Ellsberg: Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Ellsberg: Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html?hpid=z2
56 comments
As negative as the press may seem from this little corner of the internet, I don't think the issue of NSA surveillance has made much of a ripple in the U.S. yet. The turnout for protests on the fourth was abysmal. People are still using Facebook and Gmail as if nothing has happened. Snowden only remains in the news because he is still free. If he had turned himself in on day 1 he'd have disappeared into some black judicial hole and the story he broke would now be long forgotten instead of merely ignored. If I were Snowden, I'd be seriously wondering if U.S. citizens are worth the trouble.
> People are still using Facebook and Gmail as if nothing has happened.
Personally, I'm still using Facebook and Gmail because I really do have nothing to hide. †
† ...that I wasn't already routing over Tor, encrypting/signing with GPG et al, leaving the low-to-medium risk activity on the public net as a decoy. But I suspect a lot of people do think this without needing the proviso. These are the same people that compete to participate in reality TV shows like Big Brother, after all.
Personally, I'm still using Facebook and Gmail because I really do have nothing to hide. †
† ...that I wasn't already routing over Tor, encrypting/signing with GPG et al, leaving the low-to-medium risk activity on the public net as a decoy. But I suspect a lot of people do think this without needing the proviso. These are the same people that compete to participate in reality TV shows like Big Brother, after all.
Pretty sure the NSA would have a few Tor exit nodes under their control.
Also those people you are referring to is the majority of the public i.e. your parents, grandparents, friends etc.
If your entire life isn't centred around the internet it's easy to see why online privacy isn't a huge concern.
Also those people you are referring to is the majority of the public i.e. your parents, grandparents, friends etc.
If your entire life isn't centred around the internet it's easy to see why online privacy isn't a huge concern.
Tor exit nodes (and the commandeering thereof) are only relevant when you're accessing a public net website through Tor; not when accessing a Tor hidden service. If you can keep your activity entirely within the Tor "system" (basically, if your counterparties have foreknowledge to contact you over something like Tormail, rather than you having to "come to them" on a public site) then you'll be protected pretty completely.
...though, if it's something you actually care about, making that Tor connection from an internet cafe in a distant city can't hurt.
...though, if it's something you actually care about, making that Tor connection from an internet cafe in a distant city can't hurt.
I think a better approach than tor that we'll see in the next few years will be a readOnly private "tor" box that you can hide on any network with open wifi. The Raspberry Pi is the perfect platform for this.
Such a box would be running tor and only visible on the Tor network. You'd SSH into it over for and then have your own private exit node.
All you need to do is drop a couple of these in places where there is power you can piggyback off and a wifi signal you can piggyback off or a network you can patch into.
Such a box would be running tor and only visible on the Tor network. You'd SSH into it over for and then have your own private exit node.
All you need to do is drop a couple of these in places where there is power you can piggyback off and a wifi signal you can piggyback off or a network you can patch into.
Maybe people care but not enough to go protest on foot? Plus if you start looking at the shades of grey from the nuance (namely all the rules that come into play when using the info), it's harder to get mad if you're pragmatic.
Wow, reading the comments on that article, it seems we're lost.
Too many frightened Lemmings who out of fear and in the name of patriotism (apparently not understanding what that word even means) follow their government blindly.
It was said before that a fearful and uneducated populous is easy to lead and manipulate. We're now seeing a demonstration of that.
Too many frightened Lemmings who out of fear and in the name of patriotism (apparently not understanding what that word even means) follow their government blindly.
It was said before that a fearful and uneducated populous is easy to lead and manipulate. We're now seeing a demonstration of that.
On the other hand, how many of them are either 1) government employees with a larger stake in the status quo than the rest of the population or 2) government shills meant to 'set the tone' for the conversation to something favourable to the government?
One thing I'd like to add: IMO most people that support mass surveillance don't do so because they are scared of terrorism. To me it looks more lik an "us vs. them" powertrip thing.
It's no suprise since people are educated in government schools in their most crucial period of life. They are educated by state-licensed radio, television and newspapers. By state-approved books on the bookshelves of a state-approved shops.
