Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.
After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets to intercept a 29 year old’.
Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.
Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers.
Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied.
The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.
He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached.
He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden.
So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong, but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, – the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.
He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.
He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.
The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved. A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.
His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy…
When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison.
He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.
In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public.
The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.
Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation.
Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now. He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….
soooo true
That´s a great analysis. It could be featured on any high profile publication. Kudos.
Hmmm… I thought I read about him saying/writing that he knew he might be locked up, tortured, killed/executed, or all of the above, and that he had made his peace with that.
It is the media conspiring to focus on the "gripping narrative"/human angle, because… well… that's what humans are geared to follow.
The dry realities of the data sifting and the FISA court? Not so much.
But he has made a real impact with his actions, both as to the EU/Germany spying revelations, as well as with potential future whistle blowers?
The meme "Edward Snowden/NSA spying" will not go away anytime soon. It is being hammered into everyone's neurology as we speak. Already this story has survived well more than one usual news cycle, which is rare enough…
Fascinating analysis …. many points to ponder on interpretations of reality.
+Alex Schleber but he meant his own sacrifice in an abstract way. He never realized he would become the story. You can't say 'it's the media conspiring' as the Guardian is also forced to follow the human angle while they have all the real material and would love to focus on it.
very valid analysis of this whole mess. poor kid.
One person's "meticulous planning" is another person's espionage. There's a world of difference between this fellow and a Bradly manning.
May I ask why the paparazzi err journalists refuse to do their real job of investigating this scoop of the century and prefer flying from Moscow to Cuba? Why put the blame on Snowden when in fact it is a giant #fail on the side of the journalists? Maybe because this story is too big to deal with? Systemic risk when fully exposed? Why do you, +Max Huijgen, join the choir of those shooting the messenger? Provocative question, devils advocate, yes, I ask this way on purpose. Because I DO care about the story of the biggest spying scandal of the century, how the land of the free is actively destroying the very values that we want to base a better future on. And how seemingly all prefer the cheap road instead of doing the hard work.
We cannot accept what is happening to our freedom. We cannot accept that our world falls back into the dark ages of feudal, abusive structures. We must fight and defend our future.
So I will say it very clear: it's not Snowdens fault that our media focuses on his story. It is however serving the system he wanted to attack. Thus those that participate in the "shoot the messenger" play are playing an awful part in this.
And this "in-depth analysis" isn't doing the same thing by drawing away attention from what really matters? We pride ourselves so much on analysis and how intellectual we can be, and yet forget the real story. No one is in charge of what you focus on but you, don't blame the media.
And here we are playing our part, writing the end to the story, clucking our tongues, nodding our heads wisely, and getting ready to move on to the next "scandal." I think the tragedy may be that Edward Snowden vastly over-rated the world's ability to comprehend what he showed us and actually care about it.
I bet he has not told everything yet.
Ummm… +Max Huijgen…Edward Snowden is only 30. He is, essentially, still a boy, although his age would belie that. It takes a very long time for people to think about "effect" before they "act." +Brian Titus I think it is going to swing back the other way. I think people care deeply about this issue, they just don't know what to do about it. Fairly recently people were pepper-sprayed for Occupying Wall Street. I smell a worse and more sinister problem then people not caring. Remember Martha Stewart, who traded in roughly $40,000 worth of stock on insider info that a particular drug was not going to fly? She was vilified. Tried. And sent to prison. All the while secretly every single person I know said they would have done the exact same thing had they been in that position. Our cultural problem is not that we don't care. It's that we secretly cheer on whistle blowers, all the while thankful it isn't we who took up the charge, then when the poor fellow or woman's life is ruined, we sit back in our armchairs in the safety of our homes and tear them to shreds. Snowden's is a complicated issue: he took a salary to steal information. It wasn't exactly Woodward and Bernstein, who were journalists. Oh, wait. I'm sorry…we don't really have any more real journalists, do we? We expect citizens to do the dirty work alone. But I digress!
+Max Huijgen i should have probably put 'conspiring' in quotes. But it is simply the entire drift of the system, including journalism.
Also: the extensive preparations he made for the materials to be guaranteed to be revealed, even if something should happen to him, don't strike me as all that "abstract"…
He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person.
Which is the fault of the world, as evidenced by posts like this.
