Time to Pardon Edward Snowden?(infosecurity-magazine.com)
infosecurity-magazine.com
Time to Pardon Edward Snowden?
https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/blogs/pardon-edward-snowden/
11 comments
I was so glad I had the opportunity to vote for her.
> he fled immediately to Russia
He did not flee to Russia. He got stuck there on transit to Ecuador because his passport was allegedly cancelled. He came from Hong Kong. Read his book.
He did not flee to Russia. He got stuck there on transit to Ecuador because his passport was allegedly cancelled. He came from Hong Kong. Read his book.
So he just got lucky in that his stopover was in one of the few countries on Earth that wouldn't extradite him? What a coincidence.
Is that why he was at the Russian consulate in HK a few days before, and in constant contact with the lawyer from Wikileaks (a Russian Intel cutout)?
Come on.
Is that why he was at the Russian consulate in HK a few days before, and in constant contact with the lawyer from Wikileaks (a Russian Intel cutout)?
Come on.
The reason he will never be pardoned has nothing to do with if his leaks were merited or not merited (they clearly were as the activities of the govt were proven illegal). Its because then you green light a govt leaker in critical programs you open pandoras box for govt secrets spilling out and you can lose control. Keeping employees/contractors in fear that they will never stop chasing you is a good way to stop people from doing this.
> Keeping employees/contractors in fear that they will never stop chasing you is a good way to stop people from doing this.
This is contradicting to the idea of government existing for people and serving people.
If government uses fear to reduce accountability, it needs to be changed.
This is contradicting to the idea of government existing for people and serving people.
If government uses fear to reduce accountability, it needs to be changed.
I think time has shown that even the people whom the government supposedly exists to serve don't want it to do that. They actively seek to elect and support wannabe dictators, as long as they are dictating things that hurt people they don't like.
It does contradict that idea, but that idea has long been a farce, so contradictions are not surprising.
Not if you believe that the people want the government to protect them and they are ok with these programs if they enable the government to do that.
[deleted]
"it needs to be changed", as in, someone else should change it but not you
(I am merely pointing out the paradox of inaction. Enacting change is a lot of work, so one must first decide to contribute actual work, then figure out what actual work needs to be done, then do the work and measure the result. Work = force * displacement and if nothing is displaced, no work has been achieved. Rosa Parks wanted change so she did the work. Snowden wanted change so he did the work.)
(I am merely pointing out the paradox of inaction. Enacting change is a lot of work, so one must first decide to contribute actual work, then figure out what actual work needs to be done, then do the work and measure the result. Work = force * displacement and if nothing is displaced, no work has been achieved. Rosa Parks wanted change so she did the work. Snowden wanted change so he did the work.)
One of the best levers many of us have is public forums, so this commenter is doing something great - enforcing the idea that the government should be changed in thousands of readers' minds. Once an idea gets enough traction, it often can turn into actual change. You are only reenforcing the fatalism you seem to criticize.
You’re both right.
Colordrops is correct: comments matter because they help shape public opinion.
Dustingertz is also correct: governments & political parties have published processes for changing & enforcing policy. Citizens who read the docs & use those processes can achieve a lot.
Colordrops is correct: comments matter because they help shape public opinion.
Dustingertz is also correct: governments & political parties have published processes for changing & enforcing policy. Citizens who read the docs & use those processes can achieve a lot.
Well yes. Personally blowing up a federal building, assassinating politicians, etc is frowned upon and generally produces the opposite of the intended effect. Ridding ourselves of this metastasized illegitimate government will take collective action.
If you only "never stop chasing them" when they reveal legal activities, that mechanism still works fine, and still provides an important check against the government attempting to do illegal activities in secret, including rogue government agencies doing things that they aren't allowed to do by other branches of government.
What if the CIA were wiretapping the president, or the supreme court? Well, that would be illegal wouldn't it? Wouldn't you want a whistleblower to feel like they could safely expose it?
By and large, it's the government that decides what's legal and what's not. Even the Constitution can be amended with enough support. So exposing illegal government activities means you're exposing that a part of the government was doing something that it wasn't empowered to do, by the government. There are multiple branches of government for a reason. When the government is doing something illegal, it means an office of the government has either made a serious legal error, or gone rogue and disregarded its legal responsibilities.
That's a serious problem right?
What if the CIA were wiretapping the president, or the supreme court? Well, that would be illegal wouldn't it? Wouldn't you want a whistleblower to feel like they could safely expose it?
By and large, it's the government that decides what's legal and what's not. Even the Constitution can be amended with enough support. So exposing illegal government activities means you're exposing that a part of the government was doing something that it wasn't empowered to do, by the government. There are multiple branches of government for a reason. When the government is doing something illegal, it means an office of the government has either made a serious legal error, or gone rogue and disregarded its legal responsibilities.
That's a serious problem right?
> What if the CIA were wiretapping the president, or the supreme court? Well, that would be illegal wouldn't it? Wouldn't you want a whistleblower to feel like they could safely expose it?
