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.
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.
He's in marketing mode and that's what he should be doing. The reality is different but he's painting a picture of what should be happening and marketing that as if that is happening. I get it.
Hacker news is full of engineers so they'll take issue, which is fine, they are also right.
My feeling is Snowden++, he's doing a great job. It's going to be a long battle and he is helping a lot.
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!).
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.
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.
> 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.
Wow. Also, they do shoot people for dissent. Those who aren't cowed or jailed.
> they've got a lot of problems, and free speech isn't the biggest one.
Not the biggest, but one of the most central. You can't agitate for anything you need if speaking out is forbidden, and you can't organize if you're being monitored.
> Revolutions are expensive. It's a crap-shot whether you get real reforms, or a new strong-man (think Putin).
There are seven billion people and maybe 200 'powers'. What's the chance any, let alone yours is doing the exact thing, in the exact way, that you prioritize highest?
Also, agitation is what we call speech we don't like. If we do, it's lobbying, or raising awareness, etc.
The test of a society is if speech is allowed (not forbidden) even if the powers-that-be consider it agitation.
The impression I get is the Chinese feel they are a singular nation: the world's largest, one of its richest, and its fastest-developing (the "sleeping dragon" finally awakening). And then they hear the Western world criticising them...
Sure, China isn't perfect, but it's getting better, and for a significant fraction of a billion people, good enough.
> The world's response is more than the aggregate will of the governments.
Certainly, but in France people are known to demonstrate and block the country when they are not happy with a particular Law or government plan. For surveillance, I am still waiting to see anyone protesting in the streets in any meaningful measure. That says a lot on how much actual people care.
French people here. Agreed. There's always a syndicate for job-related topics or Christian-Homo things. There's no syndicate against surveillance yet.
On the other hand, since the vote, it seems that the surveillance law became the top 1 example of how our politics betray us, where we used to quote corruption and lust, so people are well aware of a problem, in many different social classes.
This is just plain wrong, it's far from obvious. "But the tiny number of Chinese presently in power." That may be fair but you have zero idea or appreciation of the breadth of opinions or lack thereof of the population of China.
Differential empathy.
When he says "The world says no" I think he's right. I'm yet to meet someone who is in favour of everything they say to their friends, foes or just out loud taken down and kept in a database forever where it could be used against them at any point in their future or their children after they are gone by not just current, but all possible future powerful entities. After the revolution that your political enemies succeed at by force, they can use it against you.
Really, absolutely nobody I have ever met wants that. Not one person. It's a sentiment that crosses politics, cultures, ethnicities, wealth you name it.
My parents. My parents are annoyed that we're letting too many people in without a due visa. They are annoyed we let too many people steal in shops, destroy, menace, deal with mafia, organize children work in subways (preferrably children with malformations trying to play harmonica and beg). They want a clean country where more people respect the law, and they live in France where people are quite flexible with the rules, laws and exceptions.
Therefore they would like the police to have more latitude to investigate. They think we should be lenient when police bashes someone, because they think too often people don't comply to police instructions and get away thanks to the law. They're ok with shutting down 3G metworks punctually "to avoid a mob" and prevent pictures from being uploaded in live. And they enjoy that the government can spy on citizen, so we can investigate on illegal networks.
Don't worry, I'm working on them. One argument is usually quite popular: Stories where policemen are caught using such tools to track their ex. Funny enough they're not generally afraid that police might be corrupted.
The Headline should rather be "A Few People Say No to Surveillance, while the Majority does not care and continues Business as Usual". His view of how much impact he has had is probably heavily biased. Although I think he did the right thing, there's still a LONG way to go.
"Do you want everything you do and say to be kept in a permanent record to be used by the current and any future government against you at their discretion."
See if you can get even 1 who says yes, or "that's ok with me"
May not say "no" loudly enough to be working yet. Don't mistake that for yes.
- "Do you support creating a state-sanctioned group that can detain or even kill you and your family at their discretion before you've been tried by a jury of your peers?"
do you support the local police? Yes. Do you support the local police having tactical nuclear weapons?
Yeah it's about that simple. Maybe you need to explain what a nuclear weapon is to someone who hasn't heard of them - and that's about where we're at.
You can support the local police all you like and most people do and they still don't want total surveillance.
This is not a how to massage "opinion polls" discussion like it's news to everyone as it was when we were second year of highschool or whenever that was.
Lay out the pros of total surveillance, lay out the consequences. Do it as impartially and arbitrarily as you like and you'll get a wonderful unity of opinion about it.
If you don't mention that you have to trust all possible future governments, public servants and have absolute faith in their perfect competence your poll is shockingly biased because that is the actual thing we're holding opinions on.
And nobody I know does have that level of trust and I'll lay dollars to donuts you don't either.
It's not a fing gallop poll to massage toward some political end. It's what I suggest you* ask people because it's the goddamn consequence of total surveillance. Do you doubt that it is? Yeah and nobody wants it.
You're not just trusting this generation of police and this government public servants and elected but you are trusting allpossible future governments, all possible future police, all possible future public servants who get the keys to it. And not just trusting them to be good people but trusting them in that they are awesomely competent and that they keep all that information completely secure.
The opinion is whether you have that level of trust or not. I don't know anyone who does. Not one. But i respect that someone may well hold that opinion and that's where opinion ENTERS this. Prime them with all the "Think of the childeren war on terror" you like just as long as you make that FACT clear that this is the trust they have to have.
And here's the thing, you can Still support the authorities without supporting such things which most people actually do when they understand and work out those consequences. It's the same as:
"I support the FBI catching criminals but they probably shouldn't have a medieval torture dungeon and their own meth labs and distribution network."
You'd be hard pressed to find 1 person in 10 who thinks they should have a medieval torture dungeon and that be a legal thing. You'd be hard pressed to find 1 in 10 in the FBI who thought so or at least you'd fucking hope that's the case otherwise they need to start the firing and replacing them with humans beings.
But tech savvy you can explain further to any random people that when everything is recorded it becomes the motherlode for anyone who is going to gain by blackmailing. That data is now a target for organised crime, hostile foreign powers, and everyone you hate and wishes you harm. If they get it, eg because someone who has access to that info but also has a gambling problem, or their big brother likes little boys or whatever is their weakness given they're all obviously good, proper and righteous americans, those enemies of america will use the information and that probably won't be a positive thing for freedom, democracy, america or even for any random three letter agency.
It's not a fucking popularity poll commissioned by a news service pushing an agenda.
You ask 10 people if they want everything they say and do on a permanent record to be accessed by all current and all future possible governments forever or whether that is a step too far and watch the unity across the political and socio-economic spectrum.
Phrase it like that because it's ACCURATE. If you think it's inaccurate - make that case.
And fuck anyone who doesn't want me to mention the downvotes too. No really, fuck them. Downvotes are for opinions you want hidden because they are off-colour and lack legitimacy in a civilized discussion.
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.
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.
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.
If the only documents he revealed were the ones that showed the communications of American citizens are being monitored and stayed in the US and defended what he did with some fortitude then maybe he would be viewed as someone who did something patriotic. Instead he fled to Hong Kong and then Russia and revealed many of the NSA's foreign ops (which makes him a traitor).
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.
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.
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.