17 ms·

Snowden Calls Russian-Spy Story “Absurd”

114 points by nmc 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
D9u 13y ago
Asked today to elaborate on his reasons for alleging that Snowden “had help,” Rogers, through a press aide, declined to comment. Typical unaccountability from one of our elected public servants. How about letting your constituents know the truth?
- rtpg 13y ago
  One of the greatest side effects of the internet is that statements like this never disappear. Maybe it'll help people to cut down on saying silly things.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Nah. People will just continue repeating falsehoods until they become the de facto 'truth'...
    - squintychino 13y ago
      You mean Bill Gates won't give me $5000 if I hit share on this post? If everyone is saying it, it has to be the truth. -mindset of the majority
  - cwp 13y ago
    On the contrary, it encourages it. The point of this sort of statement is not persuade or clarify, but to muddy the waters and confuse the public. All he has to do is get the statement out there, and people that aren't paying close attention will conclude that it's an open question. If he goes too far, he can always tone it down, change his mind "based on new evidence" or even apologize if it comes to that. People that criticize him will have to acknowledge his new position. But people that aren't paying close attention won't notice, and any retractions won't connected back to his original statement. That will still be out there on the net, getting quoted, linked to, retweeted etc, doing it's job of misinforming the unwary.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    > Maybe it'll help people to cut down on saying silly things. It won't, until we figure out to fetch such information automatically in a proper context. Elsewhere on HN there's a discussion right now about an piece of journalistic nonsense thrashing Google that was written by a person who is known to exaggerate and write falsehood in her articles. I know that because someone brought it up in the comments; what I would like to have is a small pop-up, appearing immediately as I open the article, that says: "warning, this article was written by a known liar with history of writing falsehood". It doesn't matter if stupid statements never disappear, until we have a way for them to resurface when needed.
    - w1ntermute 13y ago
      The problem is that most people don't want to be told the truth, they want to be told that the beliefs they already hold are correct. Say that a browser extension doing what you're suggesting existed. When you open up the Fox News site, it would say something like "this site is highly biased and often blatantly lies about political issues to give them a pro-Republican slant". Do you think that Republicans would see that as a sign that they should stop reading Fox News? No, they would just disable the extension.
smoyer 13y ago
I'm going to end up on some NSA watch list but ... At some point these elected and unelected idiots in government are going to have to recognize that most of the american public (referring to US citizens) is coming to view him as a hero. And Obama, who was supposed to be "for the people, by the people" has done nothing to dismantle the programs put in place by previous administrations or to even curtail advances during the six years of his "kingship". I love my country, but how can I not be disillusioned with my government?
- forktheif 13y ago
  Honestly, I think the majority American's are apathetic and don't care one way or the other. Of those that do care, I've seen just as many saying he should be shot, as those that say he's a hero.
  - eli 13y ago
    According to a Pew survey, a majority of Americans disapprove of both Snowden and the NSA.
    - Shivetya 13y ago
      and the majority disapprove of Congress, how is that working out for us? Honestly disapproval means nothing as apparently none of the mentioned have done enough to sufficiently get people off their butts. Well the Republicans offended a lot of their conservative base to cause a splinter group, but as whole most Americans are completely satisfied as verbally only expressing disapproval. As in, doing whatever requires no effort or the least amount of it.
      - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
        What are they supposed to do? A large (in american politics terms) group of people tried really hard to get 'hope and change' elected and look at what that did? By 'get people off their butts' what do you mean exactly? Not patronizing, just curious what you think a solution would be, other than trying to get someone you believe in elected (to president in the above case). Are you suggesting some sort of revolt or more physical action than campaigning and voting? It seems that there really isn't much option for change as far as actual politics go... As South Park noted, you usually get the choice between A Giant Douche and A Turd Sandwich.
Sambdala 13y ago
“some of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities. Raises more questions. How he arranged travel before he left. How he was ready to go—he had a ‘go bag,’ if you will.” A "go bag"? You mean a packed suitcase?
- Arjuna 13y ago