Yeah you're basically describing Watergate here. And I don't think anyone objected to that being made public. Well except for Nixon :D
IMO Whistleblowing has a place in society as a safeguard against the abuse of power.
Yeah you're basically describing Watergate here. And I don't think anyone objected to that being made public. Well except for Nixon :D
IMO Whistleblowing has a place in society as a safeguard against the abuse of power.
If the precedent is that you have a green light if and only if the government is committing a crime, that seems reasonable to me. Otherwise we're giving government agencies a green light to keep committing crimes.
[deleted]
Edward Snowden is an American patriot. He followed his conscience and acted in good faith to defend the constitutional rights of the American people.
And those of the rest of the world. Especially those of us in X eyes countries.
Hey may have defended the rights of people in the rest of the world, but only American citizens have rights protected by the US constitution.
> only American citizens have rights protected by the US constitution.
Untrue, though this is a popular myth. There are a few Constitutional rights explicitly restricted to citizens (voting is the big one), but pretty much all the rest are rights of people generally that the government (either federal or state, depending on which Constitutional provision is involved) is restricted from intruding on. Both the plain text and the case law of the Constitution is inconsistent with this “only American citizens have rights protected by the US constitution” view.
There is some case law that certain actions by the US government affecting noncitizens outside of the US are not limited by certain provisions of the Constituion that would affect actions that were either within the US or directed at citizens (or, at least, that such actions are not subject to legal process in the federal courts, which amounts to the same thing), but the particular exception is quite narrow.
Untrue, though this is a popular myth. There are a few Constitutional rights explicitly restricted to citizens (voting is the big one), but pretty much all the rest are rights of people generally that the government (either federal or state, depending on which Constitutional provision is involved) is restricted from intruding on. Both the plain text and the case law of the Constitution is inconsistent with this “only American citizens have rights protected by the US constitution” view.
There is some case law that certain actions by the US government affecting noncitizens outside of the US are not limited by certain provisions of the Constituion that would affect actions that were either within the US or directed at citizens (or, at least, that such actions are not subject to legal process in the federal courts, which amounts to the same thing), but the particular exception is quite narrow.
And yet, the following have been considered compatible with the rights of all people: slavery, torture of non-citizens, assassination of non-citizens on suspicions of a crime, assassination of citizens on external territory on suspicions of a crime.
The NSA was not allowed to spy on US citizens.
>U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that the U.S. surveillance of phone records was indeed illegal.
The U.S. surveillance
>U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that the U.S. surveillance of phone records was indeed illegal.
The U.S. surveillance
> The NSA was not allowed to spy on US citizens.
That's because of statutory restrictions (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) on surveillance of citizens adopted in the wake of the foreign intelligence apparatus being broadly used against domestic opposition, not Constitutional limits on rights to citizens.
From the ruling at issue: «We conclude that the government may have violated the Fourth Amendment and did violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans»
That's because of statutory restrictions (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) on surveillance of citizens adopted in the wake of the foreign intelligence apparatus being broadly used against domestic opposition, not Constitutional limits on rights to citizens.
From the ruling at issue: «We conclude that the government may have violated the Fourth Amendment and did violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans»
This assertion is counter to the core principles of the nation's founding — that one's rights are innate, and the constitution simply places limits on the government regarding what can be regulated and to what extent. That means we recognize that every person of any nationality has the right to free speech, fair and speedy trials, no torture, etc.
If you mean other nations don't recognize the same rights, then I grant you that, but the constitution doesn't limit this recognition to US citizens.
If you mean other nations don't recognize the same rights, then I grant you that, but the constitution doesn't limit this recognition to US citizens.
That's your interpretation, but the same text has been considered perfectly compatible with chattle slavery for more than a hundred years, starting immediately as it was written. So I don't think it's as clear cut as the text might make you think.
If the plain text as written ought to have forbidden slavery but the people including the people that wrote it acted as if it didn't for a century their failure to act doesn't and shouldn't constrain others from interpreting the plain text different from the framers or even its author.
You can also say "if the writers of the constitution considered slavery to be acceptable, the the intent was for the constitution to allow it, so we should consider that it does, current meanings of the words notwithstanding".
Of course, the conclusion to draw from this is that a new constitution is needed, one that does actually, at the time of writing, explicitly intend to disallow slavery and other offenses against human rights. Why should a document that has been shown to be compatible with slavery (and anti-gay sentiment, and segregation, and extra-judicial killings, and internment camps for the japanese and so on) be considered to carry any weight?
Of course, the conclusion to draw from this is that a new constitution is needed, one that does actually, at the time of writing, explicitly intend to disallow slavery and other offenses against human rights. Why should a document that has been shown to be compatible with slavery (and anti-gay sentiment, and segregation, and extra-judicial killings, and internment camps for the japanese and so on) be considered to carry any weight?
