Snowden Granted 3 More Years of Russian Residency

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snowden Granted 3 More Years of Russian Residency

Posted by timothy on Thursday August 7, 2014 @12:45AM from the backwards-world dept.

SiggyRadiation writes Edward Snowden is allowed to stay in Russia for three more years. According to the NYPost:"His lawyer, Analtoly Kucherena, was quoted by Russian news agencies on Thursday as saying Snowden now has been granted residency for three more years, but that he had not been granted political asylum. That status, which would allow him to stay in Russia permanently, must be decided by a separate procedure, Kucherena said, but didn't say whether Snowden is seeking it." The question that remains, of course, is did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him? Or is the positive PR in itself enough for the Russians in the current climate of tensions and economic sanctions relating to the Ukraine crisis?"

266 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 00:46 · Score: -1

Before the circlejerking Slashdot hero's welcome to Snowden starts up consider this and weigh that against how much more private your matters are than they were pre-Snowden.
1. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Since I prefer freedom over safety, it looks to me like you have no valid point, even if what that article is saying is true. Snowden releasing the information was morally right. It is not wrong to tell people about the immoral/unconstitutional activities of the government, even if they're doing it to keep us 'safe.' And that's a big "if."
  We are supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' after all. We can't be free or brave if we trade away our freedoms for security and allow the government to violate the constitution. Snowden released the information, and now it's up to all of us to stop the government's activities.
2. Re:Meanwhile ... by dosius · 2014-08-07 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  AFAICT, Snowden didn't reveal anything that wasn't plain as the noses on our faces already.
  -uso.
  
  --
  What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
3. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  Post hoc ergo propter hoc
4. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This is obviously a first post from an NSA working group. Notice the low-level dig against us for discussing Snowden, and on top of that this is a blatant attempt to steer the conversation away from the main points.
  Remember, there is a rather active disinformation campaign in place right now. And this is an example of it.
5. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 01:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Just because the revealing of an illegal practice modifies the behavior of others does not make that illegal practice legitimate.
  Of course not, however it means Snowden has reveal much more than necessary to make his point and has grabbed an insane quantity of data to make it leaking this data to external sources.
  This being said, I am not convince you can link the change in encryption software from Al-Qaida and the likes to Snowden's stunt. In the meantime there were also cryptography courses that were made available through MOOC offerings and one thing these courses emphasize on is: don't do your own crypto software use commercial or open source crypto software which will happen to be much more secure than anything you can develop unless you are an expert within a team of experts with considerable means. It is perfectly plausible they switched to open source crypto after someone of them enrolled into such a course instead of listening at Snowden's leaked stuff.
  Circumstancial proofs must be taken with caution.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
6. Re: Meanwhile ... by O('_')O_Bush · 2014-08-07 01:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The difference is, before the leaks, people who made that claim were dismissed and ostracized as conspiracy nuts.
  
  Now that it is fact, the public is a whole lot more paranoid.
  
  The Patriot Act was Al Qaeda's greatest achievement.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
7. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 01:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point. That is where the leak become much less morally right.
  Don't be naive, knowing the government will be after him after such a leak, he probably got much more than needed to have something to trade in exchange of his own security. And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
8. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 01:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point.
  Yes, he did. We deserve to know exactly what how our government is violating the highest law of the land, and that includes details of the program. Both so we can better defend ourselves against this (if only be being aware of it) and so we can see what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. Knowing all the details lets us make better informed decisions.
  You are a coward.
  
  And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.
  Alright, what freedoms is Snowden saying that we should sacrifice to the government in exchange for safety? You're a moron.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
9. Re:Meanwhile ... by CauseBy · 2014-08-07 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. It's supposed to be difficult to surveil people. These days it isn't very difficult, so we're moving in the right direction.
10. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:20 · Score: -1
  
  Your absolute freedom? Absolutes are the only way to argue this traitor cozied up with Putin.
  Putin offering those Ukraine's freedom?
  Euros have the freedom to choose their nat/ gas supplier?
  You Snowden lovers are finding it tougher and tougher to defend his crimes.
  He belongs in a US max prison.
11. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Your absolute freedom?
  Our constitutional and fundamental freedoms. You know, the things that the government is violating.
  Then you go on to list a bunch of irrelevancies that have nothing to do with Snowden, other than the fact that he's... currently in Russia, I guess?
  
  You Snowden lovers are finding it tougher and tougher to defend his crimes.
  It's as easy as ever, because law does not equate to morality, even assuming he did break laws. The sooner you fools learn that, the better.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
12. Re:Meanwhile ... by Richard_at_work · 2014-08-07 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  What about Snowdens leaks regarding all the valid activities that the NSA et al were up to?
13. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 02:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point. He is going far beyond his point with the GB of information he has leaked than just proving the NSA has violated the Constitution.
  For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security. Talking coward here...
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
14. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  And just to make sure you understand the point. Snowden did make his point without leaking ALL the information he got. That's the proof he took much more than necessary to make his point. So far, only a very thin part of what he has taken has been leaked.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
15. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point.
  Yes, it is, and I explained why. Without knowing the full extent of the program, it becomes more difficult to defend oneself until it stops, and it also becomes more difficult to stop it from happening again by having the right protections in the right places. Besides that, The People need to know how, exactly, the government is violating the constitution.
  
  For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security.
  You are confusing surrendering everyone's freedoms to the government with going to Russia because your own government will likely strip you of your freedoms if you do not. There is a difference between someone choosing to go to Russia and the government violating people's freedoms. Try to keep up.
  
  Talking coward here...
  You or I have done nothing even close to what Snowden has, and likely never will. He's not the coward here.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
16. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  My definition of "valid" differs from yours, government worshiper. For instance, I think everyone has rights, and that we shouldn't spy on allies or spy on people en masse period. There should be standards even when you go to spy on foreigners.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
17. Re:Meanwhile ... by guises · 2014-08-07 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.
  Alright, what freedoms is Snowden saying that we should sacrifice to the government in exchange for safety? You're a moron.
  He is trying to make the claim that Snowden is hiding out in Russia, sacrificing his freedom for the sake of security from American persecution. Ignoring, of course, that Snowden is much more free in Russia than he would be in the United States.
18. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden leaked a ton of information on the methods NSA uses to do the job we want them to do. All the exploits Schneier reported are exactly the things we want NSA to be doing. None of those exploits had any effect on your constitutional rights or freedoms. Now due to the leak of these sources and methods, America's abilities have been degraded and that is what makes him a traitor.
19. Re:Meanwhile ... by s.petry · 2014-08-07 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  "Legal" activities in terms of a technicality, not "legal" in terms of the spirit of law (which includes the US Constitution). You really should learn the difference, because the former is why we are having such severe problems in the USA.
  If there are changes need to the Constitution there is a process for changing it, very clearly defined in fact. Bypassing the law or ignoring the law because someone does not like the Constitution is illegal, period.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
20. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  The Patriot Act was Al Qaeda's greatest achievement.
  Second-greatest achievement.
  The TSA comes in at #1, since it got us accustomed to presenting our papers, submitting to arbitrary searches and the like even when travelling within national boundaries. Just like the old Soviet Union.
  The Patriot Act is arguably more far-reaching, but less blatantly visible.
21. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously you haven't been to Ukraine in the past 2-3 years.
22. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  Snowden leaked a ton of information on the methods NSA uses to do the job we want them to do.
  Who is "we"? I know I don't want them to keep exploits in the dark, thereby making everyone less safe (without good reason) just so they can exploit some so-called "terrorists." Fuck that. And to say these things wouldn't be used for other nasty purposes is just naive.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
23. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Patriot Act was Al Qaeda's greatest achievement.
  Over two hundred years of American History, many many thousands of people dead in civil war, world wars, cold war under the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction and we let the greatest threat to the US Constitution and the future of Liberty in the United States end up being twenty guys with razor blades and the morally vacant people that use their terrible acts of murder as an excuse (and an opportunity).
24. Re:Meanwhile ... by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The idea of punishment is that being punished is more expensive to you than keeping the law. Else, why bother being a law abiding citizen? If all I have to fear when I get caught shoplifting is to pay the price for the item I stole, why bother paying unless you got caught?
  Consider the surplus of information revealed the punishment the US got.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
25. Re:Meanwhile ... by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Snowden giving up freedom for safety. Now that's rich. I guess anyone who stood up against tyranny gave up his freedom in exchange for the safety of his prison cell in your books, eh?
  He gave up his freedom, hoping that we'd be able to reclaim ours.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
26. Re:Meanwhile ... by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  What for? Defending the constitution? Has that been turned into a crime while I wasn't watching?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
27. Re:Meanwhile ... by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked this is called "collateral damage" today, and if the recent wars are any indicator it's a-ok as long as the goal is important enough.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
28. Re:Meanwhile ... by ScentCone · 2014-08-07 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Ignoring, of course, that Snowden is much more free in Russia than he would be in the United States.
  Just not free to travel. Just no free to get on TV with Putin and ask unscripted questions. Just not free to run a campaign of anti-Putin editorials, or to run a journalism organization without having that organization torn down by Putin for being contrary to his wishes, and perhaps have its reporters gunned down on their home doorsteps. But plenty free, of course, to conduct economic activity that directly supports a guy who is violently annexing a neighboring country while transparently lying his ass off about what he has his troops (and artillery and anti-aircraft missiles) doing. Free to support the guy that's propping up the Assad regime's deliberate mass slaughter, and free to operate in a country that purposefully, and cooperatively - gleefully, even - harbors some of the worst, most violent organized crime operators in the world. Yay, free!
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
29. Re:Meanwhile ... by rubycodez · 2014-08-07 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  what, you imagine living in Russia less free than living here in this police state?
30. Re:Meanwhile ... by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2014-08-07 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's clear that it is necessary to show that the NSA violations are widespread and pervasive. And it's clear that what has been exposed so far is NOT enough, as discussion has occurred in the media and various forums but there's no evidence that things do not remain business as usual at the NSA. I only hope there are still some juicy bits in the trove yet to reveal. It looks like it's going to take a drip water torture of secret releases in order to keep attention focused on the problem before it may actually get resolved.
31. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  most security comes at a cost to "freedom". as a US citizen you enjoy an enormous amount of protection, at home and abroad, be it food regulation, foreign diplomacy, etc. all paid with mandatory taxes and the like.
  unless you're actively working to reject and give up the protection, or "safety" you already have, that which you hold so low, you're merely posturing to your narcissism.
32. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  I bet you play the sims with your eyes closed, too.
33. Re: Meanwhile ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2014-08-07 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Someone mod parent up.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
34. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Of course Snowden behaved immorally by revealing state secrets regarding our foreign spying, and you're a naive fool jellomizer, not the reality-based people you criticize.
35. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  It's funny how you government hating nutjobs call people who aren't hopeless square pegs like you government worshippers for being part of western civilization.
36. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  You're part of it, you paranoid fool. People who are smart enough to recognize Snowden for the criminal he is don't become bad people or part of a government agancy just because delusional derps like you hate the government.
37. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Of course Snowden behaved immorally by revealing state secrets regarding our foreign spying
  No, he didn't. Foreigners have rights too, and spying on them haphazardly is wrong.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
38. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 04:14 · Score: 3
  
  It's funny how you government hating nutjobs
  Did you know that our entire system of government is based around the idea that the government shouldn't have too much power, and that everyone should be cautious of the government? Do you know that that's what it takes in order to truly be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'?
  
