5 ms·

No, flexie doesn't realize that, and neither does 99.9% of the rest of the worlds population. Which is exactly why it's such a stupid action. Politics and dipl

No, flexie doesn't realize that, and neither does 99.9% of the rest of the worlds population. Which is exactly why it's such a stupid action. Politics and diplomacy are all about perception. And the perception of the US throwing a major tantrum over one hacker is the impression that will stick. Obama has just increased the damage to the image of the US, nothing else. Also, I don't quite buy the "laundry list". He could have cancelled sooner.

adestefan 13y ago
99.9% of the rest of the world doesn't even know who Snowden is, what he did, or that Russia granted him temporary assylum. On top of that they probably don't even care that this meeting was canceled.
- veidr 13y ago
  That isn't true. Part of what makes the Snowden story so significant is that a huge, huge number of people do know who he is and (at least very generally) what he did and why he is being hunted by the USA. I don't think anybody has the numbers, but I'd bet close to one in ten adult humans alive today know who he is. Certainly hundreds of millions have heard of him, at least; the story's been on prime time TV and prominently positioned in textual news sources across Japan, Europe, Canada, and most of the democratic world, and also in totalitarian states like China and Russia.
  - ash 13y ago
    Correction: Russia is not a totalitarian state. At least not yet. The regime is softer and closer to authoritarian. Very far from totalitarian Soviet Union. Update. Authoritarian state does whatever it wants, but doesn't touch most people (those who don't interfere with the state). Totalitarian state does whatever it wants too, but also "cares" about all people, intervening with their movement, ideology, religion, education, job, property, family, freedom etc. Think Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
    - pekk 13y ago
      Very far from totalitarian Soviet Union, but not far from non-totalitarian Soviet Union. Which was which? Remember that a lot of people in the former Soviet Union remember it fondly (at least over certain periods, or places) and would not agree that it was "totalitarian," where this is understood as derogatory. Otherwise, Putin would not be able to maintain such a persistent hold on the country.
      - ash 13y ago
        I was using "totalitarian" as an actual property of the state, not as a derogatory term. The fact that a lot of people were okay with the regime is irrelevant here. As for non-totalitarian Soviet Union. I think only the last few years of Gorbachev rule can be described as non-totalitarian. The control was being relaxed on many fronts: freedom of speech and press (glasnost), freedom to be elected, steps to legalize business activities (cooperatives), freedom to leave the country (May 1991), cultural freedom. Many even say that speech during glasnost was more free than today.
- GFischer 13y ago
  I'm sorry to tell you, Snowden has been big news on the rest of the world. I'm from Uruguay, and I can personally attest that people in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil are fully aware of Snowden (and rooting for him and against the U.S. government in this case). It has been front page news on almost every country I know of, including all the big ones (friends and family in most countries of Europe, India and China and the UAE have confirmed this). The person on the street here knows who Snowden is, how the U.S. spies on everybody (well, most suspected already, but it's now confirmed), etc...
  - bausson 13y ago
    European here. My extended family is far from tech-savvy, and it's the first time I had some of them contact me to get a better understanding of what was going on, and what did that mean for them. Also, his case was debated on parliament, be it at a national or European level.
  - mjolk 13y ago
    >I'm from Uruguay, and I can personally attest that people in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil are fully aware of Snowden (and rooting for him and against the U.S. government in this case). That's because your government pretends that it can taunt the bull that is America in order to manipulate its people into thinking its government is somehow decent. The only government that does not spy on its populace is that which is too meek to pull it off.
    - speeder 13y ago
      Don't assume all governments are tyrannical as the US. Brazil once fired a bunch of people from intelligence AND police after they found out they cooperated, with warrants, to wiretap a known big criminal. The population was outraged, but it was clear, intelligence was not authorized to wiretap Brazilians, in fact the punishment for that was the actual removal of all.wiretapping equipment from the agency ( I think it is stupid that punishment... ) I am very sure our intelligence have no crazy ass large scale espionage like US is doing to its own citizens.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- speeder 13y ago
  I am from Brazil, and I see even cleaning ladies talking about snowden and curious. Also lots of people I talked think Obama is a idiot asshole ( different from Bush, viewed as a evil asshole ). Also our government even invited Greenwald to give explanations on our Senate, our senators are very concerned.
tptacek 13y ago
That's an argument that could fit any set of facts. Just say "most people don't know that, and it's the optics that matter" and you can shoot down any policy.
- hobs 13y ago
  I see your point, but I would say that if the general population sees it that way, then your "optics" truly do matter. Speculation can be extremely damaging, and that's why the president has an entire press corps to manage that image.
  - tareqak 13y ago
    "Optics" do matter. I think this move was made to a greater number of political points at home than fewer ones abroad. In any case, it shouldn't be too big of a surprise since the US administration has been very clear about Snowden and their intentions from the very beginning. For whatever set of reasons, going to summit would have made Obama and the administration look weak at home.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > For whatever set of reasons, going to summit would have made Obama and the administration look weak at home. That is the reasoning precisely. Some of the news stories noting the cancellation are merciless in their insults to Obama: e.g. "Finally, a red line that is actually red".
    - Amadou 13y ago
      it shouldn't be too big of a surprise since the US administration has been very clear about Snowden and their intentions from the very beginning. Obama said that he was, “not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker” during a press conference in Senegal. That was a pretty straight-forward signal that he was not going to make a big deal about Snowden. Other people in the USG have been losing their proverbial shit over the situation, but Obama himself deliberately downplayed it.
d23 13y ago
Really? I assumed the proxy war in Syria was a much bigger concern.
pekk 13y ago
> the perception of the US throwing a major tantrum over one hacker is the impression that will stick. Whose perception is this, and why is that perception important to US interests? Whenever the US complains about something like the treatment of some political dissident in Russia, Russia has some little response like shutting down adoptions of Russian orphans. Each side has the sovereign right to do these things. Diplomacy has worked like this for ages. It's not at all particular to the US, or to the modern era.

