Hong Kong Baffled by Snowden’s Hideout(blogs.wsj.com)
blogs.wsj.com
Hong Kong Baffled by Snowden’s Hideout
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/06/10/hong-kong-baffled-by-snowdens-hideout/
25 comments
Have we seen a news report yet about how Snowden traveled to Hong Kong? His choice of destination may have been dictated by where he could fly on a nonstop airline flight from Hawaii, where he was last based. His travel documents, because he was contracting for the NSA, may already have had restrictions on which destinations he could fly to. (Such restrictions have been routine for NSA employees for more than a generation. Airlines check travel documents before you board a plane on an international flight, because the airline is responsible for returning you at no charge to you if you are denied entry for lack of proper travel documents at the border of your destination.) He may simply have had no better choice when he had opportunity to leave work and leave home.
A few years ago I was cutting it close for a flight from New York to Maine. Everyone else had boarded when I got to the gate. When my wrinkled, self-printed boarding pass threw error noises, the agent told me just to go, "and run!" I breathed a sigh of relief when I was on the plane, but puzzled that a French tourist was in my seat. When we saw that both our tickets had the same seat we called over a flight attendant. "Wait, where are you flying?" she asked. "Portland, Maine?" With this comment I now fully understand the terror came to her face as she exclaimed, "This plane is going to Paris! Sir, you have to get off this plane immediately! Run, sir, run!" They shut the door behind me as I left.
So yes, always double check your gate assignments at the airport, as they may have changed.
So yes, always double check your gate assignments at the airport, as they may have changed.
you missed a free trip to paris! what an adventure that would have been. well, not if you can't leave the airport.
[deleted]
>>Airlines check travel documents before you board a plane on an international flight, because the airline is responsible for returning you at no charge to you if you are denied entry for lack of proper travel documents at the border of your destination.
This explains the sometimes seemingly draconian photo ID checks by airlines at the gate. Thanks for clearing this up -- I didn't realize that the return cost was borne by the carrier. Makes much more sense.
This explains the sometimes seemingly draconian photo ID checks by airlines at the gate. Thanks for clearing this up -- I didn't realize that the return cost was borne by the carrier. Makes much more sense.
This guy is not dumb by any stretch of the imagination. He also didn't make this decision overnight. If I had to guess, he planned this all very well with all considerations in mind .
The fact that he noted his location at all is interesting in that he obviously doesn't want to get caught. So why bring it up? He could have just as easily left that detail anonymous. Makes me wonder if there's a tactic in mind that we might not have seen just yet.
The fact that he noted his location at all is interesting in that he obviously doesn't want to get caught. So why bring it up? He could have just as easily left that detail anonymous. Makes me wonder if there's a tactic in mind that we might not have seen just yet.
It's unlikely that he'd be able to hide anywhere in the world at this point without at least someone finding him. At least by saying where he is people will notice if he goes "missing".
Also consider, if he hadn't shared his location he might've just disappeared as soon as he made an anonymous statement over the internet. This way he gets to talk to the press and establishes his location clearly.
He might have an insurance policy. After all, he had access to other data so if they lock him up, they risk problems bigger than they could ever imagine.
He may have written a program that releases the information on a certain date. Or someone else has a backup and knows what to do with it.
Either that or he's no longer in Hong Kong, sort of like what McAfee did, tell everyone where he's at when he's really no longer there. So when Snowden tells the CIA their office is across the street, it's no more than a tactic to mislead the CIA.
Either that, or he hasn't thought this through at all and I find that hard to believe.
Either that or he's no longer in Hong Kong, sort of like what McAfee did, tell everyone where he's at when he's really no longer there. So when Snowden tells the CIA their office is across the street, it's no more than a tactic to mislead the CIA.
Either that, or he hasn't thought this through at all and I find that hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe that he can be anywhere so easily. The NSA isn't omniscient, but certainly it keeps close tabs on people that work with/for them?