  A "go bag"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug-out_bag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug-out_bag
  - josefresco 13y ago
    I'm thinking the go-bag contained things that helped him flee (money, fake id etc.), not just a clean pair of underwear and some band-aids. I'm only speculating here of course.
    - cafard 13y ago
      Some people call those things with money wallets. They've been known to contain fake IDs, as well, say for underage drinking.
    - mratzloff 13y ago
      Clearly it did not include a fake ID or that would have been reported.
      - easy_rider 13y ago
        yes fake-id's, stacks of unmarked, 9mm silenced. The whole shabang.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  I think someone who willingly hacks the NSA is likely going to be smart enough to have a go bag and a very firm "get the fuck out of dodge" plan always sitting on the back burner. What person with an IQ over 100 wouldn't?
belorn 13y ago
No one working with computer security or research should take the allegations seriously. They have no substance, and are as believable as claims that NSA can break RSA, or that they have built some Quantum computer and can break all crypto in the world. I would really like to hear tptacek take a scientific approach in a comment about this. Is it a likely scenario that Russia intelligence could recruit, contact and provide help to an NSA employee without NSA knowing about it? Without NSA having any trace what so ever (in contrast to Manning‎ and his chat conversations)? If Snowden sold information, is it believable that such trade could happen without NSA finding any incriminating evidence after-the-fact? Same goes for credibly shown any harm to persons or national security. Is NSA so incompetent that a half year later, they can't find a single documented case of a person dieing, U.S. informers having to flee, or facilities being broken in to? The number of documents is massive, so surely, if they were provided to Russia or china, some verifiable damages should have happened by now? I ask, which side should a scientific and rational mind side with. I would pick what ever is the most probable chain of events, and leave conspiracy theories to be argued by people with political agendas.
- nmc 13y ago
  From an agnostic point of view, there is something worth noting: the whole world heard about the story. That really does not seem "spy-ish" to me: spying is a game, the goal is information. In that mindset, since the whole world got the information, the straightforward explanation is: Snowden is playing for all of us. In my opinion[ * ], the only plausible scenario where Snowden is a Russian spy is: the Russians did not want the intel for themselves, they wanted it public. It probably does not make much sense that it was to undermine the USA's international image or to cleanse their own; the remaining possibility would be to play on their domestic image (saying "hey, we Russians are more libertarian than Americans"), but that seems like a bit of overkill (and a lot more subtle than what Putin used us to. [ * ] The sole alternative is: Snowden gave more info to Russia than he gave the newspapers. That would make the whole story worth becoming the next James Bond screenplay (or would have made, in a universe without Daniel Craig), and would give it a nice antique Cold-War aura; however, I fail to imagine what kind of intel could justify such a twisted plan.
- tptacek 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- Nrsolis 13y ago
  Does anyone remember that Bradley Manning went to a meet-up in Boston at some hackerspace? He was hanging out with David House. It's NOT beyond the range of possibilities that Snowden was (loosely) affiliated with other hackers who were interested in the subject of government surveillance. It's also not beyond the range of possibilities that help was provided to him by a friendly person who Snowden HAD NO IDEA WAS providing that assistance on behalf of a foreign government. So when Snowden insists that he was acting alone, how does he know? This sort of thing has been done before you know, and the Soviets are particularly skilled at concealing their hand when it would impact the actions of a cultivated asset.
  - cdash 13y ago
    He knows because he claims he acted alone not that he acted with the help of some personal friends but not a nation. Unless you have evidence to contradict this, but I am pretty sure you don't.
    - Nrsolis 13y ago
      Again...I'm skeptical. I know that the HN crowd is all lining up to proclaim Snowden "Man of the Year" but I've learned that the "omote" is often wrong or misleading and that the "ura" is difficult or impossible to distinguish. This isn't tinfoil-hat talking, this is just my own experience trying to discern what's REALLY happening. I've said before that just because Snowden exposed the overreach it doesn't mean that there wasn't another piece of this that we are not seeing.
      - andrewcooke 13y ago
