Sorry, but I don't buy this guy's story. Something is just incredibly fishy.
I don't buy this guy's argument for going to Hong Kong, e.g. that has a history of free speech, and its supposed autonomy from the mainland -- even after all of these years, Chinese pressure prevents Taiwan from international recognition. You think they are just letting Hong Kong do its own thing? He seems intelligent and must be aware of this, especially having worked in the intelligence world. The Chinese firewall is the most renowned internet chokehold in the world. The Chinese are known for hacking Google to spy on their own citizens.
I just have to think of it if I were in his situation. If I were a freedom-loving individual looking to seek asylum, I'd probably first look at countries that granted asylum in similar cases that weren't internationally renowned for suppressing freedom of speech. Assange has asylum with Ecuador, why not go there first? China is just such a weird choice for someone who is purportedly morally driven to his actions by privacy violations.
Not only that, this situation has nothing but upsides for the Chinese. It looks great for them to expose another world power is spying on their own citizens (and weakens any diplomatic arguments the US has when pressuring them to open up free speech and the internet). It's also a nice thorn to retort after all of the recent hubbub about Chinese government hackers. If he wasn't an active spy in the traditional definition feeding the Chinese information, he is certainly an asset by circumstance -- why wouldn't they manipulate him to their benefit?
Now, that's not saying the US did the right thing -- we kind of fucked ourselves here having PRISM in place first of all -- but I am not sure this guy is the lone ranger whistleblower hero is painting himself to be.
Make no mistake, Hong Kong's law enforcement community and government is extremely close knit with their U.S. counterparts.
We've personally had assets and servers seized by the "Commercial Crimes Division" of the Hong Kong police, at the sole request of U.S. Law Enforcement.
With that being said, you may be correct in your speculation, especially since Hong Kong is definitely not known for it's free speech in regards to governmental or criminal matters, if he were truly going somewhere based on only their 'reputation', there are far more viable choices (Ex: Iceland or Ecuador)
>Sorry, but I don't buy this guy's story. Something is just incredibly fishy.
>I am not sure this guy is the lone ranger whistleblower hero is painting himself to be.
That is exactly right. Its much too convenient. This guy was probably a PRC mole/sleeper. Who defects to a country that still executes dissidents?
I live in DC and know tons of people who work for the government. Guess what? They are people like you and I, and in a lot of cases less capable or bright (which is why they go for cushy government jobs). They get drunk and they act like assholes in groups, you hear them talking garbage all the time on the metro and in restaurants.
Just because these people (who in all likelihood are bureaucrats with no power at all) say they want this guy dead doesn't mean they have any power or ability to send out the hit squad, or killing reporters is now US Policy. It's just as meaningless as me randomly saying "god, I wish Karl Rove was dead."
Killing reporters is not US policy. Yet. Pulling clear diplomatic strings to insinuate a rape accusation and force them into a situation where they require diplomatic sanctuary, on the other hand...
You have to consider he is not about to badmouth the government that he is about to seek asylum from. He didn't go somewhere that he thought was better, he is just in survival mode now.
If he had connections in Hong Kong, why supply the weak excuse "oh, it's because of its history of dissidence and freedom of speech?"
He would have been much more convincing saying "yeah, I know that China doesn't have the greatest record on privacy, but I have several friends in Hong Kong that I hope will support my asylum case." Boom. Totally makes sense, and doesn't sound like a rehearsed rationalization that could have been scripted by the PRC.
It's the age of airplanes, dude. They aren't sending out the stagecoaches with deputies. Physical distance doesn't really matter if someone with access to the resources the US government has is out to get you. I think this guy is well aware of that (as you should be, too).
To play devils advocate, if I had connections in Hong Kong and was attempting to gain footing there, I would not want to volunteer information regarding my connections where it would be widely published in the media.
I don't think that's the case here, however we really don't have any concrete evidence either way.
As far as law enforcement goes, you're spot on, physical distance is the least of anyone's concerns. The first consideration for law enforcement would probably be "How willingly will this jurisdiction work with us?"
All I'm saying is that you don't have all the information, so why try to discredit him so early? Wait until you have the facts before you condemn someone.
I have no power to discredit him. I'm not famous, nor any access to a venue to do so.
This is totally personal speculation based on how I would have behaved if I were in his position as a whistleblower that was a strong human rights privacy advocate. To me, his actions are incongruous with his statements. If he's not being manipulated by the Chinese, the other option is that he is just naive or careless and picked Hong Kong without considering what kind of political implications it would have, and was either unaware of its history in human rights and privacy, or chose to ignore it.
I'm fully willing to believe my opinion will change if more facts come in; just as it it stands now, I remain skeptical.
I don't think it's a matter of discrediting or condemning anyone. He's simply providing an alternate perspective on what might be going on, whether it is true or not is anyone's guess.
I personally don't think he has any PRC ties, however it does foster an interesting discussion, and isn't that what HN is all about?
I don't buy this guy's argument for going to Hong Kong, e.g. that has a history of free speech, and its supposed autonomy from the mainland -- even after all of these years, Chinese pressure prevents Taiwan from international recognition. You think they are just letting Hong Kong do its own thing? He seems intelligent and must be aware of this, especially having worked in the intelligence world. The Chinese firewall is the most renowned internet chokehold in the world. The Chinese are known for hacking Google to spy on their own citizens.
I just have to think of it if I were in his situation. If I were a freedom-loving individual looking to seek asylum, I'd probably first look at countries that granted asylum in similar cases that weren't internationally renowned for suppressing freedom of speech. Assange has asylum with Ecuador, why not go there first? China is just such a weird choice for someone who is purportedly morally driven to his actions by privacy violations.
Not only that, this situation has nothing but upsides for the Chinese. It looks great for them to expose another world power is spying on their own citizens (and weakens any diplomatic arguments the US has when pressuring them to open up free speech and the internet). It's also a nice thorn to retort after all of the recent hubbub about Chinese government hackers. If he wasn't an active spy in the traditional definition feeding the Chinese information, he is certainly an asset by circumstance -- why wouldn't they manipulate him to their benefit?
Now, that's not saying the US did the right thing -- we kind of fucked ourselves here having PRISM in place first of all -- but I am not sure this guy is the lone ranger whistleblower hero is painting himself to be.