I would suggest that tracking former employees or contractors that had security clearance and did not misbehave while working for the NSA would be a pretty low priority to keep track of - and fairly numerous. Particularly since any information they did have that was sensitive would generally lose value over time. I would expect that most of the NSA's resources directed at specific individuals are directed at individuals that they have reason to believe are up to no good, not just tracking low-risk folks for the sake of tracking them.
He wasn't an NSA employee he was a contractor. They don't even know how many contrators they have working for them.
China would turn Snowden over to US authorities only in exchange for the return of Chinese protesters given asylum in the US.
The "China is an oppressive regime" meme makes up a lot of US propaganda and is used to justify all kinds of policies. So the US is put in the awkward position of not being able to engage in the usual diplomatic trade.
Hong Kong is useful b/c it represents the future of Chinese society and is a concentration of wealth and influence. By letting Snowden stay in HK, China can appease its own population while also appearing to stand strong against the US government's demands.
The best hope for the USG is that this blows over. Snowden seems fairly savvy about the media's role and if he's able to continue to shape the discussion there might actually be meaningful outcomes.
The "China is an oppressive regime" meme makes up a lot of US propaganda and is used to justify all kinds of policies. So the US is put in the awkward position of not being able to engage in the usual diplomatic trade.
Hong Kong is useful b/c it represents the future of Chinese society and is a concentration of wealth and influence. By letting Snowden stay in HK, China can appease its own population while also appearing to stand strong against the US government's demands.
The best hope for the USG is that this blows over. Snowden seems fairly savvy about the media's role and if he's able to continue to shape the discussion there might actually be meaningful outcomes.
> The "China is an oppressive regime" meme
It's not a meme. It's fact.
It's not a meme. It's fact.
> It's not a meme. It's fact.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
This brings up the idea that Snowden fled the US to a place that he felt would be more free.
That's not true at all. He just needed to go somewhere that both a) would resist the US's judicial attempts at extradition and b) would resist the US's extrajudicial attempts at extradition. HK is probably one of the few places that satisfy both.
> According to an interview with The Guardian, 29-year-old Edward Snowden, whose revelations have created a political uproar, has stashed himself in an unidentified luxury hotel in Hong Kong, a city he said he chose as the best place to hunker down given its “spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent.”
You mean the place that has no political freedom to speak of and exists under the PRC's thumb?
You mean the place that has no political freedom to speak of and exists under the PRC's thumb?
HK has more political freedom than the rest of the PRC. I've heard of protests there that would be illegal anywhere else in the PRC. IIRC, you also need special travel papers to go to HK from the rest of the PRC.
Here's a cynical interpretation: Hong Kong makes zero sense given that they are a) within Chinese sphere of influence and b) frequently extradites to the US. He's go other sensitive documents he may sell to the Chinese in exchange for money and sanctuary. So maybe that was the plan all along. Everyone focuses on the NSA wire-tapping scandal (which, honestly, I think everyone assumed was happening for years), and he gets a payout and some cover.
Too cynical?
Too cynical?
I don't think it makes sense. Like he said in his interview, he could have just sold the stuff he already leaked. Why then would he bother with the whole trouble of very publicly becoming America's Most Wanted? He sounded pretty sincere about doing this for the good of the American people. He claims he made a concerted effort to not reveal any information that could harm individuals, which appears to hold up.
I would think (hope) he has some cards up his sleeve to protect himself, but at this point I think all the double-agent/working with China talk is wild conjecture.
I would think (hope) he has some cards up his sleeve to protect himself, but at this point I think all the double-agent/working with China talk is wild conjecture.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing to go on. Edward's disclosure was responsible, and certainly served a public good, and so far he should be lauded for it. It was a brave act. I understand him fleeing and seeking asylum in another country given that there is little chance he would get a 'fair' trial here (as has been shown by the way Bradley Manning and Aaron Swartz have been treated)... but of all places ... China??!? He's not an idiot, so he must have thought this through but it makes no sense.
It makes all the sense in the world. Who else would benefit from keeping America's crimes in the public light, by granting asylum to one of its citizens with the courage to reveal those crimes to the world?