Well, I, for one, think posts like this are good because they can cause us pause. I am in support of what Mr. Snowden did insofar as he revealed to us, the American People, the illegalities, intentionally and knowingly perpetrated against us by our own government. I do not wish to debate that issue here, as it is already a premise of the post, but I can tell you that I see the public's reaction (here, and throughout my day in many ways) and it is in line with "man, that kid's in deep trouble." It is bad insofar as we, the public, are distracted from the gross truth proven beyond a doubt with Mr. Snowden's evidence. To me, a government who violates the search and seizure clause of the 4th Amendment to the Consitution is bigger news that poor Snowden's predicament, and for those of us who think that way: what do we do? Only someone with standing to sue on these grounds can bring this to the Supreme Court. I imagine we could have a fund prepared for when those with standing come forth, but other than that, we only have talk.
If he could have delayed going public about himself, the story would have got time to develop.
+Jan Wildeboer The journo fail is an interesting point, though I take it from somewhat of a different perspective. Unlike Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg, who turned over fairly raw and random data dumps and let the world decide what the picture was to be made from their data, Edward Snowden worked over a long period of time to prove a specific point in what can only be described as an undercover operation – for himself or on behalf of others, I don't know, but he misled his employers knowingly over a long period to prove a specific, pre-formed hypothesis.
So my question is, why should we trust his data as "the truth" when he was out to prove a specific point in the first place. We don't know what data was culled out from what he provided to the press. So if there's a larger press-fail, it's not considering the motives of a source.
It's not so different in some way from what Judith Miller was doing in The New York Times when she was publishing bogus information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq on behalf of the Bush administration. She was helping friends who wanted to prove a point. Now, we can agree or disagree about what the U.S. should be doing with the N.S.A., but if one starts with the premise "the N.S.A. is nothing but pure evil and must be stopped" and you gather data to support that specific sort of claim, then how is that particularly different from Miller?
If Snowden is so much in the right, then he should not be afraid of U.S. justice. As it is, he deliberately misled many people to prove a point, so he knew going in that there were massive legal risks in doing what he did. To then claim that he's being persecuted distorts my sense of justice. He did what appears to be some very illegal and deceiving things and is not willing to pay the price as a true patriot would. If he really loves his nation, then he will be willing to face his own nation's judgment.
As it is, I see a man more interested in his own ego than any sense of greater good for his nation and for the world. If he were willing to face justice, then the worth and validity of what he's provided to the public could be judged more fairly and we would have reason to trust him more. Speaking truth to power means being willing to face power down on its own terms. Ask the people in the streets in Egypt today. Real heroes face the music.
+John Blossom Seriously. Make that a blog post. Great points.
+Giselle Minoli I think back to 1994 and the OJ Simpson case. The United States was absolutely transfixed for a year with the reporting on it. Geraldo Rivera alone did one hour every night on OJ for the better part of a year, on CNBC.
How were we able to train so much attention on that story, which quite literally affected none of us directly? Why is it so difficult to muster two weeks of sustained attention on something that could affect all of us?
If Snowden is in the right, then I think he should be very afraid. Because if he's right, it means there are secret laws and secret justices and secret prisons. And unless we pay attention to what's going on, he'll get thrown down a secret hole so deep, no one will ever see him again.
The story of Snowden shows us all country are hypocrites, that is how sad humanity is. This is an ugly world.
+John Blossom there is something eerily similar about Snowden and Aaron Swartz, though Swartz's transgression pales in comparison to Snowden's. However, both felt justified in hacking/stealing on the one hand and copying/stealing on the other out of some belief that they were doing it "for the public good." The problem is that I do think that the public is concerned about privacy and security of personal information and I do think the public cares about having unfettered and free or affordable access to scholarly writings. But the public did not appoint either Swartz or Snowden to act on their behalf to speak for them, nor did they sanction their actions. I think they each thought they would be folk heros. But that is part of the delusion you are speaking about. What kind of hero, exactly? The greater question for me is…what should Snowden's punishment be if found undeniably guilty?
I think the scenario you describe +Brian Titus would lead to marching in the streets. We went crazy over waterboarding and there was a Hollywood protest over Zero Dark Thirty. I don't think he's going to disappear…but what is he going to be accused of? Weirdly, as I write this, I realize have no idea what the status of the Boston Marathon bomber is. Talking about our collective short attention span!
he did?
