The implication that I intended, is that if merely visiting that site is going to place you on a watchlist, other, similarly casual interactions with information about Edward Snowden would probably do the same. It's absurd to consider that a danger worth mentioning given the amount of coverage Snowden has gotten, and the information that's freely available everywhere about him and his disclosures.
We're discussing this topic on a site where actual hackers and security professionals, US government employees and millionaire Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs with legitimate political and financial influence hang out. Yet no one seems afraid to talk about Edward Snowden, government surveillance or whatever they like here. Surely, if the chilling effect were that pervasive, it would show up here? If visiting edwardsnowden.com puts you on a list, you're probably already on a list.
>You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise
Yes I have. Edward Snowden's presence in various forms of modern major media, to the point of doing an interview with a comedy show, is evidence that people aren't afraid of discussing him, and that the US media isn't afraid to cover him. He has a public twitter account which is being followed by a million people, which is evidence that people at large aren't afraid of that association, nor do they appear to be afraid of "consequences" from the government for doing so.
>That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise.
I'm not pretending. I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden.
> I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden.
It's not about Edward Snowden, it's about being more careful about discussing or retrieving information about any controversial topic because people now know, thanks to Snowden, that at least the NSA and GCHQ are watching you.
Curiosity and learning about things can be greatly hindered by prying eyes.
> Given that Snowden was popping off keys just recently, this seems like an odd coincidence. I'm not saying he's involved, I'm saying he probably should be considered a datapoint in this drama.
HNer might say you put your point across like Trump or Glen Beck - I'm not saying it. If it were true, you'd be a weasel to suggest one thing while disassociating yourself from the said suggestion[1], which means you could be a coward who is afraid of people judging you for holding such a disagreeable opinion while dog-whistling to the minority who do not share the same distaste. I'm not saying this is what you are, I think it is an idea that should be considered when reading your comments.
> > Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
> Has it? Has it really? Where's the proof of this?
While not a general decline in the companies values, or stock, there has been an international backlash against US Tech companies[1, 2]. To say that these companies don't provide for the security, financially, of our country is a crock of shit. As for how the people that protect our country and work day in and day out to protect it being affected- you really thing the CIA is going to post about how their personnel got caught, or detained, or anything at all? No. You won't. Granted, a lack of proof is not proof itself, but open your eyes a bit and think about it. Snowden revealed all sorts of information that he should not have.
> Hmm yes. All those civil libereties groups, charities, foreign businesses and allied politicians you spied on sure are dangerous. Got to keep them in check lest they attack America with their ball-point pens!
Keep your enemies close and your friends closer. Everything but the allies I agree with you on, but I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping tabs on the policies of allied countries.
>but I promise you nearly every American adult knows who Edward Snowden is and probably has at least a vague idea of what he was trying to communicate.
I highly doubt this. In 2015, only 60% of Americans had some idea of who Snowden was, and only half of those had a positive opinion of him. I doubt this has improved over the past five years either.
>> I don't feel comfortable saying Snowden is still working for the US government, but I'm certainly suspicious of him.
Well. My deep belief is that individuals that are truly dangerous to the system (here, any system that is powerful enough but one can view it globally as a continuously evolving technology-driven wanna-be-AI) get separated from power asap and then directly eliminated if needed. One should be very naive to think that the following makes any sense: "a young boy from government family says that the whole world is controlled by a few; he wants to stop it and so gets a platform to alarm about it via main media channels, supposedly controlled by the same few". Another point of the whole move was to identify people (e.g., you and me) who will not buy this so they will likely avoid buying other incoming BS.
>Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden?
Certainly not.
>There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the American people by the NSA.
Yes. The difference is that this assumes that other countries are people too, and they should also have a right to privacy, instead of just caring for his own people.
>Now he seems to be attempting to embarrass and weaken US-interests as much as possible.
> I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high regard.
I imagine this is entirely a function of your social circle. The polls conducted this year have been marginally in favor of his prosecution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Edward_Snowden's_.... It's a deeply divisive issue for Americans, though it breaks along the usual lines (age, etc).
My dad, for example, who is very liberal on most things, is no fan of Snowden. Especially among the older generation who grew up during the Cold War, nothing Snowden revealed rises to the level of invasiveness that would be cause for alarm.
Most of the people I know simply do not care about surveillance. They're in the ideological majority, they don't have controversial opinions, and they (rightly) believe the government has no interest in using the fruits surveillance against them. They certainly don't sympathize with the ideas of hypothetical political dissidents that might be hypothetically suppressed using surveillance.
>But seriously, nobody at the NSA is going to place* you on a watch list because you are part of a small vocal minority that raised support online for Snowden
I agree. They will not place you on a watch list because you support Snowden.
They will place you on a watch list because they can.