HK != China. How many times should we do this?
China can veto any extradition.
HK and US have a mutual extradition treaty for actions that are illegal in both countries. Presumably leaking state secrets is illegal in HK. Furthermore, HK is quite willing to extradite to US and does so on regular basis.
So the question of why China (or HK if you prefer), remains.
HK and US have a mutual extradition treaty for actions that are illegal in both countries. Presumably leaking state secrets is illegal in HK. Furthermore, HK is quite willing to extradite to US and does so on regular basis.
So the question of why China (or HK if you prefer), remains.
I think it's been answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5853901
Hong Kong currently has a moratorium on extradition of asylum seekers.
Hong Kong currently has a moratorium on extradition of asylum seekers.
Maybe he knows something we don't? Just a guess.
All the press and comments assume his ultimate goal is to avoid extradition, which has not been requested so far. I think he know the consequence of his action very well. He wants to expose the government surveillance program and draw public outrage. If US government do request for extradition, this will go through the court system in Hong Kong. Hopefully it will be a fairly transparent system and give him another chance to raise the awareness of this program. He might end up in jail, but this would fulfill his goal, that is to expose the surveillance program to the greatest extend possible.
Maybe because he knows what the NSA capabilities are in Hong Kong?
I'm also surprised he chose HK - it seems dicey to me. Off the cuff, there are other places that come to mind as being more promising spots. Having followed the Roman Polanski saga a few years back, for instance, I would have thought France would be a proven destination for anyone seeking to avoid US extradition.
I am baffled too, given that Ecuador offered Assange asylum wouldn't that be the most logical choice? I quick "vacation" down to Costa Rica and overland to Ecuador if you want to avoid raising suspicions and travel restrictions.
> down to Costa Rica and overland to Ecuador
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_Gap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_Gap
Most people cross the Gap by boat. It's 'overland' in the sense that you don't have to get on a plane.
I've been doubting that he actually IN Hong Kong at the moment. He may have been there at some point and did the interview there, but I would have hoped he burned his location and is currently in another country.
Note to journalists: Please stop using the Orwellian term "Rendition". The proper term for bringing a suspect back to face a judge is "Extradite"
Actually Extradition is subset of Rendition (which involves any transfer between jurisdictions), which is not at all an orwellian term.
It has only taken on its more negative connotations since the use of "Extraordinary Rendition." Had the term used for that behavior been "Extraordinary Extradition" then you would be complaining when journalists use the term "Extradition"
It has only taken on its more negative connotations since the use of "Extraordinary Rendition." Had the term used for that behavior been "Extraordinary Extradition" then you would be complaining when journalists use the term "Extradition"
A more interesting question is why he made himself public at all.
what would really be the best place to hideout? are there any countries where he would be free of us extradition threats given his high profile nature?
My guess would be Venezuela or Cuba.
This stuff proves to me that these programs have no value in stopping things that have not yet happened. Like the boston bombings and this guy, I sure there was a huge trail of evidence that didn't get identified in time to stop the actual act.
Or that the programs are not being abused widely for surveillance outside of their stated purpose?
Not worth it. The risk from totalitarian regimes is far greater than the risk from terrorism. Governments have more resources, by far. Even if we assume that PRISM is being used completely above-the-board the potential for abuse is still large enough to warrant reconsideration.
Then again, if Snowden were hypothetically spying for the PRC, Hong Kong would be the most logical place to seek protection. In this scenario the PRC would credibly protect him from the US, and European liberal democracies would not.
How do you make the jump from leaking the existence of a massive secret surveillance network within the US to him being a spy?? What reason would a spy have to share this info with the public?? Sounds like FUD to me...
This is the smear they're running already - have seen him referred to as a "Chinese spy" a couple of times already. I'm sure they'll get Greenwald on charges of being his cohort for China.
Diplomatic incident ahoy!
Diplomatic incident ahoy!
Spying 101: don't go public.
If he was spying, then why Hong Kong, and why not Beijing directly?