A fine sentiment but for practical purposes advancement by the path of constitutional amendment is nearly impossible at this point. Should we forever forgo meaningful change even when well supported by the plain text of the law in order to cleave to what we believe someone meant 200 years ago?
If you don't accept that, then what can stop a court from interpreting a law that says "the penalty for jaywalking is 100$" to mean "the penalty for walking around somewhere the locals don't want you is 100$"?
If the courts are free to interpret the letter of the law without thinking about the intention of the framers, and the meaning that was given before, what is the difference between courts and lawmakers?
Note: I'm talking entirely philosophically here. In practice, I'm extremely happy that the Supreme Court doesn't allow slavery and that they consider gay marriage to be a human right, that elective abortion is also a human right etc. But, as happy as I am that these are accepted as fundamental human rights, as I think they should be, I don't understand what the point of the constitution really is in this place.
If the courts are free to interpret the letter of the law without thinking about the intention of the framers, and the meaning that was given before, what is the difference between courts and lawmakers?
Note: I'm talking entirely philosophically here. In practice, I'm extremely happy that the Supreme Court doesn't allow slavery and that they consider gay marriage to be a human right, that elective abortion is also a human right etc. But, as happy as I am that these are accepted as fundamental human rights, as I think they should be, I don't understand what the point of the constitution really is in this place.
Yes but some of the secrets he exposed implicated allies as well, for whom it is often just as illegal to spy on their own citizens.
I 100% agree he did. I 100% agree that this counts as a service to people in those countries.
My point was that those things do nothing to add to the lore that he is an American patriot that defended American constitutional rights. The question of should he receive a pardon by a US President should should put significantly more weight in the service he did to Americans compared to the service he did to other people.
I don’t mean to come off as xenophobic or nationalist. However, the title American Patriot is earned for services given to Americans and the United States itself.
Patriot definition: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
My point was that those things do nothing to add to the lore that he is an American patriot that defended American constitutional rights. The question of should he receive a pardon by a US President should should put significantly more weight in the service he did to Americans compared to the service he did to other people.
I don’t mean to come off as xenophobic or nationalist. However, the title American Patriot is earned for services given to Americans and the United States itself.
Patriot definition: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
[deleted]
Is that so? Could Congress pass a law establishing an official religion for permanent residents?
I don't know if residents have a special status. But the DOJ appears to claim that Congress could pass a law establishing religion for foreigners, demand other countries extradite all their citizens, and sentence them in the US for not following this law.
“Congress shall make no law” seems pretty comprehensive.
The problem is usually with the definition of 'people'. Slaves, for example, did not qualify for a long time. 'People' living outside the country are not generally considered to be covered (see the routine open assassination of people accused of 'terrorism').
If we’re following it word by word, “people” doesn’t come up in the first amendment until petition and assembly.
98% of what he stole and leaked had nothing to do with domestic surveillance on the American people.
Disagree. I think he's a coward.
Disagree. I think he’s a tool of Russia and got paid to tarnish America and diplomacy worldwide.
The American government tarnished itself, Snowden just revealed it to us all (at great personal sacrifice). I consider him a patriot.
> (at great personal sacrifice)
Yes all he had to gain was international celebrity.
Yes all he had to gain was international celebrity.
Again, I disagree.
He exposed what basically any G20 nation does and lives pretty damn well by virtue of doing the bidding of a foreign government that seeks to undermine democracy in the world.
Somehow that makes him a patriot.
He exposed what basically any G20 nation does and lives pretty damn well by virtue of doing the bidding of a foreign government that seeks to undermine democracy in the world.
Somehow that makes him a patriot.
The notion that he gave up his highly paid government contractor job in sunny Hawaii in favour of becoming an international fugitive, for personal gain, is clearly nonsense. You really think an apartment in Moscow is worth all that?
The fact that the secret program he leaked was ultimately determined to be unlawful says he is vindicated and should be pardoned.
"A National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program has been ruled unlawful, seven years after it was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden."
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54013527
"A National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program has been ruled unlawful, seven years after it was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden."
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54013527
He leaked a lot more US government programs than that one, and all of those were legal. Had he only leaked phone metadata collection, he would have a case.
It took 7 years for the courts to finally figure that out even though it seemed like ridiculous overreach to everyone.
Off the top of my head I recollect they were intercepting hardware like switches and compromising it, inserting spying equipment in Google data centers forceing them to now to end to end encryption and many other shady things.
Not to mention the collection of zero days that almost certainly will get discovered by other nation states and bad actors and risk our security. They used parallel construction with other law enforcement orgs as they leaked run of the mill criminal behavior (not national security related) so as to not disclose the real way they got the info.
There are many more examples of overreaches he brought to light but I don't recall all of it. The core concern I have is all this apparatus are tools of fascism and control of any dissenting voices including the opposing political party. Where we are politically today I think would be hard to fathom back when Snowden leaked all this.
Off the top of my head I recollect they were intercepting hardware like switches and compromising it, inserting spying equipment in Google data centers forceing them to now to end to end encryption and many other shady things.