Who will exactly stand out and educate children of the nature of state if this way or another they lose some license or are being paid from tax money in the first place? Several generations already are out of touch with reality that the state is just a bunch of people with a monopoly of violence (justified in the eyes of similarly uneducated parents by piles of paperwork called "law" and "democracy").
State is a constant war against people covered with lies. The only productive way to get out of this situation is to 1) acknowledge that violence is never justified, risky and counter-productive 2) state violence is not justified, employs double standards all the time, and exists on religious beliefs in higher concepts like "country" or "society" that seemingly take precedence over individuals. And of course, you have to trust and follow authority, just like in good old dark ages.
EDIT: before downvoting, consider replying what is factually wrong in my comment.
Who will exactly stand out and educate children of the nature of state if this way or another they lose some license or are being paid from tax money in the first place? Several generations already are out of touch with reality that the state is just a bunch of people with a monopoly of violence (justified in the eyes of similarly uneducated parents by piles of paperwork called "law" and "democracy").
State is a constant war against people covered with lies. The only productive way to get out of this situation is to 1) acknowledge that violence is never justified, risky and counter-productive 2) state violence is not justified, employs double standards all the time, and exists on religious beliefs in higher concepts like "country" or "society" that seemingly take precedence over individuals. And of course, you have to trust and follow authority, just like in good old dark ages.
EDIT: before downvoting, consider replying what is factually wrong in my comment.
Sorry but what is factually right with your comment ?
Not everyone in educated in government schools. Your implication that merely being state licensed influences the content is ridiculous (witness Fox News). The state does not have a monopoly on violence. The terms country and society have nothing to do with religion and patriotism is a concept that occurs in countries without a strong religious presence.
Not everyone in educated in government schools. Your implication that merely being state licensed influences the content is ridiculous (witness Fox News). The state does not have a monopoly on violence. The terms country and society have nothing to do with religion and patriotism is a concept that occurs in countries without a strong religious presence.
Not disagreeing with the meat of your post, but could you say a little bit more about the state not having a monopoly on violence?
From what I understand this term is used to explain that the government is the only one who is legally allowed to use violence against other individuals, and is the only one who can grant you that power. And as far as I can tell that IS the case. Thoughts?
I think it's not an exaggeration that most of the people are exposed to state propaganda (or excuses for the state) since the very beginning. Most of people are educated in government schools where no teacher would seriously talk about being paid from taxes that are taken by force instead of voluntarily.
Do you think people pay taxes voluntarily? When you suddenly dislike NSA or war in Iraq, or war on drugs, or rape in prison, or torture in Guantanamo, or capital punishment or bank bail outs, can you protest by not giving a part of your money to the state? No you cannot, because there is always a gun pointed at you. And you know it very well. Similarly you cannot vote for no master or no taxes. You only get to vote when other people prescribed and for a narrow set of people who will decide how to spend money taken from you. And then you are being brainwashed to think that "anybody who does not vote is not a patriot and should shut up". Somehow if me and my friends get together and vote something against you we don't get magical power of Justice, but if some other bunch of people do the same, then they get that power. Think about it. People are killed because of these beliefs.
Religion in my view is not some particular kind of worship like christianity. Religion is a belief in higher matters that are more important than any human being. In case of government, it is a belief that the "government" is a special entity that actually exists and is important and has not only power, but must have such power to punish and reward individuals. While in reality no such thing exists. Government is simply a conceptual label that is used to excuse very real human beings when they point weapons at other human beings.
Do you think people pay taxes voluntarily? When you suddenly dislike NSA or war in Iraq, or war on drugs, or rape in prison, or torture in Guantanamo, or capital punishment or bank bail outs, can you protest by not giving a part of your money to the state? No you cannot, because there is always a gun pointed at you. And you know it very well. Similarly you cannot vote for no master or no taxes. You only get to vote when other people prescribed and for a narrow set of people who will decide how to spend money taken from you. And then you are being brainwashed to think that "anybody who does not vote is not a patriot and should shut up". Somehow if me and my friends get together and vote something against you we don't get magical power of Justice, but if some other bunch of people do the same, then they get that power. Think about it. People are killed because of these beliefs.