Beijing woud look incredibly suspicious wouldn't it? It would be hard to buy the "strong freedom of speech tradition" story.
Protection, balanced with plausible deniability.
Once you're protected, there's no more need for denying.
I mean deniability for the Chinese : Hong Kong is independent enough that they can claim powerlessness to their American partners, but they are the elephant in the room and can ensure that they keep actual control of the situation.
Maybe he was ignorant, maybe he was spot on.
Maybe his hypothetical extradition will cause a sort-of diplomatic "mess" between Beijing and Honk Kong, leaving him a limbo where neither HK nor China will grant him total asylum but wont extradite him either
Maybe his hypothetical extradition will cause a sort-of diplomatic "mess" between Beijing and Honk Kong, leaving him a limbo where neither HK nor China will grant him total asylum but wont extradite him either
There are two areas where SAR have little independence: defense and foreign affairs. Hong Kong will have its own money, postal service, justice, environment ministry, police, ....but it doesn't have a military and its foreign affairs tends to be limited to economic matters.
[deleted]
Who is funding him?
He earned $200,000 a year. Maybe he has some savings.
To me, the real story is possibly how the government over pays contractors.
The other real story is not that the government does this, it is that the government did not tell us it did this. THAT makes it underhand.
If the government came out and said, look we are storing who calls whom and asking telecos to store that information and, with judicial oversight, we will access that information, and we had a debate about it, that would be the proper way.
The government is taking the course "It is better to ask forgiveness than permission".
Obama is going to take the rap for this, and I therefore wonder at the timing. I think it is important to realize two things
1. Obama continued the Bush era policies 2. Obama continued the Bush era policies
Either that is the ONLY way security can be done, or there is some powerful faction within the bureaucracy which has gotten used to working in the shadows.
I think that there is some bunch of bureaucrats who have gotten too used to having information at hand.
I think we as a community need to keep using the regular methods offered to us via democracy (like posting on this online forum) to express our wish that
a) We be told what the government is doing b) Express our displeasure at the direction the style of governance is going
The other real story is not that the government does this, it is that the government did not tell us it did this. THAT makes it underhand.
If the government came out and said, look we are storing who calls whom and asking telecos to store that information and, with judicial oversight, we will access that information, and we had a debate about it, that would be the proper way.
The government is taking the course "It is better to ask forgiveness than permission".
Obama is going to take the rap for this, and I therefore wonder at the timing. I think it is important to realize two things
1. Obama continued the Bush era policies 2. Obama continued the Bush era policies
Either that is the ONLY way security can be done, or there is some powerful faction within the bureaucracy which has gotten used to working in the shadows.
I think that there is some bunch of bureaucrats who have gotten too used to having information at hand.
I think we as a community need to keep using the regular methods offered to us via democracy (like posting on this online forum) to express our wish that
a) We be told what the government is doing b) Express our displeasure at the direction the style of governance is going
> To me, the real story is possibly how the government over pays contractors.
That's the real story to you?
An entity that prints its own money (and uses it to spy on everyone), paying too much for contractors?
That's the real story to you?
An entity that prints its own money (and uses it to spy on everyone), paying too much for contractors?
200,000 does not seem excessive given the difficulty of finding someone who is both technically competent and trustworthy.. Oh wait...
I think what they are looking for are people that are technically competent, and entirely lacking in a consciousness.
Practically impossible to vet. You won't know whether the person you hired will remain compliant until he steals a bunch of documents and flees the country.
So why didn't he go to Iceland in the first place? And would Hong Kong let him out if he decides to leave right now, before the US issued any warrant?
The cover was medical tourism... HK is known for it, Iceland isn't... Also HK is currently in a state of flux in terms of it's asylum process... So he can stay while they even sort out the process of applying/approval etc... it's rather brilliant.
This is contradicted somewhat by a different source. This one says Hong Kong is a very good place to seek asylum right now, because there is a moratorium on deporting asylum-seekers:
But there is at least one reason it could be incredibly shrewd: Hong Kong's asylum system is currently stuck in a state of limbo that could allow Snowden to exploit a loophole and buy some valuable time.