Not to mention the collection of zero days that almost certainly will get discovered by other nation states and bad actors and risk our security. They used parallel construction with other law enforcement orgs as they leaked run of the mill criminal behavior (not national security related) so as to not disclose the real way they got the info.
There are many more examples of overreaches he brought to light but I don't recall all of it. The core concern I have is all this apparatus are tools of fascism and control of any dissenting voices including the opposing political party. Where we are politically today I think would be hard to fathom back when Snowden leaked all this.
> It took 7 years for the courts to finally figure that out
It was ruled illegal in 2015 by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
> inserting spying equipment in Google data centers
There is no evidence of this in the Snowden leaks or anywhere. Google would know if it had unaccounted for hardware in its datacenters. They put network analyzers on international links that carried Google traffic.
> they were intercepting hardware like switches and compromising it
For hardware shipped to targeted foreigners. We should expect our spy agencies to do this if they are even moderately competent.
> They used parallel construction with other law enforcement orgs as they leaked run of the mill criminal behavior (not national security related) so as to not disclose the real way they got the info.
Where is the evidence for this claim?
> The core concern I have is all this apparatus are tools of fascism and control of any dissenting voices including the opposing political party.
That would be a valid concern for unchecked domestic surveillance but not for what Snowden leaked.
It was ruled illegal in 2015 by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
> inserting spying equipment in Google data centers
There is no evidence of this in the Snowden leaks or anywhere. Google would know if it had unaccounted for hardware in its datacenters. They put network analyzers on international links that carried Google traffic.
> they were intercepting hardware like switches and compromising it
For hardware shipped to targeted foreigners. We should expect our spy agencies to do this if they are even moderately competent.
> They used parallel construction with other law enforcement orgs as they leaked run of the mill criminal behavior (not national security related) so as to not disclose the real way they got the info.
Where is the evidence for this claim?
> The core concern I have is all this apparatus are tools of fascism and control of any dissenting voices including the opposing political party.
That would be a valid concern for unchecked domestic surveillance but not for what Snowden leaked.
Frankly I read about all this years ago so I'd have to spend a lot of time looking all this up and that's unlikely at the moment.
I may very well have some details wrong.
Re: parallel construction reference here though clearly this is more recent: https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/28/hemisphere-phone-records/
At the bottom of this article it references the NSA and Snowden but says no explicit links was proven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
I may very well have some details wrong.
Re: parallel construction reference here though clearly this is more recent: https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/28/hemisphere-phone-records/
At the bottom of this article it references the NSA and Snowden but says no explicit links was proven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
Your link shows parallel construction from Hemisphere, which is separate from the NSA phone metadata collection program.
You make it seem like they’re just hitting Googles hardware randomly. It’s been postulated publicly that spies have been found at Google that facilitate information to the CCP. If I were a defense organization this would concern me and I believe they have legal clout to act. Liberal does not mean lawless. You expect USA to do nothing but sit back and accept it’s just a part of doing business to get spied on and IP theft?
I was on mobile so difficult to give adequate sources at the moment.
My point was they were essentially MITM'ing all traffic in google data centers. I fail to see how that "makes the US more secure".
"The National Security Agency has secretly broken into the main communications links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers around the world, according to documents obtained from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and interviews with knowledgeable officials.
By tapping those links, the agency has positioned itself to collect at will from hundreds of millions of user accounts, many of them belonging to Americans. The NSA does not keep everything it collects, but it keeps a lot."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-i...
Hacking private companies and spying on Americans seems outside their charter IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
My point was they were essentially MITM'ing all traffic in google data centers. I fail to see how that "makes the US more secure".
"The National Security Agency has secretly broken into the main communications links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers around the world, according to documents obtained from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and interviews with knowledgeable officials.
By tapping those links, the agency has positioned itself to collect at will from hundreds of millions of user accounts, many of them belonging to Americans. The NSA does not keep everything it collects, but it keeps a lot."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-i...
Hacking private companies and spying on Americans seems outside their charter IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
> Hacking private companies and spying on Americans seems outside their charter IMO.
Aside from phone metadata collection, they weren't spying on Americans. They could tap communications of non-Americans outside the US, and they could find those communications in Google WAN traffic crossing the US border. It's Google's fault for not encrypting it because any number of other countries with fewer laws against spying on their citizens could have done the same thing. It is good that Google and other Internet companies now use https everywhere and encrypt their WAN traffic, but the threat vector should have been well known at that point given what China had already been doing publicly for years.
Aside from phone metadata collection, they weren't spying on Americans. They could tap communications of non-Americans outside the US, and they could find those communications in Google WAN traffic crossing the US border. It's Google's fault for not encrypting it because any number of other countries with fewer laws against spying on their citizens could have done the same thing. It is good that Google and other Internet companies now use https everywhere and encrypt their WAN traffic, but the threat vector should have been well known at that point given what China had already been doing publicly for years.
