9 ms·

Edward Snowden: The World Says No to Surveillance

262 points by digisth 11y ago

uptown 11y ago
"As you read this online, the United States government makes a note."
- skidoo 11y ago
  "Let's give them something to talk about.' - Bonnie Raitt
  - jeff_marshall 11y ago
    Love, for the NYT? surely you jest. They've got a long way back before they have my trust, let alone my love.
- sehugg 11y ago
  Awhile back the NY Times (sort of) committed to having their site on HTTPS by the end of 2015, is that still on track? http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/embracing-https/ http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/embracing-https/
- homunculus 11y ago
  There goes my future TS-SCI. Damn!
danso 11y ago
I don't disagree with Snowden's sentiment, and I know it's possible he didn't write the headline...but "The World Says No to Surveillance" is simplistic and inaccurate. The obvious rebuttal is "But China"...but beyond that, among the Western powers: France and Britain, among others. And Snowden acknowledges this (which is why I don't assume he wrote the headline, necessarily): > Spymasters in Australia, Canada and France have exploited recent tragedies to seek intrusive new powers despite evidence such programs would not have prevented attacks. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain recently mused, “Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?” He soon found his answer, proclaiming that “for too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.” Again, it's not that Snowden is wrong in his opinion about surveillance. But it's wrong to think that the world, or any kind of non-U.S.-status quo, is anti-surveillance. The battle is much more uphill than that and those who want to fight it have to keep that in mind.
- tanderson92 11y ago
  The world's response is more than the aggregate will of the governments. To take your case of China, I would be wary of claiming that the people of that country are content with the surveillance state in which they live. Rather, they are an oppressed people, and the surveillance state does them no favor in this regard. Ed Snowden's larger point was about the public reaction to learning they were being surveilled; obviously, governments already knew whether they themselves were spying. In this sense I think the world has indeed said no to surveillance, it's just that in some cases the government doesn't wish to listen (well, not to that, just everything else!).
  - tmalsburg2 11y ago
    A few years back, I visited China for a couple of weeks and I was pretty surprised by the people's opinion about the government and government actions that we in the west perceive as abhorrent. Short version: For most of the 20th century, China was in deep shit and bullied by almost anyone who felt like it. In the eyes of many Chinese people, the economic success and regained self-esteem justify almost any measure the government deems necessary. Even if that leads people to be ok with things that we might find horrible, I kind of see where they are coming from. Bottom line: as westerners we have no idea what the world looks like from the Chinese perspective. For many or most Chinese people, the current system doesn't stand for oppression but for the liberation from oppression. I'm sure my story is grossly oversimplified; Chinese readers, please correct me.
    - wisty 11y ago
      Not Chinese, but I've lived there. A lot of people hate the government, but only in the same way many Americans hate the government. And you're right that they see the CCP as being reasonably good, compared to the alternatives they've had. In many ways, the central government is much better liked than the local / provincial governments, as they are the ones who clean up corruption when people complain. No-one likes internet filters (except for the "think of the children" crowd - the filters also block porn). But anyone who really cares can get a VPN, and most people just use puns or images to say things that would normally be filtered. Yes, you can be hauled to the police for a "tea chat" (literally a cup of tea, and a chat) if you're a popular blogger who is stepping on the wrong toes. But it's not like they're shooting people for dissent - the process is roughly: deleting posts, threats, contacting family / employers, eventually maybe house arrest, fines, prison, etc. Black arrests are typically internal party matters (e.g. corrupt officials), people protesting in person, organisers, and people going to a capital to petition a higher level of government (some local leader with gang-connections might try to keep people from petitioning his boss). What annoys the Chinese isn't free speech, per say. It's corruption, pollution, unsafe products, abuse of eminent domain, etc. And things like jobs, education, healthcare, and house prices - they've got a lot of problems, and free speech isn't the biggest one. Revolutions are expensive. It's a crap-shot whether you get real reforms, or a new strong-man (think Putin). Mostly, they want gradual reform, and that's what they tend to get.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dpweb 11y ago
I'm no apologist for someone who works for our government and publicly releases secrets that may damage the nation's security - and I've been fooled before - but I was quite moved by the HBO documentary - both in describing his situation and point of view, but also with his intelligence and way he conducted himself. He would and will have to very sharp (and lucky) to stand any chance against the forces aligned against him. I think a United States congressman publicly called for his murder at one point. I can't imagine. I think, if he does truly care as much as he claims, he will inevitably have come back to the US to face trial. The time is coming when that will be the most important thing he can do to advance his cause.
