Best part was the closing: "Meanwhile, the HKSAR Government has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on earlier reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up on the matter so as to protect the legal rights of the people of Hong Kong."
I'm curious if this is going to happen with every country he visits. I really wouldn't be surprised if he has documents for transgressions made by the NSA against every country on his list of places to go. For every alliance we have won with diplomacy, it only takes an act of espionage to act as the fire that burns it down.
I'm all in favor of espionage, but only against companies we are actively hostile with.
I'm really curious if he is going to produce damning evidence of deep, active, ongoing espionage against any of the other four of the five eyes (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand).
>>My opinion of the HK SAR, which has always been quite high, just went up a couple of notches.
How so? For the past 10 days we have been hearing non-stop reports of the infamous extradition process that will drag on for 10-15 years in HK, providing asylum to Snowden. Turns out a mere day after espionage case was filed Snowden is allowed to leave HK. Do you seriously believe Snowden thought, wow it was great living in HK for 10 days but now I need to go to Venezuela or Cuba (via Russia) since they are havens of freedom and human rights? Snowden put HK in a very tough position this is literally the best way they could get the US off their backs. The strong language in the press release is all show, look at what people do not what they say.
> For the past 10 days we have been hearing non-stop reports of the infamous extradition process that will drag on for 10-15 years in HK
Have we? I didn't read those. I also didn't expect HK to grant asylum and I don't think there's any precedent for a US citizen seeking asylum in or being extradited (or not) from HK.
HK's track record with asylum seekers isn't that great (around 10% are granted asylum) and the bulk of those cases involve people from the region. HK doesn't have its own laws in place regarding asylum seekers and instead defers to the UNHRC for those decisions.
Did Snowden leave HK because they asked him to? I don't think there's any evidence of that. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) What they did do is refuse to arrest him at the request of the US and refuse to treat him like anything other than an American tourist. I'd say they did all that could be expected of them.
> Snowden put HK in a very tough position this is literally the best way they could get the US off their backs.
I think you might be overestimating how much HK & China care about what the US wants. The US isn't in a position to dictate policy to Beijing.
>For the past 10 days we have been hearing non-stop reports of the infamous extradition process that will drag on for 10-15 years in HK,
That was an optimistic assessment, best case. Either Snowden has received advice leading him to reconsider his course of action, and/or HK has expressed to him that they are not confident in their ability to, or haven't the will to resist the US/China in a diplomatic battle over his extradition, or maybe they just aren't confident that they can assure his safety. If one of the latter is the case then it is gracious of them to provide an opportunity for Snowden to leave unmolested.
Its sad that european governments dont step up support and asylum for snowden. After all the surveillance scandal affects mostly non-US citizens, with countries like germany being targeted specifically. If this guy did such a service for us, why are we not actively protecting him the way we protect chinese dissidents?
HK just dodged a bullet. this was the most strategically sound thing to do.
HK govt would just listen to the officials in China on this matter. In the same time, it has to respect the judicial system (if he applies to be asylum seeker). A very careful line must be struck between the two.
Great comment on the awkwardness of their situation. A bullet it was not, however. It would have been slow, protracted and very painful. There are some happy officials, feeling 10 years older but having a celebratory drink I'm sure.
Edward Snowden crossed the line a long time ago when he fled to China to reveal more than domestic surveillance but foreign intelligence activities.
I'm probably just as indignant as you are about the domestic surveillance, but the activities of Snowden started out as patriotism, but very quickly crossed into defection.
tldr - champions of human rights don't flee to china & russia. Those places are where defecting spies go.
Edward Snowden crossed the line a long time ago when [...] [he] reveal[ed] more than domestic surveillance but foreign intelligence activities.
Foreign intelligence activities are not necessarily legal and I am pretty sure quite a few of the revealed NSA foreign intelligence activities are illegal. This whole US-citizens-vs-foreign-country-citizens-thing really pisses my off - people are people no matter where they live. Spying at them without suspicion is illegal. And even if it would not be illegal it would still be wrong.
"Ellsberg also shared the documents with New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan under a pledge of confidentiality. Sheehan broke his promise to Ellsberg, and built a scoop around what he'd received both directly from Ellsberg and from contacts at IPS."
No, Ellsberg got duped. He also went into hiding afterwards (although briefly). He never deliberately put it all on the line.