Do you have a reference for actual detected spies at Google? Of course it would be valuable to have them there. Google has lots of systems to keep track of what information you access thought, from when I was there. IE if you say want to look at PII like real user names for some debugging reason, you had to go through a portal that was along the lines of declaring: "I need to access this internal system that has PII, here is my authenticated request with my name on it". And when I was there, they would follow up and ask me about it. This was on a database product.
On the other hand, there were multiple stories about the guy from Saudi Arabia who was at twitter and I think he got away back to S.A.
On the other hand, there were multiple stories about the guy from Saudi Arabia who was at twitter and I think he got away back to S.A.
If the reality of what we are doing to our citizens tarnishes our reputation, then we shouldn't be doing it.
It sounds like you're confusing Assange and Snowden.
Amazing how Assange suddenly became a Russian asset after 2016, this charge never appeared when he spent years going after the Bush admin
The Special Counsel investigation publicizing a Russian connection to Wikileaks' release of Hillary Clinton's damaging emails was far more recent than 2016 [0]. For myself, and I presume much of the general public, that would be the point in time where awareness of Assange's role in an alleged Russia-involved conspiracy manifest.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_...
I said after 2016. Wikileaks is a media company that reports info/intel from their sources, no different from the NYT, CNN, fox etc. There were no questions coming from these sections of the general public and the media you allude to when it was bush and it's very convenient for the intelligence community to discredit where they can. Snowden addresses the case against Assange in his latest episode on Joe Rogan, a very interesting listen.
> Assange suddenly became a Russian asset after 2016
Assange had a TV show on Russian State television in 2012.
Assange had a TV show on Russian State television in 2012.
Something about Snowden fleeing to Russia makes that confusion difficult to accept.
US govt did that to him. He was trying to get to Ecuador from HK when his passport was revoked mid-route.
Russia gave him asylum, for reasons which are not related to him helping them, purely because it antagonises the US.
He still openly criticised the Russian government, and has expressed strong desire to come back to the US.
Russia gave him asylum, for reasons which are not related to him helping them, purely because it antagonises the US.
He still openly criticised the Russian government, and has expressed strong desire to come back to the US.
Assange and Snowden are widely known to be conflated among the general public. [0]
I don't personally think either of these people are or have ever knowingly been Russian assets.
But that's not the point. Particularly after the Special Counsel investigation, Assange/Wikileaks has been portrayed quite publicly through a credible federal investigation as being used as a puppet for distributing Russian-acquired documents.
Snowden clearly ended up in Russia for lack of options when fleeing HK. There's never been any credible allegations of a Russian affiliation outside of that AFAIK.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M&t=8m
I don't personally think either of these people are or have ever knowingly been Russian assets.
But that's not the point. Particularly after the Special Counsel investigation, Assange/Wikileaks has been portrayed quite publicly through a credible federal investigation as being used as a puppet for distributing Russian-acquired documents.
Snowden clearly ended up in Russia for lack of options when fleeing HK. There's never been any credible allegations of a Russian affiliation outside of that AFAIK.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M&t=8m
Why is it confusing that he would flee to somewhere where the US couldn’t easily extradite him, throw him in a “detention center,” give him an unfair trial, or assassinate him?
He simply tarnished certain federal bureaucracies, not America at large.
I live in Germany and When I moved here I sensed animosity for America. When I asked my local friends they said It was made a lot worse after what he leaked.
That may be true, but that's the fault of the 3 letter agencies and not the fault of Snowden.
Wouldn't he have flown straight to Moscow if that was his plan from the start?
The fact that he took a detour is only proof he is trying to hide his real masters. /s
"But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them [you] they are being attacked [by Russia], and denounce the pacifists [Snowden] for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
- Herman Goering [with additions]
Nothing much changes.
- Herman Goering [with additions]
Nothing much changes.
I agree him being in Russia currently isn't a good look... but I don't think he was a Russian asset. To me, he always seemed like a really good person who followed his conscience.
I think where he messed up was he got help from Assange when he was at his neediest, took it, and ended up in Moscow.
I think where he messed up was he got help from Assange when he was at his neediest, took it, and ended up in Moscow.
>diplomacy
You would need to convict him first.
that's not how pardons have to work. You can be pardoned post conviction or preemptively. I'm glad I could update you on that. See Abraham Lincoln's and Gerald Ford's pardons in particular.
Half way into that article it suddenly opened another window and loaded another seemingly unrelated article. A way to get more page imoressions?
Say Biden wins the election. I'm curious to see how his administration would handle this situation considering that Snowden revelations happened dead in the middle of Biden's second vice-presidency and they had plenty of time to be considerate, and handle this situation appropriately.
This administration won't do it, simply because Russia has more leverage over Snowden's cultural influence while he's unpardoned and in exile. The next administration won't do it, because Biden was in Obama's administration during Snowden's original actions.
We need to examine the situation not from whether enough time has elapsed to make the wounds heal over, but from whether our government is ready to admit its past mistakes and learn from them.