+Giselle Minoli I hope you're right, but as you point out in your last two sentences…
+Giselle Minoli the problem as I see it is that the people we have appointed to act on our behalf to speak for us have either not been told the truth*, or have lied to us, or both.
In what forum was Snowden supposed to disclose this information legally, and in a way that would not lead to his immediate arrest and subsequent disappearance from public view?
*and we only just now know this because of Snowden's leak
That's why I pointed out the Pepper Spray scenario +Brian Titus. It's fraught with problems. I smell rats, rats, and more rats!
Surprised; Look what what UK is trying to turn their elite kids into. Machiavelli is the new God and role model
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106443631293705273808/posts/MKjn2HscdsC
way too early to make this pronouncement.
+Max Huijgen Do you honestly think mass media, controlled by the people it is controlled by, would run a story on NSA spying for as long – or in that much detail?
It is not in their interests. But the public want to hear something about it… so they run the side story of what happens to Mr. Snowden instead.
+Sophie Wrobel Well said.
+Giselle Minoli I honestly don't follow your argument on this one.
E.g. "…but what is he going to be accused of?" Did I miss something? He is already accused of spying/etc., his U.S. passport has been revoked, and if caught or extradited ("handed over") he will disappear into the same "system" as Manning.
Also, the "who appointed him?" angle I don't get either. Isn't that the essence of "whistle blowing"? That you go against the interests of the organization from within which you do just that? Did the public/anybody really appoint Woodward and Bernstein to track down/uncover Watergate?
Yes, they were WaPo-paid journalists, but they could have stopped well short of where they went with it.
Snowden pulled back a mask (of the state, one of its many, sheer endless masks). He stepped, as a relative "novice Sociopath" of sorts into the den of the "chief Sociopaths", which are incidentally not even the NSA, but people like Putin and other heads of state… cough…
I invite you to read the following (for explanation of the way the terms are used, read the intro here – http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ E.g. "Losers" specifically refers to people getting a bad deal in organizational structures, not in the cultural sense of "uncool" or similar):
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/05/16/the-gervais-principle-vi-children-of-an-absent-god/
"…Amorality is merely the first step. As the journey proceeds, Sociopaths progressively rip away layer after layer of social reality. The Sociopath’s journey can be understood as progressive unmasking of a sequence of increasingly ancient and fearsome gods, each reigning over a harsher social order, governing fewer humans. If morality falls by the wayside when the first layer is ripped away, other reassuring certainties, such as the idea of a benevolent universe, and predictable relationships between efforts and rewards, fall away in deeper layers.
…
they find that in the unsatisfying meanings they uncover, lie the keys to power over others. In seeking to penetrate mediated experiences of reality, they unexpectedly find themselves mediating those very realities for others. They acquire agency in the broadest sense of the word. Losers and the Clueless delegate to them not mere specialist matters like heart surgery or car repair, but control over the meanings of their very lives.
…
What the Clueless and Losers cannot process, the Sociopaths withdraw from the scene. What is left behind is more meaningful by virtue of being simpler than unmediated, uncensored reality. From the Loser and Clueless points of view, Sociopaths are merely removing noise that they don’t know how to deal with anyway.
The Clueless can process the legible, so a legible world is presented to them. Losers can process a world where emotional significance is the only kind of significance, so a world pregnant with emotional significance is created for them.
…
Non-Sociopaths dimly recognize the nature of the free Sociopath world through their own categories: “moral hazard” and “principal-agent problem.” *They vaguely sense that the realities being presented to them are bullshit: things said by people who are not lying so much as indifferent to whether or not they are telling the truth.* Sociopath freedom of speech is the freedom to bullshit: they are bullshit artists in the truest sense of the phrase.
What non-Sociopaths don’t recognize is that these aren’t just strange and unusual environmental conditions that can be found in small pockets at the tops of pyramids of power, such as Lance Armstrong’s racing team, within a social order that otherwise makes some sort of sense.
…
Sociopaths create meaning for others through the things they subtract, rather than the things they add. This is something conspiracy theorists typically don’t get: manufacturing fake realities is very hard. But subtractive simplification of reality is much easier, and yields just as much power.