Snowden made this information public and shortly thereafter admitted to it -- knowing full well that it would end his life as he knew it. That's the act of a patriot.
I don't agree with you, but have given you an upvote as the downvoting was not justified. I wish people wouldn't use downvotes just because they disagree with a post or think it is false - it stifles discussion and leads to the tyranny of a loud majority, not to the debate on these issues which is so sorely needed.
BTW here's why I disagree - apart from the widespread domestic surveillance already admitted the NSA has used dragnet foreign surveillance from other five eyes nations like the UK to spy on American communications with no suspicion of wrongdoing, and has attempted dragnet surveillance in other nations like China (text messages). All of those things deserve debate - even on foreign surveillance the NSA should not have a free hand IMHO - they're supposed to target enemies of the US, not engage in blanket surveillance - that's a dangerous and massive expansion of their powers and in the hands of a president like Nixon would be truly terrifying. It also undermines the position of the US in the world and allows nations like China to indulge in cyberattacks with absolutely no moral high ground for the US.
Re where Snowdon goes, I think that has far more to do with pragmatism that his wish-list of most desired countries - from his own words I think he would have preferred to stay in the US and fight this if he felt he'd be given a fair trial, but that has been made impossible by the calls of traitor from the current administration (what they mean of course is traitor to the NSA and administration, not to the country, but those two are confounded).
The alternative interpretation of his actions is that a champion of human rights has been obliged to flee the US and seek refuge with enemies of the US, because he risks imprisonment without bail, torture and indefinite detention at home (all of those have been used in the war on terror in the last decade). It is quite credible that he wouldn't be allowed to state his case or argue his defence as Ellsberg did, and in fact Ellsberg agrees with him on that, and the treatment of Manning justifies his fears. So maybe champions of human rights do now flee the US?
On your first point, I barely disagree with you at all.
The second point is where I feel like no one is paying much attention: For me personally, the irony of criticizing the US on unethical activities from the patronage of countries that routinely and violently trample the human rights of their citizens completely destroys and legitimacy of the broader point he's trying to make.
And your third point is also disturbing and true. I don't disagree.
Edit: BTW, my above post all day long has been hovering between +5 upvotes to -5 votes. It's the wildest ride I've seen on an HN thread ever :)
> For me personally, the irony of criticizing the US on unethical activities from the patronage of countries that routinely and violently trample the human rights of their citizens completely destroys and legitimacy of the broader point he's trying to make.
Interesting. For me, it doesn't destroy credibility and legitimacy at all. Nor does it smell of defection. The irony, however, is what is most tangible. If we have, through the actions of our intelligence agencies, reached a point where American citizens must flee the country and take refuge in a traditionally maligned foreign power to effectively protect the Constitution and the People, it is a clarion call for the need to make a full stop, publicly work out these problems, and get ourselves back on the right track. If protecting constitutional and human rights requires one to flee a nation that champions those causes publicly, but prosecutes their defenders privately, we have a serious problem.
That's a fair criticism, and actually I doubt Snowden would disagree with you, though we don't really know his views at this point. What we do know is that he has little choice if he wishes to avoid being arrested in travel, rendered or becoming a stooge to a powerful enemy of the US like China or Russia. Ecuador may be his least-worst option, as HK was to avoid detention initially.
While it would be admirable to remain and try to fight the administration in spite of their policies on Manning and calls of traitor, I do understand his choice to try to remain free.
Can you clarify what you're saying here? That the existence of a massive unlawful surveillance state is not an issue because the sorts of tinpot dictatorships a person has to flee to to escape political reprisal by a massive unlawful surveillance state themselves have poor human rights records?
Two wrongs don't make a right. He can criticize the US all he wants. We all can. And we all can criticize whichever leaders we want for being assholes. It may be unfair but Snowden had no choice given the reaction of the US.
Don't look at it as separate points. You have to understand the situation as a whole and that if you prized the US and had been in his situation and didn't want to rot in jail forever, you'd have done the exact same.
EDIT: Or, you know what? Perhaps you're smarter than me. What would you have done different? It's easy to criticize but you'll have to come up with solutions. For the US, they could've just obeyed their own law and requested warrants wherever there was probable cause. But for Snowden? What could he have done different while preserving his own life?
