I worry about a society in 100 years.Snowden
"Mission Accomplished", Recently released Video.
Government lackeys, I want to hear some views from you guys, what do you think about it ?
" I didn't want to change society, I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself "
I can understand people being preoccupied too much to give a fek about mass illegal surveillance, but the lackys who come in this thread and spewed out some hateful views about a guy who informed us, the people, of unconstitutional behaviour, from the " of the people by the people for the people " Government, explain your views. When is an uninformed populace a good thing for the majority ?
he is safer in Moscow or a ducha than getting to Ecuador. CIA more likely to car accident him in EcuadorI can agree with that. As far as his personal struggle went, it was a fine victory. And I especially agree with you on whose head the expected 'failure' to come will lie. On Snowden's personal fate though, I just hope Russia in their infinite wisdom aren't seeing him as some sort of juicy bargaining chip to be played with at a later date.
NONE of the 'Great Game' players are particularly trustworthy.
Those two, part of the Cambridge Five, were actual SPIES though, Sanders. As far as I know (which admittedly isn't a lot in this case) Edward Snowden is not a paid-up intelligence asset of the Russian Federation.He's no more of a hero than Guy Burgess or Kim Philby - just less bright
A spy agency is acting outside the controls of a country's leadership? Why I would never ...
It would have been easy to list 1, you need more than that to justify the harm they have caused. All of these necessary reasons were information that Snowden that released, so do we agree that Assange only released trivial information?
No he's not as bright as he had allowed him to be a manipulated puppet spunked on by all comersThose two, part of the Cambridge Five, were actual SPIES though, Sanders. As far as I know (which admittedly isn't a lot in this case) Edward Snowden is not a paid-up intelligence asset of the Russian Federation.
Are you saying that, because he didn't 'sell out' his nation's secrets to another nation in particular it means he isn't as bright?
It hinges on motivation - Philby and Burgess were definitely clever, and they were also more or less committed communists. They believed in aiding the Soviet Union through good espionage work.No he's not as bright as he had allowed him to be a manipulated puppet spunked on by all comers
Philby & Burgess were ferociously clever
Sorry you're just projecting all sorts of shallow rhetoric onto him like a straw manIt hinges on motivation - Philby and Burgess were definitely clever, and they were also more or less committed communists. They believed in aiding the Soviet Union through good espionage work.
What motivated Edward Snowden? As far as I can gather he still believes in the United States, just not in the practices employed by its intelligence arm. He didn't want to commit treason by actually WORKING for a foreign power while within the National Security Agency - instead he discovered acts he thought were treasonous AGAINST the people of the United States, and against the constitution which is meant to protect them.
He thought the ordinary man should be able to hear about what was being done in their name, and by whom. Naturally this has left his arse hanging in the wind - as you say, Russia's benevolence may not run past a year. I assume Snowden originally thought someone in Obama's White House would listen, and maybe keep the wolves at bay long enough to drum up some sort of support for a constitutional inquiry into the workings of the N.S.A.
When this didn't happen and the gaff was blown he had no choice but to flee. Staying to argue his way through the shitstorm was no option.
Was he dumb? Or just too naïve in thinking that with a black man in the White House it would usher in a brave new world of openness, where his concerns would be listened to?
I don't think this is a victory for the people, more a victory for the private sector.Eddie Snowden is leading by example though, which is nothing but encouraging. As is Chelsea Manning. As is Julian Assange and all the silent networks who have helped these people distribute their messages from the shadows. Keep on keeping on, heroes.
I admit to not having access to the man's every thought - I thought that was clear? Aren't you surmising, if not projecting your own thoughts on him as well when you say he "lacks conviction or any clear ideology" when conducting this activity? Not to say you're not entitled to an opinion - you definitely are and may be 100% correct about him.Sorry you're just projecting all sorts of shallow rhetoric onto him like a straw man
He clearly didn't think much about what will happen and foolishly believed a couple of guardian journalists who promised to help
He's still in no mans land, as he is only temporarily allowed to stay in Russia
He lacks conviction or any clear guiding ideology to pull all this disparate activity together - its only because he's been thus far an empty vessel that others like you can project so easy onto him
...His interviews—if taken at face value—reveal a desire to open the eyes of Americans to the fact that our government is abusing its power. By revealing the NSA’s virtually unlimited ability to gather personal data on U.S. citizens, Snowden was arguably acting on behalf of unknowing victims, or at least believes he was...
...Snowden revealed his secrets knowing that he would be labeled a criminal—despite the value of what he disclosed—and knew the repercussions. And we also have to remember that he was already living the good life as a well-paid professional in Hawaii. Would a true narcissist, not yet 30 years old, give up wealth and esteem to become an international fugitive?
...It’s not unreasonable to argue that Edward Snowden was motivated by the goal of becoming a change agent that history will remember. This seems a more compelling explanation than narcissism, because someone motivated by achieving historical distinction knows the role will be layered with positive and negative perceptions (perhaps more negative than positive) and accepts the mantle anyway...
...Snowden’s motivation was multi-pronged, and part of what drove him is most certainly unknown even to him (how many of us are perfectly informed about why we do what we do?). We’ll probably never known for sure what psychological calculus contributed to his actions...
...we’re also faced with knowing that if not for high-profile whistleblowers, we wouldn’t have a credible means to evaluate the alleged transparency our leaders claim to embrace. That, too, matters quite a lot.
quote worthy.I don't think this is a victory for the people, more a victory for the private sector.
Inherently corrupt governments won't change their behaviour, they will just increase the length of the chain of accountability.
The most immaculate risk management. Never have any risk nor skin in the game. Dont even have to clean your fingers.Since the vast majority of state based surveillance is targeted at economic or financial gain, or at least that is what I am guessing, further outsourcing makes sense in a dangerous kind of way.
Afterall, it is easier to let blame fall on a vendor, than blame be taken by the whole system.
Indeed. In the end these whistleblowers have pretty much wasted their time because, as usual, people are unwilling to see the forest for the trees: we need less government involvement in our lives, not different government.Inherently corrupt governments won't change their behaviour, they will just increase the length of the chain of accountability.
None of which contradicts what I said a whole lot of moral projectionI admit to not having access to the man's every thought - I thought that was clear? Aren't you surmising, if not projecting your own thoughts on him as well when you say he "lacks conviction or any clear ideology" when conducting this activity? Not to say you're not entitled to an opinion - you definitely are and may be 100% correct about him.
Don't dismiss everything else out of hand just yet, though.
Here's a bit more psychological surmising on what may have motivated Edward Snowden, from Forbes magazine. It covers a few possible mindsets;
Was he motivated by the possibility that his name would go down in fame or infamy? Possibly. But I believe that he believed he was doing the right thing.
The man himself says, in an interview with Glenn Greenwald, that "over time that awareness of wrongdoing (inside the intelligence community) builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it the more you're ignored - the more you're told it's not a problem - until eventually you realise that these things need to be decided by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government."
He goes on to say that, in the absence of governmental acknowledgement of mistakes (or abuses) it becomes the responsibility of individual citizens to expose these things.
He may be guilty of not having the perfect exit strategy. He acknowledges he will likely be living in fear for the rest of his life. Yet he chose the path he did - for the greater good. That, in my mind, is the mark of a hero.
Of course all this hurts him, Sanders. The trick lies in not minding that it hurts.