- ohazi 11y ago
  I would prefer to see him pardoned within the next 1-3 US presidents.
  - cpursley 11y ago
    If Rand Paul becomes the next president, I bet we'll see it in his first term.
- fineman 11y ago
  > may damage the nation's security Cite needed. From a non-lunatic source, and of course outside the NSA. > He would and will have to very sharp (and lucky) to stand any chance against the forces aligned against him. Very true. > if he does truly care as much as he claims, he will inevitably have come back to the US to face trial. The time is coming when that will be the most important thing he can do If his wants to join the gulag, next to Chelsea Manning, yeah. Otherwise, no. > his cause Oh, what is his cause? You mean legal government? Is that a cause these days? What do you think he needs to prove? Will you only acknowledge the leaks when he jumps through some hoops? Pardon and release Chelsea and let her leave the USA, then entice her back with a hero's welcome and an apology, and still let her leave when she wants, and then in a few years Ed may decide it's worth coming home, let alone safe enough to try.
spcoll 11y ago
Snowden is a traitor and deserves to be locked up.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  Why?
- luckydude 11y ago
  I think technically you are correct but ethically you are way off base. He did the right thing. I'd like to think that if I was in his position I would have had the balls to do what he did. Not sure that I have them. Instead of waving the traitor flag you might look at what he exposed and get pissed about that. That's the real problem. One could make the argument that he is a patriot and a hero. He's trying to get our country to actually uphold our constitution. Seems like he made the right choice at a huge personal cost.
- fineman 11y ago
  You're required to report crimes in progress, and illegal orders. When the regular channels make themselves unavailable your duty still remains. If there's a traitor, it certainly isn't the whistleblower.
- jpmattia 11y ago
  > Snowden is a traitor and deserves to be locked up. If only there were some agency in charge of national security so that we could prevent these things from happening.
- cheald 11y ago
  Well, so was George Washington.
- ionised 11y ago
  He did the public a great service, and his breaking of the law should be of no consequence in that context.
- vvpan 11y ago
  Who did he betray?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vph 11y ago
I don't get this guy. He seems smart and naive at the same time. He's living right under the nose of one of the largest spy agencies in the world: the KGB. Okay, I can see he doesn't want to talk about them. Fine. But he seems to call for the destruction of the American spy agencies. Really? Russia, China, and all of our "allies" ain't going to close their spy agencies even if the US does. What do you want? America with no spies operating in a this world? How about we give up all of our weapons too? That will make the world a safer better place? Right? I just don't get this guy.
- Sacho 11y ago
  Why do you get the sentiment that: 1) he wants to destroy american spy agencies? 2) only american spy agencies If we presume his call against the current mass surveilance programs equates with the destruction of the NSA(which I can't really agree with), then ypu would also conclude he dislikes the burgeoning mass surveilance from other countties, e.g. France, the UK and others listed in the article. He didn't mention Russia explicitly, but I cannot fault his political tact considering his situation. I don't think your interpretation of his words is very charitable. Their underlyimng message is a poaitive one - people reject something they aren't comfortable with and using many avenues(political, technological, social) they enact change to combat it. In our age where voters are largely disenfranchised, this is a positive demonatration of the power we hold as a society. There is a discussion to be had about the authority spy agencies should have. Perhaps eventually a reasonable surveillance program with checks and balances may be enacted, which people are content with. We wouldn't even have this conversation, however, if not for people like Snowden. The US government preached total secrecy in the name of "national security", and basically said "trust us, you don't need to know". Thanks to Snowden, we are, with some hope, on yhe road to such a conversation. That's what I "get" from him.
- ionised 11y ago
  He never said any of that.
- shawabawa3 11y ago
  > America with no spies operating in a this world? He's explicitly said he thinks the NSA is a good thing. He did voluntarily work for them for years after all. He just believes the NSA should operate legally
nabeelahmed13 11y ago
Those mistaking Snowden for being naive and idealistic, note that he may actually believe there has been progress. Sadly, I don't have a source, but I remember him saying in an interview that when he handed over the documents to Greenwald and Poitras, he thought nothing would come of it. That it would be forgotten and never get on the radar. That isn't the case. Sure, we have a long way to go, and the situation is much more nuanced than he makes it to be, but from his view, this is progress.