Get trolled much? HK isn't exactly the seat of the Chinese politburo. The fact that the guy needs to go to avail himself of un-friendly-ish hospitality such as flights through Moscow and Cuba ought to tell you something about nature of our government's conduct; or at least Ed Snowden's opinion of it. I can't fault him for expecting the worst. It underscores the need for nations to maintain their sovereignty and independence from the US. It ought to be possible to travel in the world against the wishes of any one country, or cartel of allies.
>I'm probably just as indignant as you are about the domestic surveillance
No, you aren't. Snowden hasn't (doesn't appear to have) revealed conduct that other governments were unaware of. Most of these thing have been leaked before. He's merely outed that conduct publicly, at a time when the press was under attack from the DOJ. If it weren't for that fact, and or maybe his flight from the US, I suspect we may not even still be talking about any of this.
I actually do appreciate this response. I think it well encapsulates the gist of the debate of what's going on here on HN.
There's a great irony going on that I think few people here are appreciating. Snowden "blew the whistle" on illegal and unethical government programs and surveillance. This is a noble deed for a citizen. There is little disagreement there. And he make these revelations precisely because governments shouldn't do illegal and unethical things.
And then it turns out he's seeking refuse in places that have (less sophisticated, but) much more violent and brutal intelligence and police arms. Not to mention countries that have completely rigged elections (Venezuela, Russia) or no elections at all (Cuba, HK to some extent), and countries in which journalists are routinely murdered (Russia) or forbidden (Cuba).
So now I'm confused to what his point is? (I need to flee from a country that spies on its citizens.... to a country that terrorizes its people, but hey, as long as it's not me it's cool.) What is your point? (Nevermind the thousands of political prisoners etc in these countries, at least they are a place for US whistleblowers to seek refuge)?
Why couldn't he have gone straight to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland... any number of countries for which extradition to US may be difficult but at least have nominal respect for human rights. Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US.
tldr - while sitting comfortably in his seaside villa in Cuba or Venezuela, I'll regain respect for Snowden when he criticizes his host country as vocally and forcefully as he criticizes the US intelligence apparatus, but I think he's too much of a hypocrite/coward to do that.
> Why couldn't he have gone straight to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland... any number of countries for which extradition to US may be difficult but at least have nominal respect for human rights.
Well, there is the recent statement from Birgitta Jónsdóttir that asylum in Iceland would be a difficult achievement. Beyond that, you seem to be having difficulty understanding (and passing judgment on) Snowden choosing to act in a way that you wouldn't. This is hardly a judgment against Snowden. He's not necessarily making moves to maintain a good PR story. One might be justified in the assumption that he is making necessary and strategic choices.
> Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US.
That's a curious judgment of 'full moral authority'. Humans are an imperfect creature. Full moral authority is not derived from actions alone, but also from the intentions behind those actions. Who knows, perhaps Snowden will pull a Socrates when he has completed his current mission of strategically releasing information until his cache is exhausted.
3. Edward Snowden doesn't really care about government behaving ethically or respecting human rights (as evidenced by accepting largess of such countries).
4. Edward Snowden has crossed the line from being a wistleblower and activist, to basically being little better than a defecting spy. He should not be praised the way he is around here.
>I actually do appreciate this response. I think it well encapsulates the gist of the debate of what's going on here on HN.
I guess that's sarcasm. That's fair. I called you trollbait. I think you're taking the propaganda campaign against Snowden at face value, and perhaps not considering the limits of Snowden's real alternatives.
>There's a great irony going on that I think few people here are appreciating. Snowden "blew the whistle" on illegal and unethical government programs and surveillance. This is a noble deed for a citizen. There is little disagreement there. And he make these revelations precisely because governments shouldn't do illegal and unethical things.
I'm glad we can agree on that.
>And then it turns out he's seeking refuse in places that have (less sophisticated, but) much more violent and brutal intelligence and police arms.
I'm ashamed to have to say it, but I disagree that a US citizen can make such a claim after the disclosure that our country has rendered prisoners to Jordan, Syria, Egypt, who knows where else, with the knowledge and intention that they'd be tortured. Also, the obvious point of the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay facility, and the known treatment of prisoners there. Also, the carelessness with which our gov't carried out those operations, that has allowed the torture of so many now known to be unrelated to any warfighting, terrorism, or otherwise aggressive actions against the US. We have no room to talk, in fact it is much worse that we are both barbarian thugs and hypocrites.