"—
Snowden cannot be seen as an unqualified hero by most people because he doesn't fit into a pre-written script at all. Because the mask that he has ripped off/back gets people face-to-face with something that they'd rather not face at all, instead of "making things OK again"…
No matter how Snowden presented the issue +Max Huijgen people would soon stop thinking about the issues. You see the reason why the issues are hidden and why the security services do what they do is precisely because people are the way they are, the issue is not that the security services get away with doing something contrary to the better natures of people, the security services are merely a symptom of the flawed natures of typical people, so no matter how the issues are presented people would soon move from serious issues to trivialities because they simply don't want to know about serious issues, thus the mass desire for ignorance both creates and perpetuates the problems.
This is the prime reason I focus on human level AI because I know humans generally are too dumb to change regardless of ANY information presented to them in ANY manner.
I am also sure ES was fully aware of the consequences, in the manner of Winston Smith he was aware his actions would very likely be futile, but being a man of high principals he decided to act despite the likely outcome of futility, he also realised his life would become a living nightmare, he also realised people would soon trivialise the issues. The only sight point where he was misguided is regarding the theoretical awareness of a potential nightmarish situation; the point is despite the best imagination in the world the theoretical conceptualisation of a nightmarish situation will fall short of the tangible real-life horror of it, thus perhaps a couple of years from now he might start regretting his actions due to a prolonged nightmarish situation. Theoretical awareness of pain is nothing compared to actual pain.
A number of people comment that my post does exactly what the press at large is doing. Completely true, but if we don't analyze the problem there is no way forward. I would prefer to write about data switches, fiber-splitting and the bigger picture of what I described as '_ a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state._'
The reality though is that the audience on G+ is no different from the news paper readers. When there is a sensational story with a human interest angle people want to read it. All I can do at this moment in time with Snowden, Bolivian airplanes and Assange dominating the news is analyze and use this human interest angle to point out where Snowden's plan went wrong.
I don't think you do exactly what the Press at large is doing Max, but I do think you are wrong to state Snowden's leaking went wrong. I think Snowden's leaks were always going to go wrong no matter how the leaks happened, but considering the futility of raising awareness (see my previous comment) I think things have gone as right as could be hoped for (considering the general circumstances of our civilization).
And speaking about distractions minutes after I posted my analysis news of the Bolivian presidential airplane broke. See https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/Te4EUETGjsw no doubt orchestrated by the US. Another example of behind the scenes wheeling and dealing which distracts from Snowden's message.
I read the Bolivian presidents news
+Alex Schleber your comment "Snowden cannot be seen as an unqualified hero by most people because he doesn't fit into a pre-written script at all. Because the mask that he has ripped off/back gets people face-to-face with something that they'd rather not face at all, instead of "making things OK again"… is exactly what I mean by what is he going to be accused of? I did not mean that he wouldn't be accused of spying, stealing, etc., etc. etc., but, rather, that he is a new mold (at least that we have discovered).
And, No, the public did not appoint Woodward/Bernstein…but in their day that is what journalists were expected to do. They no longer do. It is now left up to the individual "whistle-blower," who, unlike Woodward and Bernstein although they were threatened with their jobs (Nixon I believed wanted The Post to fire them both) will lose their jobs and everything they have.
I'm not sure I buy the "sociopath" theory. I've met a lot of sociopaths in my life – one of whom was an ex-business partner who stole indeed she did, but it was all because she was, essentially talent-free and lazy – but they think only of themselves and seem never to have the slighted concern for anyone other than themselves and I have never met one who is concerned about the "public" even in a fake manner.
+Giselle Minoli If Snowden is found guilty, it would be commensurate with the charges. Hard to say what those may be exactly. I doubt that it would be a deadly verdict, as this would on some level justify his claims.
I think that's absolutely right +John Blossom. A bit of a sticky wicket for the government. Which is another reason I don't think he'll disappear into the system.
+Alex Schleber P.S. the sociopaths I have met are also egomaniacs, cowards and in denial about who and what they are. Snowden in fact seems quite conscious of himself…it's just that he didn't plan out the end game. Wouldn't be a very good chess player or general on the battlefield.
+John Blossom your long comment is based on two assumptions. 1) that Snowden had an agenda and collected evidence to match it. I don't know if this is true. It could just as well be that he stumbled upon secret programs and started collecting info on them.
2) however is that he hand-picked info and gave it to news papers like the Guardian. That's certainly not true, at least according to Glenn Greenwald who says he got thousands of documents and that's up to him and the editors to decide what and how to publish.