        spies don't work like that, do they? there's something of a "tradition" of people who have exposed corruption / illegality in american power through the press. those people seem to form a separate group from spies who disappear or are caught. in particular, the latter group don't send things to the papers and don't try to provoke public discussion - instead they quietly ship data of to their paymasters. do you think that "deepthroat" was a foreign-aided spy? because it seems to me that snowden is more similar to that than, say, the rosenbergs. what motivation is there for snowden to make such a public fuss? why not simply disappear and move to russia?
pdkl95 13y ago
It's pretty hilarious watching various shills deliver this "Snowden gave Russia our secrets" propaganda. To believe that, you'd have to also believe that Russia's FSB is totally incompetent and failed to notice all the changes in the world of spying over the last couple decades. There is simply no way the FSB - successors to the KGB - is that inept. /bonus: if we are in bizzaro-world and the FSB somehow missed what their main adversaries were up to over the last decade, then must not be much of a threat and we can scale back all our expensive spy programs.
- tdfx 13y ago
  FSB is actually the domestic successor to the KGB. The KGB's foreign intelligence responsibilities were passed to an agency known as SVR [0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_(Russia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_(R...
iambateman 13y ago
When the president says these leaks "shed more heat than light", he's been not being specific. If a single person had died as a result of Snowden's actions, the US Government would trumpet the loss as the most tragic breach of national security and call Snowden a murderer. But they haven't. Because they can't.
- josefresco 13y ago
  Why on earth would the US reveal to the world that Snowden's actions have hurt the country, or an American in some way? Not the sort of thing you announce to your potential adversaries if you want to be taken seriously or be feared in any way. It's also the same reason why we don't hear of the effectiveness of the NSA's spying efforts, it's just something they're not going to ever publicly talk about as it relates directly to national security.
  - pkinsky 13y ago
    Yes, why would officials in the government take actions that advance their agenda but harm the long-term strategic goals of the US?
  - dreamfactory2 13y ago
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/nsa-attacks-thwarted_n_4148811.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/nsa-attacks-thwarte... Two weeks after Edward Snowden's first revelations about sweeping government surveillance, President Obama shot back. "We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the United States, but, in some cases, threats here in Germany," Obama said during a visit to Berlin in June. "So lives have been saved." In the months since, intelligence officials, media outlets, and members of Congress from both parties all repeated versions of the claim that NSA surveillance has stopped more than 50 terrorist attacks. The figure has become a key talking point in the debate around the spying programs. Fifty-four times this and the other program stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in Europe — saving real lives," Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on the House floor in July, referring to programs authorized by a pair of post-9/11 laws. "This isn't a game. This is real." ... Earlier this month, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed Alexander on the issue at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Would you agree that the 54 cases that keep getting cited by the administration were not all plots, and of the 54, only 13 had some nexus to the U.S.?" Leahy said at the hearing. "Would you agree with that, yes or no?" "Yes," Alexander replied, without elaborating. I believe this has subsequently been revised to zero...
mtgx 13y ago
Live Q&A in 5 hours: http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden/ http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden/
- masmullin 13y ago
  Akbar says, "It's a trap!"
graeme-lion 13y ago
You know, it could be both, right? He could be acting in the best interests of the FSB, with friends slightly pushed by the FSB, and still think he's working alone. Not all spies know they are spies. Not all assets are 100% willing assets who signed on a piece of paper "I am aiding and abetting the Russians." Some of the best assets that have ever existed in intelligence thought they were working on their own and were working in their own interests.. those interests just happened to line up with the controller's interests too.
easy_rider 13y ago
> He added, “It won’t stick…. Because it’s clearly false, and the American people are smarter than politicians think they are.” He's wrong, it will stick. What makes it stick is not which story is told first, its the one that's being told the most. In the end the media will just be beating this story to absolute pulp and most Americans will probably respond with absolute apathy towards the whole thing. In EU we're just getting a good kick out of a classic spy story, and hope the protagonist wins. In the U.S. people are constantly drawn between two strongman caliber opinions of what it means to be a true patriot. The "traitor" thing usually ticks off a lot folks, and imho will just more quickly draws them towards that side of the argument, just to be save.
leterter 13y ago
Martians MAY have helped Snowden too!

