Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden in Hindsight

zdziarski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#31

Post by Sporktacular »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #17
IdEntities wrote: post #6

> During his time in Russia, we have seen the whistleblower system work effectively here at home. The details of Trump’s Ukraine call, and the subsequent freezing of security aid seems rather relevant today. More impressively so, this same whistleblower system Snowden criticized worked against a sitting president having no capacity for restraint. It's just laughable to believe that "the system works" because certain…

There does seem to be a political mindset attached to leaking. If it's a leak against conservatives, it's written as heroic and patriotic. If it's a leak against liberals then it's a threat to democracy and a crime. Snowden is no hero and I think defection was his intent all along.

What if it's a leak for the benefit of all?

You're conservative, politicising what doesn't need to be.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#32

Post by shmde »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #12

Snowden defected to China, then Russia. He is neither a hero nor a patriot in my book. While the programs he identified may have been bad for democracy and America, it was not his place to blow the whistle, and he went about it in such a shady, criminal way that I can never forgive him.

"He is neither a hero nor a patriot in my book". This man literally exposed government spying on people mainstream and brought it into public light by putting his life on line. Your bio says "I work in government", let me guess NSA ?

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#33

Post by fullshark »

IgorPartola wrote: post #13
fullshark wrote: post #2

I simply see both acts as completely divorced from each other i.e.: revealing the spying and being silent post Ukrainian invasion. First is an act of bravery, second an act of cowardice and well, those are the choices he made and they aren't in contradiction of each other. He was brave once and now he's not, and the truly important thing is what he revealed more so than our opinion of his character.

I think this is a really shitty way of framing it. Snowden doesn’t owe you anything but you likely owe him something. He did a thing once that loads of others didn’t because it was the right thing to do. He paid very dearly for that and is now living under a government that is holding his life in its hands. In the US Snowden faced prison for his actions. In Russia he faces torture and death if he steps out of line. I…

I meant it free of judgement, which I guess is hard to do with a word like "cowardice." I'm sure I wouldn't say anything either if I were in his shoes. Point is he's (most likely) keeping silent for good reason, cause he's scared of repercussions from the Russian state. What would you call that if not cowardice?

Edit: and I guess my larger point, is the two acts have nothing to do with each other, other than coloring your opinion of Snowden which is ultimately irrelevant.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#34

Post by ameminator »

I disagree with a decent number of things in this article.

>Yet for all the pontificating...today I rather see the pattern of a common deserter in Snowden, rather than the champion of free speech that some position him as

A person doesn't have to behave perfectly all the time - bravery and heroic acts remain so, despite imperfections of the person doing those acts. What Snowden did was undoubtedly brave and heroic, despite his opinion or lack thereof, of whatever issues of the day.

That's assuming I find fault with Snowden for remaining silent on the Ukraine issue - which I don't. How much does a person have to give and sacrifice, really? I don't blame Snowden for determining that he has given enough, and deciding to live a quiet life, outside the public sphere.

>During his time in Russia, we have seen the whistleblower system work effectively here at home. The details of Trump’s...

I'm not sure I agree with this statement either. While it is nice to see the whistle blown on obvious bad actions, I'm not convinced that it is an example of the system "working", but more an extension of the political division in our government, and how normal and essential government functions are weaponized for political ends. I have strong doubts that any whistleblowing would have happened under a more "establishment" president, with an equivalent level of misdeeds. Do you really think that Joe Biden's administration is that more ethical than Trump's?

>... certainly far less than the charges Snowden brought on himself or the freedoms he gave up by not using the right channels. Instead of following process, Snowden fled the country under the Obama administration, who was a teddy bear compared to Trump.

I can't tell if the author is naive or deliberately obtuse, but this is where the article lost all credibility for me. I don't see how Snowden could have faced a fair trial and while it was Donald Trump's admin that started the persecution of Julian Assange, I have no doubt that Obama's Justice Department (which was infamously and shamefully prosecutorial to whistleblowers) would have been even more severe to Edward Snowden. In hindsight, not only do Snowden's actions seem reasonable, but they also seem intelligent and resourceful and perhaps the only way to stay out of jail for decades.

>If I could reach him today, I would tell Snowden to come home and face the consequences of his actions, and set an example for his children of what patriotism and conviction really means. Ideals are meaningless without sacrifice.

This is very easy to say when you don't have to sacrifice anything. Especially when it seems to ignore any aspect of reality. At this point, I believe the article to be malicious because of how divorced from reality it appears to be.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#35

Post by topher515 »

Edward Snowden is the last person we should ask to speak out against Russia. Almost every other Russia-resident who might speak out against the invasion could, the next day, show up in Madrid, Berlin, Mexico City—wherever in The West—and expect to receive political asylum.

