5 ms·

Birgitta Jonsdottir on why Iceland is not a good destination for Snowden

98 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

TheBiv 13y ago
I will take all of this at face value, but the greater point is something that she mentioned at the end; that the political smearing/prosecution of whistleblowers has to stop. Good on you Ms. Jonsdottir!
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  As much as I'm for what he did and revealing the Prism program, he stopped being a whistleblower when he released top secret, classified documents. There's a ton of different ways to prove what the NSA was doing without leaking a mountain of classified documents.
  - twentysix 13y ago
    No, there wasn't any alternate way to do it. Watch the three guys who tried to do it via official channels, explain why it doesnt work and why they think he did the right thing. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...
    - gruseom 13y ago
      One detail from that interview that didn't get much attention: when those guys went through official channels inside NSA and brought their allegations of wrongdoing to the Inspector General, the Inspector General recommended criminal prosecution of them. From the article: Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.
  - chr1 13y ago
    How can one be an whistleblower, if he doesn't release top secret documents? Governments should not have `classified' documents, and laws against revealing information. They see everything people can do and be people must be able to see everything they do.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      Of course they should, unless you really want to see things like codes for ICBMs or "Report on how to shut down half the national power grid because of XYZ" plastered all over Reddit. There are some things government, unfortunately, must keep secret to ensure safety of the governed.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    How exactly do you see he could have blown the whistle without releasing supporting evidence, classified or not? Had he come out and made these claims without any supporting evidence, do you think anyone would have noticed? Or would he have just been relegated to the sidelines, denounced as a crackpot, etc.?
    - at-fates-hands 13y ago
      Remind me again how telling the Chinese when and how the NSA was hacking them makes us or our country safer? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-reveals-new-us-hacking-accusations/ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/nsa-leaker-edward-snowd... "has divulged information to the Post which showed how computers in the SAR and on the mainland had been targeted by the NSA over a four-year period." Pointblank, this had NOTHING to do with the domestic NSA surveillance he was uncovering. It just gives the Chinese a really good idea of how you're carrying out your surveillance and allows them secure their networks. For all of the security stories about the Chinese hacking Google and other US companies and stealing their secrets, I find it ironic nobody seems to care this country had been trying to locate and disrupt this sort of state sponsored hacking. So yeah, this is WAY beyond what I consider "whistleblowing"
      - SamReidHughes 13y ago
        Explain how it makes the U.S.A. more dangerous, please.
      - bobwaycott 13y ago
        So I take it you support American cyber aggression? Locate and disrupt state-sponsored hacking with more state-sponsored hacking? If you're okay with your government hacking other sovereign nations, that may explain why you have a strange line in the sand that whistleblowing is only for domestic purposes. Others may not be so charitable.
tiatia 13y ago
I disagree. It was Iceland which did not bail out its banks, said a nice "FU" to its foreign account holders and has now economic growth (Iceland expanded 4.60 percent in the first quarter of 2013 over the previous quarter). It was also Iceland which gave Bobby Fisher a passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Asylum_in_Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Asylum_in_Iceland You must give the vikings one thing: They've got balls! Looks like a perfect destination for Snowden in my opinion.
- TheBiv 13y ago
  I know very little, but on the surface, granting asylum for a chess player is a different beast than granting asylum for someone who dispelled NSA secrets.
  - gwern 13y ago
    And Fischer had brought world attention to Iceland during the famous chess match; in contrast, Snowden lacks even that tenuous connection.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I think you must not have read the post all the way through (if at all), for Fischer's situation is specifically discussed. Since you apparently did not realize that, you may also be unaware that the author, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, is Icelandic, and is in fact a member of the Icelandic parliament, and offered to try to help Snowden. I expect she's better qualified to speak on this matter than virtually anyone on HN, unless we happen to have an Icelandic immigration attorney hanging around.
- klausjensen 13y ago
