Slashdot Mirror


Russia Plans To Extend Edward Snowden's Asylum

mendax writes "The New York Times reports, 'Russia plans to extend its offer of asylum to Edward J. Snowden beyond August, a Russian lawmaker said Friday at the World Economic Forum ... The lawmaker, Aleksei K. Pushkov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Russia's lower house of Parliament, hinted during a panel discussion that the extension of temporary refugee status for Mr. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, might be indefinite. "He will not be sent out of Russia," Mr. Pushkov said. "It will be up to Snowden."'" Snowden said yesterday that going back to the U.S. is not an option because of the country's poor whistleblower protections "which through a failure in law did not cover national security contractors like [him]." He added, "This is especially frustrating, because it means there’s no chance to have a fair trial, and no way I can come home and make my case to a jury."

31 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Make him a Russian citizen.... by unixisc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .... and end this saga! Give him a home in the Sakha Republic - that place will get populated

  2. In Soviet Russia... by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

    whistle blows you!

  3. failure in law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nope, that law does exactly was it's supposed to do - protect the guilty.

  4. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's on here because Snowden is the biggest whistleblower of his generation, and this article will get generate views and comments for a less-than-interesting Friday afternoon/evening.

    Last time I checked, Russia's continual asylum was conditional on not releasing more information, otherwise Snowden had a year to find a new place to avoid a drone strike. One wonders if he made a deal, or the Russians just enjoy annoying the US.

  5. Re:Come stand trial. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is that the way the laws are written, he would not be able to mount an effective defense against the charges. He would only be allowed to (basically) answer the circumstances around his alleged taking of those NSA files and would be forbidden from bringing any sort of argument regarding the public's right to know, the government's own wrongdoing exposed by those leaked files, and such and so forth. He is obviously guilty of taking the files so it is a guaranteed guilty verdict.

    There is no point for him to return until the laws allow for some type of whistleblower or public interest defense, which they currently do not.

  6. Re:Good... by Dega704 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He already has the corrupt government of one superpower after his head, I don't think we should ask him to go for two. Maybe a Russian whistleblower will leak loads of damning details about Putin's government surveillance and be granted asylum in the US. That would be hilariously awkward.

  7. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by deconfliction · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can understand the earlier developments relating to this whole incident being on Slashdot. There was the technological aspect to it. ... ... Please, editors, let's leave these purely-political stories off of the front page. I don't dispute that they have value, but they just don't belong here.

    While I don't disagree that slashdot seems to put trollish/public-subset-opinion-polling/alarmist style headlines all over the front page more often than optimal, I have to disagree here about Snowden. I believe the Snowden revelations, and the way they came about, and continue to transpire as so, have so paradigm-shifted the computer and network security landscape, that articles such as this one are more than appropriate. First, it's merely a side-effect conveniency issue. While yes, some of your points may have merit, you have to forgive a bit that the slashdot audience really is that interested in how the Snowden saga transpires. I mean, this is some Epic War and Peace Shit going on here. A martyr being martyred slowly over years. How exactly, and how much pain and vindication end up in that story, I really think will have a profound place in the history of the internet's chapter in the history of humanity. This is a *BIG DEAL*.

    And even setting asside that real-politik drama and the slashdot audience's 'non-technical' interest, you must look at the legitimate 'technical' interest of the slashdot audience. How Snowden is handled by the overwhelming powers that be, truly does shape how many of us here will be developing technology throughout the remaining future of our carreers. At some point, one is tempted to say - 'if computer security matters are treated this profoundly by the un-(directly)-opposable powers that be, then you know what, I'm actually going to stop worrying about whether the firmware in my BIGNAMEBRAND computer system or consumer device is a security risk or not. But if Snowden is fully vindicated, and reclaims the rights and protections of a free citizen of the United States of America, including rigourous protection of his freedom of speech, then I may well say- I'd like to spend more of my carreer working on more secure open source firmware.

    Dunno...