>Not to mention countries that have completely rigged elections (Venezuela, Russia) or no elections at all (Cuba, HK to some extent),
Don't look now, but elections in this country don't pass the giggle test. Electronic black box voting machines which have no ability to audit them? In one case manufactured by a partisan businessman who promised victory to a presidential candidate?
> and countries in which journalists are routinely murdered (Russia) or forbidden (Cuba).
No comment.
>So now I'm confused to what his point is? (I need to flee from a country that spies on its citizens.... to a country that terrorizes its people, but hey, as long as it's not me it's cool.)
Maybe every move he makes is not made with the intention of making a point? Maybe, it's the adversarial nature of those relationships that he is depending upon to protect his safety. Can you give me a list of countries that you'd approve of Snowden fleeing to, that have the political/economic clout to resist US demands? Oh, btw, WE the USA, our country terrorizes its people, how else do you explain people confessing to crimes which they did not commit in order to avoid a trial? How else do you explain attorneys giving their clients that advice?
>What is your point? (Nevermind the thousands of political prisoners etc in these countries, at least they are a place for US whistleblowers to seek refuge)?
What about the prisoners in our country? What about the treatment that people receive from our own country?
>Why couldn't he have gone straight to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland... any number of countries for which extradition to US may be difficult but at least have nominal respect for human rights.
I don't know.
> Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US.
Come on, I thought we were having a mildly serious chat. Binney, Drake, Radack, Edmunds, Tice, Manning, Tamm, Leibowitz, every one of these people and more have suffered terrible consequences for whistleblowing. Most used official channels, none fled to adversarial jurisdictions. Most support Snowden's flight, none have condemned him for it.
>tldr - while sitting comfortably in his seaside villa in Cuba or Venezuela, I'll regain respect for Snowden when he criticizes his host country as vocally and forcefully as he criticizes the US intelligence apparatus, but I think he's too much of a hypocrite/coward to do that.
You expect saintly impeccable behavior from critics of our government? Saintly people are busy feeding starving children, they have no time for a job at the NSA. And who cares how much you respect Snowden? Why does it matter? Look man, the "rule of law", our constitutional principles, it's a sham. The Emperor has no clothes. Why would you be surprised if the naked Emperor tried to discredit anyone who reported his nakedness?
This is exactly the part people should weight heavily -- these patriots used official channels, were punished and support his actions:
> Binney, Drake, Radack, Edmunds, Tice, Manning, Tamm, Leibowitz, every one of these people and more have suffered terrible consequences for whistleblowing. Most used official channels, none fled to adversarial jurisdictions. Most support Snowden's flight, none have condemned him for it.
No, the thing is, I actually did appreciate your response. Maybe you are one of those people that have a hard time accepting that other people can have different opinions and be quite valid.
Anyway, I do appreciate the continued response. You got to convincing me with your point before, but now that you have fleshed it out more I am stepping back. If, underlying your argument, is that the rule of law "is a sham", then we have nothing further to talk about. Our universes are a little too different.
More like they wanted absolutely nothing to do with any of this, and just let him get on the plane whilst panning off whatever excuse they could think of ("um.. your paperwork isn't in order").
They really didn't want to have to make a decision about anything, and now they won't.
When the disclosure of those secrets actively harms the citizens of the United States.
I maintain that Snowden had engaged in activity that is beneficial to the citizens of his country, and to the ideals of the Constitution of his country, and is therefore very deserving of the title of "patriot".
What a wonderful press release. Compare this to the UK government's small-dog-loud-bark assertion that Snowden "is not welcome here... you know, just in case he was thinking about coming..." and the relative certainty that he would have been arrested instantly upon arrival here. What does that say?
Think about it. The reason the UK government made a show of preemptively denying Snowden entry to the UK is to avoid the insane dilemma it would have caused them. The US would have exerted pressure to extradite, and the hugely-skewed-in-US-favour US-UK extradition treaty would have made it almost certain an extradition attempt would have succeeded. On the other hand, the electorate would have been up in arms over it, and it would have been a huge political issue that the opposition would have seized upon; not exactly something a coalition government needs.
That's not quite how parliamentary system works. You don't vote for the executive government. Never has, never will. Even before the Coalition, did anyone vote for Tony Blair to be prime minister? Technically, that is.
