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."
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.
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.
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 !
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
It had the word 'patriot' in it. It would've passed if it was a law banning fucking.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You seem to assume that democracy automatically precludes tyranny. I see zero evidence from history of this being the case. In fact, I see quite the opposite: tyrants seem to reach their heights when people feel like they were given a choice to put him into power and he's on their side.
Anyway, people didn't vote FOR the NSA spying on them, and most americans don't vote in elections anyway. You could make a reasonable argument that they got what they asked for, that they should have seen the NSA spying coming based on their reactions to 9/11 and that not voting is saying "whatever." I'd agree with you on that, though I would disagree that being politically stupid means you DESERVE to have your rights eroded. But bottom line, no, the NSA programs were not democratically supported by the people in any meaningful sense of the phrase.
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...
and then to shop those secrets around to such bastions of freedom as Venezuela, Cuba, China, and Russia.
The documents went to the Guardian and the Washington Post. Makes the rest of what you said look foolish, doesn't it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
What kind of drivel are you spouting? It's not like you know anything about history. 250 years ago the'd have hung the bastard for sure. No one likes a traitor who runs off to another country to spread animosity for his homeland. If he'd gone to the Times or something I'd call him a whistleblower. Going to China and then Putin? We need to hang his sorry ass.