  call people who aren't hopeless square pegs like you government worshippers for being part of western civilization.
  I'm calling them government worshipers for defending egregious violations of people's fundamental liberties and the US constitution, and for mindlessly appealing to laws in search of morality.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
39. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  He was not free to travel, due to his legal status and the fact that his passport had been revoked. But that has changed with this update in his legal status. He is free to travel abroad now - though considering the affair with the downing of the Bolivian president's plane, it's unlikely he'll risk it.
40. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  He wouldn't have those freedoms from a US prison either. The point you're trying to make here is ludicrous.
41. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  This is obviously a first post from an NSA working group. Notice the low-level dig against us for discussing Snowden, and on top of that this is a blatant attempt to steer the conversation away from the main points.
  Remember, there is a rather active disinformation campaign in place right now. And this is an example of it.
  Does an ad hominem trump a post hoc ergo propter hoc?
42. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  Al Qa'ida's greatest achievement was the indiscriminate slaughter of almost 3000 civilians in pursuit of their delusional but still very real goal of establishing a califat once more. Give me an example of someone getting killed because of the indiscriminate collection of meta data and I'll start listening to your crazy rants again. Faced with an ever more sophisticated technological world any democracy would do good to have a system in place that can monitor a fascistic undercurrent of backwardness that uses said technology to further their own ends. The only good thing that can be said of snowden at this point is that he introduced a great degree of transparency. His is still a case of treason and not mere whistle blowing by any understanding of law. I'm absolutely positively for the collection of metadata. Access should be tightly regulated though. And this should happen with a far higher degree of public accountability. All you funny Munsters that still rant and rave from the comfort of your smart getlike can and should stick it to Google and Facebook. These guys do whatever they want with your data and instead of getting their arses handed to them eventually get hailed as great Americans like gates and jobs. Despicable.
43. Re:Meanwhile ... by wierd_w · 2014-08-07 05:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Somebody is mis-remembering the controversy.
  1) Snowden releases a controlled release, which starts the manhunt to collect him for prosecution.
  2) NSA, CIA, and pals all BLATANTLY LIE to congress. Congress eats it up like fudge.
  3) Snowden releases MORE information, catching NSA, CIA, and pals in their blatant lie.
  4) NSA, CIA, and pals whine about how unamerican snowden is, and how cowardly he is to have fled the country where they cant capture him and interrogate/punish him in secret. Lie some more to congress. Congress eats it up like fudge.
  5) Snowden releases MORE information...
  Rinse, repeat.
  This has happened about 4 times now, with the NSA and CIA heads being caught lying EACH AND EVERY TIME.
  Without snowden releasing the information he has released, there would have been no proof that the NSA and CIA had been lying to congress in a blatant fashion.
  He didnt just release it all at once, bradley/chelsey manning style. He released it as it was NECESSARY to have it released, to prevent the NSA and CIA from continuing to operate as they had been previously.
  Your argument is absurd.
44. Re:Meanwhile ... by Guy+From+V · 2014-08-07 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  The Bill of Rights makes clear distinction between a US citizen and "persons". The fact that terrorists all happen to be people (in theory at least) means that the restrictions that are imposed upon the federal government and the NSA by the Constitution in what it can and can't do in it's mandate concerning all people, not just citizens, means that just because they are evil bastards deserving of nothing but contempt and they themselves would like nothing more that to NOT be grouped in with their enemies...just as most of the rest of the "people" they victimize would like as well...it remains that the NSA's unlawful transgressions were committed upon the whole of humanity which is supposed to be shielded from the actions they secretly and illegally violated. The point I'm making being that just because the group they fucked over in violation of their ban happened to ALSO include terrorists should be a distant second afterthought of the revelation, in a perverse inversion of lawful and altruistic intentions of the document's letter and spirit (indeed more like our enemies' rationalization of their own actions) that they made no distinction between their charges and quarry. It really would have been difficult to reveal their vile actions when all persons they fucked over, bad guys or good, all require the use of common methods of communication whether they are evil murdering fucks or paragons of virtue who rescue kittens from trees. Or whatever and shit...
45. Re: Meanwhile ... by Rich0 · 2014-08-07 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  Al Qa'ida's greatest achievement was the indiscriminate slaughter of almost 3000 civilians in pursuit of their delusional but still very real goal of establishing a califat once more. Give me an example of someone getting killed because of the indiscriminate collection of meta data and I'll start listening to your crazy rants again.
  If the goal was to prevent Al Qaida from killing another 3k people via airplane hijacking, the US government didn't need to do anything at all. Today if terrorists take over a plane, the passengers aren't just going to sit back and wait until they crash and die. Sure, they can blow up a plane, but they still can do that, or just blow up a bus instead.
  However, if they wanted to do something prudent, then taking steps to harden cockpit doors would go a long way towards improving things.
  The post-9/11 measures did nothing to prevent the Boston Marathon bombing. Indeed, the guy responsible wasn't even caught until after the curfew was lifted, and he was discovered by a local resident.
46. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  You can't argue logic with a government shill. I would honestly be surprised if the poster you're responding to is even a human. More like a chatbot with it's constant disregard for what anyone is saying.
47. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Nice job missing the point, you fucking idiot. We're clearly talking about *fundamental*, *constitutional* liberties being violated in the name of security. Please, tell me, how is food regulation or any of the other things in any way, shape, or form similar to unconstitutional mass surveillance of nearly everyone's communications?
  Your intentional disregard of context just to defend the scumbags in our government is certainly nothing new, but it's as dumb as ever.
48. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  I can't believe I have to point this out again. If you have mod points, you decide what to mod up. If you don't have mod points, STFU about it. Now the mods will have to burn 3 points to knock your comment down to -1 where it belongs. Thanks for your contribution to the conversation Bob.
49. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's not the point. He is locked in Russia, not just living in Russia. Very different my friend.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
50. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Very romantic view of the reality. He did not stood against anyone, he picked a lot of information, much more than necessary and leaked that information after escaping. That's not my definition of standing against tyranny. And if tyranny there is, you should have at home a lot of people to protect him against it in a country like the USA.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
51. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  We'll putin isn't a feminist so there's that. Putincize!
52. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is, and I explained why. Without knowing the full extent of the program, it becomes more difficult to defend oneself until it stops, and it also becomes more difficult to stop it from happening again by having the right protections in the right places. Besides that, The People need to know how, exactly, the government is violating the constitution.
  You did not explain anything, you are just convinced all this information was necessary even if most of it has not been leaked in public anyway. That is in fact the proof he doesn't need all this information to make his point.
  
  You are confusing surrendering everyone's freedoms to the government with going to Russia because your own government will likely strip you of your freedoms if you do not. There is a difference between someone choosing to go to Russia and the government violating people's freedoms. Try to keep up.
  He did not choose to go to Russia, he had no other alternative and was locked in Russia. Now, you already presume he would have been striped from his freedom by the USA government. Do you mean nobody will stand for him in USA? What is that? If it is so obvious he was the good in the story, why do you believe he would not be capable to escape a trial or win it?
  
  You or I have done nothing even close to what Snowden has, and likely never will. He's not the coward here.
  Don't mix things. Being foolish doesn't mean you are brave.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
53. Re:Meanwhile ... by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  There is still a lot of the information that has not been leaked to the public. It wasn't necessary to make his point. Sorry about that, but there is a lot of information which has nothing to do with the violations that was robbed by Snowden.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
54. Re:Meanwhile ... by ScentCone · 2014-08-07 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  The point you're trying to make here is ludicrous.
  No, the point is that Russia is a fundamentally less free place to live than the US, and getting worse by the day.
  
  And prison only enters into it when, like Snowden, you scam your coworkers out of passwords, and then do something like deliberately steal all sorts of sensitive data and take it right to Russia by way of China.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
55. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  He would be locked in a prison cell if he were to return to America. I'd say that's less freedom than he has being locked in Russia.
56. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  You did not explain anything, you are just convinced all this information was necessary even if most of it has not been leaked in public anyway. That is in fact the proof he doesn't need all this information to make his point.
  
  No, it's proof that you need to slowly release the information to maintain people's attention. It will get released, and that is good.
  
  He did not choose to go to Russia, he had no other alternative and was locked in Russia.
  Which is even worse. If he didn't choose it, then it only undermines your point further.
  
  Do you mean nobody will stand for him in USA?
  At trial, they'd attempt to eliminate anyone who has a chance of using jury nullification to stop him from being convicted for breaking unjust laws; that's the sort of thing that usually happens. What would be left (assuming anyone intelligent was there to begin with) are ignorant jurors.
  
  If it is so obvious he was the good in the story, why do you believe he would not be capable to escape a trial or win it?
  You think that morality is dependent upon escaping a trial or winning one? That's awfully retarded.
  
  Don't mix things. Being foolish doesn't mean you are brave.
  He was neither foolish, nor cowardly. You are both.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
57. Re:Meanwhile ... by Rinikusu · 2014-08-07 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously. One of the bigger demotivators my shoplifting peers had back in high school wasn't the misdemeanor (as a juvenile); it was getting the shit kicked out of them by the mall cops. Ah, the 80s.
  
  --
  If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
58. Re:Meanwhile ... by DMUTPeregrine · 2014-08-07 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  He's chosen to go to Russia to keep from being jailed by the US. He has a LOT more freedom there.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
59. Re:Meanwhile ... by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I agree on that one: You should have a lot of people to protect him against it. But I guess for that to happen, we'll first have to lose a lot more than our freedom.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
60. Re:Meanwhile ... by IT-newb · 2014-08-07 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We do not hate the government as a whole. In fact, we like the government very much as it provides funds for our roads, bridges, and helps to make scientific progress possible in our society (current elected members notwithstanding). What we do hate, my dear AC, are the blatant violations of the constitution that the NSA, FBI, DOJ, etc.have perpetrated behind the veil of "National Security". I would be more than willing to discuss this matter further on a later occasion if you are up for it.
61. Re: Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  Freedom is simply more important than safety. You seem to only care about physical safety. If that is so, why do you live in a country that's supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'? Why do you live in a country that has a constitution that only gives the government the powers that the constitution says it has, a measure that came about because people with power simply cannot be trusted? Why do you speak as if the government is full of perfect angels who could never make mistakes or do any wrong, and have absolute faith that all people who will ever be in the government will be the case, all the while ignoring the hundreds of millions of people throughout history murdered and/or abused by corrupt governments? Why do you not care about the highest law of the land in the US?
  You don't want to live in a free country; I understand that. But turning the US into a police state will take a long time, and is a slow, gradual process. Wouldn't it be quicker for you to move to North Korea?
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
62. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  You know, it surprises the rest of the world that there are so many Americans, supposedly educated and first world who are against Snowden. Here in India anyone who exposes anything of the Govt is immediately a folk hero and a hit with the public. Even despite losing elections in most seats, the new Indian AAP leader Kejriwal is associated in daily speech with activism, corruption and taking a courageous stand - its common to say to anyone who stands up for principles - "Has a ghost of Kejriwal entered you?" or "Have you been under the influence of Kejriwal?"
  We almost worship Wikileaks - and we would Snowden also, if not for his polished English and US being his target. If he had leaked corruption by Indian Govt officials, he would ne an Indian folk hero like Assange.
  I wonder how there are so many "patriotic Americans" who hate Snowden. Cognitive dissonance or what it is that you call it ...?
63. Re:Meanwhile ... by Richard_at_work · 2014-08-07 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Nice, I have an opinion which differs from yours, so that must make me a "government worshipper".
  And that is why its so fucking difficult to have a proper, sane discussion on most topics here on Slashdot.
64. Re:Meanwhile ... by Richard_at_work · 2014-08-07 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me which part of the "spirit of the law" or the US Constitution covers conducting espionage against foreign countries and peoples?
  Or did you miss the fact that Snowden also exposed a lot of activities which the NSA most certainly should be doing, and was indeed created to do?
65. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  ...and getting worse by the day.
  And you know this how, exactly? Strong opinions require strong evidence, I read somewhere.
66. Re:Meanwhile ... by s.petry · 2014-08-07 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly zero, which is the technicality you are trying to argue makes it okay for us to spy on everyone. You can try as many of those as you want to, and my answer will be the same. The spirit of the Constitution is to limit Government powers. Why not go read how many amendments actually refer to "citizens" as opposed to people. After that, go re-read those that do not mention citizens and realize that those amendments cover _ALL_ people including non-citizens.
  It's really not a difficult thing to do.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
67. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Nice, I have an opinion which differs from yours, so that must make me a "government worshipper".
  When you're defending the NSA, it certainly does.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
68. Re:Meanwhile ... by david_thornley · 2014-08-07 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Spying on US citizens, or people in the US, is one thing legally. Spying on non-US citizens in other countries is another. I'd be much happier with him if he'd limited himself to exposing the former.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
69. Re:Meanwhile ... by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Spying on non-US citizens in other countries is another.
  Legal != moral. It is immoral to spy on innocent people. The NSA's spying should be targeted at actual enemies and there should be standards just like there are with citizens (Well, like there are supposed to be...).
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
70. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  All you funny Munsters that still rant and rave from the comfort of your smart getlike can and should stick it to Google and Facebook. These guys do whatever they want with your data and instead of getting their arses handed to them eventually get hailed as great Americans like gates and jobs. Despicable.
  Except, ya know, you don't have to use Facebook or Google. Try opting out of government surveillance.
71. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  .. there are so many Americans, supposedly educated and first world ...
  The educated don't hang out here.
72. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  If the goal was to prevent Al Qaida from killing another 3k people via airplane hijacking, the US government didn't need to do anything at all. Today if terrorists take over a plane, the passengers aren't just going to sit back and wait until they crash and die.
  What if the terrorists are dressed as air marshalls or TSA? Being conditioned to obey a different group may create a parallel vulnerability.
73. Re:Meanwhile ... by rubycodez · 2014-08-08 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  "locked in Russia"....no he has an IT job and private security where he lives. Exactly how is average american's life (who do not leave USA) better than his?
74. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-08 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  But turning the US into a police state will take a long time, and is a slow, gradual process.
  Think you got your verb tenses mixed up, there.
75. Re:Meanwhile ... by ScentCone · 2014-08-08 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  And you know this how, exactly? Strong opinions require strong evidence, I read somewhere.
  I know this because I actually read. The Russian government does you the favor of making their clamp-downs on freedom of communication very clear. Of course you know this, which is why you're trolling anonymously and pretending you don't. Here, just from today's /. ...
  
  http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 00:49 · Score: 2, Informative

He should be able to live wherever he wants!
1. Re:First post by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 01:31 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  He should be living in prison. Or 6 feet under ( we still execute traitors )
  ( once convicted.. )
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
2. Re:First post by mariox19 · 2014-08-07 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The traitors are those in power who have operated using unlawful actions. Nothing is more dangerous than a government operating outside of law. Get your priorities straight.
  
