Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Ridicules David Cameron For Defending 'Private' Matter of Panama Papers Leak
An anonymous reader writes: Edward Snowden, a former contractor with the NSA who worked with journalist to reveal a number of classified mass surveillance programs, has criticized the UK Prime Minister's insistence that his father's implication in the list of high-profile tax avoiders was a "private matter." Ian Cameron's firm Blairmore Holdings Inc managed tens of millions of pounds for the wealthy but has never paid taxes on the profits. Cameron responded to the news saying: "This is a private matter, I am focused on what the government is doing." In response to a Reuters story on Cameron's response, Snowden wrote: "Oh, now he's interested in privacy." Snowden followed up with a second tweet after the Prime Minister of Iceland resigned over his implication in the Panama Papers leak: "Resignation of Iceland's PM may explain why the UK PM is so insistent public has no right to know a PM's 'private' finances."
And how does that devalue his point. Considering that David Cameron has been one of the Western leaders leading the charge against privacy with the British government's "Snooper's Charter", it's the height of irony and hypocrisy to then declare that he should be afforded privacy. If the average man on the street has no expectation of privacy, then most assuredly neither should any politician.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Your point can be reasonably extended to any and all pubic servants...
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
I thought that if you had nothing to hide then you would not care. I guess he has something to hide then. Privacy is only for those at the top, right!?
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I agree. If the regular citizen has no privacy rights, then neither does anyone in government, or anyone else. If there are to be no secrets, then fair enough, let's have absolutely no secrets.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Unlike say myself or jsut about anyone else, the private finances of a Prime Minster and his family ARE a thing of public interest. The man not only has to be seen to be doing the right thing but also the transparency of investments and where income comes from. So you know, make sure he is not being unduly "influenced" in policy decisions for his and his family's financial gain, ie handing out a govt contract that will boost the shit out oa shareprice to a company he or his family has interests in.
So basically Cameron, the question is -YOU are a public official and thence the expectation of privacy is much reduced. Your position is extremely important and you should be under scrutiny and that also includes your family. You dont get to plead privacy, you gave that up the moment you stepped forward to be Prime Minister.
"Nothign to fear if nothign to hide" is a common BS meme - good squads gets a fucking warrant if you think I've done something wrong so stay the fuck out of my life. However.... THAT does not apply to Mr Cameron. So Mr Cameron, what are you hiding? There is not an expectation of privacy in regards to the financial affairs of an elected Prime Minister.
Snowden is referring to Cameron's plea for privacy, as mentioned in the summary and linked tweet. He's merely pointing out the irony since the UK government has been invading ordinary citizens' privacy for possibly decades now. Why would the political elite be allowed special privilege privacy?
-SR
He's living consequence-free in Putin's Russia, which the Panama Papers suggests has large number of government officials (including Putin himself) engaging in wholesale money-laundering of Russia's oil wealth. I'm sure we can expect him to criticize his hosts any tweet now.
When Brittany Spears is exiled from the US and all other allied countries due to her principles regarding government spying on its citizenry, then I'll listen to what she has to say regarding these sorts of topics as well.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Exactly. Now let's see Snowden turn that amusement and scorn of the irony onto Putin and his circle, who have been shown to have been a damn sight more rotten than Cameron's family (who, incidentally, acted unethircally but broke no laws; I say this as someone vehemently against the Tories for decades).
Oh, he seems really fucking quiet on that front! Maybe he doesn't care about this whole "special privilege privacy" quite so much as you think!
The bitter irony is that the regime in the UK - via the government mouthpiece, the BBC - is constantly assuring the British public that they live in a largely corruption-free society.
Just 1 leak reveals that the British PM's circle is involved with the stashing of massive wealth offshore.
Snowden ran so that he'd have all his appendages when he was exiled. The fact that the government has indicated he wouldn't get a fair trial, should he return, seems to indicate it's as close to an official exile as has ever been done in the US, as exile is illegal.
Learn to love Alaska
what a "ruling class" is, do you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think much of the world already thinks pretty poorly of Putin.
I could see Putin declaring he'd find those responsible for the leak and incarcerate them or what have you, maybe threatening any news outlets in his country not to run this story, but I hadn't heard him bemoaning the loss of privacy this represents.
Yeah, Snowden used Russia as a shield when he released the documents.
I don't think that this means he believes Russia is a bastion of human rights, just that it was a bastion of not turning him over to the U.S. One could go 'round and 'round on the morality of this, but I doubt that the U.S. would do him the honor of a public trial of his peers. I think Snowden's trial would more likely be those constitutionally questionable secret court trials we really aren't supposed to do in this country.
With these high stakes issues, it may not do to bite the hand that helped you, even after the fact. Does he really need to in Putin's case?