Taken together these two points make it a different story. Snowden just handed out the rough material and, as he said himself, left it to the news people to see what stories are in there.
I don't think +Alex Schleber is suggesting Snowden is actually a sociopath. (Are you?) I take "novice sociopath" to mean he had stepped into their midst, and perhaps had to pretend to be one for a time, in order to discover/uncover what he found.
In fact this is more rigorously a meta-analysis of the media behavior. It´s not so much about Snowden´s actions, as I see it.
Look at the article by Bill Keller in NYT comparing Mandela and Obama!
Well said Max, some websites (Reddit, Mozilla, WordPress, etc.) are protesting on July 4th. against the massive gov't spying revealed by Snowden. Perhaps, they can help bring more light to the real issue.
+Brian Titus +Giselle Minoli the term 'sociopath' as used by Venkat in the series is only proximately related to its use in mainstream psychology, or everyday language. As I stated above, it's worth reading the first page or two of the series intro to get a better picture how things fit together.
Snowden is showing sociopath-like traits to the extent that he awoke to a hidden reality, and decided to manipulate the system and people, and break the rules/laws to get the outcome he wanted. It's just that there he encountered/is dealing with a whole different class of sociopaths.
The kind of people to whom those kinds of actions come like breathing…
Thanks for the explanation Alex; I will definitely look at that article.
Well, +Alex Schleber I wonder if there are any psychological stats to support my assumption/observation that there seem to be more and more sociopaths among us. There are those who would claim that 'twas always thus. However, there is something about this particular culture, the immediacy of it, combined with a difficult economy, international terrorism, a constant fear of financial collapse everywhere, the ability given to individuals to comb the web 24/7/365 and to fuel whatever latent or internal embers of psychosis might be burning anyway…that seems to foster this behavior. I mean, without the infrastructure it's not so easy to pull off what it is being claimed Snowden pulled off. It's a complex mix of psychological flaws aided and abetted by the media, an international web presence…and all the rest of us who can now talk about it on social media. How delicious.
+Giselle Minoli When we see how successful sociopaths are in our society, and revere corporate institutions that have a sociopathic mindset, it's no surprise that we see increasing amounts of sociopathic behavior.
+Grizwald Grim indeed. People revere celebrity, notoriety, power and money. I'm not sure in which order. I'm not sure it matters.
Greenwald:
James Clapper, EU play-acting, and political priorities
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/03/clapper-lying-snowden-eu-bolivia
What kind of journalist – or citizen – would focus more on Edward Snowden's tonal oddities and travel drama than on the fact that top US officials have been deceitfully concealing a massive, worldwide spying apparatus being constructed with virtually no accountability or oversight? Just ponder what it says about someone who cares more about, and is angrier about, Edward Snowden's exposure of these facts than they are about James Clapper's falsehoods and the NSA's excesses.
+Giselle Minoli I take your point. In the end I'd argue that it was indeed always thus. And that the only difference today is that there is a bit more visibility. Which as we're all arguing here in one way or another does so far not lead to much else, other than visibility.
But who knows, that could change…
I' m curious +Alex Schleber what you and others here would say his punishment should be…
cool
+Giselle Minoli topless horse-back riding with Putin perhaps?
Oh, dear +Alex Schleber. That might indeed be a fate worse than death. You have quite the imagination I've discovered…
+Giselle Minoli not sure if you or anyone else here besides +Alexander Becker reads German, but this SPIEGEL post is very much in the direction of what I've been talking about:
"True Lies [in politics, regarding the Snowden Affair, from ALL sides]"
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/kolumne-von-georg-diez-zur-snowden-affaere-wahre-luegen-a-909669.html
(might try Google Translate, but who knows how workable that is in this case)
The upshot: Politicians lie, not every once in a while or by mistake/miscalculation, but BY DESIGN…
U.S. pols, German pols, EU pols, ALL of them…
No, unfortunately, I don't +Alex Schleber. ;(
+Alex Schleber The ruling class is the ruling class, no matter what they convince the peasants they are?
+Martin Hugo i'm sure you will find this interesting.
Unfortunately today's event was a perfect example of my post central message that Edward Snowden is (by no fault of his own, except a lack of planning and foresight) is hampering the spread of his real message.