  --
  quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
3. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:41 · Score: -1
  
  He should be living in prison. Or 6 feet under ( we still execute traitors ) ( once convicted.. )
  Mod parent up
4. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  We should be throwing him a ticker-tape parade and thanking him for delivering the governmental transparency that Obama promised but didn't have the balls to deliver.
5. Re:First post by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 01:58 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I was NOT commenting on our government, or giving them a pass. Their legal transgressions is a different discussion.
  I also could care less what you 'feel' as it is not relevant. Snowden broke the law, and must be held accountable for his actions. How hard is that to understand?
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
6. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:59 · Score: -1
  
  You should be executing him as a traitor
7. Re: First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  I'm going to assume that, by "him", you meant Obama and all hands complicit in this widespread breach of constitutional rights, and then I'll agree with me about what I assumed you meant and bid you good day.
8. Re:First post by AnOnyxMouseCoward · 2014-08-07 02:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So, you're Lawful Evil then?...
  
  The government also tends to _pass laws_, I don't know if you noticed. The "law" is supposed to be rooted in morals and ethics, and it is entirely possible to act in a lawful and yet unethical manner. In this case the government has been lying to us for years, but revealing that the government is behaving unethically yielded a witch hunt for the lone unlawful rebel instead of a scandal about how the government has been acting all along.
  
  This is like a king yelling "Traitor! To death!" when evidence is published that the king behaved wrongly for years.
9. Re:First post by serviscope_minor · 2014-08-07 02:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Snowden broke the law, and must be held accountable for his actions.
  Just like Schindler should have been held accountable for illegally saving the lives of all those Jewish factory workers?
  The Nazis should have thoroughly put an end to the idea that the law is right and people should always be law abiding. Seriously, I know Goodwin's law is about this cliche, but the thing is the Nazis provided all the best counter arguments to your line of reasoning, because they showed empirically what happens when you follow your reasoning to the letter.
  For some reason however when people like you year "Nazi", instead of thinking "oh hey actually my reasoning has some really unfortunate potential consequences", they instead thing "omg you compared me to the nazis get a real argument I'm not listening".
  What Snowdon did was absoloutely morally the correct thing to do. He did it for his country and the greater good of its citizens. The only account he should be held to is the one where he gets the medal of congress for putting his life on the line for blowing open large scale illegal activities in the government.
  How hard is that to understand?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
10. Re:First post by mrchaotica · 2014-08-07 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, "Booth was a patriot" (per your .sig), but Snowden isn't?! That's the most hypocritical thing I've read all day.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
11. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 02:37 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  He should be able to live wherever he wants!
  He can... Of course, if he moves to a place where the USA can extradite him the handcuffs will limit his movements. But that's the breaks when you violate a contract with the US government. Right now apparently he wants to live in Russia and Putin doesn't mind keeping him so he can keep jabbing the USA in a sore spot. Eventually, that will change.
  Look, It doesn't matter if what he did was right or wrong morally, he violated his contract with the government and must answer for that, and unless he dies before the US gets their hands on him, he will. If you believe what he did is right, then like rebels of the past who broke the laws of the day he needs to be ready to stand up and face the consequences. and make his case to further the cause. IMHO, The longer he waits, the more he proves that he's really not interested in the cause, just in himself and getting his 15 min of fame. I'll bet he is pretty unhappy and unfulfilled being used as a pawn by Putin.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
12. Re: First post by NemoinSpace · 2014-08-07 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's "Good day, Sir." You will have a hard time winning people to your side of the argument. Nobody but nobody is going to agree to their own extinction if you talk to them that way.
  Except Rodney King. Rodney it seems, still aked the question "Can't we all get along?" Even after getting beaten like a pinata. Which only goes to prove you can't beat sense into people. Fortunately, Eric Garner was hardly beaten at all, which makes his death at the hands of a totalitarian state much more palatable. My point is, words, like guns, can cause irrevocable harm if used indiscriminately.
  And global warming. Don't discount the role global warming plays in any Slashdot discussion. There.
13. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  we still execute traitors
  
  Then how come you are still alive?
14. Re:First post by ruir · 2014-08-07 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Cut the crap. Would you come back if you know all was waiting for you was a puppet trial and living the rest of your in prison?
15. Re:First post by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of people who fled Eastern Germany might disagree.
  Hint: Fleeing to the West was a crime there.
  Or, more bluntly, just because something is a law doesn't make it right. Question your laws. Blind subserviency is what makes dictatorships and tyrannies possible.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
16. Re: First post by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  That would be like kicking the Punch for his puppeteer making a bad joke.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
17. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  There is ZERO evidence that a trial would not be fair. Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results. If anything, our system favors the accused and we let a lot more people walk who did it than punish those who didn't. Snowden would be fairly tried.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
18. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  What you are saying suggests that we (ordinary citizens) might have to step up, make some real sacrifices of time and resources, and put ourselves at risk, in order to ensure that our government does the right thing.
  We don't want to do that. We want someone else to do that, so we don't have to. So, rather than do that, we will just play a mental game of rationalization. We will convince ourselves that the government is already mostly benevolent, that these problems would have come out and been corrected anyway, that they still will be corrected (whether we have any more leaks or not), and that leakers like Snowden aren't actually necessary in order to ensure our government behaves.
  Once we have convinced ourselves of these inane untruths, it is easy to say something like "Snowden disobeyed our basically-good government, and so should be punished. And also, I don't have to do anything, someone else who cares more will take care of things for me."
19. Re:First post by dave420 · 2014-08-07 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  The fact you think the US legal system is fine and dandy means you really don't know what you're talking about. It's a cruel joke.
20. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  The fact you think the US legal system is fine and dandy means you really don't know what you're talking about. It's a cruel joke.
  Compared to what other system? Russian courts? Mexico? Does anybody out there look around and compare us with other countries before they complain about our systems?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
21. Re:First post by Cigarra · 2014-08-07 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  There is ZERO evidence that a trial would not be fair. Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results. If anything, our system favors the accused and we let a lot more people walk who did it than punish those who didn't. Snowden would be fairly tried.
  There cannot be "evidence" of something that hasn't happened yet.
  
  There are hints though, and opinions from knowledgeable people, that he wouldn't have a fair trial, for he'd be tried using a law intended to deal with spies, not whistlebowers.
  
  --
  I don't have a sig.
22. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  The people in power who committed illegal actions are traitors just like Snowden, His treachery doesn't become OK because a small portion of the state secrets he stole and revealed involved illegal acts. He became a criminal as soon as he revealed our legitimate spying activities and assisted our enemies in hiding their communications. I can't believe how stupid people like you are, most of the tech community here and at ARS turned out to be paranoid, government hating morons. It's only AnandTech and Cnet that didn't degenerate into idiocy.
23. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Solution: vote for a President who will grant a full pardon, impeach him/her if it doesn't happen.
24. Re:First post by jeffmflanagan · 2014-08-07 04:15 · Score: -1
  
  >What Snowdon did was absoloutely morally the correct thing to do. He did it for his country and the greater good of its citizens.
  
  That's pure bullshit, and indicates that you're totally overlooking his treachery because you liked to hear one small part of what he revealed. How are you OK with his exposing our legitimate activities spying on terrorists?
25. Re:First post by someSnarkyBastard · 2014-08-07 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  You did not address the point parent was trying to make. just because there are court systems worse than our does not excuse the failings within our own system.
  I believe the name of your logical fallacy here would be tu quoque.
26. Re:First post by jeffmflanagan · 2014-08-07 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  >The longer he waits, the more he proves that he's really not interested in the cause, just in himself and getting his 15 min of fame.
  
  I just hope he realizes that America-hating blogger/grifter Glenn Greenwald conned him into committing a serious crime and ruining his life. If he still has delusions that he's some kind of hero as Putin's puppet, that's just sad.
27. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  How are you OK with his exposing our legitimate activities spying on terrorists?
  Alleged terrorists. And I'm okay with exposing everything because the American people need to have a chance to decide what is right and wrong about these government programs, how deep they go, etc.
28. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  Both were traitors, and you and the person you responded to are both idiots. He's America hating confederate scum, and you're just America-hating scum.
29. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  We don't compare very favorably. Due to our immense per capita rate, we actually have more people, as a raw number, in prison than any other country in the world.
  I suppose you could argue that that's fair in some way, but it seems like a pretty good measure of a court system that is, as GP called it, "a cruel joke."
30. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  THANK YOU. As we slide deeper into fascism, I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the dismissal of valid historical parallels.
31. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Alleged terrorists. Their recond is not very good.
  http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
32. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  >What Snowdon did was absoloutely morally the correct thing to do. He did it for his country and the greater good of its citizens.
  That's pure bullshit emotional appeal, and indicates that you're totally overlooking his treachery begs the question because you liked to hear one small part of what he revealed.reductio ad absurdum How are you OK begs the question, ad hominem with his exposing our legitimate activities spying on terrorists? begs the question, appeal to emotion
  
  Saying something is bullshit and following up with a new argument that uses ad hominem, reductio ad absurdum, appeal to emotion and begs the question is not a rebuttal to the original argument. At best all your post has done is demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills mixed with equal parts emotional appeal over this issue. That post is so full of fallacies I bolded and identified them to show how dense they are.
  For the record, I do not have any strong opinions on this particular issue. My axe to grind is the general lack of education in logic and reasoning outside of applying it to coding or math.
33. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  omg you compared me to the nazis get a real argument I'm not listening!!!
34. Re:First post by Rich0 · 2014-08-07 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results.
  Depends on whether you define the "right results" as convicting anybody who breaks a law. If the law is wrong, then enforcing the law is just as wrong.
35. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  How are you OK with his exposing our legitimate activities spying on terrorists?
  Because what he revealed about legitimate spying activity was wrapped in a gigantic ball of inexcusable illegitimate violations of non terrorist citizen's rights. That's how, you ridiculous fluff head.
36. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  exposing our legitimate activities spying on terrorists?
  Hahaha, and you complain about bullshit. Your spying on terrorists has led to what? Greater safety of who? The exposure has damaged your legitimate activities in what way that is undeserved?
  The US people should worry far more about their own government than terrorists.
  And if the spies can be very careless with the truth to Congress and get away with it, the US people should start worrying about the spies too.
37. Re:First post by Himmy32 · 2014-08-07 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  You're saying people like Angela Merkel are terrorists?
38. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 06:18 · Score: 2
  
  Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results.
  Depends on whether you define the "right results" as convicting anybody who breaks a law. If the law is wrong, then enforcing the law is just as wrong.
  So then the issue is with the law, not with the question of if Snowden broke the law. Which it is obvious that he did. And that he's likely to be convicted of breaking the law is not a case of the criminal courts making the wrong choice by convicting him like a fair trial would.
  So can we dispense with this "He cannot get a fair trial" garbage and say what you really mean "The law is bad"? They are separate issues.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
39. Re:First post by vux984 · 2014-08-07 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Look, It doesn't matter if what he did was right or wrong morally, he violated his contract with the government and must answer for that,
  One always has the discretion whether or not to "press charges". The government is not "required" to prosecute Snowden for his so-called breach of contract, any more than it is required to prosecute James Clapper for lying to congress under oath (which it is highly unlikely to do despite violating the law, and even admitting to it...).
  If you believe what he did is right, then like rebels of the past who broke the laws of the day he needs to be ready to stand up and face the consequences. and make his case to further the cause.
  What would that accomplish? He can clearly do more for his cause in exile than he can in prison. Only a fool would argue otherwise.
  Do you also think the Dalai Lama should return from exile to China? The longer he waits just proves he's not really interested in the cause, and just looking to prolong his 15 minutes of fame right?
40. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps not, but remember we are discussing their belief that the court system is bad and that would lead to an unfair outcome for Snowden if he faced a trial for what he did. I am not side stepping the question with a logical fallacy, but illustrating that their assertion that because Snowden is likely to be found guilty the courts are inherently unfair. I'm asking them to explain that if the US's system isn't fair, what system *would* be fair.
  You see, the real issue I'm driving home is that this "The courts are not fair" claim is garbage and unsupported by the facts and the REAL issue for these people is that they don't agree with the actual law the court is obliged to interpret. I've claimed that the law, as written, and given the public information about Snowden (what he claims to have done as recorded in the press) it is clear he would be found guilty in a fair trial in a fair court. Others have said that he won't get a "fair trial" which is NOT true. The courts in this country have an excellent track record for fairness, not perfect, but better than any other system of which I'm aware. So I'm asking them for a better system.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
41. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, an admission that it's not that the system has demonstrated it's unfair, it's because we are afraid it would be. It's not that it's happened before, we just think it might happen this time. This is logically similar to "He was found guilty so the trial was unfair" which is usually hogwash.
  So can we dispense with the "unfair trial" canard and just say what these people really need to say that they disagree with the law? Please? Because THAT we can debate... This claim that "the courts are unfair" has no real historical evidence and is all conjecture with no real evidence to support it.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
42. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  So you are OK with Snowden giving material aid in Putin's PR machine and damaging the USA's interest world wide? What a joke.
  He's not furthering his aims in exile, he's saving his skin by working at cross purposes to his stated aim by helping Putin's PR machine.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
43. Re:First post by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  So you think the only way to love America is to mindlessly obey authorities? You do realize that our entire country was founded on the idea that the everyone should be extremely cautious of the government, right? I love the ideals to which America is supposed to aspire, but I'm not sure the same can be said about you.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
44. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Because they were not distinguishable from our illegitimate activities spying on our own citizens and our allies. Seriously, how would you accomplish the one without the other?
45. Re:First post by vux984 · 2014-08-07 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  So you are OK with Snowden giving material aid in Putin's PR machine and damaging the USA's interest world wide?
  The USA's own actions are what has damaged its interests. And the USA's continued actions are what's keeping him there. The USA really only has itself to blame here, at every level of the problem.
  He's not furthering his aims in exile,
  I completely disagree.
  he's saving his skin working at cross purposes to his stated aim by helping Putin's PR machine.
  Boo fucking hoo. He's in Russia because the USA trapped him there. If it bothers you that much that he's there grant him full immunity from prosecution; and stop trying to have any plane he might be on diverted and searched. Bet you he leaves on his own.
46. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-07 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  We disagree then. I think it is important that he has now helping Putin's PR machine and I think it betrays who this guy really is. He's a self indulged, self important young man who thought to highly of himself, choose to break the law for the fame and has now come to realize it wasn't a very good idea because his life is ruined now. I hope he grows up and realizes the error he made when he decided to take the law into his own hands and break it to make his point. I hope he regrets not having exhausted all his options before committing treason because it was a stupid thing to do. You never burn the bridges, until you have no other options and he nuked the whole river before he crossed the bridge.
  Mark my words carefully. Once Putin cannot extract any more PR gains, Snowden will be out in the cold either literally (as in Siberia for life) or figuratively (kicked out of Russia into US hands.) One way or the other. But he will have nobody to blame but himself IMHO. If he goes to trial he will be found guilty, not because the courts are unfair, but because he broke the law.
  I've made my position clear multiple times now. I'm done debating this with you (or anybody else who responds to this post.) I will read any replies, but I'm unlikely to waste any more time responding.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
47. Re:First post by serviscope_minor · 2014-08-07 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  That's pure bullshit, and indicates that you're totally overlooking his treachery because you liked to hear one small part of what he revealed.
  That's pure bullshit. You're painting the MASSIVE huge thing as a small part of it.
  How are you OK with his exposing our legitimate activities spying on terrorists?
  A, what legit spying did he rebeal and B I'm more concerned about the government acting illegally against my interests than I am about the vague and nebulous fear of "terrorists".
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
48. Re:First post by vux984 · 2014-08-07 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think it is important that he has now helping Putin's PR machine and I think it betrays who this guy really is.
  Its pretty well established that he got trapped there by the USA while he was attempting to get SOMEWHERE ELSE. So if your cheesed about him being in Russia, the blame squarely falls on the USA for trapping him there.
  He's a self indulged, self important young man who thought to highly of himself, choose to break the law for the fame and has now come to realize it wasn't a very good idea because his life is ruined now.
  In the real world its pretty clear from interviews he knew what he was getting into. Its also pretty clear from the cycle of lying the NSA has done to congress as a result of the revelations that there was no fixing it from within. You seem to be in denial.
  Mark my words carefully.
  Yeah, he's fucked. We agree on that. That just makes what he did that much more heroic -- because he did the right thing when he knew up front it was clearly going to ruin his life. I'd hope for a better outcome for him, because he doesn't deserve punishment for what he did, but he's getting it anyway.
  If he goes to trial he will be found guilty, not because the courts are unfair, but because he broke the law.
  The law once made sheltering black people fleeing slavery illegal too. And at another time another underground railroad that transported Jews out of Germany was also illegal.
  The railroad operators... just self indulged, and self important people who should have grown up and realized the errors they were making right? They should have exhausted the options, not burned any bridges by breaking the law, and the ones who were caught and executed for it... nobody to blame but themselves.
  I've made my position clear multiple times now. I'm done debating this with you (or anybody else who responds to this post.)
  Or put another way:
  
  See, I keep my mental mind extra secure. Nothin' gets in. -- Riley, The Boondocks
49. Re:First post by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-07 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Do you also believe that those who e.g. exposed the Iran-Contra affair, or similar shenanigans whereby US did something despicable, were "helping Soviets' PR machine"?
50. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 20:17 · Score: 0
  
  I think it is important that he has now helping Putin's PR machine and I think it betrays who this guy really is.
  Its pretty well established that he got trapped there by the USA while he was attempting to get SOMEWHERE ELSE. So if your cheesed about him being in Russia, the blame squarely falls on the USA for trapping him there.
  He's a self indulged, self important young man who thought to highly of himself, choose to break the law for the fame and has now come to realize it wasn't a very good idea because his life is ruined now.
  In the real world its pretty clear from interviews he knew what he was getting into. Its also pretty clear from the cycle of lying the NSA has done to congress as a result of the revelations that there was no fixing it from within. You seem to be in denial.
  Mark my words carefully.
  Yeah, he's fucked. We agree on that. That just makes what he did that much more heroic -- because he did the right thing when he knew up front it was clearly going to ruin his life. I'd hope for a better outcome for him, because he doesn't deserve punishment for what he did, but he's getting it anyway.
  Heroic? Not. Try delusional, naïve. My evidence... Snowden questioning Putin, Snowden requesting return to US, Snowden's speeches. (smh)
51. Re:First post by olau · 2014-08-07 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  What? No evidence? Have you researched the recent whistleblower/leak cases? Did they get a fair treatment?
  When people are saying he won't get a fair trial, they aren't necessarily talking about the courts as such.
  It's like the Guantanamo prisoners. The court system only works if it's not circumvented.
52. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-08 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  >
  It's like the Guantanamo prisoners.
  Not even close... The people down in Club GITMO where ALL afforded trials according to military rules. They had representation, evidence was presented and they where given the opportunity to defend themselves. You may not like the process used, but it is fair, legal and backed by centuries of precedent and there is no indication the results where not fair. Detainees are afforded the rights and privileges required by the Geneva conventions (rules of war) as a minimum (actually better than required) and like it or not, what was done at GITMO was legal by international law.
  Whistle blowing does not give one the right to break the law. Snowden didn't even attempt to use the process afforded to him for that purpose, but when straight to the "break the law" acts which you are NOT afforded protection from as a whistle blower. There where a bunch of things he could have done short of breaking the law to garner attention to his case, but he choose to foolishly rush into committing an act that many consider treason. That a trial's verdict is a foregone conclusion for most, does not make it so, nor does it mean it is an unfair process.
  Snowden knew what he was doing, the law he was breaking, what he was risking, what the consequences might be, yet he did it anyway. Now you are going to bitch that the system is unfair because a trial would likely find him guilty? You are complaining about the WRONG thing. It's not the courts which are the issue you should be fighting, it's the law itself... And in this case, I'd bet it's not the law that Snowden broke that you'd have issues with, but the legal justification used by the NSA to do what they do. Now THAT's something we can logically discuss, but this "he cannot get a fair trial" position is a stinking pile of garbage, twice removed from the *real* issue here.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
53. Re:First post by kloro2006 · 2014-08-08 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  please, CIA/NSA/whatever troll, don't be so obvious. We resent it because we find distasteful the spectacle of the brain dead pretending to intellectual competence. How many people on this site do you think you're fooling? Idiot lackeys like you are what is making America a pimple on the ass of history. but, then again, who but idiots wd want to work for the American 'intelligence' establishment?
54. Re:First post by Rich0 · 2014-08-10 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  So can we dispense with this "He cannot get a fair trial" garbage and say what you really mean "The law is bad"? They are separate issues.
  He can't get a fair trial BECAUSE the law is bad, and he almost certainly won't be tried before a jury of his peers.
  But, whatever. We're quibbling over definitions. Whether the US has bad courts or simply bad laws enforced by good courts makes little practical difference for anybody on US soil.
55. Re:First post by Uberbah · 2014-08-12 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  There is ZERO evidence that a trial would not be fair.
  
  Do something about that willful ignorance: read up on the Espionage Act, the torture of Chelsea Manning, and Obama's unlawful command influence. Then try again.
  
  Compared to what other system? Russian courts? Mexico?
  You'd take your chances at Russia or Mexico over genpop in Ft. Leavenworth for the rest of your life.
56. Re:First post by bobbied · 2014-08-13 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is ZERO evidence that a trial would not be fair.
  Do something about that willful ignorance: read up on the Espionage Act, the torture of Chelsea Manning, and Obama's unlawful command influence. Then try again.
  Read up on my position here and try again.
  I'm saying that this "fair trial" argument is garbage. The criminal courts do not make law, they interpret law. You readily agreed that the Snowden's actions where illegal by what the laws say. So I'm saying that a "fair trial" would likely end up in a conviction. (Actually what YOU want is an UNFAIR trial, not a fair one..)
  Your real beef is not with the courts, but with the law. I'm just asking that you admit this, so we can stop the useless debates about the courts and focus on what really matters, the law.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Russia will never kick him out by mbone · 2014-08-07 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyone who thinks that Russia would deport Edward Snowden does not know much about the long history of Russian spycraft.
1. Re:Russia will never kick him out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Anyone who seriously uses the word 'spycraft' has read too many Tom Clancy novels. HAND.
2. Re:Russia will never kick him out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  and anyone that think' "spycraft" doesn't apply.hasn't studied history on the international spying.
  Read up on Kim Philby, enigma machine, Rosenberg, etc etc etc...
  It has gone on all thru history, kingdoms and empires, companies, clans, mobs, and groups.
  Any collection of people that have opposition (real or imagined) gather information .
  A little preparation and paranoia is a good thing (a lot is bad thing)...
  Where would the world be if Poland had not started work on the enigma machine code breaking, and then shared it with the UK ( and UK with US) ?
  Speaking german? dealing with a unified europe under a german dictator?
  Still fighting?
  Double plus not good thinking there citizen
Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 00:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your matters weren't private before Snowden since the govt. was violating the 4th amendment without your knowledge. Just because the revealing of an illegal practice modifies the behavior of others does not make that illegal practice legitimate.
Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 00:55 · Score: -1, Troll

Snowmen revealed American secrets and then fled to our enemy. He must be brought to American justice ASAP. Personally I think he should be executed for espionage and his head hung on a spike to warn other potential "whistleblowers".
1. Re:Snowden is a traitor by RaceProUK · 2014-08-07 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ah, I see the NSA is here :)
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
2. Re:Snowden is a traitor by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  i agree. Regardless of ones *feelings* about what he did, the fact remains that he **broke the law** and needs to be in court. Not doing that makes a mockery of our laws.
  Sentencing is where you can take into account 'intent', but not his guilt or innocence..
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
3. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well said
4. Re:Snowden is a traitor by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not doing that makes a mockery of our laws.
  Our laws make a mockery of themselves.
  This would be a good time to use jury nullification, if the opportunity presents itself.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
5. Re: Snowden is a traitor by tom229 · 2014-08-07 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  While it suits your irrational argument to argue the law in black and white terms, you have to know that the law is far from that.
  
  If a criminal breaks into your house, assaults you, you shoot him, and he happens to die, we don't call that murder and give you a more lenient sentence because you were defending yourself. We call that self defence.
  
  Equally so, technically what Snowden did "broke the law". But that's a pretty obtuse way to look at it considering the greater good he achieved by demonstrating that our own government is, and has been, breaking the law.
  
  What he did was in defence of our nation. He has more courage and character in his nail clippings than you have in your whole body. Now turn off Fox news and develop your own opinion.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
6. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  ...the fact remains that he **broke the law** and needs to be in court.
  OK, as long as the following happens FIRST:
  1) all the individuals in government who conspired to subvert the Fourth Amendment are tried, convicted and imprisoned
  2) secret courts and secret evidence is abolished forever
  Would that be OK with you? Or do you simply want Snowden's head and no one else's?
7. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Not doing that makes a mockery of our laws.
  Our laws make a mockery of themselves.
  This would be a good time to use jury nullification, if the opportunity presents itself.
  Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.
  IMHO, he's not really interested in the "cause" except that it brings him fame and feeds his ego. He's all about Snowden and nobody else and cooked up this media angle to justify his self importance. In reality he is a coward who dropped and ran when the going got tough.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
8. Re:Snowden is a traitor by ruir · 2014-08-07 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Will he get a fair trial? We both know he wont, so stop talking out of your own arse.
9. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.
  Uh, the point of him staying in Russia IS to stay protected from a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral, or otherwise. Your government has already lied to you and been caught. Why would you assume they wouldn't keep doing it?
10. Re: Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently you have never watched Fox News. Your remote stuck on MSNBC?
11. Re:Snowden is a traitor by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.
  
  Because he's not a masochist, a martyr, or any number of other things you might think are righteous. Given the US government's shady activities, there's no reason to think there would be a free trial, that the jury would not turn against him, or that some other horrible outcome wouldn't happen.
  
  IMHO, he's not really interested in the "cause" except that it brings him fame and feeds his ego.
  Yeah, because fame and ego is worth having to constantly worry what your future holds because you've pissed off the most powerful government in the world. Right.
  