Simon Young, director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at the University of Hong Kong, told GlobalPost that a decision delivered by Hong Kong's High Court in March of this year required the government to create a new procedure for reviewing asylum applications.
Until the government does this, he said, asylum seekers are allowed to stay in Hong Kong indefinitely.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific...
But there is at least one reason it could be incredibly shrewd: Hong Kong's asylum system is currently stuck in a state of limbo that could allow Snowden to exploit a loophole and buy some valuable time.
Simon Young, director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at the University of Hong Kong, told GlobalPost that a decision delivered by Hong Kong's High Court in March of this year required the government to create a new procedure for reviewing asylum applications.
Until the government does this, he said, asylum seekers are allowed to stay in Hong Kong indefinitely.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific...
Brilliant. It's sad it lends itself so easily to spin, "The Chinese Turned Him!" I expect that is what Americans will be told to believe.
But on top of that you have the fact that "The Chinese could offer him asylum in exchange for classified information" is a decent deterrent for them even asking.
Additionally, suppose they ask China for extradition and China offers protection in exchange for information. Then Snowden has several useful options. He could suggest that the US back off so he doesn't have to make a decision. He could give in to the Chinese. He could turn himself in and issue a public statement that if the only way he could stay in Hongkong was to sell out his country he would rather face jail.
Even the third option (turning himself in) would be very possibly something that would work in his defence. That is hard to spin against him, "He's so patriotic he'd rather go to jail than sell out his country."
Additionally, suppose they ask China for extradition and China offers protection in exchange for information. Then Snowden has several useful options. He could suggest that the US back off so he doesn't have to make a decision. He could give in to the Chinese. He could turn himself in and issue a public statement that if the only way he could stay in Hongkong was to sell out his country he would rather face jail.
Even the third option (turning himself in) would be very possibly something that would work in his defence. That is hard to spin against him, "He's so patriotic he'd rather go to jail than sell out his country."
But i mean it's curious he did this right as the Chinese PM was visiting Obama, no?
No is not. To you maybe, but not to me. It just looks like a coincidence and that is like I will take it until further evidence emerges. Otherwise we just look like the religious morons whom claim that their religious text is the correct one because it predicted a historical event somewhere in the last two thousand years.
Very curious.
There was actually an article upvoted on HackerNews a few days ago which supposed, even before Snowden revealed himself, that these leaks were the result of Chinese intelligence activity.
The difference here is that Snowden is going to be wanted for criminal charges, not political ones, so his case for pleading asylum is very, very weak.
It's like someone being accused of murder and trying to seek asylum in another country (I'm not saying that what he did is identical to murder, just pointing out what "criminal" means here).
It's like someone being accused of murder and trying to seek asylum in another country (I'm not saying that what he did is identical to murder, just pointing out what "criminal" means here).
Most oppressive regimes will make sure that dissidents also get criminal charges (fabricated or not), so then you could just as well remove the concept of asylum entirely. Hardly any country has political charges after all.
The concept of murder may not be as obvious as you think. If an American murder fled to Norway, he will likely not get asylum, but Norwegian authorities can't extradict him to the US, because they are not allowed to do that when there is a possibility of capital penalty. The same is the case for many other European nations.
The concept of murder may not be as obvious as you think. If an American murder fled to Norway, he will likely not get asylum, but Norwegian authorities can't extradict him to the US, because they are not allowed to do that when there is a possibility of capital penalty. The same is the case for many other European nations.
No one is ever wanted for "political charges". There are civil charges, and there are criminal charges. When the state is the prosecutor, it is very often (though not always) a criminal charge.
When requesting asylum, the requester makes the claim that the charges (of whatever kind) are politically motivated - which may or may not stick in snowden's case. I have no knowledge of the history of extraditions in such matters.
When requesting asylum, the requester makes the claim that the charges (of whatever kind) are politically motivated - which may or may not stick in snowden's case. I have no knowledge of the history of extraditions in such matters.