+Max Huijgen His predicament is entirely his own fault. He made choices, knowing that they would have legal repercussions of an enormous scale, and decided to become visible. He claims to be a victim, but increasingly the questionable nature of his actions and his allies call this into question. Denying the U.S. and the world the justice of a trial, he sits alone in a Russian airport judging the entire world. I am not impressed.
We agree that he could have avoided this by arranging his asylum and especially his choice of location to go public +John Blossom That was and is the crux of my post.
But we disagree on legality, but that's a long debate starting at the US position on the Nuremburg trials.
+Max Huijgen I disagree with your comparison with the Nuremberg trials, of course, it seems like a comparison completely out of line with the moral and political realities of Snowden's case. In my book, a man who seeks to be without a country is a man without morals.
The Nuremberg trials as in their complete overhaul of personal versus state responsibility +John Blossom
Nothing to do with a possible comparison between the Third Reich and Big Brother state. And don't forget it was the US who pushed that agenda.
Max I can't remember if you saw of this blog-post of mine which you inspired http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2013/07/are-humans-too-stupid-to-change.html anyway here it is perhaps again. I think we shouldn't be too harsh regarding Snowden and over time we will perhaps see his strategy is the best possible one. It is important to consider how many security operatives turned a blind eye to the abuses of law, thus we must applaud Snowden even if his gesture is futile.
Also the US does have some similarities with Nazism but the abuses are currently very far from the total degeneration which Nazism was.
I've been given the impression that this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-
Gives them the authority to seize the internet – I'm guessing via section 5.2(e)
(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;
How Nazi is that?
+Singularity Utopia I don't consider Snowden's action as futile. I just think he could have planned his personal course of plans better so not to stand in the way of the real news.
+Max Huijgen there is some merit in Snowden's actions but largely his gesture is futile IMO. My point however is that the futility is not a presentation issue, it is merely the nature of the circumstances, any presentation would be futile, I think Snowden is making the best of an inherently bad job.
+Singularity Utopia A job that he chose with singular will. He got what was coming, even if he hadn't bargained for it – which seems to speak to his naivete in undertaking this in the first place. A one-man war with the world sounds romantic until it hits you in the face.
+Max Huijgen +John Blossom The best thing he can do now is, (now that he is back) is to return and stand trial and take chances with a jury. He will get the whole world riveted on it and wash the whole dirty laundry which government might not like. Now he is famous he can not be put in some black underground cell. That will make him a true hero like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi.
Being a civilian Snowden cannot be court martialed
+Able Lawrence Correct, he would face civilian justice.
There isn't all that much dirty laundry. The NSA program is not only legal, but something a yawn. There's a helluva lot more public information out there than there used to be, it's all available, and an intelligence agency would be derelict in its duty if it DIDN'T use it. My only objection is that the program was covert in the first place.
If you don't like the law, change it. But that's not likely to happen. The fact is that your traditional zones of privacy are as intact as they ever were. But your public self throws a big shadow and getting bigger all the time.
I side with Daniel Ellsberg who wrote that the US changed since he stand for a US court for the Pentagon papers and the he wouldn't advise Snowden to do so.
Ah link: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427629_1_daniel-ellsberg-pentagon-papers-snowden-s
"Secrecy corrupts, just like power corrupts"
I am curious. Had Snowden never declared himself, how long would the story have lived? Would Americans still be talking about it? It seems to me there is something very visceral about a traitor but not so about morally corrupt politicians/systems.
+Orestis Madianos Very interesting point. The idea of the romantic rebel is deeply ingrained in American mythology and culture. That's how the Tea Party gets a lot of its mojo, as one example.
+Orestis Madianos can't judge the American press. It's true that the hero or traitor story seems to carry the momentum while his actual revelations are discussed by congress (a win) but not in the press.
I'm pretty sure that Snowden's information would get a lot more attention in the European press if we could get rid of the personal story.
I don't think the romantic rebel is an American phenomenon. Think of Robin Hood, Til Eulenspiegel, and so on.
+Frank Dudley Berry, Jr. True, though I think that it's fair to say that the U.S. heightened the rebel metaphor to new heights.
+John Blossom I think that Hollywood has successfully sold the rebel metaphor. The general public romanticises them but everyday rebels are not really approved of.