262 points by digisth 11y ago

uptown 11y ago

"As you read this online, the United States government makes a note."

skidoo 11y ago
"Let's give them something to talk about.' - Bonnie Raitt
- jeff_marshall 11y ago
  Love, for the NYT? surely you jest. They've got a long way back before they have my trust, let alone my love.
sehugg 11y ago
Awhile back the NY Times (sort of) committed to having their site on HTTPS by the end of 2015, is that still on track? http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/embracing-https/ http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/embracing-https/
homunculus 11y ago
There goes my future TS-SCI. Damn!

danso 11y ago

I don't disagree with Snowden's sentiment, and I know it's possible he didn't write the headline...but "The World Says No to Surveillance" is simplistic and inaccurate. The obvious rebuttal is "But China"...but beyond that, among the Western powers: France and Britain, among others. And Snowden acknowledges this (which is why I don't assume he wrote the headline, necessarily): > Spymasters in Australia, Canada and France have exploited recent tragedies to seek intrusive new powers despite evidence such programs would not have prevented attacks. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain recently mused, “Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?” He soon found his answer, proclaiming that “for too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.” Again, it's not that Snowden is wrong in his opinion about surveillance. But it's wrong to think that the world, or any kind of non-U.S.-status quo, is anti-surveillance. The battle is much more uphill than that and those who want to fight it have to keep that in mind.

tanderson92 11y ago
The world's response is more than the aggregate will of the governments. To take your case of China, I would be wary of claiming that the people of that country are content with the surveillance state in which they live. Rather, they are an oppressed people, and the surveillance state does them no favor in this regard. Ed Snowden's larger point was about the public reaction to learning they were being surveilled; obviously, governments already knew whether they themselves were spying. In this sense I think the world has indeed said no to surveillance, it's just that in some cases the government doesn't wish to listen (well, not to that, just everything else!).
- tmalsburg2 11y ago
  A few years back, I visited China for a couple of weeks and I was pretty surprised by the people's opinion about the government and government actions that we in the west perceive as abhorrent. Short version: For most of the 20th century, China was in deep shit and bullied by almost anyone who felt like it. In the eyes of many Chinese people, the economic success and regained self-esteem justify almost any measure the government deems necessary. Even if that leads people to be ok with things that we might find horrible, I kind of see where they are coming from. Bottom line: as westerners we have no idea what the world looks like from the Chinese perspective. For many or most Chinese people, the current system doesn't stand for oppression but for the liberation from oppression. I'm sure my story is grossly oversimplified; Chinese readers, please correct me.
  - wisty 11y ago
    Not Chinese, but I've lived there. A lot of people hate the government, but only in the same way many Americans hate the government. And you're right that they see the CCP as being reasonably good, compared to the alternatives they've had. In many ways, the central government is much better liked than the local / provincial governments, as they are the ones who clean up corruption when people complain. No-one likes internet filters (except for the "think of the children" crowd - the filters also block porn). But anyone who really cares can get a VPN, and most people just use puns or images to say things that would normally be filtered. Yes, you can be hauled to the police for a "tea chat" (literally a cup of tea, and a chat) if you're a popular blogger who is stepping on the wrong toes. But it's not like they're shooting people for dissent - the process is roughly: deleting posts, threats, contacting family / employers, eventually maybe house arrest, fines, prison, etc. Black arrests are typically internal party matters (e.g. corrupt officials), people protesting in person, organisers, and people going to a capital to petition a higher level of government (some local leader with gang-connections might try to keep people from petitioning his boss). What annoys the Chinese isn't free speech, per say. It's corruption, pollution, unsafe products, abuse of eminent domain, etc. And things like jobs, education, healthcare, and house prices - they've got a lot of problems, and free speech isn't the biggest one. Revolutions are expensive. It's a crap-shot whether you get real reforms, or a new strong-man (think Putin). Mostly, they want gradual reform, and that's what they tend to get.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dpweb 11y ago

I'm no apologist for someone who works for our government and publicly releases secrets that may damage the nation's security - and I've been fooled before - but I was quite moved by the HBO documentary - both in describing his situation and point of view, but also with his intelligence and way he conducted himself. He would and will have to very sharp (and lucky) to stand any chance against the forces aligned against him. I think a United States congressman publicly called for his murder at one point. I can't imagine. I think, if he does truly care as much as he claims, he will inevitably have come back to the US to face trial. The time is coming when that will be the most important thing he can do to advance his cause.