adestefan 13y ago

99.9% of the rest of the world doesn't even know who Snowden is, what he did, or that Russia granted him temporary assylum. On top of that they probably don't even care that this meeting was canceled.

veidr 13y ago
That isn't true. Part of what makes the Snowden story so significant is that a huge, huge number of people do know who he is and (at least very generally) what he did and why he is being hunted by the USA. I don't think anybody has the numbers, but I'd bet close to one in ten adult humans alive today know who he is. Certainly hundreds of millions have heard of him, at least; the story's been on prime time TV and prominently positioned in textual news sources across Japan, Europe, Canada, and most of the democratic world, and also in totalitarian states like China and Russia.
- ash 13y ago
  Correction: Russia is not a totalitarian state. At least not yet. The regime is softer and closer to authoritarian. Very far from totalitarian Soviet Union. Update. Authoritarian state does whatever it wants, but doesn't touch most people (those who don't interfere with the state). Totalitarian state does whatever it wants too, but also "cares" about all people, intervening with their movement, ideology, religion, education, job, property, family, freedom etc. Think Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Very far from totalitarian Soviet Union, but not far from non-totalitarian Soviet Union. Which was which? Remember that a lot of people in the former Soviet Union remember it fondly (at least over certain periods, or places) and would not agree that it was "totalitarian," where this is understood as derogatory. Otherwise, Putin would not be able to maintain such a persistent hold on the country.
    - ash 13y ago
      I was using "totalitarian" as an actual property of the state, not as a derogatory term. The fact that a lot of people were okay with the regime is irrelevant here. As for non-totalitarian Soviet Union. I think only the last few years of Gorbachev rule can be described as non-totalitarian. The control was being relaxed on many fronts: freedom of speech and press (glasnost), freedom to be elected, steps to legalize business activities (cooperatives), freedom to leave the country (May 1991), cultural freedom. Many even say that speech during glasnost was more free than today.
GFischer 13y ago
I'm sorry to tell you, Snowden has been big news on the rest of the world. I'm from Uruguay, and I can personally attest that people in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil are fully aware of Snowden (and rooting for him and against the U.S. government in this case). It has been front page news on almost every country I know of, including all the big ones (friends and family in most countries of Europe, India and China and the UAE have confirmed this). The person on the street here knows who Snowden is, how the U.S. spies on everybody (well, most suspected already, but it's now confirmed), etc...
- bausson 13y ago
  European here. My extended family is far from tech-savvy, and it's the first time I had some of them contact me to get a better understanding of what was going on, and what did that mean for them. Also, his case was debated on parliament, be it at a national or European level.
- mjolk 13y ago
  >I'm from Uruguay, and I can personally attest that people in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil are fully aware of Snowden (and rooting for him and against the U.S. government in this case). That's because your government pretends that it can taunt the bull that is America in order to manipulate its people into thinking its government is somehow decent. The only government that does not spy on its populace is that which is too meek to pull it off.
  - speeder 13y ago
    Don't assume all governments are tyrannical as the US. Brazil once fired a bunch of people from intelligence AND police after they found out they cooperated, with warrants, to wiretap a known big criminal. The population was outraged, but it was clear, intelligence was not authorized to wiretap Brazilians, in fact the punishment for that was the actual removal of all.wiretapping equipment from the agency ( I think it is stupid that punishment... ) I am very sure our intelligence have no crazy ass large scale espionage like US is doing to its own citizens.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
speeder 13y ago
I am from Brazil, and I see even cleaning ladies talking about snowden and curious. Also lots of people I talked think Obama is a idiot asshole ( different from Bush, viewed as a evil asshole ). Also our government even invited Greenwald to give explanations on our Senate, our senators are very concerned.

tptacek 13y ago

That's an argument that could fit any set of facts. Just say "most people don't know that, and it's the optics that matter" and you can shoot down any policy.

hobs 13y ago
I see your point, but I would say that if the general population sees it that way, then your "optics" truly do matter. Speculation can be extremely damaging, and that's why the president has an entire press corps to manage that image.
- tareqak 13y ago
  "Optics" do matter. I think this move was made to a greater number of political points at home than fewer ones abroad. In any case, it shouldn't be too big of a surprise since the US administration has been very clear about Snowden and their intentions from the very beginning. For whatever set of reasons, going to summit would have made Obama and the administration look weak at home.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > For whatever set of reasons, going to summit would have made Obama and the administration look weak at home. That is the reasoning precisely. Some of the news stories noting the cancellation are merciless in their insults to Obama: e.g. "Finally, a red line that is actually red".
  - Amadou 13y ago
    it shouldn't be too big of a surprise since the US administration has been very clear about Snowden and their intentions from the very beginning. Obama said that he was, “not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker” during a press conference in Senegal. That was a pretty straight-forward signal that he was not going to make a big deal about Snowden. Other people in the USG have been losing their proverbial shit over the situation, but Obama himself deliberately downplayed it.

d23 13y ago

Really? I assumed the proxy war in Syria was a much bigger concern.

pekk 13y ago

> the perception of the US throwing a major tantrum over one hacker is the impression that will stick. Whose perception is this, and why is that perception important to US interests? Whenever the US complains about something like the treatment of some political dissident in Russia, Russia has some little response like shutting down adoptions of Russian orphans. Each side has the sovereign right to do these things. Diplomacy has worked like this for ages. It's not at all particular to the US, or to the modern era.