  In reality he is a coward who dropped and ran when the going got tough.
  No one who releases documents that prove the government violated the highest law of the land and basic ethics is a coward. He's done much more good than you, PTA moron.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
12. Re:Snowden is a traitor by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Start with his.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
13. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Enemy?
  Rats, a week without C-Span and I miss the reheating of the Cold War...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  So you DO believe that those who signed the Partiot Act et al are worrthy of prison. Good!
  But why start with the prosecution of Snowden? At this point, getting him back to the US to stand trial is pretty problematic. As for the conspirators, we know who they are, they all reside in the US, and they all would be easily arrested. Don't you think we should go after them NOW? We can wait for a more opportune time to snag Snowden, can we not?
15. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Probably for the same reason a lot of dissidents that left North Korea don't wanna go "home" for a fair trial?
  Anyone who thinks that this trial could in any way be fair is a moron. It CANNOT be one, for the simple and plain reason that accuser and judge sit on the same side of the bar. That was, btw, the way inquisition trials worked.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
16. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden is not an immediate threat to the nation. The criminals in the government are.
17. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  The fly in your ointment here is that like it or not our legal system is fair, especially in criminal cases. The bias in our country favors the accused and we let more guilty people walk than convict the innocent. But in this case, there is no real question. He broke the law, everybody knows it.
  So this "he won't get a fair trial" is just garbage. Of course he will get a fair trial, especially given the public attention this case would get. Where I think the verdict would be a foregone conclusion that doesn't mean the trial wouldn't be fair, although folks like you would wrongly claim it was.
  So I'm saying Snowden needs to come home and face the music for his actions, if for no other reason than it would advance "the cause" he claims was his motivation. He knew when he did this that his actions where criminal and could lead to punishment up to death, yet he decided to take the risk for what he thought was right. Well, has he changed his mind now or is he just a coward?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
18. Re:Snowden is a traitor by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  The fly in your ointment here is that like it or not our legal system is fair, especially in criminal cases.
  Oh, really? And that's just one example.
  Then there's also the fact that our laws themselves are not necessarily just. Most people don't know about jury nullification, which is what might be needed to stop Snowden from being convicted, assuming that he'd get a fair trial at all.
  
  He broke the law, everybody knows it.
  
  You just said that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. What the hell is wrong with you?
  
  So this "he won't get a fair trial" is just garbage.
  Only if you ignore history.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
19. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Snowden knew before he did it what penalty was possible.
  Now you want to claim "No fair!" if he is convicted? Sorry, no sale. Clearly he broke the law, he did it knowingly. Now you can judge his motives or the morality of what he did differently than I do, but if his cause really is just and his actions really are moral the problem is that the law is wrong. Real rebels are willing to accept the consequences to bring to light their cause and argue for the law to be changed. People who run away and start complaining about how it isn't fair are not really rebels, but hooligans and criminals.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
20. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  So you define a fair trial how? He gets found not guilty? I don't think so.
  A fair trial would result in his conviction. Snowden knew what he was doing and what the punishments could be for it. Yet, you want to start by claiming he wouldn't have a fair trial because you don't think the outcome is fair? I think you are the one trying to pervert the legal system....
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
21. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I'm pretty sure everyone fleeing from North Korea knows exactly what the penalty is for his "crime", too.
  I think you're working from the (presumably incorrect) assumption that he WANTS to get back to the US in the first place.
  Besides, "real rebels" want change. Usually for "their" country. And that is something he can by some margin accomplish better by being free and medially available than imprisoned and gagged.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
22. Re: Snowden is a traitor by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  technically what Snowden did "broke the law"
  Thus why we need a trial. Quite simple really, even you should understand that.
  
  He has more courage and character in his nail clippings than you have in your whole body
  Big words from a small man that has NO clue what courage actually is, or anything about me.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
23. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Teun · 2014-08-07 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sad.
  See the US legal system, especially in criminal law is not at all fair.
  Or how do you explain that a nation with 5% of the world's population holds 25% of the world's prisoners, are you guys 500% more criminal?
  Another example, your legal system makes the plea bargain possible, you get a sentence without proper judicial oversight, it stinks to high heaven.
  Or the fact you can actually rent a cop...Legalised corruption.
  Or the violence and rape in your prison system, in a civilised country the prison management would have to stand trial, in the US it's just accepted; once in the pound you'll be Bubba's bride.
  Or the number of prisoners in solitary confinement, totally against all scientific wisdom and international treaties.
  Get over it, Snowden might have violated parts of your written law but he sure as hell also did the US population and humanity as a whole a service.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
24. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  How about we start with yours?
25. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  You have made it brilliantly clear that you have absolutely no experience in the US Court system. None, whatsoever, except for what you watch on Law and Order possibly.
26. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  He broke the law, everybody knows it.
  You just said that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. What the hell is wrong with you?
  I don't figure that either of us will be on the jury, having already formed our opinions. You get removed from the pool by the prosecution, I by the defense. So the system is fair, despite your claims. IMHO I believe your issue is with the law, not the criminal courts, so this whole "He won't get a fair trial" thing is garbage.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
27. Re:Snowden is a traitor by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  You get removed from the pool by the prosecution
  Yes, they try to remove people who could correct their nonsense. That's why you must feign ignorance. That is most certainly not fair.
  
  So the system is fair, despite your claims.
  Unfair laws mean that our system is unfair. And I linked to a case where it was demonstrably *not* fair. There are many more.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
28. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh there are SOOOO many ways your comparing Snowden to a defector from North Korea breaks down and you cheapen the plight of the people who have managed it by comparing Snowden to them.
  Snowden is no political refugee, he is not being unfairly accused and he was not justified taking the law into his own hand. He's obviously NOT willing to pay the price, but he is willing to be used by a government which is worlds worse in the very area he protests is unfair here in the US. That alone tells me that this is not about being morally right with Snowden. If it was, he'd be turning himself in to the US so as not to lend material support to a government which is much worse about doing warrant-less surveillance of it's population and decrying their practice too. He's a hypocrite of the highest order and/or self deceived.
  You want to compare him to a real case of fleeing a country like North Korea? That's disgusting.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
29. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  How do you folks sleep at night...
  If you intend to lie to get on a jury, I remind you that is illegal, immoral and wrong. But apparently that doesn't matter to you, only the "cause" you support matters. If anything messes up the court system here it is the willingness to do stuff like that.
  So it's not the laws which are wrong in this case, but your willingness to subvert them with a lie to support your cause.
  In the USA, if you don't like the law, you have the right to petition and lobby to get it changed. I suggest you exercise your RIGHTS to their fullest extent. If you fail to fix the problem you see using your rights, then you can resort to breaking the laws you have moral objections too, but understand that you must do so fully willing to accept the punishment prescribed by the law. If you haven't exercised your RIGHTS first, or you are unwilling to endure the punishment to make your point, I personally don't have much sympathy for you. Which is why I have no sympathy for Snowden. He didn't exhaust his rights, nor was he willing to face trial and accept the punishment.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
30. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  What's a political refugee? Someone who broke the law of his own country and now has to seek shelter in some other country where what he did is not a crime.
  The main difference between them is that you agree with one law while you reject the other one. But that's already the only difference there is. From a purely juridical point of view, of course.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
31. Re:Snowden is a traitor by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you intend to lie to get on a jury, I remind you that is illegal, immoral and wrong.
  Lying to avoid being eliminated from the jury because you're more informed about jury nullification is quite alright. When you make it impossible for anyone with a single brain cell to be on a jury, expect people to take measures to defend their country by using one of the tools available to them (jury nullification). Knowing about jury nullification can be all it takes for them to not let you be on the jury. To suggest that I'm somehow immoral for wanting to exercise one of the final checks on our government available to us simply because the government is making it difficult to do so is completely retarded.
  
  But apparently that doesn't matter to you, only the "cause" you support matters.
  Your definition of "immoral" and "wrong" are what is wrong. Yes, the constitution of the US and fundamental liberties are what matters.
  
  So it's not the laws which are wrong in this case, but your willingness to subvert them with a lie to support your cause.
  
  The laws are wrong, and so are government bootlickers like you.
  
  In the USA, if you don't like the law, you have the right to petition and lobby to get it changed.
  Jury nullification is another tactic.
  
  He didn't exhaust his rights, nor was he willing to face trial and accept the punishment.
  Not everyone is a masochist, a martyr, or a charismatic leader like MLK. Fuck you for this stupid way of thinking that everyone must do everything one way or not at all. We have the information, and now we must stop the government thugs from violating our fundamental liberties. The end. The whines and cries of you government bootlickers to defend the government's evil while pretending that you're not are quite hilarious.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
32. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  If you intend to lie to get on a jury, I remind you that is illegal, immoral and wrong.
  Lying to avoid being eliminated from the jury because you're more informed about jury nullification is quite alright. (snip)
  You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie and subvert the system though deceit, so I can no longer trust what you say as you are not an honest actor.
  We are done here... Or at least I'm done here with you as long as you maintain the above position....
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
33. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  So, he flees from the USA to Russia in protest of NSA surveillance? What does Russia do to it's citizens? Tell me how that makes sense? Also tell me how that doesn't cheapen the plight of the North Korean refugee who faces certain death just for leaving without permission and knowing that any family he leaves behind will be dealt with harshly just because they are related? Sorry but I find comparing Snowden's situation to that disgusting.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
34. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  ...like it or not our legal system is fair
  So Guantanamo is fair now?
35. Re:Snowden is a traitor by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie and subvert the system though deceit, so I can no longer trust what you say as you are not an honest actor.
  Trust what I say? How stupid are you? My arguments stand or fall on their own merit, and they're right there for you to debunk. Literally, there's nothing for me to lie about. This is just a lazy excuse to avoid putting forth an actual argument. Nice job being so transparent.
  Also, by your logic, everyone in the world is actually a liar, since no one (including you) has never lied. I suppose that means that Hitler was a good person because he probably did at least one good thing. And doing one bad things makes you a bad person. What idiotic 'logic.'
  Furthermore, your posts indicate that you expect people to do nothing while they get fucked in the ass by a government that tries to prevent you from using one of the final checks against government abuses: jury nullification. Yeah, good idea, bootlicker. I'd expect nothing less from a censorship-loving moron.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
36. Re:Snowden is a traitor by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  The issue is still the same. A man does something his country considers a crime and has to leave his country to avoid prosecution, which is possible due to another country not considering the act a crime. That the possible repercussions if said country gets a hold on him are different by some magnitude doesn't change anything about the underlying situation. Just because I don't get killed in my country for killing someone else doesn't mean that the idea of facing 25 to life in prison is more appealing or something that I'd consider a viable alternative.
  What remains is that you agree with one "crime" and disagree with the other one. Objectively, there is not as much difference between them as you are trying to make out now.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
37. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-07 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Oh trust me, if he had betrayed the intelligence gathering systems of Russia to the USA, he'd be in a whole lot more trouble than he is now. They consider such an act a crime too, only there would be NO trial and they would have likely had him killed just as soon as possible. So no, had the situation been reversed, he'd be dead and nobody would have been talking about him in the media, and even Obama wouldn't have been talking to him on the evening news, even if he wasn't pushing up flowers some place.
  Right now, Russia (i.e. Putin) only tolerates Snowden in so far as he proves useful. Once he becomes a liability, you can bet they will cut him loose without delay. How do I know? Because they haven't given him citizenship yet. They are reserving the right to kick him out, so they keep letting him stay for a limited time. If he really was what some claim, they'd be falling all over themselves to issue him citizenship, but as it is they are biding their time and using him as a PR tool when possible. Eventually (I'm thinking sometime after the next presidential election in the USA) he will loose his value and involuntarily find his sorry self on an airplane in handcuffs back to the states, barring that, he's stuck in Russia for the duration or until he turns himself into the US embassy and finds himself in handcuffs on a plane back to the states. My bet is the former, sometime in 2017.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
38. Re:Snowden is a traitor by ruir · 2014-08-07 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  You should not mix drinking and using Internet. Who are you trying to deceive? The proper question is whether he is going to Guantanamo with or without a puppet military trial. Amerika has not been a fair country for too long a time.
39. Re:Snowden is a traitor by bobbied · 2014-08-08 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  All I can say is Wow, you are jaded... If you live here, you need to move. Perhaps you'd have better luck than Snowden getting into Russia?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not about leverage or influence by Sonny+Yatsen · 2014-08-07 00:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Russia isn't using this to leverage information or to influence Snowden. Russia is using this to stick it to the US. And if, every once in a while, they can trot him out like a useful puppet (like they did during Putin's televised Q&A), then all the better

--
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
1. Re:Not about leverage or influence by towermac · 2014-08-07 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yep.
  And to answer the summary; the positive PR value is enough.
  Since you already know this is the kind of guy that will fall on his sword, bullying him would get you little of value, while throwing away the 'useful puppet' advantage.
  If we don't like the situation, nothing is stopping Obama from offering him a deal.
2. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  If Russian wants to get more information out of Snowden wouldn't they just, like, read the newspapers? Why would you try to coerce information out of somebody whose whole MO is putting it in the public domain?
3. Re:Not about leverage or influence by CaptainDork · 2014-08-07 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  NSA's grab of data is one debate that has nothing to do with Snowden. That grabbing is still there and will continue to bet there. It was going on before Snowden ever showed up.
  More upsetting to me than grabbing big data is the government's failure to learn from Manning regarding how many worker ants have access to the big data.
  Snowden (and Manning) walked in; got the stuff; and walked out.
  THAT's the larger problem which continues today.
  Both Snowden and Manning are so last year. Snowden's value now is for Russians to trot him out now and then, much like the Republicans put Lewinski on the runway in an effort to discolour Hillary.
  Again, we need to keep our eye on the ball and it's the little round thing.
  Apparently, we have another Snowden mole. Who's to blame for that incompetence?
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
4. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Kjella · 2014-08-07 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure about the "influence Snowden" part. By giving him a temporary stay when he's got very few other places to go they're giving him a lot of incentive to be that useful puppet, as opposed to a permanent stay. If they did that, he might withdraw from the public spotlight or start pointing out it's the pot calling the kettle black. No doubt the Russians have similar operations of their own.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re:Not about leverage or influence by denis-The-menace · 2014-08-07 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  For years the US portrayed Russia/USSR as an evil empire.
  Russia would respond with "but the US is no better".
  Snowden is the poster child proving Russia right all along.
  Where ever he goes, Snowden will always do that.
  