Religion in my view is not some particular kind of worship like christianity. Religion is a belief in higher matters that are more important than any human being. In case of government, it is a belief that the "government" is a special entity that actually exists and is important and has not only power, but must have such power to punish and reward individuals. While in reality no such thing exists. Government is simply a conceptual label that is used to excuse very real human beings when they point weapons at other human beings.
Here's a great George Carlin clip on why education is never going to get any better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg
The most critical (of the government) education I have received was in government schools (that was in Europe, but anyway).
I cannot point out what is factually wrong in a statement that is actually void of any facts.
I cannot point out what is factually wrong in a statement that is actually void of any facts.
What's a reasonable alternative? Anarchy? The "state" -- most rational people would say "government" -- you discuss is a collection of municipal, state and federal government, with differing goals and political orientations, and how should spectrum be allocated other than by a government agency? Where is it done differently? So I can't publish a book without the government's approval of it? Which government? Which agency approves books? As another poster said, what is correct in your post? You have to justify such ridiculous claims that are contradictory to reality.
You know, it's not me who must provide a proof that "state is bad". It's other people who should prove how a construction called constitution + law + police + voting justifies violence of the police, soldiers and prison guards.
It is pretty obvious that any "law" or "regulation" is a description of punishment by taking your body or your property by force. Normally you are supposed to bring them yourself when politely asked, but you do that only because otherwise you'll be forced to under a gunpoint.
Also I don't need to describe to you how a happy society will live without centralized violence. It's up to every individual where and how to live. What I'm doing here on HN is simply pointing out the nature of the state and how it creates all the problems people are pissed off about. When people stop apologizing for state violence and simply understand that it is never justified, then we can talk seriously on alternatives. Thankfully, libertarians and anarchists have written tons of books already. But if you believe in state, you will never take a serious look at peaceful solutions.
It is pretty obvious that any "law" or "regulation" is a description of punishment by taking your body or your property by force. Normally you are supposed to bring them yourself when politely asked, but you do that only because otherwise you'll be forced to under a gunpoint.
Also I don't need to describe to you how a happy society will live without centralized violence. It's up to every individual where and how to live. What I'm doing here on HN is simply pointing out the nature of the state and how it creates all the problems people are pissed off about. When people stop apologizing for state violence and simply understand that it is never justified, then we can talk seriously on alternatives. Thankfully, libertarians and anarchists have written tons of books already. But if you believe in state, you will never take a serious look at peaceful solutions.
I feel like on the NSA issue, the mass public just doesn't care. It's too abstract. Until something like actual recordings or transcripts of everyday americans are leaked, "Joe the plumber" will still be thinking "I don't care if they know I have clogged toilet at 2pm".
He joins the ranks of the Dalai Lama now, representing his people from the safety of exile.
Well, I think he has done more than enough for us - if we ever deserve people like him. Now, it's our turn.
I am pretty sure that in US, he would be [classified] to [classified].
He's right, unfortunately.
> Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.
As if there was 1 person in the World who would have doubted that. It's scary that such titles are still being written.
As if there was 1 person in the World who would have doubted that. It's scary that such titles are still being written.
Oh I am positive that there are millions in this very country who believe that he should have stayed and gone to trial, that his fleeing is cowardly, and that his actions are traitorous.
I have to wonder on what grounds people can think this, when there are examples in seemingly any area of public cause where an individual succumbs to the might of heavyhanded authority of government. Probably those who judge a situation by what they see and read in the media and/or in the headlines, without stopping to really consider the facts (rather than opinions, which is what most news is these days) and make a judgment themselves.
I can't say I'm completely immune from the influence of popular media, but I try.
I have to wonder on what grounds people can think this, when there are examples in seemingly any area of public cause where an individual succumbs to the might of heavyhanded authority of government. Probably those who judge a situation by what they see and read in the media and/or in the headlines, without stopping to really consider the facts (rather than opinions, which is what most news is these days) and make a judgment themselves.
