Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snowden Queries Putin On Live TV Regarding Russian Internet Surveillance

Posted by timothy on from the keep-to-the-script-now dept.

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Edward Snowden appeared on a Russian television call-in show to ask Russian President Vladimir Putin about policies of mass surveillance. The exchange has a canned quality which will likely lead to questions regarding the integrity of Snowden's actions, in the query of his host in asylum."

18 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Useful Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These propaganda sessions for Putin are pre-staged so Snowden has allowed himself to be used as a "propaganda tool". Considering how freedoms are curtailed in Russia, it seriously deminishes Snowden's reputation.

    1. Re:Useful Idiot by Vadim+Grinshpun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While true, your statement also assumes he had a choice...

    2. Re:Useful Idiot by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's interesting what one will do when your political asylum is up for renewal.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:Useful Idiot by CanHasDlY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't this call into question everything Snowden has said?

      Nice try. People who make any of this about Snowden are trying to hide the fact that the government is violating the constitution and people's fundamental liberties.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Useful Idiot by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep -- if the US wanted to not give Putin a propaganda tool, they could have welcomed him back home with a guarantee of safety.

      We made our choice, and he took refuge in the only place he could.

    5. Re:Useful Idiot by nomanisanisland · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He probably could have tried legal measures to implement reform if it was actually more important to him than being famous

      Really? What legal measures could he have tried while remaining in the US? He would have been arrested faster than SSD read times, and never heard from again for "national security" reasons. The government's first response was to label him a traitor - they don't let you have much freedom as a traitor, in case you didn't know. I doubt any legal measures he could have tried before being arrested as a traitor would even have been reported on by the press, again for national security reasons.

      Whether you think his revelations were right or wrong, I think you'd have to agree he couldn't have truly revealed anything successfully by staying in the US.

    6. Re:Useful Idiot by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He chose to flee to the two countries with the BIGGEST free speech / surveillance issues in the world-- China and Russia-- after publicly blowing the whistle on much lesser instances in the US.

      I mean we're throwing a fit about the NSA's capturing of "metadata". China just snorts up every bit of cell and internet data that goes in or out of any ISP or carrier, and they barely attempt to hide it. Im sure Russia is pretty close.

      So yes, he had a choice, and he made it about 8 months ago, and it was a remarkably bad one.

    7. Re:Useful Idiot by Kremmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm gonna go out of my way and say that every single congress critter was in on it, right up until they realized they were being watched as well.

    8. Re:Useful Idiot by N1AK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I mean we're throwing a fit about the NSA's capturing of "metadata". China just snorts up every bit of cell and internet data that goes in or out of any ISP or carrier, and they barely attempt to hide it. Im sure Russia is pretty close.

      What China does in surveillance of their own citizens isn't acceptable in my opinion but how is "they're even worse" a valid defence for the US which has constantly acted like it stands apart on these matters. Secondly, and something I think Americans really don't appreciate, as someone from outside both China and the US I know China would probably try and intercept my calls etc, but at least they don't pretend to be my friend while they are at it which America has been.

      I'm yet to hear a good criticism of how Snowden behaved. Arguments like "he should have stayed within the system" are laughable when one considers what he already tried and the fates of others who tried, the but, but, but someone else is worse argument is relative and just shoddy misdirection. I'm incredibly grateful that he had the balls to share what he knew with the world.

    9. Re:Useful Idiot by Kremmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you not remember the grounding of a presidential figure's aircraft on the basis of the possibility that Snowden was on it? To say this man had a choice is to completely ignore the situation. 100 percent.

    10. Re:Useful Idiot by bossk538 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's presuming that either Snowden intended to help Putin all along, or that he realized that his safety is not guaranteed, no matter what the US says. Either way, the way the US handled his flight was nothing short of incompetent and disgraceful.

    11. Re:Useful Idiot by amorsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you would rather that he should have stayed to be broken like Manning?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    12. Re:Useful Idiot by quantaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What China does in surveillance of their own citizens isn't acceptable in my opinion but how is "they're even worse" a valid defence for the US which has constantly acted like it stands apart on these matters. Secondly, and something I think Americans really don't appreciate, as someone from outside both China and the US I know China would probably try and intercept my calls etc, but at least they don't pretend to be my friend while they are at it which America has been.

      I don't think China and Russia being worse is a valid defence for the US. But I do think it's a valid point of criticism for Snowden. It is a bit hypocritical to criticize the US's surveillance activities, and then flee to the only two major powers that are demonstrably worse.

      That being said I think he did have understandable motives, he wanted to go to somewhere that wouldn't extradite him to the US. That means a country that is a) not particularly friendly with the US, and b) powerful enough to resist US pressure, that pretty much means China and Russia. As the Evo Morales grounding incident demonstrates Europe was not an option. Maybe Ecuador was but they may not have been big enough and he still had to get there.

      It's still unfortunate that he's in Russia, I think the Ukraine incident has revealed that Putin is a bit crazier than anyone anticipated and Snowden's position more tenuous. The Russians may have been threatening to send him back to the US as a concession to ease the sanctions unless he starts cooperating in their propaganda.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  2. Old proverb by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It loses a bit in the translation but essentially it says "When you're living with wolves, you better learn fast how to howl, lest they might think you're a sheep".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't put it past the Russians to stage such an appearance by threatening Snowden. In fact, that's the most likely scenario; Putin could hand him over to the US at any time.

    1. Re:Voluntary? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He didn't choose Moscow. He chose Latin America and got stuck in Russia when the USA revoked his passport. It's the US governments fault he's now in Russia and yet they try and paint him as a traitor who ran to the Russians - yet more US hypocrisy and propaganda.

  4. Putin actually speaks the truth by klingens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But you have to read the statement carefully to understand what he says. It is true that Russia doesn't have the money to put everyone under surveillance like the US does.
    So they might not do a mass surveillance like the US, instead they just put everyone interesting under direct surveillance: every Duma representative, every Oligarch, and especially everyone who is in public politicial opposition to President Putin. The NSA can't do that even when they would want to, so they simply target everyone: it's wasteful but now they can't be accused of any bias or that they target anyone they don't like.

  5. dunno what to say by some1into_ISP · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone into the business, there's only two prerequisites (concerning surveillance) to operate as an ISP in Russia. The first one is that you must (by the law) to store your ISP's netflow for 2 years, and to provide information for a) specific user (given by First + Last name) or b) by the IP address involved, to a) police, b) FSB or c) court, when they wanted to. And the second one, is that ISP required (by the law) to install surveillance equipment, sufficent enough to capture all the traffic of ISP's very own local clients (not the transit ones). That equipment is called "SORM" which means something like "support of investigation operations". That equipment is a bulk storage that is filled with data from selected customer IP when configured to. Equipment is controlled from local FSB office, using only E1 (smth like DS1) control channel. There's no bulk channel between ISP and FSB office because there's no bulk money at local government to pay to ISP for that. When they think they had gathered enough data. for specific subject, they can use this captured data from the SORM storage in the court. With the current ISP traffic plans, that storage can only held smth like 2hrs of all client's traffic captured simultaneously. Could you consider this as a "massive surveillance"?