[josho]

Oh, great. I'm very curious. I am honestly very interested to hear what you feel Snowden has done wrong?

I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high regard.

[eli]

I think perhaps you've been consuming only media that mirrors your own viewpoint. Many people are upset that Snowden "violated his oath," that he took it upon himself to effectively dismantle programs he disagreed with (even if the program was indeed out of line), and that he fled from the consequences of his actions.

If you believe public opinion polling, a majority of Americans don't like what he did and think he should return to face trial: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...

[freehunter]

Fleeing the consequences of his actions is akin to ducking after disagreeing with an irrational person. Right or wrong, they're about to hit you. You don't have to stand there and take it.

If he had faced the consequences of his actions, he wouldn't be around right now to continue this discussion.

[sanderjd]

You don't have to stand there and take it, but sometimes it is better if you do. You don't know that he wouldn't be around right now. I happen to think that he would still be around, but certainly his life would be more difficult. But I also think he'd be more "popular".

[couchand]

Interesting trade-off: living in exile but invited to video conference at every big name event and helping direct the course of the national security discussion, or in solitary confinement in Guantanamo but more "popular"

I'd say Snowden made the right choice.

[sanderjd]

While I think the "solitary confinement in Guantanamo" assumption is probably off-base, certainly he'd be in a tough situation somewhere, and he probably did make the right choice. I definitely wouldn't have had anywhere near the courage he has shown in his whistleblowing, let alone the courage it would take to face the punishment.

Nonetheless, I'll expand on what I meant by "popular"; in the mainstream his flight is seen as evidence of guilt, and the particular countries to which he fled cast even more of a shadow on his intentions. Lots of people I've talked to think he must be an enemy because he fled. Martyrdom is always terrible for the martyr but often better for the martyr's ideology than the alternative. You're definitely right that he's having a continued impact on the discussion, and perhaps that does make his exile a net positive for his ideology. But the people I know who think he's a traitor who betrayed his country before seeking asylum with its enemies don't tend to listen to what he has to say.

[ScottBurson]

Remind those people what happened to Chelsea Manning. She was tortured for months.

(I understand your point, though.)

[krapp]

Bear in mind another point - believing Snowden needs to stand trial doesn't necessarily presume a belief that he's guilty, or should be punished, either. Americans also tend to believe the justice system works as advertised.

[danielweber]

As a matter of order, people should only stand trial if the government legitimately believes them guilty and the government believes it can prove this to a jury.

Trials aren't for finding out facts or uncovering the truth. They are the formal processes that a government must do after deciding that a citizen deserves punishment to actually effect their decision.

minor edits

[mpyne]

This was be one of the easiest trials the government has ever had to put on though. Snowden admitted what he did himself, after all.

[talmand]

I for one feel he should not be punished under whistleblower laws, but I would be open to a proper trial. I would like to see that discussion in open court, not a secret tribunal where the outcome is only reported by the government doing the prosecution.

Which is why I think he should not return to face trial, because I think there's no way he'll ever get a fair and open trial in the US.

[eli]

According to that poll, a majority of people also disapprove of what he did. But yes, very true.

[josho]

I am not American, so perhaps it is that the rest of the world sees this differently than American's do.

Regarding Snowden fleeing, if you disagree with his choice then give this interview a read[1], it is with the whistleblower for the Pentagon papers. The opinion is that if Snowden didn't flee in today's climate then he likely would have ended up in isolation or Guantanamo.

As an outsider to the US it is interesting to observe that American's (on average) have a high distrust of their government, yet follow quite closely the US government's line. (Please note this is not intended to inflame, but it is an honest observation from an outsider that has observed many American's and is intended for you to reflect upon).

[1] http://www.salon.com/2013/06/14/daniel_ellsberg_edward_snowd...

[mpyne]

> The opinion is that if Snowden didn't flee in today's climate then he likely would have ended up in isolation or Guantanamo.

That's his opinion, and it's unfounded IMHO. Actual terrorists are increasingly and deliberately put on public trial in New York, and Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning got his (now her) trial as well.

[zevyoura]

Manning was held in effective solitary confinement for 9 months.

[mpyne]

Which had a lot to do with being in a military prison where joking with the guards about killing yourself actually could result in being placed in a Prevention of Suicide status. In any event, even with that Manning was transferred away from solitary in the first half of her detention and finished the trial outside of solitary (and thereby set the precedent for how later activist spies should be treated).

[rayiner]

> I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high regard.