  As an immigrant taxpayer in Iceland, I am so sick of the BS about how Iceland is an economic wunderkind and how it did not bail out the banks but jailed the bankers.... An Icelandic economist on the truth value of common myths: http://icelandicecon.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-economic-truth-on-iceland.html http://icelandicecon.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-economic-truth...
- 13y ago
skaevola 13y ago
I don't think he's facing the death penalty. According to this article he faces a maximum of 10 years on each charge: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323683504578562852310273818.html?mod=e2tw http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732368350457856...
_delirium 13y ago
This is an interesting point: the Minister fears that if he will be granted asylum, Iceland might have to show humanitarianism in action by transforming its poor treatment towards asylum seekers who seek shelter in Iceland While Iceland is generally liberal on social issues, they've traditionally been quite closed on immigration. That's partly been helped by their geographic isolation, but in recent years there has been an increase in refugees attempting to claim asylum in Iceland (e.g. fleeing the Syrian civil war), and Iceland has generally not granted those requests. So perhaps they are worried that if they start granting some kinds of political asylum they will have to grant others to be consistent.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >While Iceland is generally liberal on social issues, they've traditionally been quite closed on immigration. Should they be more open, though? They have a nice society going on, their way of life, customs and traditions, they want to keep having them. Would an influx of immigrants help? It's not like every place is like the US (a vast country with room to spare, composed by tons of different ethnicities, living on the land of the previous inhabitants, and with a powerful enough economy to assimilate a lot of immigrants). Not to mention: the US immigrants came to the place in ages of SLOW transportation and over a period of 400 years (with some ramping up in the 20th century). Nowadays, especially in Europe, immigration ramps up in a couple of decades or less. And, given the huge numbers, they don't even need to be assimilated that much -- if you can work in a place with millions of fellow X-speaking immigrants, and easy access to websites, tv etc in your language, why bother to learn english or change your habits at all? Consider a thought experiment: would the US be OK with an influx of 100, 200 or 300 million immigrants from islamic countries? Not terrorists, mind you. Just normal folks, that, nonetheless, would soon wish their practices and mindset be respected and reflected in laws (and, since they would be able to vote, it would be): from the right to beat their wives or persecute gays, to refusing education to their daughters? And even darker stuff like "honour killings" that would be sure to want to bring to their new country? Now, 30% is a lot to be realistic. But if immigration was "open to all", it wouldn't be that far off. Especially since, in the US, almost 100% are immigrants anyway (just over the course of centuries, not over the course of a decade or so). There are places in Europe where the immigrant population rose to 10% or 20% in a course of a couple decades.
mtgx 13y ago
Isn't it strange that the "most democratic" countries are the ones that will be the first to offer him up to the US government?
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  Not really. During the cold war the vast majority of "democratic" countries were either allied with, or close trading partners with, the United States. This lead to the increasing strengthening of ties between both countries foreign intelligence services and judicial systems. Given that the US has a burn the fields type of policy with all but their largest trading partners, only the very large countries are able to use the case of Snowden to their advantage. Hong Kong was especially good, since it provided the best of both worlds: Very liberal media, with Chinese backing in terms of political pressure. The only reason that some small countries are able to afford long term sanction to Snowden and Assange, is that they are already antagonistic towards the United States, so there is nothing that the US can really take away from them. Iceland is a bit a strange case since it is generally aligned with the west, but it hasn't really taken steps to integrate as closely as other countries, partially because of its isolation and Norway being a proxy for these decisions for so long. Ultimately though it isn't in Iceland's interests to take in Snowden, it will cause too much of a backlash.
  - mtgx 13y ago
    Yes, I get why they aren't doing it strategically, but they're supposed to be democratic countries and protect this sort of stuff on its own merits, not depending on what's their relationship with the country where the whistleblower is coming from.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      > they're supposed to be democratic countries and protect this sort of stuff on its own merits Considering that the entire point of a democracy is a compromise from principles to practicality, I'm surprised you expect a democratic country to be impractical for the sake of principle.
    - 13y ago