I can't say I'm completely immune from the influence of popular media, but I try.
I assume the grounds from which people think this stems from a naïveté and unsubstantiated belief in one's country's principles. Particularly considering that the United States to many Americans to this day is more an idea than simply a country.
This striking philosophical difference between Americans and other Western nationalities tends to give Americans a trust in their system where other nationalities would have drawn the line.
Because even if Congress and the White House cannot be trusted, surely the Supreme Court and the judicial branch got our backs? If only it was so simple.
Still, I don't mind Americans being keen on the idea they believe the United States is; but they need to realise that the United States is not that idea. And if it ever was, then it is certainly not any more.
This striking philosophical difference between Americans and other Western nationalities tends to give Americans a trust in their system where other nationalities would have drawn the line.
Because even if Congress and the White House cannot be trusted, surely the Supreme Court and the judicial branch got our backs? If only it was so simple.
Still, I don't mind Americans being keen on the idea they believe the United States is; but they need to realise that the United States is not that idea. And if it ever was, then it is certainly not any more.
Yeah, I came to the conclusion that the USA is more like religion than country. The constitution is it's bible, its schools and malls are it's churches, the president is it's pope, Washington is it's Vatican, its military it's jihadists, the national anthem it's lords prayer, and so on. Americans believe in the USA in a way no other population believes in theirs.
BTW, I make NO moral judgement, its just my own personal observation.
BTW, I make NO moral judgement, its just my own personal observation.
I wish we could get Bible-like fanaticism over the Constitution. That would really, seriously, be the very best thing I could imagine happening to this country.
Really, you think the average American thinks more highly of his country than the average Frenchman? Have you ever spoken to a Frenchman?
There seems to be more questioning of the government though with the ability for people to dissent without being branded as terrorists, communists, etc...
America is so large that it is near impossible to impact the status quo. There is so much blind patriotism and faith in the government that anyone who disagrees is quickly marginalized and branded as unpatriotic. "You don't like it? Leave."
America is so large that it is near impossible to impact the status quo. There is so much blind patriotism and faith in the government that anyone who disagrees is quickly marginalized and branded as unpatriotic. "You don't like it? Leave."
Since the US was formed the French have lived through five republics and a few empires. They know that government is provisional. This probably explains why they are so protective of their culture. There are still people alive today who lived under German rule.
> This striking philosophical difference between Americans and other Western nationalities tends to give Americans a trust in their system where other nationalities would have drawn the line.
Really? So other Western countries would have... revolted? Rioted? Done something? The UK is pretty much a police state and there isn't much going on there. Germany seems to be doing its own intelligence-gathering work and snooping on its citizens, too.
Really? So other Western countries would have... revolted? Rioted? Done something? The UK is pretty much a police state and there isn't much going on there. Germany seems to be doing its own intelligence-gathering work and snooping on its citizens, too.
You are right, they would not revolt or riot. But neither do they believe that their system is great, they are just too apathetic to do anything about it, because they are provided with too high a standard of living for them to riot; they have too much to lose.
But they would not expect Snowden to get a fair trial in their own country (if we use the scenario that he was from their country and not the USA), which is what I meant.
You can argue that this apathetic culture is worse than the Americans' naïveté. And to a point I would agree.
But they would not expect Snowden to get a fair trial in their own country (if we use the scenario that he was from their country and not the USA), which is what I meant.
You can argue that this apathetic culture is worse than the Americans' naïveté. And to a point I would agree.
Have you ever actually lived in the UK before ? Pretty sure most people wouldn't agree that their standard of living is so high that they wouldn't have something to lose by rioting.
It's more a case that most people don't consider their online activity to be as precious as some others do.
It's more a case that most people don't consider their online activity to be as precious as some others do.
| that his fleeing is cowardly, and that his
| actions are traitorous
I have a friend who has said almost exactly that. When pressed he can't really offer more other than that a trial is how the word will "get out". It's my opinion that if he's arrested he will never be heard from again.
Much more likely is that he gets put in solitary confinement until he is not capable of presenting a cognizant defense.