  --
  Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
6. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  Putin might be greedy and probably criminally insane.
  That doesn't mean that he considers himself to be any of those things. The reasons Snowden is allowed to stay in Russia can be a completely altruistic move from people who considers themselves to be good people, even if the rest of the world doesn't think of them that way.
  In fact, I have never heard of anyone who considers themselves to be evil. The worst evil I've ever encountered are people who are willing to do bad things for what they consider the greater good. (NSA) Then you have the people who are truly insane but even there you have an overlap with the first kind. (Osama bin Laden or Anders Breivik comes to mind.)
7. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Ed's answer to Obama's deal
8. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Xest · 2014-08-07 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing's proving Russia right when there's a wall of evil doings proving the counter. Snowden is one of the few things they can genuinely cling on to.
  For all of the US' wrongs there's nothing changing the fact that Russia is an evil empire, well, that's a lie, it's not an empire any more thank god, it just wants to be, but it's still evil.
  Let's just look at a few of the things they've done this year alone, let's start near the beginning of the year where the scene is that there is a popular uprising against Russian influenced Yanukovych, during these protests a number of key protesters were abducted by men with accents from Russia itself, some were left to die but managed to live to tell the tale:
  http://www.rferl.org/content/u...
  http://www.rferl.org/content/u...
  Others weren't quite so lucky:
  http://www.reddit.com/r/worldn...
  The uprising was eventually successful, in response, Russia sent in breach of the Geneva convention soldiers into Crimea posing as civilians and annexed the territory, despite the fact that only a few weeks prior it was clear that there was nothing like majority support for joining Russia:
  http://www.cityam.com/blog/139...
  Coupled with the unverifiable "poll" and the followon fuckup by Russian bureaucrats in posting the actual results that show there was actually no majority support for joining Russia it became fairly obvious it was an illegal annexation of foreign territory. Of course, it didn't stop there. The Crimean Tatar population that did not want to join Russia have since been treated like Jews in Nazi Germany circa 1939 with their houses being marked:
  http://www.turkishpress.com/ne...
  Other Tatars have simply been disappeared by death squads:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
  The rest of them? Well, they just get silenced and beaten:
  http://www.themoscowtimes.com/...
  If this sort of thing doesn't send chills down your spine as to how close it is to the way the Nazis operated then there's something wrong with you.
  Since then of course there's been the case of Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine, the debate goes on about whether they're genuinely Ukrainians that want to join Russia, or whether they're simply Russian special forces, or a mix of both, but either way, what's not in dispute is the following and that Russia wholeheartedly supports them:
  - They admitted having Buk and shooting down MH17 believing it was a Ukrainian military transport:
  http://www.reuters.com/article...
  http://www.themalaysianinsider...
  - They've been abducting, torturing, and parading civilians:
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
  - They've admitted to carrying out summary executions:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...
  - And they've been preventing all males from leaving the warzones they've been part of the
9. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  If we don't like the situation, nothing is stopping Obama from offering him a deal.
  Oh yes there is. Snowden wouldn't take a deal, Putin wouldn't allow it and Obama would never offer it. Snowden won't because he is a coward and is unwilling to come home and face the music in support of his supposed "cause". Putin won't allow it because Snowden is still useful for taking jabs at the US, using Snowden to bludgeon Obama over a domestic political hot potato. Obama won't willingly take the domestic political hit of offering Snowden anything and having to weather the firestorm it would create from both his base and the right and basically have the potato explode in his own hands.
  None of the major actors here are motivated to change the situation, so we are in a holding pattern until something changes. Maybe after the mid-terms things will change with Obama, but I'm guessing that we are looking out past the 2016 election before we see any political changes here in the USA. I'm not familiar with the election calendar in Russia, but unless something major happens in that country Putin is a shoe-in for the next decade so I don't expect any changes on that front. Snowden's perspective is the least important of them all. I'm guessing he will have no choice once Putin and the US get tired of playing with the pawn.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
10. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  The Russians are not interested in Snowden for "information". Likely they already had any information that Snowden could have provided them, even before he leaked anything.
  The Russian interest in Snowden is about propaganda. Snowden is tolerated because he is useful to gain media attention when they want/need too.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
11. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  You don't go around Russia calling attention to the government's abuses, citizen or not. You manage to embarrass Putin in the media and you are in *serious* trouble. You do remember the "girls band" members that tried to desecrate the church right? Russia is not kind to it's detractors.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
12. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Because the value of information decreases with the amount of people having it.
  An example: The most valuable 0day exploit is one that you and only you have access to. If the creator of the software has it, too, its value drops sharply.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Opportunist · 2014-08-07 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest problem is actually not people having access to sensitive information, but that it is not morally wrong to spread it. As a government, you have two choices.
  Either you're morally integer, then your people will willingly support you and will do whatever they can to keep harm from you, because they believe in you and the country you represent. They will willingly fight for you and will, if need be, die for you, or rather, what you represent.
  Or you can be morally corrupt and force, coerce and bribe people to do your bidding, while eliminating those you cannot force, coerce and bribe. The ones that will fight for your cause will do so out of the three main motivators of humanity: fear, greed and fear. You should be prepared that people will defect and you will have to spend a lot of your resources avoiding that (this is, btw, one of the reasons why the East Bloc collapsed, it had to spend an insane amount of resources to keep people in line).
  You cannot, though, pretend to be 1 and act like a 2. That will always fail. No later than when people get access to your "dirty secrets" and realize that you're only pretending to be a morally integer state while being a completely rotten one. And then, they will follow their own consciousness.
  You can not avoid this.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re:Not about leverage or influence by towermac · 2014-08-07 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Snowden won't because he is a coward "
  No, he's not. A coward (or even just the non-brave) would have continued to take the 6 figure salary for an easy job in Hawaii. He gave up everything. Do you really think he's living large in Moscow?
  "Putin wouldn't allow it "
  He wouldn't like it. But a public offer and Snowden's public acceptance would sure put him on the spot.
  "Obama won't willingly take the domestic political hit ..."
  No, I doubt that he will. He campaigned against this exact thing, and now he is its biggest defender. But he could grow a set, show some leadership, and get the job done, if he wanted to. The only thing stopping him is himself.
15. Re:Not about leverage or influence by dave420 · 2014-08-07 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're quite quick to label people. Coward? You have no idea what he was going through, or what his aims were or even are. You seem to be confusing your opinionated guesses with reality, and you seem to be doing it time and time again. It's like we're being allowed to view your personal soap opera playing out. It's terrifying.
16. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden didn't do this for money, he did it for fame.. He's a coward.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
17. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares? Just thank our lucky stars they are too incompetent to continue breaking the law in secret.
18. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Are you so jaded that you refuse to believe someone will risk their entire life and future for the overall good of humanity? Your poor heart must be so full of vitriolic, spittle flinging hatred that you can't even see straight.
19. Re:Not about leverage or influence by towermac · 2014-08-07 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  That makes no sense.
20. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  A coward who did something that required more bravery than anything you'll ever do in your life
21. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Ok.. Strike the last sentence as an incomplete unrelated thought. Snowden did it for the fame. Leave it at that.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
22. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  You don't go around the US calling attention to the corporations abuses, citizen or not. You manage to embarrass the Bankers in the media and you are in *serious* trouble. You do remember the "occupy" members that tried to desecrate the church of WallStreet right? The US is not kind to it's detractors.
23. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Conveniently you neglect US financial backing of the uprising, leaked tapes showing state department employees essentially planning the replacement government, and also the tape stating that the snipers firing on the maidan fired on *both* sides.. for starters. Dig deeper. Things are not so cut and dried.
24. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he is.... Break the law to make your point, then run off to Russia to escape punishment and complain that it isn't fair? If he really was dedicated to the cause of getting the laws here in the USA changed, we'd not be entertaining this "Poor Snowden, look how he's been oppressed and faces an unfair trial" garbage. Nor would he be in Russia basically helping a government which has a human rights track record that is MUCH worse than his native country in it's PR campaigns to damage his country.
  What seems to have happened is Snowden is in self preservation mode now. It was all fun and games when he was collecting and leaking stuff, but now that the deed is done and he's been caught he is unwilling to face the music. He ran off to Russia and got himself stuck between Putin's PR machine and just turning himself in to the USA. He decided to aid and abet the adversary in a vain effort to save his skin. Which is all he's ever really be about, his own skin.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
25. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Please explain how to go public, without being accused by internet cowards to have done it all for the fame.
  (no point 4. PROFIT!!! allowed, I'm afraid)
26. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  If this sort of thing doesn't send chills down your spine ...
  No, it doesn't -- but then I'm a Financial Times reader.
  Propaganda always will exist, shill -- but thinking you can convince techies with it? Ough.
27. Re:Not about leverage or influence by rmstar · 2014-08-07 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  You do remember the "girls band" members that tried to desecrate the church right? Russia is not kind to it's detractors.
  Fun fact: had these girls done that very same thing in a german church, they would have landed in jail. Probably a better jail, but a jail nonetheless. In other countries, with other sites of religious worship, they would have been killed.
  So please, keep it real. Russia is no paradise, but it's not by a very large margine the worst place in the world. Among other things, they have a lot less people in jail than the USA does.
28. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  In the USA they would have been charged with trespassing and possibly a number of other minor offenses but not jailed doing hard time. In Russia, you don't do jail time very often because they are horrible places and serve as a deterrent. Here in the USA we entertain "Cruel and Unusual punishment" complaints if the inmates are served bologna sandwiches more than once a week, or if the inmate is forced to wear pink underwear. We even have inmates who commit crimes and PURPOSELY get caught so they can get back in jail with 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep on. But that's a whole different argument now.
  My point stands, even if my example wasn't the best. Russian treatment of it's citizens who politically disagree with those in power has a pretty bad track record (it's pretty bloody too). Their surveillance of their citizens by law enforcement and spying agencies are not nearly as hampered by law as ours is. Although they may not be technically capable of doing some of what the NSA can, they have a lot fewer legal impediments and would gladly do everything the NSA does and more if they had the money and technology to set it all up. If they had the capacity, you KNOW Putin would love to use it for political advantage.
  I'm totally amazed at how naive people are sometimes, So Snowden is throwing his lot in with Putin and Russia? It figures, he's a traitor, that's what they do.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
29. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  So on the US/UK side, how is that Iraqi thing working out? Or Libya? Or all the military interventions in Latin America? Or Iran?
  How about shooting down of that Iranian passenger jet going to Dubai in 1988 by US military ship? 290 dead, but of course US does not even acknowledge wrongdoing.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
  Putin isn't doing anything more than the US has always been doing.
  Seriously, apply your standard to everyone equally for a change.
  
