated publicly that he had a lot more but wouldn't release until he could insure what was there (that's his words not mine). Beijing would have no doubt been interested in what information he had, and it would have created a great deal of problems for HongKong had they not involved the Chinese government, especially since the info he released publicly involved US spying on China.

Also how could the Russian and Chinese governments decrypt information if they supposedly don't have it?
If the information he released to journalists was all there was, what is there to decrypt?

China and Russia crack Snowden Files

You do realize you're citing an article that can't be sourced here, don't you? The link to the source of information on which the article is based is a dead link.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I don't know if he's a hero, but what he intended was heroic. What he achieved has been underwhelming although it's dependent on the angle we look at it. I guess we can assert his actions confirmed all our fears that the surveillance apparatus has little or no oversight. They shone a light on the exploitation of consumers via most of the major media-related corporations.

Ironically, it appears to me that the exposure has generated more complicity on our parts and greater overreach by the same corps. The Intel guys have only had to be smarter and hide behind doors behind doors behind...

I think it's also important to point out that the Snowden caused chilling of US relations with these countries has also probably hampered the intelligence sharing that was going on between the US and these nations. A lot of that intelligence sharing was undoubtedly foreign spying on US citizens, which would then be passed along to our intelligence agencies.

If you read more widely, there's been no actual damage to relationships between national Intel depts. For example, Merkel baulked at the NSA listening in to her Government and publicly vented her displeasure. However it was also being reported that German Intel were against any legal/political penalties and sought greater ties with US Intel. They resisted court actions. So it seems like a little political angst was voiced, but was ultimately powerless to seek, or cause, change in the surveillance operations of domestic or foreign outfits.

In that context, Snowden/Greenwald hoped to instigate transparency and changes in surveillance programs whereas they became more embedded. It turned out there was no fight in any political parties. The other irony is now we know Google et al pipe all our metadata to NSA et al, it's become accepted. No need for secrecy anymore; it's out there and there's no fight in the consumer base.

a reply to: Kandinsky

The other irony is now we know Google et al pipe all our metadata to NSA et al, it's become accepted.

And now, et al includes the very entity which you pay to provide you access to those other et als.
thehill.com...

Of course, you can opt out of the internet.


Or can you?

a reply to: Phage

I think even opting out of the internet will become more trouble than it's worth.

The fight's too big and the will isn't there. The cost/benefit graphic looks like a fat kid on a seesaw

a reply to: Kandinsky

So....

Be careful about which information you seek.

a reply to: Phage

It's not about that. It's more about the utility of the metadata and the ends to which it can placed.

It's so fraught with dystopic potential.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I don't know if he's a hero, but what he intended was heroic. What he achieved has been underwhelming although it's dependent on the angle we look at it. I guess we can assert his actions confirmed all our fears that the surveillance apparatus has little or no oversight. They shone a light on the exploitation of consumers via most of the major media-related corporations.

Ironically, it appears to me that the exposure has generated more complicity on our parts and greater overreach by the same corps. The Intel guys have only had to be smarter and hide behind doors behind doors behind...

All the same, it has brought a greater deal of clarity to the situation for those who care to know such things

If you read more widely, there's been no actual damage to relationships between national Intel depts. For example, Merkel baulked at the NSA listening in to her Government and publicly vented her displeasure. However it was also being reported that German Intel were against any legal/political penalties and sought greater ties with US Intel. They resisted court actions. So it seems like a little political angst was voiced, but was ultimately powerless to seek, or cause, change in the surveillance operations of domestic or foreign outfits.

In that context, Snowden/Greenwald hoped to instigate transparency and changes in surveillance programs whereas they became more embedded. It turned out there was no fight in any political parties. The other irony is now we know Google et al pipe all our metadata to NSA et al, it's become accepted. No need for secrecy anymore; it's out there and there's no fight in the consumer base.

Agreed, and interesting to note, I agree. Our elected officials at large at least could mostly seem to hardly care less about it. The international situation you describe sounds accurate, and I think likewise a lot can be read into that analysis. Again, he has still helped to introduce clarity for those who care to see it.

I'm not so sure that the public doesn't care, despite the lack of outcry. This is kind of a taboo topic, in my opinion. I think this is an area that many people who might have a problem with such nefarious government activity are reluctant to express their true feelings on the subject. It's easy to say, 'Oh well, we're all being spied on, what's on the tellie?' It's not so easy to say 'This is a serious problem! We ought to do something about this!' I think that line of reasoning leads a lot of people in an uncomfortable direction. Hell, it kind of leads me in an uncomfortable direction, I just feel passionately enough about the subject to overcome that discomfort.

I do suppose the general majority public is largely ignorant of this issue altogether though...

a reply to: Kandinsky

Actually, the metadata aspect is about cellular phone communications. This law goes beyond capturing metadata. It's about selling details of your internet habits to, not only the highest bidder, but anyone who is willing to pay for it.

With the signing of this law, I will have to communicate with my ISP about their policies. And maybe (probably not) opt out of the internet.

a reply to: Phage

Oh, I was speaking of the broader picture and haven't read the OP. Came in late and commented on Badcabbie's post.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Yeah, well.
I was responding to yours.

What can I say?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie



The impression I'm left with is we all carry on and nothing of substance changes. The surveillance side of things has been given the green light to continue. The media side of it all has been inverted to the point where all the responsibility lies with the consumer.

Our genomes, our shopping habits, our political persuasions are all for sale. I worry that we're losing our individuality and, moreover, having our political beliefs shaped.

Are we informed or educated enough to be making our decisions about the future? People are generally pretty stupid.*

* incl. me.