>hey want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding
USG, not US. There's a very specific sort of western libertarian/leftist that believes the US' foreign policy is evil, that the military-intelligence wing is a tool of evil, and that opposing it in any way possible is an unalloyed good. I put all three of them in that camp. You could add the likes of Chomsky to that mix. That doesn't mean they don't like their conception of what America is or could be, but they see America's actions in the world as evil and in need of opposing.
> I think the fact that he leaked a lot of details about NSA surveillance of foreign governments diminishes his moral high ground. That is the stated mission of the NSA and while the details are highly classified, everyone knows that they're doing it and agrees it should be done as a matter of policy.
Er, no actually. Most people actually believe the NSA should keep their dirty fingers and prying eyes to themselves.
The only ones arguing differently are Americans somehow under the delusion that they are alone on this planet. Thankfully, taken on the whole they are a minority.
But go ahead, asserting that my private information should be free to be vacuumed up and abused for whatever purposes your shady intelligence organisations need.
For some reason you think there's an imaginary line to be drawn between US citizens and other human beings. You have a right to privacy, and the rest does not. Superiority much? Kind of a stupid thing to say, on an international forum, IMHO, showing your true colours, US vs "Them", etc. This is the 21st century, wouldn't you like to be able to look each other in the eye?
Joke's on you, however. Because don't for a moment believe that this shadowy government organisation "of yours" shares your ideas about how US citizens somehow have more rights to privacy than other human beings. "Stated mission" or not, they're in it for the power and money, and have done and will do anything they can get away with.
And if you'd have been paying attention instead of sitting back convincing yourself "hey at least they're fighting on my side", you might have noticed that this "moral high ground" is there for a reason. It's also sometimes called a "moral compass" for a reason, because you can use it to make right decisions when you can't know who to trust.
Snowden couldn't have leaked just one without the other either. Not to the same great effect. That's a hint right there. Because the imaginary line doesn't really exist, leaking just the "spying on US citizens" bit and not the rest, would have been so incredibly disingenuous--it's the whole Internet, silly!!--it could only have been done by someone with much less of a moral backbone than Snowden has. And then it wouldn't have gotten the exposure needed, coverage by the Guardian/Greenwald, a leftist UK paper, speaking ill of the US? Ridicule and ignore. No, it had to be the whole picture.
The rest of the world's outrage is actually helping you, you understand?
The NSA, they're not actually working for you, you understand that too? If there is any Us vs Them, we are in fact on the same side.
This article is a brief update on Snowden's asylum status and it conveys just that. Not every article on the matter needs to discuss the full depth of the issue.
> Whenever a story about Snowden is in the news, some people complain that some of the documents he released were "off topic".
Which is odd, because I personally have not found any of the Snowden publications off topic or unnecessary. When I press these people about what they think shouldn't have been published, they always give me vague answers about "military secrets" and the like without citing anything specific.
> and I'll point out that you're very much treating the American public as a geopolitical foe if you don't acknowledge that fact.
This does not follow, as the logical conclusion of your statement is that the American public either has a right to all state secrets, or is a foe of its own country. The value of secrets is in their secrecy, and when that value is lost, harm is done.
> Any serious threat to the US is sophisticated enough to get around surveillance with simple, freely-available tools.
That is a big claim, can you give an example of a serious threat to the US which is possible with simple & freely available tools? It sounds like you know an easy way to defeat the US in information warfare.
> Snowden did not "escap[e] to Julian Assange". This is just a lie.
What I know is that Snowden escaped to China with data he stole in less than 3 months on the job, and less 1 month afterward was on a flight with Wikileaks editor and Assange's closest advisor Sarah Harrison, seeking political asylum in the bastion of political freedom, Russia.
> There were a number of people...
My question was about Snowden's efforts, as the topic is valid reasons why some may consider him a traitor. I'll interpret your response as, like me, you also don't know the answer to my question.
> you should be ashamed that you repeated it... What on earth are you talking about?... This is just a lie.
I find this rather unnecessary. People who disagree with you aren't enemies to be shamed and insulted.
The implication that I intended, is that if merely visiting that site is going to place you on a watchlist, other, similarly casual interactions with information about Edward Snowden would probably do the same. It's absurd to consider that a danger worth mentioning given the amount of coverage Snowden has gotten, and the information that's freely available everywhere about him and his disclosures.
We're discussing this topic on a site where actual hackers and security professionals, US government employees and millionaire Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs with legitimate political and financial influence hang out. Yet no one seems afraid to talk about Edward Snowden, government surveillance or whatever they like here. Surely, if the chilling effect were that pervasive, it would show up here? If visiting edwardsnowden.com puts you on a list, you're probably already on a list.
>You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise
Yes I have. Edward Snowden's presence in various forms of modern major media, to the point of doing an interview with a comedy show, is evidence that people aren't afraid of discussing him, and that the US media isn't afraid to cover him. He has a public twitter account which is being followed by a million people, which is evidence that people at large aren't afraid of that association, nor do they appear to be afraid of "consequences" from the government for doing so.
>That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise.
I'm not pretending. I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden.
reply