  Fact is, Russia is probably one of the single most evil nations on earth right now
  You must be under influence of something. If you weren't, you would know that if it weren't for Putin, you'd have your soldiers in the middle of a civil war in Syria, or worse.
  Get your head out of your ass to get a better perspective on events around the world.
30. Re:Not about leverage or influence by CanadianRealist · 2014-08-07 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Your reason for doing something and whether or not you are brave or a coward are two very different things.
  Suppose someone was willing to jump into a cage with multiple wild animals likely to attack them, just for the fame. Would you call them a coward?
  In the case of Snowden he might refuse a deal because he doesn't trust the government. And many would say he's smart to do so, there are plenty of examples of the government and the NSA lying already.
31. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-07 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Snowden didn't jump into the cage as your example suggests, he lost his footing and fell in, he didn't mean too. But the question is why was he in a position to fall into the cage? Why did he climb onto the top of the cage and start waving his arms around for the reporters to get pictures? It was either fame, pride or a combination of both, combined with shortsighted stupidity common in youth that got him on top of the cage and the reporters who egged him into dancing around up there. They got their story and Snowden is lost in the cage being used as a weapon by one beast to bludgeon another.
  So you tell me, why did he climb up the side of that cage again? He knew he was risking his life up there, I just don't believe it was for the cause he said it was, I think he thought he was going to get away with it by making a media circus out of it, which was pretty stupid. Now, he's all consumed with saving his life so he aligns himself with Putin? That's being a coward. He knew his life was on the line when he climbed the cage and waved to the press cameras, he claimed it was because of his conviction over this one issue, still does, yet he is unwilling to own what he did in court where it would serve his convictions further? Now he cares about his life so he's forced into aiding the very embodiment of what he supposedly so hates?
  I'm not buying that Snowden is a patriot, brave or has a worthy cause. He is a coward, running scared in a vain attempt to preserve the appearance he has a life, freedom, or a cause worth the cost. After all, he's not willing to pay what he knew could be demanded of him, so it's apparently NOT that important to him.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
32. Re:Not about leverage or influence by CaptainDork · 2014-08-07 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a matter of ethics, trust, patriotism, or morals.
  It's about having the sense god gave a piss ant to restrict access to information you never wanted three (3) people to divulge.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
33. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Xest · 2014-08-07 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  "No, it doesn't -- but then I'm a Financial Times reader."
  No you're not:
  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09e...
  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93de...
  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1d6a...
  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a1dc...
  The FT covers pretty much everything I mentioned. Why? Precisely because it's not propaganda.
  I'll give you a hint: When it's straight from the horses mouth, it's not propaganda. e.g. when Putin admits it was his soldiers in Crimea all along and hence that he was breaching the Geneva convention by earlier claiming they were civilians that's not propaganda, it's a statement of fact.
  When you say you're a techie what do you mean exactly? A techie for the FSB or some bottom of the rung helpdesk monkey? Either way you've clearly got some degree of bias if you confuse fact as propaganda, or just aren't smart enough to do anything techie that actually matters. I can see why you posted AC, I wouldn't want to embarass myself with such a stupid post as yours either.
34. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Xest · 2014-08-07 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  "Conveniently you neglect US financial backing of the uprising"
  Oh you mean the payments to NGOs? something the US is open and transparent about and that every country engages in? Companies contribute money to NGOs covering everything from AIDs awareness to democracy. A payment to an NGO promoting democracy and civil liberties doesn't however translate to widespread funding of some massive protest however. I mean what, you think the US paid those protests to be there? the millions of them? What did they pay a dollar a protester? why would they even bother for so little, it must've been more, why doesn't the figure tally with the NGO contributions that are freely and publicly available? You'd need far more than that to make half a country rise up.
  "leaked tapes showing state department employees essentially planning the replacement government"
  Yes, that's what state departments do, they discuss who they'd most prominently like to see take over after a popular uprising, and they'll use their influence to try and stop extremists taking power. It's responsible diplomacy. It's not like they had control or the file say however, which is what you're implying - in fact, they were annoyed that Svoboda had any representatives at all which highlights precisely the fact that they didn't have any kind of actual control.
  "and also the tape stating that the snipers firing on the maidan fired on *both* sides.. for starters"
  Yep, that was the problem. Yanukovych's elite police force, the Berkut tried to provoke a greater confrontation by shooting the standard police force (that was being impartial and just doing their job) and the protesters. Some of these Berkut guys were filmed turning up in East Ukraine to fight with Putin's guys afterwards when Yanukovych fled. Others were captured and arrested.
  "Dig deeper. Things are not so cut and dried."
  I have, that's the point. You're just parroting headlines that have long been dug into in greater detail. You need to read into more depth yourself.
35. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Xest · 2014-08-07 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  "So on the US/UK side, how is that Iraqi thing working out? Or Libya? Or all the military interventions in Latin America? Or Iran?"
  What does it matter? wrongdoings by either of those countries doesn't magically make Russia right or what it does acceptable.
  But regardless, how are things working out? Iraq's a fuck up, Libya is at least in control of it's own destiny and not ruled by dictatorship, I don't think anything interesting has happened in Latin America for many decades now, and Iran is growing up and becoming a more positive contributor to the world after successful sanctions and a subsequent change of leadership.
  "How about shooting down of that Iranian passenger jet going to Dubai in 1988 by US military ship? 290 dead, but of course US does not even acknowledge wrongdoing."
  Why do you go back to 1988? In 1988 the soviet union, KGB, and stasi still existed. If you want to go back that far then Russia with the USSR looks even worse again, it had even just come to the end of it's own misguided war in Afghanistan. Even China was just about to commit the Tianamen square massacre. I don't really know what your point is, that somehow a single wrongdoing by the US in 1988 justifies Russian wrongdoing now? Why not compare like for like? is that convenient for your pro-Russian views? None of it makes what the US did right, but nothing the US did wrong makes what Russia is doing in the here and now right either.
  "Putin isn't doing anything more than the US has always been doing."
  Yes he is, the US has always given territory back in modern history, it's not outright annexed foreign states in breach of international nuclear agreements. Similarly the US hasn't been marking houses of minorities. This is really the point - anything the US has done wrong still pales in comparison to the things Putin and his cronies are doing, especially in modern times. I absolutely hate the NSA's spying programs and think they're wholly unacceptable, but I'd rather be victim of the NSA doing that than have my home country annexed.
  "Seriously, apply your standard to everyone equally for a change."
  No I am, that's exactly the point. You however are not, you're cherry picking historical events to try and justify even worse modern events.
  "You must be under influence of something. If you weren't, you would know that if it weren't for Putin, you'd have your soldiers in the middle of a civil war in Syria, or worse."
  Or maybe unlike you I'm just educated? Whilst Putin's folks were already in Syria training the Syrians and helping defend their military port there the West gave not a fuck what Putin thought and quite rightly so. What actually stopped Obama's intended assault on Syria was the fact that the British people opposed it, the British parliament hence voted against it, and Obama was left isolated. It's a shame the Russian people weren't as mature about Ukraine and couldn't make Putin similarly back off from the idea. Unlike Russia (whose soldiers are in the middle of a few civil wars - Georgia, Ukraine, Syria) we, the UK, are not in the middle of a civil war in Syria precisely because we didn't want to be and so voted against it. I personally wrote to my MP to get him to vote against Syrian action and he did.
  "Get your head out of your ass to get a better perspective on events around the world."
  I have, which is why I know what I'm on about, whereas you seem to be parroting "OMG 1988 IRANIAN AIRLINER, THAT MAKES MASS MURDER BY PUTIN OKAY FOREVER!". Which is one of the most stupid arguments ever.
  If you read my posting history back over the years you'll see I'm a staunch critic of the US and my own country, the UK where it's justified. It's just a shame there aren't more Russians like me that can't criticise their own country when it matters and only attack others when it's right to do so. Whilst there are a few, most of them seem caught up in Putin's populist nationalism, as it seems, do you.
36. Re:Not about leverage or influence by olau · 2014-08-07 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think it would be brave of you if you would acknowledge that you made a logical error in calling him a coward as was just pointed out to you, instead of hiding behind a curtain of words.
37. Re:Not about leverage or influence by Opportunist · 2014-08-08 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot always restrict access that easily. Some people need to have access to critical information that can break your company's/country's back but there is little you can do against it.
  Whether you, as someone who has access to that information disclose it to the public depends highly on ethics, trust, patriotism/loyalty and morals.
  An example: Imagine you're working in the CERT of a bank. During a test of your banking software you discover a critical bug that can be exploited to steal money from the people using the app. You are told that the application team is working their collective asses off to get the bug fixed and should anyone exploit it anyone losing money due to it will be reimbursed so no damage will fall onto a customer. Are you going to publish the security hole? Or, worse, exploit it yourself? Always assuming that you'd have a way to do all that so it can't immediately be traced back to you and nuke your career and future employment opportunity.
  That depends exactly on the four things you mentioned:
  Your ethics, and whether you're upright and honest, or whether quick money and/or questionable fame can tempt you.
  The trust you have in your company to keep their promise to fix it quickly and to cover any loss that may happen to a customer.
  The loyalty you feel to your company and whether you want to keep it from harm or whether the idea of some PHB putting sweat crescents into his cheap polyester suit fills you with joy.
  And the overall morality of your company and whether they care about their customers and their reputation at all.
  The more of these are failing, the more likely someone will go and spill the beans. It doesn't even take an unethical person to blow the whistle on a morally rotten and thoroughly corrupt company. Actually, it might take a very ethical person to do so, considering the consequences.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
38. Re:Not about leverage or influence by CaptainDork · 2014-08-08 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  You make good points, but I think they are aimed at the wrong target.
  This latest "leaker," is an unknown, so let's wait and see on that one.
  The larger point is that, for sensitive information, we have to have controls and monitors in place.
  Manning went to work with a Lady Gaga playlist and walked out with the stash.
  Snowden walked in and out, too.
  For classified information, don't you think it's important to guard it?
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
39. Re:Not about leverage or influence by bobbied · 2014-08-08 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I think I'm being kind to him by calling him a coward because I'm saying he didn't intend for this to end up this way, he soft of fell into it and is now running scared. If you don't think that's the case, then he s a stupid immature short sighted lying traitor who flees in the face of danger, deserving of severe punishment at the hands of the government he betrayed.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yep. He's now a pawn and a prisoner by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Russians are never letting him go - at least not for free. They'll have to get something to give him up. Snowden probably couldn't leave Russia even if he wanted to.
But the Russians will treat him well - to make an example of him: "Leak classified US data and the Russians will take care of you."
At least until the US offers Russia something substantial for him - then the Russians will ship him back.
1. Re: Yep. He's now a pawn and a prisoner by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not so sure. It seems more likely at the moment that the Russians will allow Snowden to stay just as long as it proves publicly frustrating to the United States. It costs them very little to keep him around and they get to watch our officials fume as long as he's out of their reach.
  From that perspective, any as yet unreleased documents they can get are a bonus and not an end result.
Why That Question? by Bob9113 · 2014-08-07 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

The question that remains, of course, is did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him?
Why is that a question? Has there been any indication that anything like that has happened? No? Well then why does that question come up for you? I believe it is because you know that if you said what you are implying outright, the unanimous response would be, "Citation Needed!"
Don't propagate bullshit suggestive questions that try to make a point you don't have the balls (or the evidence) to present in a forthright manner. Leave that kind of rhetorical crap to the downward spiral that is major media news. Here, you will be held to a higher standard.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
1. Re:Why That Question? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Sick Burn Mod required. Interesting will have to suffice.
2. Re:Why That Question? by fey000 · 2014-08-07 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Have you recently been to Sweden? Because that was a 10 x 15 km serious frikkin burn.
3. Re:Why That Question? by AchilleTalon · 2014-08-07 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  At least we know Russia is playing the Snowden card on the public relations side. Don't you remember his implication in the recent TV program during elections in Russia?
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
4. Re:Why That Question? by Bob9113 · 2014-08-07 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you remember his implication in the recent TV program during elections in Russia?
  I do remember the implication. I do not remember anything I would call substantiation. Implication without substance is propaganda.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
he's not there though by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:13 · Score: 0

He's not in Russia, simply put.
Of course he has... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:17 · Score: 0

...Russia hasn't finished getting inside information from him yet...
1. Re:Of course he has... by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? I'm betting Snowden didn't leak anything the Russians didn't already know or strongly suspect in the first place. He's been there over a year now so I'm betting *any* deficiencies in what they knew that Snowden could clear up have been dealt with.
  Snowden's only value now is as a propaganda tool for the Russians.. They can keep poking the US in the eye over their surveillance programs by trotting Snowden out to make some inane statements or ask Putin scripted questions and basically stir up anti-US sentiment using the media coverage.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Anal what? by cloud.pt · 2014-08-07 01:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Nice typo, Anatoly Kucherena will be pleased :D.
Apparently the original source, among other sites, added the extra L, so poster has an excuse :D
1. Re:Anal what? by jones_supa · 2014-08-07 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's a nice Freudian slip: lawyers often have to be quite "anal" about all the legal details.
Analtoy is the correct spelling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:25 · Score: 0

nt
All the above by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:25 · Score: 0

The question that remains, of course, is did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him? Or is the positive PR in itself enough for the Russians in the current climate of tensions and economic sanctions relating to the Ukraine crisis?"
Why does every issue have to have one reason?
If I were a leader of a foreign power that has a history of hostility towards the US and someone like Snowden fell into my lap, I'd be milking him every which way I could.
Stick it to the US. Find out NSA operations. Propaganda. Leverage. And I'm sure they're more that I can't think of.
Not leverage, but payback by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 01:26 · Score: -1, Flamebait