I imagine this is entirely a function of your social circle. The polls conducted this year have been marginally in favor of his prosecution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Edward_Snowden's_.... It's a deeply divisive issue for Americans, though it breaks along the usual lines (age, etc).

My dad, for example, who is very liberal on most things, is no fan of Snowden. Especially among the older generation who grew up during the Cold War, nothing Snowden revealed rises to the level of invasiveness that would be cause for alarm.

Most of the people I know simply do not care about surveillance. They're in the ideological majority, they don't have controversial opinions, and they (rightly) believe the government has no interest in using the fruits surveillance against them. They certainly don't sympathize with the ideas of hypothetical political dissidents that might be hypothetically suppressed using surveillance.

[lettergram]

My Dad is the same way, so a few months after first discussing Snowden I decided to write a little satire about living in communist Russia.

It was fairly short, probably 3 pages of dark humor, however he got the point and in now at the very least understands why this is important. I think many Americans (especially those who grew up in the cold war) do not realize how serious this is.

There was a campaign to white wash all the information, NPR, CNN, Fox, they really did not cover the story in a clear cut manner. The fact the government denied everything, and there was an abundance of information shut a lot of people down and out of the conversation.

That being said, every (older - 40+) person I talk to think Snowden was bad, until I ask the question, "Why did we fight the cold war?" You cannot spend decades battling Nazism/Communism only to accept the same practices a decade later. It's pathetic. Often after a clear explanation of what the NSA (or what we know the NSA) actually does, quickly changes their minds.

All they really need is an explanation.

[genericresponse]

Well I'm younger and I still think what Snowden did was bad. Moreover, I think you're going a bit far by saying that these are "the same practices" that we fought against in the cold war. I would argue that we don't have nearly the grievances that those living under late 20th century communism did.

My big two are: 1. Food and goods shortages requiring long lines. 2. Extreme restrictions on freedom to travel. (You must have your papers to go to the next town, state, etc.) Overall my biggest issue is that communism sought to convert the entire world and that it was intrusive into its citizen's daily lives.

My big issues with Snowden: 1. Most of this was strongly suspected/known. See the Wired article from 2 years before about the Utah data center. 2. If he did this on principle why not face the consequences of his actions. This has been a principle of resistance for years. 3. The documentation he leaked went beyond the scope of potential constitutional violations into tradecraft and technique. He turned over a treasure trove of information to foreign spy services.

[joshstrange]

>> I decided to write a little satire about living in communist Russia.

Is that public anywhere? I'd be interested in reading and potentially passing it on to a few people I know.

[talmand]

That's odd, I grew up on the tail end of the Cold War and it seems to me that much of Snowden's accusations of the antics of the US government is up there with the propaganda from the US government itself as to why the Soviet Union was bad.

For a generation that grew up with something like East Berlin and the Berlin Wall thinking that government surveillance isn't bad makes me wonder what level does one have to get to before it's considered bad for the people.

For those that did not live through or remember the Soviet Union collapse and the fall of the Berlin Wall leading to German unification I can understand. It's hard for current generations to understand how truly awful WWII was for the human race as a whole, they simply cannot relate.

[sanderjd]

Out of curiosity, what do your dad and the other people you mention think about Daniel Ellsberg? His case seems similar, and history seems to have mostly smiled upon his actions. But of course he stayed in the country and stood trial...

[reitzensteinm]

> They certainly don't sympathize with the ideas of hypothetical political dissidents that might be hypothetically suppressed using surveillance.

Like Martin Luther King?

[bmm6o]

> Oh, great. I'm very curious. I am honestly very interested to hear what you feel Snowden has done wrong?

Oh jeez, not this shit again. It's not even relevant to the topic of the OP this time.

That is to say, here comes another giant pointless derail that will distract from the actual topic at hand.

[josho]

I apologize, and you are spot on.

Clapper lied under oath, he has received no retribution for his lie, and the US population doesn't give a shit. Kinda makes one loose faith in the system, doesn't it?

[donutello]

I feel he was right to disclose the illegal collection of phone records. However, he was wrong to disclose pretty much everything else that he did. He disclosed details of activities that weren't illegal and has hurt the NSAs ability to do its job on behalf of the United States.

[josho]

That is the Government line. But, I believe it is a false argument (i.e. propaganda). Schneier (popular on here) spells is out clearly, https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/michael_hayde...

I disagree (mildly) with his first point that operationally the US is affected. Because it's been a long held assumption that the US had extensive spying programs in place. Snowden simply provided the evidence. So, if you had something to hide from the NSA you were already hiding it as best as you could. Maybe, now a few more attack vectors have been revealed and hiding/encryption practices will be updated.