> Oh I am positive that there are millions in this very country who believe that he should have stayed and gone to trial, that his fleeing is cowardly, and that his actions are traitorous.
Of course. In WW2, when the Japanese were attacking the Philippines, you didn't see General MacArthur cowardly fleeing for Australia, right? Heroes stay and fight no matter what the odds are. He would have never gotten his medal of honor for fleeing to fight on a more favorable battlefield!
Of course. In WW2, when the Japanese were attacking the Philippines, you didn't see General MacArthur cowardly fleeing for Australia, right? Heroes stay and fight no matter what the odds are. He would have never gotten his medal of honor for fleeing to fight on a more favorable battlefield!
They think this on the grounds that he would have been tried as a civilian whereas Manning was court marshaled. I am surprised Ellsberg didn't mention that distinction. I do not know how the trial would work, though, given its sensitive subject matter. Ellsberg's position at RAND had a similar relationship to the defense establishment as Snowden's, and he was still considered a civilian.
"As if there was 1 person in the World who would have doubted that"
I'm afraid you're the one that's out of touch, unfortunately. Just reading the comments below some of these articles (not hn) should make that painfully clear.
I'm afraid you're the one that's out of touch, unfortunately. Just reading the comments below some of these articles (not hn) should make that painfully clear.
So true. My Facebook feed will contain no less than a dozen 2nd amendment related posts at any given point in time, but nary a peep about the 4th.
If you want to see action on this front, someone needs to educate the NRA that metadata provides the government much more information than any gun registration database ever could.
If you want to see action on this front, someone needs to educate the NRA that metadata provides the government much more information than any gun registration database ever could.
While I think he made the right call, this trope that the US will try to assassinate him/throw him in a secret CIA prison is so baseless. People have said over and over that the information he had was handed over to various org's, so killing him would only be bad. Justice dep't still has a legal obligation to try and get him home, but don't think they're going to be risking more diplomatic flack to get this guy home.
Also, I don't know why people don't think he wouldn't get a fair trial. Manning is military and they do their things how they do them, but it's not like the US civilian courts have a reputation for absolute tyranny. Plus, standing in the spotlight like that.... no way he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial. I agree with the article that he wouldn't get bail now that he try to run (which is consistent with how bail works), but I think he could've gotten bail otherwise, if he had surrendered instead of run. And while he admitted to having released the documents, if he could argue the illegality of the programs shown, then he could actually go through whistleblower protections.
Not saying he should have surrendered, just that this "The US has turned to tyranny" trope is tired and baseless.
Also, I don't know why people don't think he wouldn't get a fair trial. Manning is military and they do their things how they do them, but it's not like the US civilian courts have a reputation for absolute tyranny. Plus, standing in the spotlight like that.... no way he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial. I agree with the article that he wouldn't get bail now that he try to run (which is consistent with how bail works), but I think he could've gotten bail otherwise, if he had surrendered instead of run. And while he admitted to having released the documents, if he could argue the illegality of the programs shown, then he could actually go through whistleblower protections.
Not saying he should have surrendered, just that this "The US has turned to tyranny" trope is tired and baseless.
Getting a fair trial is really not the issue since he clearly broke the law.
It all hinges on PR. If the government was able to smear him enough that the majority of people considered him a traitor, then they would do their damnedest to make an example out of him. On the other hand, if people came to see Snowden in a positive light they wouldn't dare martyr him. Given the general apathy that we've seen from so many Americans (even Ira Glass from This American Life basically said "meh, what do I have to hide?"), I can't help but to sadly feel he made the right choice.
It all hinges on PR. If the government was able to smear him enough that the majority of people considered him a traitor, then they would do their damnedest to make an example out of him. On the other hand, if people came to see Snowden in a positive light they wouldn't dare martyr him. Given the general apathy that we've seen from so many Americans (even Ira Glass from This American Life basically said "meh, what do I have to hide?"), I can't help but to sadly feel he made the right choice.
but don't think they're going to be risking more diplomatic flack to get this guy home.