Agreed.
He's also rolling the dice in a major way. Although the asylum laws are sort of up in the air in Hong Kong right now, they could just decide to detain him and put him in jail during the process. Worse still, since China has sovereignty, they could ship him back to China and use him as trade bait with the US.
He's also rolling the dice in a major way. Although the asylum laws are sort of up in the air in Hong Kong right now, they could just decide to detain him and put him in jail during the process. Worse still, since China has sovereignty, they could ship him back to China and use him as trade bait with the US.
It doesn't matter because you still have to have someone deny his asylum application, something which there is no protocol for at the moment in HK.
Could you please characterize the difference between "criminal charges" vs "political ones"?
[deleted]
Politically motivated criminal charges. Political asylum.
Too many batman movies
> Hong Kong is the worst place in the world for any person to avoid extradition, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom
I'm British, and this both saddens and angers me. It's time for a change.
I'm British, and this both saddens and angers me. It's time for a change.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, it is all politics and all selective. A lot of Russians fled to the UK to elude justice in Russia. Whether they are political refugees or indeed committed crimes back home is another matter, but London is certainly a safe harbour for many of them.
For which crime is polonium poisoning a legal sentence? Because if it's not a legal sentence, then it is not a matter of eluding "justice".
That is just one example, others are Berezovsky, Chichvarkin, Akhmed Zakayev to name the few. You should know who Berezovsky is, Chichvarkin created a retail chain for mobile electronics who had his business expropriated by some high ranking cops and Zakayev is a former Chechen rebel. This is what I can bring on top of my head, but I'm sure there are a lot more.
Berezovsky is also dead
We have two justice systems in the UK, one for you and me, one for people with more money than god.
I'm sceptical about the truth of that claim. For a start, the UK (along with other European countries) has a blanket ban on extraditing anyone that might face capital charges; a detail many countries with extradition treaties and capital punishment systems of their own are unlikely to care too much about. Secondly, the UK government can, and in the last 12 months has vetoed extradition of a high-profile suspect to the US, largely because there was public outcry over the issue.
Isn't a luxury hotel the worst place to hide?
I'm sure there are cameras and one is easily recognized when getting out of the room.
Or is this just a 48h maneuver to clear up the political situation and then if needed move to one of the embassies in HK that is more supportive?
I'm sure there are cameras and one is easily recognized when getting out of the room.
Or is this just a 48h maneuver to clear up the political situation and then if needed move to one of the embassies in HK that is more supportive?
>I'm sure there are cameras and one is easily recognized when getting out of the room.
All those cameras and employees become a protection. Remember when Israel assassinated that arms trafficker in a luxury hotel and all the video footage was released to the internet. It blew ~10+ operatives cover and caused a major diplomatic row about the fake passports used.
If the US took action at the hotel the cost in terms of US covert operatives in China blown would be in 10-100s of millions of dollars in training and recruitment. If the US used a third party they would expose that third party to Chinese intelligence. Not including the media firestorm such an action would cause.
All security is about raising the cost to the attacker, he has raised it significantly but the US still act if Obama so choose. From the US perspective the damage is done, why bring more negative PR at such a high cost?
All those cameras and employees become a protection. Remember when Israel assassinated that arms trafficker in a luxury hotel and all the video footage was released to the internet. It blew ~10+ operatives cover and caused a major diplomatic row about the fake passports used.
If the US took action at the hotel the cost in terms of US covert operatives in China blown would be in 10-100s of millions of dollars in training and recruitment. If the US used a third party they would expose that third party to Chinese intelligence. Not including the media firestorm such an action would cause.
All security is about raising the cost to the attacker, he has raised it significantly but the US still act if Obama so choose. From the US perspective the damage is done, why bring more negative PR at such a high cost?
>Isn't a luxury hotel the worst place to hide?
I'm sure there are cameras and one is easily recognized when getting out of the room.
Depends if you think people want to kill you
Depends if you think people want to kill you