+Orestis Madianos That's an interesting point. It's not just Hollywood – it's Madison Aveune (ads), it's Washington, it's the board room, and so on. People who want to influence/control other people appeal to their inner rebel to do "safe" things like smoke cigarettes, drink booze, vote for candidates who are actually just doing what lobbyists want, and so on. And of course sometimes they wind up doing unsafe things because they took the messages seriously – the Columbine shootings, for example.
From this same perspective, though, Snowden is marketing himself as a rebel, and it's safe for people to root for him from afar as it is safe for them to watch a Hollywood movie about a rebel or to plusone a post supporting his rebel stand. Our debate does little or nothing to enhance or harm our national security or his case, yet we feel that we've "done" something. So count social media on that "armchair rebel" list – at times. As opposed to, say, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, and so on. Real rebels risk blood for the good of all.
I don't think Snowden is marketing himself. He became the center of his own story by not thinking his own future through. But that of course is what my post was all about.
I disagree +Max Huijgen – I think #Snowden thought out his future reasonably carefully. I think he was aware of how the media would likely respond and he was also aware of how the US would likely respond. Amongst the possible scenarios, he would have been aware of possible assassination, or a CIA/Navy Seal grab-team sent to abduct then torture him., the cancellation of his passport was surely no surprise to him because he is, more than most people, aware of what the NSA/CIA/USA has become.
He had a great example of Assange to see how the media addresses these issues when an individual is in the limelight.
+Singularity Utopia That's highly conjectural, to be sure. I am sure that he was aware that the media would respond, but given that it appears that Julian Assange has played a very active role in advising Snowden in his post-leak strategy, perhaps even ghost-authoring at least one of Snowden's communications, it's quite possible that Snowden was operating from an Assange playbook in the pre-leak period also, and that Assange was glad to have someone else to throw under the media bus at his behest.
The thing about the "Seal grab" theory is that it assumes guilt on the government's part before it can even be proven. The U.S. has nothing but upside by bringing Snowden to a fair trial – it can substantiate their claims of damage from espionage whilst taking the "romance" out of Snowden's "man without a country" act. If there's one good thing about this incident it's that it's forcing the U.S. government to accellerate the unraveling some of the worst atrocities of the Bush administration. It's not easy when a whole wing of the media throws rocks when they try to do that, but now they have some reasonable cover to do so.
+John Blossom USA law actually provides for legal abductions of people charged with crimes so the Seal-Grab is not unrealistic, but it is also not certain, it is merely a possibility. There are a lot of things the US government can do legally within the expansive remit of a "fair trial" or "fair justice," for example drone strikes are deemed to be legal and just.
Yes my views are conjectural but so are all our views on this issue, we don't know for certain what Snowden or the US government will do, unless one of us is actually Snowden or the US government.
Snowden seems to be an intelligent man, he is not merely an impressionable youngster who has been led astray by Assange. Snowden has I suspect thought deeply about the pros and cons of contacting Assange, but on balance I think so far, despite the futility I mention, Snowden is doing well because he at least remains free, which is the best way to present a message, freely unhindered by prison walls, which would likely not have been the case if he remained in Hong Kong.
+Singularity Utopia Certainly it has forced issues out into the realm of pubic debate, which has its merit, and it does force the U.S. to tilt towards full justice rather than shadow justice. Hopefully all that transpires is good for people who love peace, justice and freedom.
+John Blossom "… Assange was glad to have someone else to throw under the media bus at his behest." That's quite a harsh statement and used in the same sentence where you suggest others are being "highly conjectural" 🙂
Anyway, it is extremely unlikely that Snowden would receive a "fair" trial ( I do like my quotes, don't I?) in the US. One only has to see how Manning and a number of other whistle blowers have been treated.
Back on topic though. I do not feel that Snowden did not think things through. Had that been the case he would be languishing in some US prison, whereas instead he has managed to cover himself under the wings of two of Americas major competitors, negotiated a temporary asylum deal, manipulated the US into making a fool of itself vis a vis South America…hang on, before anyone says "how did he manipulate the flight interception bit." The man must have made himself scarce when the Morales's flight took off and fooled any watchers into believing he was on the flight. Pure genius and made many South Americans and Europeans question our relationship with the US.
Perhaps the one area where he might have miscalculated is in our level of apathy.
+Orestis Madianos Well, it does seem that there's more than a casual relationship between Snowden and Assange, so I don't know that it's completely conjectural to think that Assange may have had some significant contact before then.