  8. Snowden is Putin's ticket to a free ride by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing you have to understand here is that Putin is an authoritarian douchebag -- but he's not an idiot. He knows that there will be extra scrutiny on his polices during the Olympics. By having Snowden around, it's a reminder that the US isn't in a position to finger-wag over such things.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  9. Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both you and "ackthpt" should be ashamed of yourself.

    Unlike Mr. Edward Snowden, none of you have the guts to do the right thing, and yet, after the personal sacrifices Mr. Snowden has gone through - may even turn out to be a lifelong exile from the country he loves so much - you guys post smart-ass comments as if you are some how "better" than Mr. Snowden.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a ring that lets me save at +4 vs. misplaced shame.
      My remark was more about equating Putin and Obama's behavior toward dissidents than it was about Snowden himself.
      You may not like Snowden, but in the broader context of the IRS scandal, and now this indictment against Dinesh D'Souza, the real people who should consider whether they bear any shame are those who re-elected Barack Obama. Not only do I reject your attempted shaming, I say the buck stops here with trying to pass it on.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people who bear shame are those who voted Republican *or* Democrat in any national election.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    3. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and no, voting 3rd party is a non-starter. don't even go there.

      Well since you've obviously made up your mind, I'll post this for everyone else.

      In many states, there is the guaranteed winner, guaranteed runner-up, and then all the "non-starter" 3rd parties. In those states, everyone voting for the guaranteed runner-up would do better to vote for any of the many 3rd parties. Sure, you won't disrupt the guaranteed winner. But you weren't going to do that anyway. Better to try and dislodge the guaranteed runner-up, send a message to those in charge.

      For those of you in swing states, by all means, continue voting either D or R. Since you guys don't have a guaranteed winner, it doesn't make any sense to ask y'all to vote 3rd party.

    4. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what we have is a choice of kang or kodos. either way, we lose.

      and no, voting 3rd party is a non-starter. don't even go there.

      So, let me get this straight: If you had a choice between A) a guy that will eat your face, B) another guy that will eat your face, or C) a guy you've never heard of who wants to do something like, I dunno, legalize drugs or use a tax surplus to give everybody a $10 gift card to Office Depot... you'd vote for one of the face-eaters?

      Suddenly I'm starting to realize why some people in other countries think we're collectively brain damaged.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      KNOWING that we will never have a majority on a 3rd party, your whole rant is moot.

      that's all.

      note that I don't LIKE THIS, but I am old enough to know how the world really works. some games are not winnable because the game masters stack the cards against you.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by RussR42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      KNOWING that we will never have a majority on a 3rd party, your whole rant is moot.

      Of course we won't as long as people keep saying things like:

      voting 3rd party is a non-starter. don't even go there.

      Maybe if enough people start voting 3rd party, it will be taken seriously and gain a majority.

    7. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by phmadore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The way I saw it, it was all of our unethical war. I'm sorry if that opinion offends you -- if you do not feel responsible for it for any given reason (I was also underage when it kicked off, I was 15) -- but I do believe that a society is, to an extent, the sum of its parts, and that we all owe it to ourselves to take ownership of whatever society we live in. It seemed like a better option than funding it with my tax dollars.

      I also knew that if I was going to be critical of it, I had better see it first hand. And after seeing it first hand, the truth of the matter for the average Iraqi citizen was that he feared Iranian troops far more than he did American troops, and his biggest fear would be American troops leaving and opening the door for Iranian troops to enter. That was the feeling I got, time after time, talking to interpreters and 10 year old English speaking kids. They loved the same idea of America I grew up loving. I did my best to be ethical, as an individual, and to this day I can't say I ever once compromised my morals. Hell, by the time I got there, we weren't even doing raids. We did "soft-knocks," meaning we knocked first and tried to communicate before any escalation of force. The only reason we'd be there is if there was a known "terrorist," that is "insurgent," that is someone who had actively tried to kill people who did not deserve it or tried to kill soldiers. And the quandary in all this for me is that many times this information was not received through fancy, high-tech intelligence gathering methods. It was received through good old-fashioned tattle-tales from the same neighborhood, people who needed something we could give them (usually money). We did some good things now and then, too, you know, things I am proud to say I was a part of, like handing out bundles of your precious tax dollars to folks who would 1) never forget it and 2) use it for something more than a new car in their driveway or a new television on their wall. I actually think that one day Iraq will be a modern, booming country with much more promise than many parts of America, and I'm not sure it could have been that way if Saddam had stayed in power. That's only my opinion, and it's not based on any sort of data (this is a thing I am trying to overcome this year on a general level).