But if Snowden steps foot into Western-aligned soil then he’s just kicked off a slow, inexorable ride via extradition to American prison. As such, Snowden is more incentivized to stay silent than anyone else I can think of.

An unfortunate and extremely ironic side effect of standing up for freedom against a mostly-free state is that he is forever trapped in a very-not-free despotic state. This is his punishment. Why this blogger feels he has the right to demand Snowden sacrifice himself again with likely worse consequences is inexplicable to me.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#36

Post by car_analogy »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #14

Snowden is likely facing much more scrutiny in Russia, a totalitarian regime he became stranded in. He gave up a very comfortable life once and landed in a far much less comfortable one. Blaming him for not risking his life again, and now likely also his SO and child(ren), comes across as naive or at least reductive.

> Blaming him [..] comes across as naive

Calling this naive is itself naive. It's not naive - it's malicious. The author dislikes what Snowden has done in the US, so he is trying to demonize him by holding him to some saintly standard of self-sacrifice that almost no-one could live up to.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#37

Post by paulryanrogers »

fullshark wrote: post #33
IgorPartola wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a really shitty way of framing it. Snowden doesn’t owe you anything but you likely owe him something. He did a thing once that loads of others didn’t because it was the right thing to do. He paid very dearly for that and is now living under a government that is holding his life in its hands. In the US Snowden faced prison for his actions. In Russia he faces torture and death if he steps out of line. I…

I meant it free of judgement, which I guess is hard to do with a word like "cowardice." I'm sure I wouldn't say anything either if I were in his shoes. Point is he's (most likely) keeping silent for good reason, cause he's scared of repercussions from the Russian state. What would you call that if not cowardice? Edit: and I guess my larger point, is the two acts have nothing to do with each other, other than coloring…

Cowardice implies (to me at least) an unjustified fear. Snowden fearing Putin is entirely rationale and justified.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#38

Post by g5095 »

The OP writes with the implicit assumption that patriotism is a moral good and that America also is something to defend in and of itself (moreso than any other country).

Some people (myself included) would argue that nationality should (ideally) be of little importance and patriotism misguided affection. We might suggest that mercy and liberty for any individual, no matter their nationality, is at the crux of it of more value than feelings of nationalism.

The story of Nathan Hale gives us a glimpse of exactly why this sort of patriotism is problematic when we read about the British officer tearing up the letters he wrote before his execution, why do this to a fellow man sentenced to death if not misguided nationalism over common humanity.

The problem with the kind of patriotism America seems to demand is that it allows for mercy & kindness to it's own, at the expense of others.

From the point of view of a global humanitarian rather than a blind American patriot, Snowden's leaks make a lot of sense. It's the lens you have grown up with, OP, which colours everything you've said here. As someone from (not America), many of us appreciate that the cover was pulled back, it made us all look to our own democratic governments and ask the hard questions.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#39

Post by paulryanrogers »

car_analogy wrote: post #36
paulryanrogers wrote: post #14

Snowden is likely facing much more scrutiny in Russia, a totalitarian regime he became stranded in. He gave up a very comfortable life once and landed in a far much less comfortable one. Blaming him for not risking his life again, and now likely also his SO and child(ren), comes across as naive or at least reductive.

> Blaming him [..] comes across as naive Calling this naive is itself naive. It's not naive - it's malicious. The author dislikes what Snowden has done in the US, so he is trying to demonize him by holding him to some saintly standard of self-sacrifice that almost no-one could live up to.

I was trying to assume the most generous interpretation. A cynical take is that this person is a paid government shill.

Re: Edward Snowden in Hindsight

#40

Post by fullshark »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #37
fullshark wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it free of judgement, which I guess is hard to do with a word like "cowardice." I'm sure I wouldn't say anything either if I were in his shoes. Point is he's (most likely) keeping silent for good reason, cause he's scared of repercussions from the Russian state. What would you call that if not cowardice? Edit: and I guess my larger point, is the two acts have nothing to do with each other, other than coloring…

Cowardice implies (to me at least) an unjustified fear. Snowden fearing Putin is entirely rationale and justified.

I always thought cowardice had nothing to do with whether the fear was justified. It does usually have the context of being judged as improper behavior.

In any case maybe a less inflammatory way to state my point: You can continue to admire Snowden for revealing the NSA spying program without necessarily demanding he martyr himself like Nathan Hale.

Post reply on HN