Slashdot Mirror
Snowden to Critics: Questioning Putin Has Opened Conversation About Surveillance
The Guardian carries Edward Snowden's detailed rebuttal to critics who say that his recent live-TV interaction with Vladimir Putin, in which Snowden asked whether the Russian government was engaged in spying on Russian citizens' communications, was a scripted moment intended to curry or maintain favor with Putin. After all, Snowden is currently living in Russia, where he has been granted only temporary harbor, goes this argument, so he is at the mercy of the Russian government, and has just gamely thrown Putin a softball. (Slashdot reader Rambo Tribble said the exchange had a "canned quality," a sentiment widely echoed.) Snowden writes that, far from being a whitewash of actual policies by the Russian government, his question ("Does [your country] intercept, analyse or store millions of individuals' communications?") "was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion"; he decribes Putin's answer as a combination of inconsistent denial and evasion. Snowden writes:
"I blew the whistle on the NSA's surveillance practices not because I believed that the United States was uniquely at fault, but because I believe that mass surveillance of innocents – the construction of enormous, state-run surveillance time machines that can turn back the clock on the most intimate details of our lives – is a threat to all people, everywhere, no matter who runs them. Last year, I risked family, life, and freedom to help initiate a global debate that even Obama himself conceded 'will make our nation stronger.' I am no more willing to trade my principles for privilege today than I was then. I understand the concerns of critics, but there is a more obvious explanation for my question than a secret desire to defend the kind of policies I sacrificed a comfortable life to challenge: if we are to test the truth of officials' claims, we must first give them an opportunity to make those claims."
He has to suck Putin's dick for his safe harbor in Russia. Thats just the way it is.
It's Russia, you twit! How can there be a Russian conversation about domestic surveillance when they have trouble having political opposition, let alone a free press! The Russian Federation is 148th in the 2014 Reporters Without Borders World free press index, and here you are, talking about how you asked a tough question to a leader who doesn't give a shit about looking hypocritical or lying, and has been using you for the last 10 months to discredit the West while he goes forward with his project of grand russian unification.
Beware of those who claim to be your ally and tell you what you want to hear.
After watching a man sacrifice his chances of living a normal life, fleeing the country he grew up in after doing what he felt was right, why did so many readily believe he was willing to give up his principals so easily? Obviously Putin wasn't going to give a straight answer, whether in the US or Russia or anywhere else politicians lie when it suits them. How often do we go after reporters, attacking them for asking questions they don't receive truthful answers to? The entire incident seemed a clear attempt at discrediting Snowden, something that should have been exceedingly obvious to everyone. I applaud him for having the courage to put his own safety on the line and ask Putin about mass surveillance. I'm sure he fully expected the dodgy answer he got, he may have even expected further consequences from Putin and his lackeys, but I doubt he expected people to turn around and say he shouldn't have asked the question to begin with. He shows more courage still coming out and challenging Putin's answer in this article. We owe him our gratitude, respect, and an apology.
Snowden to Critics: Questioning Putin Has Opened Conversation About Surveillance
If he really wanted to ask questions about freedoms, he should have asked about the LGBT rights in Russia or Chechens' right for self-determination. In the US, asking about surveillance violations is the right question to ask because, by and large, it is one of the most pressing issues. In Russia, that ain't.
The proper question to ask when it comes to freedom is always the one concerning the greatest, most infamous violations.
He was an idealistic young programmer who, some would say, naively did what he thought was right in the U.S. He knew or at least suspected there would be a downside, but he is under no illusion what would happen if he attempts to publicly upset Putin's apple cart.
The first thing that comes to mind is we wouldn't have even heard of this video if it didn't go according to script.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
For some time one has questioned if Snowden is a naive whistle blower with good intentions or is a sophisticated Russian intelligence operator. Recent events especially Russian phone and intelligence in the Ukraine support a definite leaning to the latter, intelligence operator. All that Snowden appearance has done to intelligence types is to push that leaning into the realm of a possible certainty proving almost conclusive proof that the NSA is completely and thoroughly penetrated and compromised. One way to view his appearance is that the Russians are talking to the Americans and saying covertly with out actually saying it overtly is that "We know every thing you are doing in the Ukraine and every where else in the world". Assuming, to those of us outside the intelligence community, that our community organizer just got cough with his pants down in what our State Department would call a major Woopsie in attempting to install a more western oriented government in the Ukraine it could be that what the Russians are attempting to do is stop western revolution attempts before this elapses into a more final judgement with mushroom shaped clouds.