      But to you, Citizen, I would like to apologize for having been a part of that unethical war. And I would like to apologize for the disability checks they send me. In hindsight, I'd probably have found another job if I had thought about it longer. But I wouldn't have commented on the war anymore, I wouldn't have felt equipped to. I was tired of people in my family telling me that 1) I couldn't have an opinion because I had not been there and 2) I simply did not have what it took to be a soldier. That last part is exactly why I went infantry. I'm not a violent person.

    8. Re:Are you guys trying to threaten Snowden ? by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and no, voting 3rd party is a non-starter. don't even go there.

      “I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than for what I don’t want and get it.”
      -- Eugene V. Debs.

  10. Re:Come stand trial. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US does have some protections for whistleblowers, but none he can use - national security information is specifically excluded, as is the public interest defence. Any trial would consist of this:

    Judge: "Did you release classified information?"
    Defense: "Only in the public interest."
    Prosecution: "Public interest defense is not considered a valid cause for releasing classified information."
    Judge: "Guilty. I sentence you to six hundred years in maximum security."

    There isn't really anything he could say. That's even if the trial were fair - and it wouln't be. Chances are almost all the documentation will be classified so high neither he nor his lawyers would be permitted to see it, so he'll be defending against evidence he can't even know about. The only good thing for him is that he was a civilian contractor, so he at least would get a trial, rather than a military tribunal.

  11. U.S. Willing to Talk if Snowden Pleads Guilty by schwit1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...

    His response should be "you first".

    1. Re:U.S. Willing to Talk if Snowden Pleads Guilty by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...

      Is this a new thing now, where /. cuts off the hyperlink?
      unmolested: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...
      a href: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/politics/us-willing-to-hold-talks-if-snowden-pleads-guilty.html?_r=0

      This is dumb and whoever implemented it is dumb.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  12. Re:Come stand trial. by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's BS that Snowden is unwilling to come back to the US to stand trial. I'm sure there are plenty of great lawyers who would work pro bono to take his landmark case, and if he was willing to fight, he might be able to affect more change to the government spying program and achieve the goals he set out to reach.

    Even great lawyers can't do anything when the evidence is hidden or heavily redacted in the name of national security. "Your honor, we'd like to introduce this document showing that the NSA was overstepping its legal bounds" "Objection! That document is classified top secret, so instead you can use this redacted version that is completely black except for the words "We", "love", and "freedom".

    It's especially difficult when the lawyer is going up against an agency that has already shown itself willing to lie directly to congress -- supposedly the people that are overseeing the agency. If they don't mind lying to congress, why wouldn't they lie to a court?

    With the deck stacked that heavily against him, what hope is there for any sort of fair trial? Esepcially when he's guilty of what he's accused of -- stealing and releasing classified documents. Without whistleblower protection laws to support him, the reason he stole the documents is immaterial.

  13. Re:Seems simple to me by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey who let James Clapper on slashdot

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  14. The US pokes itself in the eye with a stick by Geste · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, I'll stipulate that Snowden is a hero to me. Half my age. Twenty times the guts.

    What really bothers me, though, is how the Administration bungled this. Amateur hour! The moment we arrogantly, petulantly forced Evo Morales airplane down in Austria, we pretty much guaranteed that Snowden would need to hole up and that Putin would take the opportunity to stick us in the eye. This is beyond amazing. We've put ourselves in the position where a vicious thug gets to posture as the nice guy and leave us with very little to do. We are depending on a thug to protect the fate and future of a man who initiated one of the most important discussions in our nation's political history. All because we couldn't think straight and realize that Ecuador or Venezuela or *anywhere" would be a batter outcome than what we got.