The press' lack of coverage of the Bradley Manning trial is pretty shameful, even if it is a military trial and not a civilian trial. I won't press it any further, since this thread is really getting too long, but to assume what would happen at a civilian trial for an American citizen based on assumptions built around non-U.S. citizens and military personnel is not a tight comparison. It's true that much has changed since the days of Daniel Ellsberg, but one would think that if Snowden wanted to make the full point about American justice, as did many defendants in earlier decades, then he'd let the system speak for itself.
I think that is a very narrow minded view of what he has done. The consequences of his actions have enormous repercussions. I as a foreigner to the US am glad these revelations came out, sure, he is going through a tough time, but he has immortalised his name in the eyes of millions and is carrying a legacy few can match. And Julian Assange a wannabe? Hardly. These people have done more for showing the world the truth about where this world is heading than you and I ever could.
+Martin Hugo the efforts of Assange and Snowden are admirable but I am not convinced there have been or will be "enormous repercussions." The problem is people are too apathetic, too unaware, too oblivious, thus you could tell them the USA-NSA-CIA are pumping mind-control drugs into the air and water supply, which would lead to a pretence of outrage and action to stop it but in reality nothing would really change because people have become happy slaves, contented cattle, or maybe people were always this way.
It is like the end of the Truman Show where two security guards are cheering on Truman's rebellion but they don't really understand the rebellion thus when Truman escapes they say, in essence, "Right, OK, what's on the other channel." They have no real awareness of what is happening, Truman does not profoundly change them, the horror of it, the decadence of society, it does not penetrate their unaware minds even if they show a pretence of support for Truman.
So considering the general state of typical human minds, the actions of Snowden and Assange are largely futile but due to the principle of brave action, which is undertaken regardless of success or failure, I applaud their actions. When Winston Smith writes his diary he realises the futility of his actions because – he muses – if people understood his actions they wouldn't need his diary and those who don't understand the horror on 1984 will not understand his diary or any revolutionary diary no matter how it is written:
“How could you communicate with the future? It was impossible. Either the future would resemble the present in which case it would not listen to him, or it would be different from it, and his predicament would be meaningless.” – Orwell/Winston Smith – 1984
http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2013/07/snowden-assange-pre-singularity-futility.html
See the lack of backlash in the UK +Martin Hugo especially in view of the new revelations in the Telegraph that all information on mobile phones is copied if the border control just sees a reason, doesn't even have to be a real suspicion. The post by +David Barron got just three comments.
This a great post Max, its a great pity that the focus in on Snowden and not his revelations.
The global we seem to be sleepwalking into a place where privacy will be a thing of the past and that really worries me.
i keep hoping Snowden as a person goes off the radar so that we can post and discuss the actual revelations +David Barron
I hope so too Max.
The best way to make it happen, actual discussion is to publicly come back and defend yourself in a court of law like the greats
And that's working out great for Bradley Manning. #goodluckwiththat
+Singularity Utopia Bradley Manning was a soldier and soldiers have volunteered for a different set of rules and will face court martial unlike Snowden who can get a jury trial. There is only one problem. If NSA uses its spying capabilities for jury selection (even that will become a bigger scandal), then that can be a problem. Mahatma Gandhi, Mandela or Martin Luther King were not afraid of trial
I think times have changed. Trust in the legal system is diminishing. I have the impression all military courts are kangaroo courts especially when the allegedly crime is political. My point about Bradley is that the forum of the court is not an effective arena to raise awareness of these issues, the media can easily ignore a person who is in the custody of the court whereas a free person has greater ability to communicate.
What is the situation regarding justice in Russia? Some say Putin controls the judges and prosecution, which he uses to silence his enemies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obamas-broken-commitment-to-human-rights-in-russia/2013/07/14/516f91b4-eb0b-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22276174 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/alexei-navalny-kremlin-jail-russia-embezzlement
Perhaps US justice is, if not already similar to Russian justice, not far behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky
Only a fool would seek justice within courts belonging to a corrupt government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/23/sergei-magnitsky-mother-justice-russia
Trust in the legal system waxes and wanes, in part because the legal system responds somewhat slowly these days to social trends – and in the U.S. in some ways is going against many of the trends on a selective basis.
Here you go +Max Huijgen "Edward Snowden's not the story. The fate of the internet is" http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/28/edward-snowden-death-of-internet perhaps the tide is turning?