How can you claim that when this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/edward-snow...
was absolutely inconceivable only some days ago, so much that the President explicitly claimed:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50149843n
How can you claim that when this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/edward-snow...
was absolutely inconceivable only some days ago, so much that the President explicitly claimed:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50149843n
This is curiosity, not trying to bring down your point, but:
Is there any article about the plane event that isn't prefaced by "Bolivia accuses that..."? I have yet to see any confirmation about what happened from the other side.
Is there any article about the plane event that isn't prefaced by "Bolivia accuses that..."? I have yet to see any confirmation about what happened from the other side.
Which facts do you not beleive? We're on the internet, we can check the news on other languages, not only what's written in the English speaking media. I have the privilege of knowing a few more European languages but even better we can all use Google translate. Let me summarize the facts:
The plane with president Morales and his delegation wanted to fly back to Bolivia from Moscow. It's a plane that simply has to refuel for a trip like that. During the flight four European countries: Italy, Portugal, France and Spain withdraw the permission to fly over, effectively forcing the plane to ground. Spain admitted independently that "they have been given an information that Snowden is on that plane." The president spent more than 12 hours on Vienna's airport.
What do you question then?
The plane with president Morales and his delegation wanted to fly back to Bolivia from Moscow. It's a plane that simply has to refuel for a trip like that. During the flight four European countries: Italy, Portugal, France and Spain withdraw the permission to fly over, effectively forcing the plane to ground. Spain admitted independently that "they have been given an information that Snowden is on that plane." The president spent more than 12 hours on Vienna's airport.
What do you question then?
I'm not questioning that Morales had to land in Vienna, I'm questioning the reasons behind it, because I haven't seen countries giving "Snowden was on the plane" as a reason to deny airspace.
4 days ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/european-states-...
"European states were told Snowden was on Morales plane, says Spain
Spanish foreign minister declines to say where information came from that NSA whistleblower was on Bolivian leader's flight"
Reuters, today:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8899974/Spain-admits-US-...
"Spain has acknowledged that a US request had led it to delay approving an overflight by Bolivia's president, but said it had given the go-ahead after receiving an assurance from Bolivia that US fugitive Edward Snowden was not on the plane."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/european-states-...
"European states were told Snowden was on Morales plane, says Spain
Spanish foreign minister declines to say where information came from that NSA whistleblower was on Bolivian leader's flight"
Reuters, today:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8899974/Spain-admits-US-...
"Spain has acknowledged that a US request had led it to delay approving an overflight by Bolivia's president, but said it had given the go-ahead after receiving an assurance from Bolivia that US fugitive Edward Snowden was not on the plane."
The U.S officially had no comment, last I checked.
Look at where the charges were filed, it was Alexandria, VA. A town where the largest employer is the DOD. The vast majority of potential jurors either work directly or indirectly for the government and have security clearance.
It's no different from what any other prosecutor would do in any other trial (i.e. picking a favourable court/jury), but it obviously has a significant impact on outcome.
It's no different from what any other prosecutor would do in any other trial (i.e. picking a favourable court/jury), but it obviously has a significant impact on outcome.
How can he get a fair trial when most of it will be a secret trial because all of the evidence is classified?
I think it will be far more likely that they fabricate hidden bank accounts with money traced back to China or Iran or something to discredit him and then make it look like China had him killed.
I think it will be far more likely that they fabricate hidden bank accounts with money traced back to China or Iran or something to discredit him and then make it look like China had him killed.
I don't know about that.
Here, on HN, yes. But the population in general don't care about what the NSA get up to, don't care about Snowden, and seem to also think he is a traitor on a par with the cold war. As long as they believe that the gov are fighting the straw man of "Terror", they are happy bunnies. So, I suspect this article is more for them than the likes of us.
Here, on HN, yes. But the population in general don't care about what the NSA get up to, don't care about Snowden, and seem to also think he is a traitor on a par with the cold war. As long as they believe that the gov are fighting the straw man of "Terror", they are happy bunnies. So, I suspect this article is more for them than the likes of us.
What does "traitor on par with the [C]old [W]ar" mean? Do you know what "on par" means?