98 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

I will take all of this at face value, but the greater point is something that she mentioned at the end; that the political smearing/prosecution of whistleblowers has to stop. Good on you Ms. Jonsdottir!

at-fates-hands 13y ago
As much as I'm for what he did and revealing the Prism program, he stopped being a whistleblower when he released top secret, classified documents. There's a ton of different ways to prove what the NSA was doing without leaking a mountain of classified documents.
- twentysix 13y ago
  No, there wasn't any alternate way to do it. Watch the three guys who tried to do it via official channels, explain why it doesnt work and why they think he did the right thing. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...
  - gruseom 13y ago
    One detail from that interview that didn't get much attention: when those guys went through official channels inside NSA and brought their allegations of wrongdoing to the Inspector General, the Inspector General recommended criminal prosecution of them. From the article: Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.
- chr1 13y ago
  How can one be an whistleblower, if he doesn't release top secret documents? Governments should not have `classified' documents, and laws against revealing information. They see everything people can do and be people must be able to see everything they do.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    Of course they should, unless you really want to see things like codes for ICBMs or "Report on how to shut down half the national power grid because of XYZ" plastered all over Reddit. There are some things government, unfortunately, must keep secret to ensure safety of the governed.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  How exactly do you see he could have blown the whistle without releasing supporting evidence, classified or not? Had he come out and made these claims without any supporting evidence, do you think anyone would have noticed? Or would he have just been relegated to the sidelines, denounced as a crackpot, etc.?
  - at-fates-hands 13y ago
    Remind me again how telling the Chinese when and how the NSA was hacking them makes us or our country safer? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-reveals-new-us-hacking-accusations/ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/nsa-leaker-edward-snowd... "has divulged information to the Post which showed how computers in the SAR and on the mainland had been targeted by the NSA over a four-year period." Pointblank, this had NOTHING to do with the domestic NSA surveillance he was uncovering. It just gives the Chinese a really good idea of how you're carrying out your surveillance and allows them secure their networks. For all of the security stories about the Chinese hacking Google and other US companies and stealing their secrets, I find it ironic nobody seems to care this country had been trying to locate and disrupt this sort of state sponsored hacking. So yeah, this is WAY beyond what I consider "whistleblowing"
    - SamReidHughes 13y ago
      Explain how it makes the U.S.A. more dangerous, please.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      So I take it you support American cyber aggression? Locate and disrupt state-sponsored hacking with more state-sponsored hacking? If you're okay with your government hacking other sovereign nations, that may explain why you have a strange line in the sand that whistleblowing is only for domestic purposes. Others may not be so charitable.

tiatia 13y ago

I disagree. It was Iceland which did not bail out its banks, said a nice "FU" to its foreign account holders and has now economic growth (Iceland expanded 4.60 percent in the first quarter of 2013 over the previous quarter). It was also Iceland which gave Bobby Fisher a passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Asylum_in_Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Asylum_in_Iceland You must give the vikings one thing: They've got balls! Looks like a perfect destination for Snowden in my opinion.

TheBiv 13y ago
I know very little, but on the surface, granting asylum for a chess player is a different beast than granting asylum for someone who dispelled NSA secrets.
- gwern 13y ago
  And Fischer had brought world attention to Iceland during the famous chess match; in contrast, Snowden lacks even that tenuous connection.
nknighthb 13y ago
I think you must not have read the post all the way through (if at all), for Fischer's situation is specifically discussed. Since you apparently did not realize that, you may also be unaware that the author, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, is Icelandic, and is in fact a member of the Icelandic parliament, and offered to try to help Snowden. I expect she's better qualified to speak on this matter than virtually anyone on HN, unless we happen to have an Icelandic immigration attorney hanging around.
klausjensen 13y ago
As an immigrant taxpayer in Iceland, I am so sick of the BS about how Iceland is an economic wunderkind and how it did not bail out the banks but jailed the bankers.... An Icelandic economist on the truth value of common myths: http://icelandicecon.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-economic-truth-on-iceland.html http://icelandicecon.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-economic-truth...
13y ago

skaevola 13y ago

I don't think he's facing the death penalty. According to this article he faces a maximum of 10 years on each charge: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323683504578562852310273818.html?mod=e2tw http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732368350457856...