Aren't they required to protect their people's interest above all? This guy comes up and screams 'they are spying on all of you day and night', and the right reaction is 'please don't come here.'? I dont think the brits are so apathetic
That wasn't my point - nobody (publicly) prompted the UK government to make the "Stay away Snowden" message. It was high-level PR and arse-kissing, at best.
Best official government PR ever. I literally LOL'd when I got to the "fuck you" at the end. How did I, a patriotic American, enter this bizarro world where I find my self rooting for the Chinese government?
Agreed, I worked in PRC for several years and HK for a few months. I am well aware that HK has some degree of autonomy from China. I chose to write Chinese government for emphasis on the irony. Had I confused Taiwan and China, I could see the need for a correction. I hope it does not lead to a nuanced off-topic discussion.
> I am well aware that HK has some degree of autonomy
More like a great deal of autonomy, for the time being. Except for military and foreign affairs (and perhaps immigration? not sure) in which areas China has authority, outside of those HKSAR is highly autonomous.
Wow, I bet Hong Kong is thrilled that a technicality allowed Snowden to leave their turf and free them from a potential diplomatic headache... meanwhile defending the right to privacy of their citizens...
Even if there was not a technicality, HK would have invented one to allow Snowden to move on. Read the release, HK is now asking for clarification about the hacking attacks against HK by the US. Looks like the really wanted him to leave and did not want to assist the US.
I agree--a reason could be invented. If you read between the lines, they seem pretty pissed at the US about the hacking. Letting Snowden catch his flight is payback.
Imagine learning of all this hacking against your state, and then the state that did all that hacking demanded things from you and made a threat that relations would be harmed if you did not comply quick enough. Thats what the US just did to HK. US is acting like a giant bully at the moment.
The Allies won WW2, Russia arguably sacrificed the most - the US benefited from the Allies victory and the decline of the British empire to assert near-global economic and military hegemony.
Correct. 93% of German casualties were inflicted by the Red Army[1]. Operation Overlord was part of a 'blood debt' that Stalin felt western allied leaders owed him. The Russians would've likely taken Berlin eventually without the western allies opening up the western front, despite what Band of Brothers etc. might tell you.
This Hollywood effect is spread throughout the world (since Hollywood pretty much is spread throughout the world today). Here in South America if there was a movie about WWII on tv, it was with the US beating the germans. Never saw one with russians. Brazil never even made a movie about the brazilians who went over to fight in Europe. Hollywood is, culturally, very very powerful.
"Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law"
Sounds like they took the NSA's line right out of their mouths: "Many of the requests that you forwarded to this office do not contain a complete mailing address. Therefore, we cannot respond to those requests..." (http://www.mynsarecords.com/blog/2013-06-21-nsa-please-stop-...)
I find the high praise for the HK government very odd. Basically they told Snowden they'd stall for him (docs are missing page 4 - please resubmit) but he'd better hit the road fast. Worry about a domestic audience they add "With zero leverage now we promise to follow up on snooping." That will of course go no where.
The Chinese do not want to set the precedent that governments should ignore extradition treaties and thus harbor fugitives wanted on national security issues.
I don't blame the HK gov - just question some of the responses here.
I think a lot of HNers who live in Western countries (myself included) are so jaded with our respective governments subservience to the US that it's very nice for once to see a small country not immediately bend over and lube up the minute the US asks it to.
> it's very nice for once to see a small country not immediately bend over and lube up the minute the US asks it to.
Ah, but Hong Kong is not like any other small country. It is an autonomous region of China, which just happens to be the second most-powerful country in the world.
The United States can put an unlimited amount of diplomatic and economic pressure on a small country. They can keep ratcheting up the pressure until the small country has no choice but to give in. So you might as well give in right away, and avoid upsetting the Americans.
In contrast, the United States can only put a limited amount of pressure on Hong Kong. If the US were to go too far, then Beijing could intervene.
I think we all know that the true intentions of the countries involved in this matter and the public statements are not going to line up here. They would be absolute fools if they came out and said "we stalled to let him leave the country" but when you look at the situation it's almost undeniable that is what they did (not that they would probably see anything wrong with it).
Exactly right. Even worse, looks like Snowden was played for a fool (whatever his motivations). The HK/Chinese extracted couple of damning statements about NSA spying on Chinese and then tossed Snowden away. I doubt Snowden saw this coming. Also, looks like they had a "deal" with the US govt and then let Snowden go on some technicality. "Loss of face" for the US Gov for sure, a big thing in those parts of the world. None of this connected with the problem of NSA spying domestically and a completely muddled message. Now with the whole China/Russia/Ecaudor/Wikileaks angle good luck to Snowden getting any popular support. He looks more like a foreign agent.
