Snowden will not get pardoned, because (1) exposing illegal domestic spying was only a part of what he leaked, and (2) he admits that he specifically took the job with the intent to get information about NSA hacking of foreign computers to release to journalists in those foreign countries. See this comment someone posted on Reddit for details with links to sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/ed…
Pardon Snowden
171–180 of 814 posts
Re: Pardon Snowden
#172I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts
They meant "communist", I assume, and communist countries are always totalitarian, I can't think of an exception.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#173Holy hell! Looking at the supporters page ( https://www.pardonsnowden.org/supporters ) I do have to admit that they've acquired support from some people that I never thought to see there, like Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, and George Soros.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope that was sarcastic. Otherwise it's hilarious, especially in this context.
I hope that was sarcastic. Otherwise you are implying that the humor value of a comment is determined not solely by you, but partly from the intentions of the author.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#175Maybe a naive question, but what would the risk be for me to sign this? I wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border? Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble? Increased scrutiny from the IRS (which should have nothing to do with this, but "they" might say hell why not?)? Inability to get security clearances in future? Being target…
You worry about the risk of being registered as a Snowden sympathizer if you voice your support and the discomfort that might bring with it.
Democracy and rule of law doesn't come for free.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#176I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts
In principle, yes you are right. However, there is only so much hedging and differentiation I can put into a post without turning it into an essay. What I wanted to say is "realsocialist" a la former Soviet Union or East Germany. I think part of the confusion is that I live in Germany, where socialist always means that kind of one-party authoritarian system. By this definition, e.g. Bernie Sanders would be a (left-wi…
How is the distinction hard to understand? Socialism is a system characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to capitalism, which is characterised by private ownership of the means of production. Both are ideologies.
You could have compared to Soviet or East Germany directly if you wanted to make a point about totalitarian regimes.
Also, I'm pretty sure Germans don't consider socialism to be an authoritarian ideology. Maybe you're confusing it with national socialism (nationalsozialismus => nazism).
Re: Pardon Snowden
#177Re: Pardon Snowden
#178Re: Pardon Snowden
#179Maybe a naive question, but what would the risk be for me to sign this? I wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border? Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble? Increased scrutiny from the IRS (which should have nothing to do with this, but "they" might say hell why not?)? Inability to get security clearances in future? Being target…
Re: Pardon Snowden
#180I think the problem is, people do not care anymore. The scandal is over, business as usual. Only a small percentage of the population still cares about Snowden. I think the image of the NSA has been hurt and a change in legislation might get you some positive press in the future, but I do not think that pardoning Snowden would be worth the effort for a politician. On the other hand: Obama probably does not have to ca…
And then there are people like me, who don't see the situation as black&white, i.e. I am not signing that petition. In my opinion, for the sake of security, it is necessary to "cache" the whole Internet communication to prevent terrorists attacks and other dangers. Like what the Brits are doing and currently they didn't have any big attack after the London bombings. I am not an American and I don't have a motivation…
"Big attacks" are vanishingly rare. But, just for the sake of argument, they haven't had an attack until they do.
The point of this is the US is actually harvesting way more data than the U.K., and we have so-called "lone wolf" attacks every couple of months.
Mass surveillance doesn't keep you safe.