_delirium 13y ago

This is an interesting point: the Minister fears that if he will be granted asylum, Iceland might have to show humanitarianism in action by transforming its poor treatment towards asylum seekers who seek shelter in Iceland While Iceland is generally liberal on social issues, they've traditionally been quite closed on immigration. That's partly been helped by their geographic isolation, but in recent years there has been an increase in refugees attempting to claim asylum in Iceland (e.g. fleeing the Syrian civil war), and Iceland has generally not granted those requests. So perhaps they are worried that if they start granting some kinds of political asylum they will have to grant others to be consistent.

coldtea 13y ago
>While Iceland is generally liberal on social issues, they've traditionally been quite closed on immigration. Should they be more open, though? They have a nice society going on, their way of life, customs and traditions, they want to keep having them. Would an influx of immigrants help? It's not like every place is like the US (a vast country with room to spare, composed by tons of different ethnicities, living on the land of the previous inhabitants, and with a powerful enough economy to assimilate a lot of immigrants). Not to mention: the US immigrants came to the place in ages of SLOW transportation and over a period of 400 years (with some ramping up in the 20th century). Nowadays, especially in Europe, immigration ramps up in a couple of decades or less. And, given the huge numbers, they don't even need to be assimilated that much -- if you can work in a place with millions of fellow X-speaking immigrants, and easy access to websites, tv etc in your language, why bother to learn english or change your habits at all? Consider a thought experiment: would the US be OK with an influx of 100, 200 or 300 million immigrants from islamic countries? Not terrorists, mind you. Just normal folks, that, nonetheless, would soon wish their practices and mindset be respected and reflected in laws (and, since they would be able to vote, it would be): from the right to beat their wives or persecute gays, to refusing education to their daughters? And even darker stuff like "honour killings" that would be sure to want to bring to their new country? Now, 30% is a lot to be realistic. But if immigration was "open to all", it wouldn't be that far off. Especially since, in the US, almost 100% are immigrants anyway (just over the course of centuries, not over the course of a decade or so). There are places in Europe where the immigrant population rose to 10% or 20% in a course of a couple decades.

mtgx 13y ago

Isn't it strange that the "most democratic" countries are the ones that will be the first to offer him up to the US government?

3pt14159 13y ago
Not really. During the cold war the vast majority of "democratic" countries were either allied with, or close trading partners with, the United States. This lead to the increasing strengthening of ties between both countries foreign intelligence services and judicial systems. Given that the US has a burn the fields type of policy with all but their largest trading partners, only the very large countries are able to use the case of Snowden to their advantage. Hong Kong was especially good, since it provided the best of both worlds: Very liberal media, with Chinese backing in terms of political pressure. The only reason that some small countries are able to afford long term sanction to Snowden and Assange, is that they are already antagonistic towards the United States, so there is nothing that the US can really take away from them. Iceland is a bit a strange case since it is generally aligned with the west, but it hasn't really taken steps to integrate as closely as other countries, partially because of its isolation and Norway being a proxy for these decisions for so long. Ultimately though it isn't in Iceland's interests to take in Snowden, it will cause too much of a backlash.
- mtgx 13y ago
  Yes, I get why they aren't doing it strategically, but they're supposed to be democratic countries and protect this sort of stuff on its own merits, not depending on what's their relationship with the country where the whistleblower is coming from.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > they're supposed to be democratic countries and protect this sort of stuff on its own merits Considering that the entire point of a democracy is a compromise from principles to practicality, I'm surprised you expect a democratic country to be impractical for the sake of principle.
  - 13y ago