The pairing of the statement about Snowden with an inquiry into government sponsored hacking is telling about their attitude and reasons for not being super cooperative.
Exactly. The only way this could have read more like a "Fuck you, don't hack us and then ask for our help" is if they claimed there would be some delay in arresting him because they have taken a lot of computer systems offline for a comprehensive security audit in light of the revelations.
The response here seems overwhelmingly positive. And to some extent I get that. But it does make me nervous to see escalating tensions between major world powers. Especially when there were already tensions from the war in Syria.
But the criminals in the US government are finally, finally being made to sweat a little, and more is on the way. This is like porn to me. There may actually be some real hope and change under Obama. And "no such agency" may become a reality. Go! Go! Go!
You'd think they would have learned about the concept of 'blowback' by now. Bad enough (strategically and otherwise) to spy on US citizens but WTF did they think Russia, China et al would do when they learned what was going on?
The cheering for HK in this thread is interesting, when the end result was not that positive. Snowden had to leave the place that I believe he hoped to be a safe haven for him, and now he is quite literally on the run again.
My impression has been that HK was always only intended as a first stop. I don't know if he had a specific end destination, but I don't think he considered HK as the end destination.
"Meanwhile, the HKSAR Government has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on earlier reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up on the matter so as to protect the legal rights of the people of Hong Kong."
That paragraph, included in this very same release, says all they need to say about how he got out of the country. HK knew it couldn't offer safe harbor for him given the economic ties of itself and China to the US, but they obviously offered him safe passage. Snowden's strategy of letting his host country know what we had done to them actually worked.
It is interesting to read the commentary here. Some of you here are US citizens. You do realize that you are supporting a person, who is basically a foreign agent and now a pawn in the hands of two foreign powers who themselves engage in cyber attacks all over the world.
However, your responses are not new or novel. During the second world war the Nazi government took anti-war protests in the US to mean that public opinion was firmly against any intervention. What they did not count on was the fickleness of public opinion.
I suspect many of you here will, in case a real war breaks out, be heading for a recruiting station. People are funny things.
How does person's citizenship matter in their views? Is it nationalism a.k.a. "our rights are more important than theirs"? When you think of something like that, how can you morally justify it? You can't. Nationalism is irrational.
What Snowden has showed is that USG has been commited in acts which are illegal for mere mortals to commit. Somehow NSA is all good doing this though -- on what moral grounds? Who can honestly claim that its not morally shady to put governmental instiutions above the law, and let it violate the rights of foreigners who have absolutely no power against it, not even the slight bit of political power via voting? Somehow acts against them is all easy to accept without evaluating the ethics, after all they Chinese are some commies and "idk lol".
How is military surveillance reasoned during peace time and when it targets civilians? The fact that "others do it too" is no justification.
False dichotomy. To support privacy and an American whistleblower does not mean you're supporting a war or any type of foreign conflict simultaneously.
Nobody here is supporting a war or encouraging conflict. We support transparency and our own constitutional right to privacy. If anything, the sentiment here is admiration for Hong Kong's response and their willingness to let one of our own go freely.
Well, the Germans were quite terrible at predicting public opinion in other countries during both world wars.[0] So I won't use this as a precedence or an excellent example of your point.
In their defence, however, I'd argue that the American public was against intervention before Pearl Harbor. Still, should have been predicting that one as well.
Lastly, I doubt a conventional war is about to break out. I doubt either side is interested in a war of this size. And besides; a world war the Germans didn't start?!
[0] Examples of German diplomacy at its finest: Japan in August 1914, the Zimmermann Telegram and U-boat raids in the Atlantic (during both world wars prior to US entry).
I don't think your comment deserved the merciless level of downvotes it received. I too personally find it strange that leaks about US activities against foreign powers are receiving as much support as leaks about US activities against its own citizens.
It's indiscriminate information gathering behind closed doors.
I'm not a US citizen but I am a UK one. My government is allegedly doing far worse.
Look - the fact is, this guy publicised some information supposedly politically beneficial to a foreign power [0] and this happened hours before he left Hong Kong unscathed. Looking at what has been done to Bradley Manning I think you would have to be fairly ignorant to expect anything different if he had not done this.