114 points by nmc 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

D9u 13y ago

Asked today to elaborate on his reasons for alleging that Snowden “had help,” Rogers, through a press aide, declined to comment. Typical unaccountability from one of our elected public servants. How about letting your constituents know the truth?

rtpg 13y ago
One of the greatest side effects of the internet is that statements like this never disappear. Maybe it'll help people to cut down on saying silly things.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Nah. People will just continue repeating falsehoods until they become the de facto 'truth'...
  - squintychino 13y ago
    You mean Bill Gates won't give me $5000 if I hit share on this post? If everyone is saying it, it has to be the truth. -mindset of the majority
- cwp 13y ago
  On the contrary, it encourages it. The point of this sort of statement is not persuade or clarify, but to muddy the waters and confuse the public. All he has to do is get the statement out there, and people that aren't paying close attention will conclude that it's an open question. If he goes too far, he can always tone it down, change his mind "based on new evidence" or even apologize if it comes to that. People that criticize him will have to acknowledge his new position. But people that aren't paying close attention won't notice, and any retractions won't connected back to his original statement. That will still be out there on the net, getting quoted, linked to, retweeted etc, doing it's job of misinforming the unwary.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > Maybe it'll help people to cut down on saying silly things. It won't, until we figure out to fetch such information automatically in a proper context. Elsewhere on HN there's a discussion right now about an piece of journalistic nonsense thrashing Google that was written by a person who is known to exaggerate and write falsehood in her articles. I know that because someone brought it up in the comments; what I would like to have is a small pop-up, appearing immediately as I open the article, that says: "warning, this article was written by a known liar with history of writing falsehood". It doesn't matter if stupid statements never disappear, until we have a way for them to resurface when needed.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    The problem is that most people don't want to be told the truth, they want to be told that the beliefs they already hold are correct. Say that a browser extension doing what you're suggesting existed. When you open up the Fox News site, it would say something like "this site is highly biased and often blatantly lies about political issues to give them a pro-Republican slant". Do you think that Republicans would see that as a sign that they should stop reading Fox News? No, they would just disable the extension.

smoyer 13y ago

I'm going to end up on some NSA watch list but ... At some point these elected and unelected idiots in government are going to have to recognize that most of the american public (referring to US citizens) is coming to view him as a hero. And Obama, who was supposed to be "for the people, by the people" has done nothing to dismantle the programs put in place by previous administrations or to even curtail advances during the six years of his "kingship". I love my country, but how can I not be disillusioned with my government?

forktheif 13y ago
Honestly, I think the majority American's are apathetic and don't care one way or the other. Of those that do care, I've seen just as many saying he should be shot, as those that say he's a hero.
- eli 13y ago
  According to a Pew survey, a majority of Americans disapprove of both Snowden and the NSA.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    and the majority disapprove of Congress, how is that working out for us? Honestly disapproval means nothing as apparently none of the mentioned have done enough to sufficiently get people off their butts. Well the Republicans offended a lot of their conservative base to cause a splinter group, but as whole most Americans are completely satisfied as verbally only expressing disapproval. As in, doing whatever requires no effort or the least amount of it.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      What are they supposed to do? A large (in american politics terms) group of people tried really hard to get 'hope and change' elected and look at what that did? By 'get people off their butts' what do you mean exactly? Not patronizing, just curious what you think a solution would be, other than trying to get someone you believe in elected (to president in the above case). Are you suggesting some sort of revolt or more physical action than campaigning and voting? It seems that there really isn't much option for change as far as actual politics go... As South Park noted, you usually get the choice between A Giant Douche and A Turd Sandwich.

Sambdala 13y ago

“some of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities. Raises more questions. How he arranged travel before he left. How he was ready to go—he had a ‘go bag,’ if you will.” A "go bag"? You mean a packed suitcase?