ohazi 11y ago
I would prefer to see him pardoned within the next 1-3 US presidents.
- cpursley 11y ago
  If Rand Paul becomes the next president, I bet we'll see it in his first term.
fineman 11y ago
> may damage the nation's security Cite needed. From a non-lunatic source, and of course outside the NSA. > He would and will have to very sharp (and lucky) to stand any chance against the forces aligned against him. Very true. > if he does truly care as much as he claims, he will inevitably have come back to the US to face trial. The time is coming when that will be the most important thing he can do If his wants to join the gulag, next to Chelsea Manning, yeah. Otherwise, no. > his cause Oh, what is his cause? You mean legal government? Is that a cause these days? What do you think he needs to prove? Will you only acknowledge the leaks when he jumps through some hoops? Pardon and release Chelsea and let her leave the USA, then entice her back with a hero's welcome and an apology, and still let her leave when she wants, and then in a few years Ed may decide it's worth coming home, let alone safe enough to try.

spcoll 11y ago

Snowden is a traitor and deserves to be locked up.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
Why?
luckydude 11y ago
I think technically you are correct but ethically you are way off base. He did the right thing. I'd like to think that if I was in his position I would have had the balls to do what he did. Not sure that I have them. Instead of waving the traitor flag you might look at what he exposed and get pissed about that. That's the real problem. One could make the argument that he is a patriot and a hero. He's trying to get our country to actually uphold our constitution. Seems like he made the right choice at a huge personal cost.
fineman 11y ago
You're required to report crimes in progress, and illegal orders. When the regular channels make themselves unavailable your duty still remains. If there's a traitor, it certainly isn't the whistleblower.
jpmattia 11y ago
> Snowden is a traitor and deserves to be locked up. If only there were some agency in charge of national security so that we could prevent these things from happening.
cheald 11y ago
Well, so was George Washington.
ionised 11y ago
He did the public a great service, and his breaking of the law should be of no consequence in that context.
vvpan 11y ago
Who did he betray?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vph 11y ago

I don't get this guy. He seems smart and naive at the same time. He's living right under the nose of one of the largest spy agencies in the world: the KGB. Okay, I can see he doesn't want to talk about them. Fine. But he seems to call for the destruction of the American spy agencies. Really? Russia, China, and all of our "allies" ain't going to close their spy agencies even if the US does. What do you want? America with no spies operating in a this world? How about we give up all of our weapons too? That will make the world a safer better place? Right? I just don't get this guy.

Sacho 11y ago
Why do you get the sentiment that: 1) he wants to destroy american spy agencies? 2) only american spy agencies If we presume his call against the current mass surveilance programs equates with the destruction of the NSA(which I can't really agree with), then ypu would also conclude he dislikes the burgeoning mass surveilance from other countties, e.g. France, the UK and others listed in the article. He didn't mention Russia explicitly, but I cannot fault his political tact considering his situation. I don't think your interpretation of his words is very charitable. Their underlyimng message is a poaitive one - people reject something they aren't comfortable with and using many avenues(political, technological, social) they enact change to combat it. In our age where voters are largely disenfranchised, this is a positive demonatration of the power we hold as a society. There is a discussion to be had about the authority spy agencies should have. Perhaps eventually a reasonable surveillance program with checks and balances may be enacted, which people are content with. We wouldn't even have this conversation, however, if not for people like Snowden. The US government preached total secrecy in the name of "national security", and basically said "trust us, you don't need to know". Thanks to Snowden, we are, with some hope, on yhe road to such a conversation. That's what I "get" from him.
ionised 11y ago
He never said any of that.
shawabawa3 11y ago
> America with no spies operating in a this world? He's explicitly said he thinks the NSA is a good thing. He did voluntarily work for them for years after all. He just believes the NSA should operate legally

nabeelahmed13 11y ago

Those mistaking Snowden for being naive and idealistic, note that he may actually believe there has been progress. Sadly, I don't have a source, but I remember him saying in an interview that when he handed over the documents to Greenwald and Poitras, he thought nothing would come of it. That it would be forgotten and never get on the radar. That isn't the case. Sure, we have a long way to go, and the situation is much more nuanced than he makes it to be, but from his view, this is progress.