We need to examine the situation not from whether enough time has elapsed to make the wounds heal over, but from whether our government is ready to admit its past mistakes and learn from them.
One of the rationales for the Ministry of Truth in 1984 was that the government could always do the right thing: as soon as it learned, it needn't take the difficult step of admitting past mistakes, but could instead merely correct them.
How can you assume that next administration willn't be of Trump's but Biden's ?
Because that scenario is irrelevant to the conversation
It doesn't matter. That's the point being made. I think the sentiment that Biden (or any other Democrat) will not act because of some associated guilt or support of past Democrat decisions, idiotic. He will not get pardoned because the media (and public at large) don't think it's an issue that is more motivating than other hot-button issues. If there's enough public support, I would be more ready to believe the needle will move under a D than an R.
If Assange isn't being pardoned for the nonsensical "crime" of exposing war crimes by the US Government, there is no chance that Snowden will be pardoned. Snowden willingly stole state secrets whereas Assange only published.
Still, when you consider that Snowden is living in Russia, essentially free, and Assange is in a 3.5x2m cell, I don't think Snowden has anything to worry about, except that the royalties from his book will be taken away....but he has his freedom.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/919261319/court-rules-edward-...
Still, when you consider that Snowden is living in Russia, essentially free, and Assange is in a 3.5x2m cell, I don't think Snowden has anything to worry about, except that the royalties from his book will be taken away....but he has his freedom.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/919261319/court-rules-edward-...
As I understand it, the USA isn't after Assange for publishing, mainly because other (friends of the state?) entities have done similar (e.g., NY Times). Assange is being charged with conspiracy to steal said secrets. That is, he was a participant in the "theft." Uncle Sans case isn't focused on the publishing.
Again, as I understand it (which I believe is based on other comments from previous threads on HN).
Again, as I understand it (which I believe is based on other comments from previous threads on HN).
He sort of has his freedom, if you consider life within Putin's Russia containing freedom.
As far as we know, he is free to travel through all of Russia. That's a lot of freedom
In Putin Russia, freedom has you!
They should both be pardoned. They committed no crime. The public has the right to know what their governments are doing using their money.
> They have committed no crime
Not true. Assange hasn't committed a crime but Snowden has committed a crime of theft from the NSA; unlawfully retaining a National Security Agency (NSA) documents containing information classified at the TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (TS/SCI) level.
Let me clarify. What he did in exposing PRISM was fantastic, the people had a right to know, absolutely, but, the act in itself was still stealing. It's no different to any other theft. When you work for a company and you steal, you can be prosecuted.
We can argue from two points; moral and legal. Morally he did the right thing. Legally he did not.
The difference between Assange and Snowden is vast. Assange is a published of information, no different to The Guardian. He did not steal the data he published. Snowden did, as did Chelsea Manning when he stole the known as Cable Gate.
The point in the article is that the OP thinks Snowden should receive a pardon. My point, is that Assange hasn't even been pardoned for his supposed crime of publishing. If Assange hasn't been pardoned for a lesser crime, then what hope does Snowden have of being pardoned for an actual crime of data theft from the NSA?
Another lady stole data from the NSA. SHe is now facing prosecution and 10 years.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/west-virginia-woman-admits-wi...
Not true. Assange hasn't committed a crime but Snowden has committed a crime of theft from the NSA; unlawfully retaining a National Security Agency (NSA) documents containing information classified at the TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (TS/SCI) level.
Let me clarify. What he did in exposing PRISM was fantastic, the people had a right to know, absolutely, but, the act in itself was still stealing. It's no different to any other theft. When you work for a company and you steal, you can be prosecuted.
We can argue from two points; moral and legal. Morally he did the right thing. Legally he did not.
The difference between Assange and Snowden is vast. Assange is a published of information, no different to The Guardian. He did not steal the data he published. Snowden did, as did Chelsea Manning when he stole the known as Cable Gate.
The point in the article is that the OP thinks Snowden should receive a pardon. My point, is that Assange hasn't even been pardoned for his supposed crime of publishing. If Assange hasn't been pardoned for a lesser crime, then what hope does Snowden have of being pardoned for an actual crime of data theft from the NSA?
Another lady stole data from the NSA. SHe is now facing prosecution and 10 years.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/west-virginia-woman-admits-wi...
Snowden didn’t just expose national wiretapping. He also exposed international spying capabilities that endangered our people and our allies. If he had not crossed that second line, he’d just be a legitimate whistleblower, but he decided to actively harm the U.S. intelligence community and they will never allow a pardon.
I’d lay odds if he ever steps foot in an unprotected setting, a slip on a banana peel and a fatal head injury wouldn’t shock me.
He’s a traitor. I’m as liberal as it gets and even I think he went too far.
I’d lay odds if he ever steps foot in an unprotected setting, a slip on a banana peel and a fatal head injury wouldn’t shock me.
He’s a traitor. I’m as liberal as it gets and even I think he went too far.
International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany. That angered your allies much more than it endangered them. Whistleblowers like Snowden are the mechanism that keeps that spying from happening in the first place.