What Snowden has done is pro-freedom, pro-individual-privacy and anti-government-secrecy. Even if you are not courageous enough to do so yourself, you should be glad that there are still people willing to risk themselves for the values that made your country the greatest in the world. It honestly seems like you rationalise against it for some reason?
Without people willing to make a stand you are on the way to total corruption; the few will benefit and the mass will lose. And then your only option to regaining power will be revolution and blood-shed.
[0] I would assume that the Chinese government would have been well aware about this already due to having their own spies. (I wonder how many foreign powers had direct access to Prism?) All it has allowed is sabre-rattling due to redefining the public space.
I fully support the leaks which relate to surveillance of private citizens. I don't support the leaks which relate to activities against foreign enemy powers (or rival powers, if "enemy" is too strong a word).
As a sidenote, I was interested that my total Karma went down by more than the negative votes I can see on the comments here. I don't care about the Karma, I was just curious how this could happen. Do you have an idea? Are motivated people going through my other comments on the site and downvoting them?
Like slashdot, HN, has become a slightly more vicious place, or maybe I just notice it more!
It makes finding more mature people here more valuable.
No, but that is not what Snowden is being used to say. Snowden is being used as part of a propaganda war re: US espionage by a country (China) which itself has expansionist ambitions and itself has a well developed cyber espionage/war machine.
What did you expect here, other than being down-voted, for making some sense or offering an alternate view of things?
You are speaking to the "Me Me Me Generation" as Joel Stein puts it.
"Lazy, entitled, selfish and shallow."
Snowden is the poster child for this generation.
"A narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us", as Bob Schieffer called him.
The only thing that separates this generation of whistle blowers, if they were to take after Snowden, from the previous ones would be their insincerity of purpose and a distinct lack of selflessness.
Instead of being lauded for standing firm and facing consequences they will be known for their penchant for fleeing and bolting to foreign lands that they find hospitable to their ill-thought-out missions.
Character and how its reflected doesn't change with the times.
On occasion, history fails to take note of certain heroes.
However it also tells us that cowards have never brought about ground swells or changed human events.
The ones whose character should be questioned are the ones who stay at agencies like the NSA, being either too cowardly to release documents or even just get out, or who are staying because they agree with the policies.
The ludicrous idea of calling someone who has just given up the chance of a normal life for years to come, maybe forever, "lazy, entitled and shallow" is something that takes a substantial disconnect from reality to come up with.
This is Bill Clinton - whose spouse, from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in 2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden.
"I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good"
If deaths by terrorism ever comes close to the number of deaths by automobile accidents I will reconsider my position that giving up the rights outlined in the constitution is an inappropriate response to terrorism.
Two wars, thousands dead, trillions of dollars spent, indefinite detainment of people in Guantanamo, a government takeover of airport security, FBI drones flying in the US, rubberstamped warrants for spying on Americans, the list goes on for quite a while. At what point is it proper to say the "cure" is worse than the disease?
> The only thing that separates this generation of whistle blowers, if they were to take after Snowden, from the previous ones would be their insincerity of purpose and a distinct lack of selflessness.
Because the Gov't treated all of the other NSA whistleblowers that used official channels as heroes, by firing them and trying to charge them with crimes? Either no one in the NSA has any character and people today are so different from yesterday, or the way the US treats whistleblowers has changed and people have adapted.
Who cares if Snowden isn't a perfect human being and martyr? It matters more to me that he was concerned with the safety and privacy of all Americans.
I agree here. If Snowden had a) stayed in the US and or b) stayed on message ("The US govt. should not spy on US citizens") he would have been credible to me.
I lost respect when he started to make statements re: the NSA's activities counter China, especially when he was hiding in China at a time when China/US talks re: espionage were taking place.
I agree with you, and I'm surprised more commenters on Hacker News can't distinguish between the two activities of helping US citizens and harming the US government.
He's helping the American people, even if that "hurts" the government. The US government can take a flying leap until they return to assisting all of us instead of their friends and cronies.
As far as staying in the US goes, rather than rehash grey-area's superb take down of this argument, I'll just point you straight to the source: https://hackernews.hn/item?id=5928295
I hope Snowden finds asylum and can live a reasonably comfortable life. He's a patriot. I'm a US citizen and I'm pro-US but this bullshit has to stop.