This is just payment for all the secrets he has given them we dont know about. Dragging it out this way looks less suspicious.
damned traitor.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:Not leverage, but payback by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Why do government bootlickers like yourself always show up in every article about Snowden?
2. Re:Not leverage, but payback by jones_supa · 2014-08-07 01:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  damned traitor.
  Would you really like to live in an alternate reality where all the Snowden's revelations would never have happened?
3. Re:Not leverage, but payback by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  This is just payment for all the secrets he has given them we dont know about. Dragging it out this way looks less suspicious.
  damned traitor.
  The Government of the United States of America is the only traitor in this saga. President Obama should be impeached, face trial in a court of law, and when found guilty sentenced to death by lethal injection. I mean there is a good chance he might survive the botched lethal injection. The remainder of the political class and the bureaucrats should face the same fate minus any trials. "American Revolution - Part II"
4. Re:Not leverage, but payback by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Where did i say i supported the government? Why do you show up to support people that break the law and put this country at risk?
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
5. Re:Not leverage, but payback by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you show up to support people that break the law and put this country at risk?
  It's not Snowden that's putting the country at risk, but people who attack those who reveal the government's wrongdoings under the guise of wanting to enforce the law, without even realizing that not all laws are just and our government is horribly corrupt. People like you.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
6. Re:Not leverage, but payback by nurb432 · 2014-08-07 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  I *never* said the government was innocent, as we know it is not.. I only state that Snowden is a traitor and broke the law, and the legal process MUST be followed. Exceptions can not be made for anyone, or none of us are safe from its abuse.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
7. Re:Not leverage, but payback by bobbied · 2014-08-07 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  This is just payment for all the secrets he has given them we dont know about. Dragging it out this way looks less suspicious.
  damned traitor.
  The Government of the United States of America is the only traitor in this saga.
  Not really. Snowden's leaking aside, it's obvious to me he's being used as a willing propaganda tool of the Russians now. Could that be traitorous? One could argue it is.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
8. Re:Not leverage, but payback by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  If you were more intelligent, you would realize you are saying it right now. Reading (or writing) comprehension must not be your strong suit.
9. Re:Not leverage, but payback by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  I *never* said the government was innocent, as we know it is not.. I only state that Snowden is a traitor and broke the law, and the legal process MUST be followed if you're a nobody peon. Exceptions can regularly be made for politicians and other upper echelon superiors, as proven by the history of Presidential pardons for convicted without-a-doubt political criminals.
  FTFY, you are very welcome.
10. Re:Not leverage, but payback by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  A small point, the Patriot Act that authorized all this was passed in 2001. I don't think Obama had much to do with it as he wasn't in Congress back then.
  So why are you not calling for George Bush's head? If he had not signed the bill into law none of the stuff you are complaining about would have happened.
  I understand your point that Obama should be impeached for not shutting it down. I'm curious what you would say if there was a Republican president - since they implemented it in the first place they would not be likely to shut it down either.
"Questions" that remain, not question by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-08-07 01:33 · Score: 2

There are many _questions_ that remain. How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned? How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers? What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets? What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?
The concept that there is "the only remaining question", and posing the question to cast the Russians as aggressive victims, is a straw man. It's a side issue distracting debate from much more important issues.
1. Re:"Questions" that remain, not question by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  If the russians were half as good as I am (or most of slashdot) they would have already sniffed out the canary assuming that it's network based and found a way to eliminate it.
  All of the united states secrets are likely being held by the russians as leverage. All they have to do is eliminate the canary and the info goes public.
2. Re:"Questions" that remain, not question by clubby · 2014-08-07 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned?
  None. As Snowden himself has repeatedly explained, that would be fucking stupid. Lots of people want to see more of the documents than Snowden is willing to show, and those people could get their wish simply by killing him, if he had some kind of deadman's switch set up. He's not dumb enough to incentivize his own murder.
  
  How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers?
  Well, if Snowden's saying it to the press, I'm not sure the Russians will be able to deduce any more than the Chinese or Saudis or anyone else. Not sure why you think Russia's intelligence community has privileged access to news published for public consumption.
  
  What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets?
  Hopefully not much. What many people are hoping, is that its policies will change instead of being protected.
  
  What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?
  Uh, are we accusing him of inspiration via minor details now? That's ... pretty specious. Just gonna leave it at that.
3. Re:"Questions" that remain, not question by swillden · 2014-08-07 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'll give you my answers to your questions. These answers are based on little to no real data, mostly just reasoning about how Snowden's flight most likely went down, and a (reasonable, I think) assumption that he's a fairly ordinary guy, not a brilliant and nefarious planner. I also doubt that he extracted much, if any, data prior to his big grab-and-run, because it would have been too risky. So I don't think he had much time to do things between getting the dump and hightailing it.
  
  How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned?
  None. This would have required more planning, and probably more time, than is evident. Any place he might have tried to drop data in the cloud would be too risky because the NSA's tendrils are too widespread. Physical dead drops are more feasible, but they'd have to be in the US, and probably not too far from Snowden's normal stomping grounds. They'd also have to be fairly easy to locate (since he'd have to provide instructions, which he'd have to be able to remember accurately), but also well-hidden enough not to be found accidentally. That's not impossible, but it's harder than it appears, as anyone who's tried to place geocaches knows.
  Of course, he could have done something like left the supposed additional, unrevealed data, or the location of the data, with an attorney or other trustworthy person. But again, the NSA has long arms, and has undoubtedly pulled out all the stops to trace his steps before he ran.
  Nope, I think taking time to drop data between grabbing the dump, delivering it to the news agencies and running would have been too risky and require too much planning, so I doubt he did it.
  
  How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers?
  Very little that's useful. I doubt it's all that difficult for them to gather information about NSA policies, and the really valuable stuff was all turned over to the Guardian and has been published anyway.
  
  What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets?
  I doubt Snowden knows much about that. He was a SharePoint admin, remember, not an operational guy. The data he collected may contain quite a bit on that, but I strongly suspect he doesn't have that data. I certainly wouldn't have kept it on my when I took off... much safer to deliver it all to a news agency and travel without it.
  
  What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?
  Nothing, unless the Russians are stupid, which they're not. Nothing that we've learned about the NSA's surveillance methods were at all surprising. The only surprising things were (a) the scope, (b) the fact that they weren't being careful about targeting US citizens and (c) that they were actively working to undermine security systems, in direct violation of one of their two missions. If you had asked the computer security community "Hypothetically, supposing the NSA decided to take the gloves off, ignore the law and ignore their responsibility to ensure the strength of US security technology in both public and private sectors, what would they do?", the answer you'd have gotten would have been a pretty accurate description of what they've been doing. The "what" and "how" are quite obvious.
  Oh, and while I'm at it:
  
  did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him?
  I don't think they could use it as leverage to get more information, because I don't think he has any more information. As for influence, well, I suppose, but what would they be influencing him to do? Just giving him a place to live accomplishes a significant goal for them, that of poking the US in the eye. I suppose they could try to convince him to
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
4. Re:"Questions" that remain, not question by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-08-07 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  > if he had some kind of deadman's switch set up.
  That's why I didn't think a deadman switch would be a question. If Snowden retains control of any information or documents he has _not_ already revealed, how can that information be obtained? That's actually 2 important remaining questions which can't be answered by a press interview.
  > Well, if Snowden's saying it to the press, I'm not sure the Russians will be able to deduce any more
  The press does not, and can not, print everything from every document or interview they receive. They must edit, for reasons of space if nothing else. Careful discussion with an alert, intelligent person can often give details of operations and infrastructure that were never in any document or in previous interviews: that's why I treasure face time and telephone with remote personnel. They often leave out details in written documentation, other interviewers may not know the right questions to ask or to report.
  >> What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?
  > Uh, are we accusing him of inspiration via minor details now? That's ... pretty specious. Just gonna leave it at that.
  I'm not accusing Snowden of planning this. It's a logical step for intelligence analysis of existing NSA practices. Analysis of NSA's abusive practices also provides metadata about the working technologies to follow those practices.
5. Re:"Questions" that remain, not question by clubby · 2014-08-08 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  If Snowden retains control of any information or documents he has _not_ already revealed
  It's wildly, fantastically unlikely that he's retained anything at all. He's repeatedly said that he no longer has control of the material. If he's lying, why? It would have to be for a reason that overcomes the bad PR of being caught in a lie. What could that possibly be? This seems more like a paranoid fantasy than a sensible look at plausible risks.
  
  They often leave out details in written documentation, other interviewers may not know the right questions to ask or to report.
  Yeah, so? People can infer things from things. If this is an indictment, at the very least, it's against all national security reporting, if not journalism in general. While good journalism might not be entirely 100% devoid of all unfortunate consequence, it's benefit to a free society is far greater than ... whatever you're guessing the FSB is guessing.
  
  Analysis of NSA's abusive practices also provides metadata about the working technologies to follow those practices.
  Yeah, and how to defeat them. "Don't fight oppression." "Why not?" "Even if you win, you're showing your playbook to other oppressors." "Uh, I guess, but the alternative is forfeit to oppressions, so ... no. But thanks for the tip." Honestly, I think you're ignoring the important, confirmed stuff so you can focus on trivial fluff and guesswork. I'm not trying to get personal or anything, but your line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense to me unless I strip away all relevant context.
Leverage? PR stint? by J.R.C.L. · 2014-08-07 02:12 · Score: 0

Definitely Russia is just using him.
Huge nit to pick by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 02:49 · Score: 0

Since I prefer freedom over safety
That's a false dichotomy that needs to die. The question isn't "freedom VS safety." The question is "freedom AND safety VS tyranny AND danger."
We are less safe because of the mass surveillance and other bull crap we are subject to.
1. Re:Huge nit to pick by jeIIomizer · 2014-08-07 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's a false dichotomy that needs to die.
  No, it's an important point. By saying you prefer freedom over safety in general (which isn't a false dichotomy, by the way), you make it clear that the issue isn't about safety, but about freedom. That is, even if their programs were *proven* to keep us safe, you would still oppose them out of principle, as people who want to live in a free country should do.
  While it's sometimes important to point out when the programs don't actually do what they say they do (whether it be the NSA's surveillance, DUI checkpoints, the TSA, etc.), I feel that it's much more important to let it be known that these things aren't okay under any circumstances.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Huge nit to pick by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  There is only one true dichotomy
Will they use him as part of any deal over ukraine by Joe_Dragon · 2014-08-07 03:12 · Score: 1

Will they use him as part of any deal over ukraine?
Russia may use him as part of any deal to end the sanctions and / or war over Ukraine
Course of action by blue9steel · 2014-08-07 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I haven't seen anything that Snowden has revealed that hurt our national security in any serious way. Sure, plenty of embarrassment for the administration but that's hardly the same thing. Personally, I'm glad that he did what he did since it's started a very real discussion about intelligence service over-reach and lack of sufficient oversight. The right thing to do would be for the president to grant him a pardon on the condition that he come back to the US and turn over any remaining materials. That way we keep the information out of the hands of our rivals and demonstrate that we protect whistleblowers at the same time.
1. Re:Course of action by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2014-08-07 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  And then we should put him in charge of National Security...
2. Re:Course of action by blue9steel · 2014-08-07 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Although I like his moral stance on this particular issue I haven't seen anything to suggest he's qualified for that sort of job.
genuine justice is based entirely on mercy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:31 · Score: 0

takes out the (media/fear) drama of the hateful fear & loathing punishment features. are we not each our very own reward? punish as we would wish to be punished? WMD on credit 'weather' is not punishment enough? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather+media news http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down (&/or demonize them....) based on speculation of ill intent... peace out /. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m39DWVFK-Bw
This is why by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:35 · Score: 0

I cannot 100% hate the Russians right now. For all their bullying in the Ukraine, for all the self-serving reasons they are likely accomodating Snowdon, for all the KGB background of Vladimir Putin (and tear inducing shirtless escapades). On this they are doing the right thing. Even if for the wrong reasons!
living in an airport? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 03:47 · Score: 0

The article says that "He reportedly spent a month in the airport before receiving the temporary asylum..." Where did he sleep? Take a shower? How did he have money to eat expensive airport food? How did he call home to talk to his friends and family in the United States? I don't think Russia would be accommodating to me; they would put me on the next plane back to the U.S. Just asking.
Which documents... by DrYak · 2014-08-07 05:23 · Score: 1

From that perspective, any as yet unreleased documents they can get are a bonus and not an end result.
<sarcasm> Yup, I'm positively sure that a single lone rogue simple consultant has unreleased document to bring that are completely unknown to the mighty FSB (a.k.a KGB ( a.k.a tcheka)) and their own information channels~ </sarcasm>
Russia/USSR has been for much more longer time at this spy game and are likely to be damn good at it.
- Snowden is probably of no information-gathering interest to Russia (beyond the fact that he managed to publicly reveal what lot of them already knew but couldn't publicly reveal without bringing suspicion on their own communication channels, and that lots more on the crypto scene suspected but couldn't confirm)
- On the other hand, Snowden has a very good political interest for Russia as a very nice pawn. As you mention, he's a thorn that they can use to frustrate the US. And they can also leverage to look good to the international scene ("Hey look at us! We protect whistle blowers instead of throwing them in solitary at gitmo !")

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
More information by DrYak · 2014-08-07 05:32 · Score: 1

If Russian wants to get more information out of Snowden wouldn't they just, like, read the newspapers?
Or even better, just ask their own secret service which has been longer at this game and have way much more resource than a simple contractor operating alone.
FSB probably knows a lots more than Snowden would even dream being able to intercept. And probably knows it long time ago, some dating back when FSB still went by the name KGB...

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
good actor, better director by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-07 07:45 · Score: 0

Snowden is still a spy for the US, he's just were he should be! Information revealed by him was the sacrifice they have to do to put him just were he is right now. Russians just eat the show yankees did.
Russia and China already knew it all anyway by jblb · 2014-08-07 10:21 · Score: 0

Russian and Chinese spies would be incompetent if they didn't already know everything Snowden leaked, judging by how easy it was for him to do so. Same with the Bradley Manning leaks, with tens of thousands of people have that level of security access.
Duuuuuh by Chewbacon · 2014-08-07 10:31 · Score: 1

Of course they have used some leverage. It's Russia. There's a reason the world doesn't trust them.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
No pears nor apples... by fonske · 2014-08-07 19:35 · Score: 1

...for Snowden then. An apple a day keeps Putin away.
Einstein by NewYork · 2014-08-08 19:29 · Score: 1

"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." --Einstein

--
Casteism