Edit -- And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it. But to be clear, it wasn't Snowden's disclosure that broke that trust, it was the spying. It's hubris to think that if not for Snowden it would never have been discovered, and the longer it went on, the more harm that would have been done between America and its allies when it eventually got found out. So by revealing it early, Snowden really minimized the damage, rather than causing it.
Edit -- And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it. But to be clear, it wasn't Snowden's disclosure that broke that trust, it was the spying. It's hubris to think that if not for Snowden it would never have been discovered, and the longer it went on, the more harm that would have been done between America and its allies when it eventually got found out. So by revealing it early, Snowden really minimized the damage, rather than causing it.
But it wasn't just our allies. Snowden revealed details about NSA spying on Syria during their civil war. That is the exact type of thing that our spy agencies should be doing. If you object to that, you object to the entire nature of intelligence gathering. That is a perfectly acceptable stance to have, but it obviously isn't one that is held by the US's or most nation's government and therefore they wouldn't want to tacitly endorse it by issuing a pardon.
If you actually believe it was news that the NSA is intercepting signals from and in Syria, I may have a bridge for sale you'd be interested in.
Are you arguing that you should only get in trouble for leaking if the information you leaked is surprising?
How about a list of compromised Chinese telecommunications systems? It's not surprising that the NSA would infiltrate those systems in order to complete some of its objectives, but the list of which systems were compromised when is sensitive information that Snowden leaked right after revealing he was in Hong Kong in a misguided attempt to gain asylum there.
Maybe if the US had proper protections for whistleblowers, they wouldn't need to seek asylum or take such sensitive information with them as insurance.
> "And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it"
That seems unlikely. At the international level, it's well understood that alliances aren't permanent as de Gaulle's famous quote "[Nations have] no friends, only interests." illustrates. For example, Russia, Japan, and the US were allies during the First World War but were on opposing sides in the Second.
That seems unlikely. At the international level, it's well understood that alliances aren't permanent as de Gaulle's famous quote "[Nations have] no friends, only interests." illustrates. For example, Russia, Japan, and the US were allies during the First World War but were on opposing sides in the Second.
Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
> "...everyone you meet..."
As the old joke goes "Don't anthropomorphize countries; they hate it when you do that." There is no guarantee of continuity in leadership or national policy because of periodic leadership turnover (elections, etc.) so exactly what would a country be extending trust to?
As the old joke goes "Don't anthropomorphize countries; they hate it when you do that." There is no guarantee of continuity in leadership or national policy because of periodic leadership turnover (elections, etc.) so exactly what would a country be extending trust to?
There's even less of a guarantee when a nation's unsupervised services have a century of experience replacing uncooperative foreign leadership with "more friendly" puppets. Unfortunately such regime change doesn't seem to ever benefit the people of either the interfered or interfering nations...
This seems like a fairly accurate model of North Korea's approach to international relations, but not most others. Would you say that they've found the optimum strategy?
> International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany.
I expect the US to be spying on ALL nations, not just enemy-of-the-week or communist ones.
I expect the US to be spying on ALL nations, not just enemy-of-the-week or communist ones.
Expect, as in - you want them to spy? Or just accept it as an inevitable fact of life?
It's both because it's good policy. I "want" insofar as I would expect any government to maximize our position via basic game theory. It's inevitable because those who maximize their position are going to be the dominant player over time.
(I posted a similar comment elsewhere but it's short, and relevant here too).
That's not what game theory says. Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Tit-for-tat does much better. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
That's not what game theory says. Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Tit-for-tat does much better. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
> Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy
You are changing the topic, subtly and importantly.
Maintaining an operative network to support an information network and flexible operations (either to help or hinder a nation-state) is THE winning strategy.
> Tit-for-tat does much better.
That is incorrect, in context.
You are changing the topic, subtly and importantly.
Maintaining an operative network to support an information network and flexible operations (either to help or hinder a nation-state) is THE winning strategy.
> Tit-for-tat does much better.
That is incorrect, in context.
I feel like people forget that leading up to the Iraq war, France and Germany were aligned with Russia and very much against US interests. They were a frenemy at best.
I'm not saying it's right - we were in the wrong on Iraq and that was obvious before it started. But just like the US has had a HARD turn towards fascism, there's nothing stopping that from occurring to our allies as well. I'd argue it's dereliction of duty if you aren't spying on your allies, they're spying on us.
What you DO with the information gathered, in my opinion, is what determines whether you're violating your ally's trust.
I'm not saying it's right - we were in the wrong on Iraq and that was obvious before it started. But just like the US has had a HARD turn towards fascism, there's nothing stopping that from occurring to our allies as well. I'd argue it's dereliction of duty if you aren't spying on your allies, they're spying on us.
What you DO with the information gathered, in my opinion, is what determines whether you're violating your ally's trust.
I'm curious about what interpretation of events leads you to the conclusion that, say, France was aligned against US interests? What about Canada?