He chose.... to lie his way into secrets, the contents of which he, by his own admission, could not at the time have known, and then to shop those secrets around to such bastions of freedom as Venezuela, Cuba, China, and Russia. The outcome has been mostly beneficial purely by dumb luck -- his actions leading to and following his exodus from the US paints a clear picture of his motivations; it's not necessary for him to clarify.
Yet Putin didn't outright admit to Russia performing the same sort of mass surveillance. You see, most people have a certain bias about people. When you support a person, they can be evasion and give inconsistent denial and people accept it as a form of "pleasing the 5th" or just general politics. When you're against a person, then anything short of a clear denial with evidence is seen as proof to the affirmative. In between, you have most people who realize that the person asking questions has a bias, the "experts" have a bias, there's often not clear evidence, and often the whole subject is subjective with cultural norms deciding just what is acceptable--Russians seem to have been brainwashed into believing that spying on the people is such a norm that even if they're per se against it, they're not willing to fight and die over it.
In the end, Snowden is there to let the "horse" speak and instead of simply letting the people go off of ZouPrime's person opinion about the situation, Snowden can use Putin's own direct words to prove ZouPrime's or Snowden's or others opinions as more likely to be true. Until, though, you give the person who supposedly doesn't give a shit about lying to lie, then you're just screaming into the dark about how much your "opponent" is a liar.
Now, if you want to argue that Russia is a de facto dicatorship and Putin *will* lie and engage in subterfuge and hypocracy to create the illusion of a democracy to maintain control, that'd be an actually more believable opinion. And that's more or less what Snowden took a step towards proving.
Snowden's point is that it's worth getting Putin on record lying so that later if something comes out, the damage will be amplified based on the fact that he lied. This seems reasonable in a situation where lying itself is punished. However, we're less than a month out from Putin lying to claim his troops did not invade Crimea and then admitting "well, the ends justify the means" and there's no clear evidence that he's being punished for lying. To the extent that there's international pressure, it's about the act and not the lie. I suspect if it did come out that Russia was engaging in widespread, NSA-style surveillance, the brunt of the criticism would be directed towards the surveillance, and not a gotcha moment where Putin denied surveilling in the past.
As a result, I find it difficult to believe that the future value of having Putin on the record on this question exceeds the propaganda value of having him deliver a polished answer that makes himself look good now.
As will the ensuing debate be. The world is a rigged game.
The content is a lot less interesting when he is the one writing it...
Mr. Snowden asked Putin a question and they crawled out from under the rocks and singled out on Snowden for asking "soft question" and/or "canned performance", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ....
Even if Snowden didn't ask any question (didn't participate on the call-in program at all) they would still find a way to attack Snowden
NSA has a long memory - and they will never stop harassing Snowden, period.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
We are talking about Snowden, a person who spilled the beans of the tyrannical secret program of a supposedly democratic country and thus, helped hundreds of millions (if not billions) to aware of the evil surveillance program that had trespassed on their privacy and this guy ...
I'm speechless !!
Imagine for a minute, an associate of Alan Turing escaping Bletchely Park in 1944 with files recording the facility's activity â" and with details of its capability to decrypt Enigma traffic.
He is outraged about the government's attempts â" often successful â" to intercept other people messages (some intercepts leading to deaths of hundreds) and is smart enough to envision the future, where such ungentlemanly conduct will become common place. And so he goes public with the materials he took with him, holding a press-conference somewhere â" say, in Switzerland.
Because none of the UK allies will have him, and he fears the Allies' long hand in neutral Switzerland, he takes refuge in Germany, where he is promptly drained of all the information he carries (in files and head)? Germans modify their encryption practices and Bletchley Park is no longer able to decode the communications.
Should the man's life not be hell after that? Or should he simply be hung for treason?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
From Eli Lake at The Daily Beast: Sorry, Snowden: Putin Lied to You About His Surveillance State—And Made You a Pawn of It
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
Snowden has exercised great courage and fortitude throughout this process. I think it's fair to say that most of us here cannot imagine how we'd hold up under the conditions he's living with. It would seem reasonable to assume that Putin has thought long and hard about how to use Snowden as a political pawn. He basically has Snowden by the (rather large) balls and could theoretically leverage that any way he chooses.
So to see that all that's happened so far is that Snowden has "lobbed a softball," asking a semantically consistent and valid, if politically weak, question for Putin to prop himself up a little is to me fairly remarkable. Why not force Snowden to ask more questions and fawn over Putin's greatness? You know, say things like "I am so impressed with the upholding of law and order in Russia. Putin is truly a great statesman." Does Snowden hold some card(s) that keeps Putin somewhat at bay?