Arjuna 13y ago
A "go bag"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug-out_bag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug-out_bag
- josefresco 13y ago
  I'm thinking the go-bag contained things that helped him flee (money, fake id etc.), not just a clean pair of underwear and some band-aids. I'm only speculating here of course.
  - cafard 13y ago
    Some people call those things with money wallets. They've been known to contain fake IDs, as well, say for underage drinking.
  - mratzloff 13y ago
    Clearly it did not include a fake ID or that would have been reported.
    - easy_rider 13y ago
      yes fake-id's, stacks of unmarked, 9mm silenced. The whole shabang.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
I think someone who willingly hacks the NSA is likely going to be smart enough to have a go bag and a very firm "get the fuck out of dodge" plan always sitting on the back burner. What person with an IQ over 100 wouldn't?

belorn 13y ago

No one working with computer security or research should take the allegations seriously. They have no substance, and are as believable as claims that NSA can break RSA, or that they have built some Quantum computer and can break all crypto in the world. I would really like to hear tptacek take a scientific approach in a comment about this. Is it a likely scenario that Russia intelligence could recruit, contact and provide help to an NSA employee without NSA knowing about it? Without NSA having any trace what so ever (in contrast to Manning‎ and his chat conversations)? If Snowden sold information, is it believable that such trade could happen without NSA finding any incriminating evidence after-the-fact? Same goes for credibly shown any harm to persons or national security. Is NSA so incompetent that a half year later, they can't find a single documented case of a person dieing, U.S. informers having to flee, or facilities being broken in to? The number of documents is massive, so surely, if they were provided to Russia or china, some verifiable damages should have happened by now? I ask, which side should a scientific and rational mind side with. I would pick what ever is the most probable chain of events, and leave conspiracy theories to be argued by people with political agendas.

nmc 13y ago
From an agnostic point of view, there is something worth noting: the whole world heard about the story. That really does not seem "spy-ish" to me: spying is a game, the goal is information. In that mindset, since the whole world got the information, the straightforward explanation is: Snowden is playing for all of us. In my opinion[ * ], the only plausible scenario where Snowden is a Russian spy is: the Russians did not want the intel for themselves, they wanted it public. It probably does not make much sense that it was to undermine the USA's international image or to cleanse their own; the remaining possibility would be to play on their domestic image (saying "hey, we Russians are more libertarian than Americans"), but that seems like a bit of overkill (and a lot more subtle than what Putin used us to. [ * ] The sole alternative is: Snowden gave more info to Russia than he gave the newspapers. That would make the whole story worth becoming the next James Bond screenplay (or would have made, in a universe without Daniel Craig), and would give it a nice antique Cold-War aura; however, I fail to imagine what kind of intel could justify such a twisted plan.
tptacek 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Nrsolis 13y ago
Does anyone remember that Bradley Manning went to a meet-up in Boston at some hackerspace? He was hanging out with David House. It's NOT beyond the range of possibilities that Snowden was (loosely) affiliated with other hackers who were interested in the subject of government surveillance. It's also not beyond the range of possibilities that help was provided to him by a friendly person who Snowden HAD NO IDEA WAS providing that assistance on behalf of a foreign government. So when Snowden insists that he was acting alone, how does he know? This sort of thing has been done before you know, and the Soviets are particularly skilled at concealing their hand when it would impact the actions of a cultivated asset.
- cdash 13y ago
  He knows because he claims he acted alone not that he acted with the help of some personal friends but not a nation. Unless you have evidence to contradict this, but I am pretty sure you don't.
  - Nrsolis 13y ago
    Again...I'm skeptical. I know that the HN crowd is all lining up to proclaim Snowden "Man of the Year" but I've learned that the "omote" is often wrong or misleading and that the "ura" is difficult or impossible to distinguish. This isn't tinfoil-hat talking, this is just my own experience trying to discern what's REALLY happening. I've said before that just because Snowden exposed the overreach it doesn't mean that there wasn't another piece of this that we are not seeing.
    - andrewcooke 13y ago
      spies don't work like that, do they? there's something of a "tradition" of people who have exposed corruption / illegality in american power through the press. those people seem to form a separate group from spies who disappear or are caught. in particular, the latter group don't send things to the papers and don't try to provoke public discussion - instead they quietly ship data of to their paymasters. do you think that "deepthroat" was a foreign-aided spy? because it seems to me that snowden is more similar to that than, say, the rosenbergs. what motivation is there for snowden to make such a public fuss? why not simply disappear and move to russia?