Edit: And it's one thing (not necessarily a great thing) if you and your allies are knowingly and willingly exchanging intelligence about suspicious activities you pick up in each other's countries to tip off law enforcement. Exfiltrating corporate industrial and technological secrets is a different matter and there's no way an allied government would be OK with that happening, even as an under-the-table arrangement.
Edit: And it's one thing (not necessarily a great thing) if you and your allies are knowingly and willingly exchanging intelligence about suspicious activities you pick up in each other's countries to tip off law enforcement. Exfiltrating corporate industrial and technological secrets is a different matter and there's no way an allied government would be OK with that happening, even as an under-the-table arrangement.
I literally just said that France and Germany were against the war. Assuming you were old enough to be an adult leading up the war literally EVERYTHING leads me to that conclusion. Their populations protested, they were very vocal and it was obvious to anyone watching international news broadcasts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_...
> I’m as liberal as it gets and even I think he went too far.
Apparently you're not because I couldn't disagree more.
Apparently you're not because I couldn't disagree more.
I was just going to say the same thing.
Didn’t he give the information to journalists to make the decision about what needs to be redacted? Can you provide a source for the information that he endangered peoples lives?
Nah. He's a hero.
He couldn't expose one without the other could he?
I remember him specifically saying he thought spying on allies was wrong, and even a key component of his decision. Whether you agree this is the deciding point for crime / not crime, it is certainly a division between blowing whistle on domestic spying and everything else.
I think that from a purely technical point of view there isn't a division here: if the NSA has gained access to basically everything (mobile networks, ISPs, landlines, OSs etc) and they're using the access to hoover up all the private data of citizens then logically our allies and enemies know they are also being targeted don't they? Why would the NSA be using God Mode domestically but restricting itself abroad?
So Snowden even revealed everything or nothing. He couldn't only spill half the beans!
So Snowden even revealed everything or nothing. He couldn't only spill half the beans!
Why not? 99% of the things Greenwald et al published from his leaks were perfectly legal, and that was just a small subset of the total documents Snowden leaked. Why not just expose the illegal phone metadata program? If he had done that, he would easily qualify as a whistleblower.
Exposing the phone meta data program would expose it both domestically and internationally. That exposure would limit the US ability to keep doing it internationally and open him to exactly the critism made above.
The issue here is that none of these programs care about national boundaries (or citizenship etc). So exposing domestic surveillance exposed it internationally as well. There was no way to avoid that. So criticism of it seems unfair to me...
Also, 99% of the programs he exposed were Illegal. Some have been legalised after the fact, others semi legalised.
SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it, so the ultimate compatibility with the constitution remains unclear...
The issue here is that none of these programs care about national boundaries (or citizenship etc). So exposing domestic surveillance exposed it internationally as well. There was no way to avoid that. So criticism of it seems unfair to me...
Also, 99% of the programs he exposed were Illegal. Some have been legalised after the fact, others semi legalised.
SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it, so the ultimate compatibility with the constitution remains unclear...
> Also, 99% of the programs he exposed were Illegal.
The only US program he leaked that was illegal was the phone metadata collection. The vast majority of programs he leaked involved surveillance on foreign targets outside the US.
> SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it
None of it has made it to SCOTUS due to the vast majority being completely legal, so SCOTUS hasn't even had a chance to refuse to rule on any of it. The only program that could have gone to SCOTUS was phone metadata collection, but the government already shut that down, so they aren't going to waste time challenging its legality.
The only US program he leaked that was illegal was the phone metadata collection. The vast majority of programs he leaked involved surveillance on foreign targets outside the US.
> SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it
None of it has made it to SCOTUS due to the vast majority being completely legal, so SCOTUS hasn't even had a chance to refuse to rule on any of it. The only program that could have gone to SCOTUS was phone metadata collection, but the government already shut that down, so they aren't going to waste time challenging its legality.
[deleted]
>He also exposed international spying capabilities that endangered our people and our allies.
Really, like what?
Really, like what?
There is a part of the leaks that talks about how the US was spying on a new terrorist group... which made it more difficult to spy on them and ended up becoming what became ISIS.
Snowden didn't expose it but the newspaper he coordinated with (the guardian) ended up not correctly redacting that portion.
I don't have an opinion on whether this is a bad thing or a good thing.
Snowden didn't expose it but the newspaper he coordinated with (the guardian) ended up not correctly redacting that portion.
I don't have an opinion on whether this is a bad thing or a good thing.
Opinions differ on this. We should have a very public trial and put all of the evidence out there for a jury to evaluate. We have a duty to history.
> but he decided to actively harm the U.S. intelligence community and they will never allow a pardon
This notion of 'harm' is bandied about all the time. If anything, he improved their capabilities, since now they are bolstered against insider threats going forward.
This notion of 'harm' is bandied about all the time. If anything, he improved their capabilities, since now they are bolstered against insider threats going forward.
https://mobile.twitter.com/_nalexander/status/13124054429251...