Moreover, Putin must have read this latest article by Snowden, and Snowden would be expecting that. He's free enough -- or courageous enough -- to continue to speak his mind.
Like the way Snowden (okay, the press) has handled the release of information against the NSA, I'm highly impressed with his skillful handling of what must be a very difficult situation. He has shown heroism for his actions in service to his country, while showing brilliance in surviving his circumstances. My hat -- heck all my hats -- are off to him.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
Snowden is clearly a spook, simply trying to convince the world that the United States NSA has much more capabilities than they actually have. The Nazi's used similar tactics.
All the other whistleblowers have been kept quiet, and mostly out of the mainstream media, but not Snowden, he is ALL OVER IT, constantly.
If I upload a Youtube video with copyrighted work, it will be taken down very quickly. But when Snowden has top secret information vital to national security, those videos stay up for months at a time.
Trust the math, there is no way the NSA can crack some of the encryption they claim.
Sure he started as a whistle blower, one that I personally applauded. If he had stayed in the realm of NSA spying on US citizens, he probably would have been fine. But when you go beyond that and expose your nation's methods for collecting data on others, then you have gone too far, no matter the nation.
This blogger about all things Russia thinks the entire Snowden/Putin exchange, including the follow-up Guardian article, was orchestrated: http://3dblogger.typepad.com/m...
Even the comments here on /. are orchestrated .
How can you not see it ?
The view that Snowden's exchange with Putin was 'canned' in any way, was expressed by American sources. In a nation of propaganda and corruption, what do you expect to read.
No doubt the Russians have some kind of surveillance capability, but it is hardly likely that the average Russian citizen is going to be a target for the FSB. They simply don't represent enough of a threat to construct such an authoritarian American style Stasi infrastructure. As you can tell, I have utter contempt for the US media. I don't know how these surveys on media freedom are determined, but clearly they don't consider the influence on money, and power, on the core media infrastructure. The small people might be able to speak, but their voices are drowned out by the much large apparatus of propaganda, driven by the joke that is the American corporate media.
Go to America, if you are not an American. I was shocked when I went there. The sheer depth of the wall-to-wall coverage of corporate media brainwash is astounding.
I say to Americans, why not learn a different language, and read views of American totalitarianism, expressed by people from countries with a better grasp of what 'freedom' and 'democracy' actually mean.
I strongly urge Americans to go to Russia, and experience its culture. I think you will find the population much better informed, and much more cynical about their own governance, that you may find Americans about their government.
I can not understand why the debate is always steered towards attacking Russia and Putin, when the primary problem for Americans is at home. It is their own government, which has bettered the East German Stasi, in creating the ultimate totalitarian surveillance state, with its sham elections, effective one party government, and dominance by a corporate and military elite.
Shame of America.
You believe this so strongly you refuse to put your name to it!
Of course it was scripted, if you think spontaneous, honest conversations with "world leaders" occur anymore you are beyond naive. Conversations with them are either accompanied by a myriad of restrictions as to topics or any "difficult" questions are simply answered with some boilerplate responses that literally mean nothing or are ought-right lies.
here you are, talking about how you asked a tough question to a leader who doesn't give a shit about looking hypocritical or lying
I like said it last time (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5047921&cid=46783413) and Snowden just confirmed here (better worded though).
......
"If we are to test the truth of officials' claims, we must first give them an opportunity to make those claims"
In slashdot profit style:
1) Ask a question about which an official will lie,
2) Expose the truth,
3)
4) Profit
Do you have a better plan?
lol
At least one member of our Government pretty much believes that anyone with a gun who doesn't answer to or work directly for the Government is a domestic terrorist anyway. ( See his majesties comments about the armed folks showing up to support Cliven Bundy ) Pretty easy transition from terrorist to treason I think.
I'm going to steal secrets from a country that calls themselves the free speech/privacy valued gov't and hide in a country that restricts free speech and gives a d*mn about privacy. Of course, I initially fled to a country that doesn't respect IP laws, and is ruled by a puppet gov't. Now that's what I call smart moves...
All I can say is: hindsight is 20/20
so he is at the mercy of the Russian government /. I'm ashamed, you're already showing so much bias on this story. He is not at the mercy, the guy can do want he wants (as it appears...).
The interview sort of made he situation worse, plain and simple.