    It's one thing to get poked in the eye with a stick, but quite another thing to run into the stick full tilt. Amateur hour.

  15. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last time I checked, Russia's continual asylum was conditional on not releasing more information,

    Easy for him to live up to since he gave the entire trove to Greenwald, et al. Snowden hasn't released anything since, because he doesn't have anything left. Same reason all the talk about the FSB getting access to the files is also baseless speculation.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  16. Espionage Act of 1917 doesn't protect whistleblowe by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yep, this was handled yesterday in: http://news.slashdot.org/story...

    http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

    Highlights:
    In the Thomas Drake case, the administration retroactively marked documents as classified, saying, 'he knew they should have been classified.'
    In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked.

  17. Re:Come stand trial. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Possible, but very, very unlikely. The prosecution would be careful to block any jury member during selection who appears sympathetic to Snowden, citing grounds of bias.

  18. Re:Seems simple to me by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't we privately send him to Mars with a 3D printer? He'll do fine over there and he'll be in a new paradise far away from decaying Earth.

    Is going to Mars such a horrible thing? 200,000 people have signed up for a possible trip to Mars, why put Snowden at the head of the line?

    First of all Mars is in the United States. He can't go there. Second, the population is nowhere near 200K. It's probably closer to 2,000.

  19. So, where do you want Snowden to go ?? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    My remark was more about equating Putin and Obama's behavior toward dissidents than it was about Snowden himself.

    This world is occupied by 4.5 big thugs - China, Russia, USA, Japan, plus UK, which can only be rated as 0.5big, since they are living in their past glory.

    USA is trying its best to hunt down Snowden. Japan and Britain are USA's lap dogs.

    That leave China and Russia being the two entities left in this planet big and fierce and crazy enough to stand against USA.

    So, where do you want Snowden to go ?

    Sweden ? that another lap dog of USA ?

    Bolivia ? Whose presidential plane was forced grounded by yet another USA lap dog (Spain) ?

    I know very well (and I am not the only one in this) that Russia is far from the ideal location for Snowden to seek refuge in, but short of a miracle (that Obama and all his gang of traitors are thrown to jail), Mr. Edward Snowden is facing a stark future of being on the run all his life.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:So, where do you want Snowden to go ?? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Japan gives a lot of aid and comfort to the other thug nations. It's like helping someone dump a body and cover their tracks.

      Japan has long been one of the more generous nations for foreign aid and its military has been pretty much limited to almost purely national defense of Japan itself since WW2. Although they can be highly competitive in business, I think it is hard to build a good case that Japan is currently a "thug" nation. Taco Cowboy's comment I can understand as Chinese anti-Japanese sentiment that has existed since at least the 1930s. But yours?

      China and Russia aren't especially friendly to Japan, whereas the US is. That leaves you portraying the US and UK as thugs, but not necessarily China or Russia. (The current Chinese regime is the same one that killed 60,000,000 of its own people and is trying to seize territory held by Japan even while it (China) is trying to claim the entire South China Sea as its territory, stepping on its neighbors.)

      So you are basically condemning your own country again, seemingly above others, and it isn't clear why. The influence of school reading assignments, perhaps? It's a pity that contemporary American education tends to be unfavorable towards some views.

      American History 101

      National Review Online:So how different is your history of the United States from, say, Howard Zinn’s?

      Larry Schweikart: They are as different as night and day. We assume that people usually mean what they say; that they don’t always have hidden motivations; and that ideas are more important than “class” or “race” or “gender.” Under more normal times, our book would simply be entitled, A History of the United States, because it is accurate.

      NRO:So a “Patriot’s Guide” isn’t all good?

      Schweikart: Absolutely not. As we say in the intro/jacket flap, we reject “My Country, Right or Wrong,” but we equally reject “My Country, Always Wrong.” I think you’ll find us quite critical of such aspects of our past-such as the Founders’ unwillingness to actually act on slavery on at least three separate occasions; or about Teddy Roosevelt’s paternalistic regulations and his anti-business policies. On the other hand, as conservatives, we nevertheless destroy the myth that FDR “knew” about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. Instead, we try to always put the past in the context of the time–why did people act then as they did, and was that typical?