pdkl95 13y ago

It's pretty hilarious watching various shills deliver this "Snowden gave Russia our secrets" propaganda. To believe that, you'd have to also believe that Russia's FSB is totally incompetent and failed to notice all the changes in the world of spying over the last couple decades. There is simply no way the FSB - successors to the KGB - is that inept. /bonus: if we are in bizzaro-world and the FSB somehow missed what their main adversaries were up to over the last decade, then must not be much of a threat and we can scale back all our expensive spy programs.

tdfx 13y ago
FSB is actually the domestic successor to the KGB. The KGB's foreign intelligence responsibilities were passed to an agency known as SVR [0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_(Russia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_(R...

iambateman 13y ago

When the president says these leaks "shed more heat than light", he's been not being specific. If a single person had died as a result of Snowden's actions, the US Government would trumpet the loss as the most tragic breach of national security and call Snowden a murderer. But they haven't. Because they can't.

josefresco 13y ago
Why on earth would the US reveal to the world that Snowden's actions have hurt the country, or an American in some way? Not the sort of thing you announce to your potential adversaries if you want to be taken seriously or be feared in any way. It's also the same reason why we don't hear of the effectiveness of the NSA's spying efforts, it's just something they're not going to ever publicly talk about as it relates directly to national security.
- pkinsky 13y ago
  Yes, why would officials in the government take actions that advance their agenda but harm the long-term strategic goals of the US?
- dreamfactory2 13y ago
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/nsa-attacks-thwarted_n_4148811.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/nsa-attacks-thwarte... Two weeks after Edward Snowden's first revelations about sweeping government surveillance, President Obama shot back. "We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the United States, but, in some cases, threats here in Germany," Obama said during a visit to Berlin in June. "So lives have been saved." In the months since, intelligence officials, media outlets, and members of Congress from both parties all repeated versions of the claim that NSA surveillance has stopped more than 50 terrorist attacks. The figure has become a key talking point in the debate around the spying programs. Fifty-four times this and the other program stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in Europe — saving real lives," Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on the House floor in July, referring to programs authorized by a pair of post-9/11 laws. "This isn't a game. This is real." ... Earlier this month, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed Alexander on the issue at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Would you agree that the 54 cases that keep getting cited by the administration were not all plots, and of the 54, only 13 had some nexus to the U.S.?" Leahy said at the hearing. "Would you agree with that, yes or no?" "Yes," Alexander replied, without elaborating. I believe this has subsequently been revised to zero...

mtgx 13y ago

Live Q&A in 5 hours: http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden/ http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden/

masmullin 13y ago
Akbar says, "It's a trap!"

graeme-lion 13y ago

You know, it could be both, right? He could be acting in the best interests of the FSB, with friends slightly pushed by the FSB, and still think he's working alone. Not all spies know they are spies. Not all assets are 100% willing assets who signed on a piece of paper "I am aiding and abetting the Russians." Some of the best assets that have ever existed in intelligence thought they were working on their own and were working in their own interests.. those interests just happened to line up with the controller's interests too.

easy_rider 13y ago

> He added, “It won’t stick…. Because it’s clearly false, and the American people are smarter than politicians think they are.” He's wrong, it will stick. What makes it stick is not which story is told first, its the one that's being told the most. In the end the media will just be beating this story to absolute pulp and most Americans will probably respond with absolute apathy towards the whole thing. In EU we're just getting a good kick out of a classic spy story, and hope the protagonist wins. In the U.S. people are constantly drawn between two strongman caliber opinions of what it means to be a true patriot. The "traitor" thing usually ticks off a lot folks, and imho will just more quickly draws them towards that side of the argument, just to be save.

leterter 13y ago

Martians MAY have helped Snowden too!