He could have stuck with filesharing and useful (albeit controversial) technology, but he had to chase after pure hype companies aimed at internet noobs, like Facebook. As any resectable geek knows, FB offered us nothing we could not do before using the usual communication tools. There's never been any reason we have to pass all our private details and communications through Zuckerberg's website. He called users "dumb fucks" for doing so. That fact has not changed. He still treats users as dumb.
Parker relishes his celebrity and all his new high profile friends. Facebook made him something he was not before: able to afford a lavish wedding. And now he's complaining.
"Live by the sword die by the sword."
As he said, he's profited handsomely.
But he's right: there's a purpose behind privacy. And he's learning that the hard way.
So, Mr. Parker, put your money where your mouth is: dump some millions into startups that are the antithesis of Facebook. Let's chase privacy instead of celebrity.
1. You assume the story will go "cold" if he's living in another country. Why? How do you know this?
2. You assume he is seeking "protection". The reports say he sought none in HK. You assume he will seek some sort of physical protection in his destination country? What if he doesn't?
3. You surmise he has more "sensitive information" that other governments will want. What if he does not have such information? What if he's just a low level sysadmin who has an interest in Internet freedom and copied documents about controversial Internet spying and gave them to journalists for safe keeping? What about Greenwald, Poitras, the Guardian and the WaPo? Maybe they have copies? Assuming there is "sensitive information" in the docs Snowden copied, shouldn't the journalist be a "threat" too?
He, with the help of journalists, is exposing arguably unconstitutional surveillance of Americans and also arguably illegal hacking activities by the US government. I guess it comes down to whether you see this as a "threat" or as a public service. Or maybe you see only the former as a public service and the later as a threat.
But you can't just assume he is a threat because of "what he might do". Based on his actions and statements so far, we have no reason to believe he's intent on doing harm to his country. He thinks he's a whistleblower. He thinks he's disclosing criminal activity.
And who has suffered from what he done so far? You? Me? Why should we be out to get him? The mainstream media may have a different view of things... but do they speak for you or me? Let's be honest, who do they really speak for? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird and all that.
They could have done what they thought was right in the interests of the Internet as a free, unregulated medium and by extension their business which depends on the Internet, even if that course of action (or inaction) was not clearly legal. Then they could have used some of their billions in cash on hand and their team of lawyers to defend themselves against prosecution. They, instead of some random sysadmin, could be the ones bringing this issue of Internet spying to the fore.
Now, before you say "What, do you expect them to break the law?", consider that they routinely push the boundaries of US law (securities law, copyright law, tax law, etc.) and lo and behold they are usually successful.
Now, I expect you might say "What you're suggesting is still nonsensical because resisting orders related to national security is, among other things, far too controversial and not in the interests of shareholders." And I would not disgaree with you.
My point is simply that Google, with its vast resources, is in a much better position than Ed Snowden to take on this fight for the future of the Internet and privacy of communications.
You could even argue Google has more skin in the game than Mr. Snowden, or any of us individually (aside from those who exploit others' private information for profit, of course)... because if this controversy brings about knee-jerk changes in privacy law, it could materially affect their bottom line.
Especially when the system is itself nuts and many of those who prop it up are nuts.
"Freedom", by my definition, is thinking from a place of 1. personal responsibility and 2. let's fix the problem, not from one of 1. "I am a victim, or a potential one. Protect me." or 2. "There has been an accident. Who is to blame? Find who is guilty and make them pay."
But I guess many Americans continue to believe they are the most free of all the world's citizens.
Because its government thinks having an enemy or several is the way to mobilize the population.
It unifies people toward a common aim: e.g., beating the "evil empire" (to steal Reagan's label for the Soviet Union), whoever that is chosen to be, by the US government.
It's amusing to watch the US government's selection of "evil empire" as it suits their interests. They will never declare all countries that commit "atrocities" (and there are many) as the evil empires. They will instead carefully select the ones who are not cooperating with the US government to a degree the US government deems satisfactory.
Those countries who defy the bequests of Washington are labelled "evil" and, sadly, a large percetange American population becomes unified against them. Not only the "evil" foreign government, but also to some extent the foreign country as a whole, including its people.
Of course the foreign government turn around and tells its people to distrust the US, and a large percentage listen, and in my humble opinion we're all worse off for it. Because as someone said it another comment on another Snowden article, people of different countries, aside from governments and propaganda, are generally curious about one another, and friendly.
It's disappointing to see you write this, codex. I thought you were a pretty smart guy.
You seem sure that a trial in the US would be a mega-press event. You mean, like the Manning military trial? Are you reading the press coverage of Snowden? The TV press coverage? How do you think he would be portrayed by the US media? Surely you're not that naive. Indeed it might be better for the cause of domestic surveillance to have him tried in the US press and a federal court in Virginia, right outside Washington. Most Americans, the ones who get their news passively from TV or who do not watch the news much, would never even know what happened; his fate would be decided quickly and without fanfare, except announcement of the severe punishment he receives, to show that "leakers" are some sort of "insider threat": scare tactics (and maybe a high profile prosecution as part of some US Attorney's political aspirations to one day run for office). The more he evades this (expected) fate, the more he embarasses Washington, and the more otherwise ignorant Americans will learn who he is and what his principles are.
His principles seem pretty clear so far: Do you want every packet that travels over the Internet to be clear text, captured and analyzed by governments? Or do you want reasonably secure communications, free from prying eyes, similar the US postal mail? Do you want the government to decide this for you, in secret? Snowdon thinks you should be entitled to decide for yourself.
Your comment about the democratic ratings of other countries and getting help from authoritarian regimes if "it suits his interests" could easily be applied to the US government as well. They will deal with regimes as it suits their interests, regardless of the form of government of those regimes, so long as it suits their interests (e.g. oil). The government does what it has to do to acquire oil so you can run your car, applicances, devices, etc. And Snowden is doing what he has to do to enable his country (and maybe others) to debate the question of spying on what travels over the Internet.
The only way to know if a law is "constitutional" or not is to subject it to challenge it in the (non-secret) court system.
If a law cannot be challenged because either its existence is secret or the process of its enforcement is secret, or both, then we can never know whether such a law is or is not constitutional.
I guess some in favor of the status quo would argue that sometimes scrutiny (to use the word in the article's title) of laws and their enforcement is imprudent? Because it threatens "national security"?
Should the public be permitted to scrutinize the laws that make what NSA is doing "legal"? Why or why not?
He could have stuck with filesharing and useful (albeit controversial) technology, but he had to chase after pure hype companies aimed at internet noobs, like Facebook. As any resectable geek knows, FB offered us nothing we could not do before using the usual communication tools. There's never been any reason we have to pass all our private details and communications through Zuckerberg's website. He called users "dumb fucks" for doing so. That fact has not changed. He still treats users as dumb.
Parker relishes his celebrity and all his new high profile friends. Facebook made him something he was not before: able to afford a lavish wedding. And now he's complaining.
"Live by the sword die by the sword."
As he said, he's profited handsomely.
But he's right: there's a purpose behind privacy. And he's learning that the hard way.
So, Mr. Parker, put your money where your mouth is: dump some millions into startups that are the antithesis of Facebook. Let's chase privacy instead of celebrity.