      History Lies

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  20. Re:good points / bad points by lophophore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My point is that he did not need to reveal all of it, just exposing the domestic surveillance would have been enough... Congress and the average American don't give one tiny shit if the NSA bugged Angela Merkel's phone, and many are probably secretly pleased that we did and got away with it until this guy opened the kimono on that.

    My question is how was releasing that information helpful? While certainly unethical, bugging Merkel's phone (for instance) was NOT illegal under US law, and not forbidden under the NSA's charter, while the domestic data collection clearly was both illegal and forbidden. I applaud the exposure of the NSA's illegal activities, but I abhor the exposure of their legal ones.

    This is why I believe he had other motives. Snowden is not a hero, he's an attention whore.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  21. *** Judged Not, Lest Thou be Judged ! *** by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I mean, we can talk all day and say that Snowden made great personal sacrifices, but did anyone ever ask why he was working with the NSA in the first damn place?

    Yes, I did, and because I did ask that question, I did some research into how what Snowden had done, and how he managed to get into that little circle under the NSA canopy.

    Unlike most regular posters in /., Mr. Edward Snowden didn't graduate from some fancy university, in fact, he didn't even have a high school diploma !!

    Mr. Edward Snowden studied at Anne Arundel Community College to gain the credits necessary to obtain a high-school diploma but he did not complete the coursework.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

    Mr. Snowden's first step action in his infiltration into the NSA circle was working as a Security Guard guarding the building in which NSA's contractors was using.

    From that position he gets to know people who work with the NSA contractors, and he gets to know what kind of position is opened.

    Once he learned that the NSA contractor needed sys-admins, Mr. Snowden studied very hard, self-study style, all the computer/network related skills needed to be employable as a sysadmin.

    From there he gained entry to the NSA contractor's computer systems, and from there he gained access to the - alleged - millions of secret files.

    I have analysed what Snowden did and I was very impressed with his determination and his other skill in hiding his real intention very very well ! That takes a lot of pre-planning, a lot of self-control, and a helluva load of patience.

    As have stated, Mr. Snowden wasn't a kid from a "high caste" of the American society. In fact, his family background, - if I am allowed to put it, and advanced apology to Mr. Snowden and his family for stating the fact - has been routinely categorized as "White Trash" by many Sociologists.

    But yet, unlike millions of others, Mr. Snowden loves his country, and it's His Pure Love Of The Country that he did whatever he had to do in order to gain access to the secretive evidences of the illegal activities of the Government of the United States so that he can expose it to his fellow citizens, in the hope that, one day, his beloved country may be better.

    True, he worked under the canopy of NSA, and true, NSA is part of the totally despicable regime which is ruling over the nation of the United States of America.

    But without getting inside the NSA, how was Edward Snowden going to gain the SOLID evidences of the dastard deeds which the invalid government of the United States of America has committed.

    It has been well known for many of us that the USA is no longer free. On the surface it is, but deep inside too many damn dirty things had happened, and we, the citizens, couldn't do a squat about it.

    There had been rumors floating around on the many secret programs that were in violation of the Constitution of the United States, but without solid evidences, there is NOTHING to proof.

    Before Mr. Snowden's revelation, every single time when I talk to others about the (then alleged) secret programs people looked at me as if I am one of those nuts who believe in conspiracy theories.

    It is because of Mr. Snowden, and thanks to his solid evidences, that today, even people who previously pooh-pooh at me whenever I talked about the illegality of the US government are coming to me to talk about the very matter that previously they thought were conspiracies.

    Last, but not least, remember the adage:

    "Judge not, lest thou be judged"

    You have unfairly judged Mr. Edward Snowden due to his working under the NSA program. Unless you want to be judged by others the same way you have judged Mr. Snowden, I suggest that you begin your own path of redemption.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !