Edwardsnowden.com
edwardsnowden.com
edwardsnowden.com
Hillary Clinton is hostile to Snowden as well. Her administration, were she to be elected, would doubtless continue to pursue his extradition. Trump wants him executed, and even Rand Paul wants him thrown in jail ("same jail cell with Clapper").
I'm very sympathetic to Edward Snowden's cause, and I hope that he stays away from countries that might extradite him until such time as he's granted a pardon.
The question is... knowing all that we now know, should we treat him like a criminal?
Many people broke the law and became criminals, in order to do what was right.
Gandhi became a criminal by refusing to pay tax on salt. Americans became criminals by refusing to play ball with 'taxation without representation'.. (or the boston tea party). Rosa parks became a criminal when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. In taliban's view, Malala became a criminal when she decided to go to school.
Breaking the law is not always bad... sometimes, it is essential to break the law, in order to do the right thing.
I find it difficult to believe that you really don't care, don't have an opinion or have no moral stand on this issue. It reminds me of this famous line...
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Mass surveillance and punishing whistleblowers are not just American evils. They are the evils of the powerful, who are everywhere around the world.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/snowden...
"Love him or hate him, we all owe Snowden our thanks for forcing upon the nation an important debate. But the debate shouldn't be about him. It should be about the gnawing questions his actions raised from the shadows.
In the end, fear and politics likely will prevail, as it has in America's past. Washington elites will close ranks to protect the Surveillance State, to trample out transparency and to mislead the public. Maybe we can talk first?"
EDIT: nicklaf mentions below that this was actually written by Ron Fournier, not Sen. Sanders, although I believe that if its considered "Must Read" by Sen. Sanders, its congruant with his position on the topic.
"Snowden has said he would have tried official channels to reveal this to someone officially, but that the whistleblower statute doesn't apply to contractors. So I [Rand Paul] actually have an amendment that would try to make that so. So if you're a contractor doing business with an intelligence agency and you find that they're breaking the law—and interestingly, the courts have now said the NSA is breaking the law. " - https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/06/04/rand-paul-on-edward-s...
- https://theintercept.com/2015/05/21/edward-snowden-cheers-ra...
I don't think 'tongue-in-cheek' counts as policy.
Ron Paul to me, looked more like an act than a serious politician after what happened during the last election.
But if by some crazy miracle he got in, I don't doubt he would be way more constitutional than anyone else, but definitely not perfect.
https://reason.com/24-7/2013/06/12/gary-johnson-applauds-edw...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339200/Former-presi...
The issue is the Espionage act of 1917 [0]. The law explicitly takes all options off the table. At best, unless the law us amended, Snowden could be pardoned by the President after being found guilty.
### Who runs this website?
The site is commissioned by the trustees of Courage to provide information on the threats Edward Snowden faces, how he is being protected, and what you can do to support him.
### What is The Courage Foundation (formerly the Journalistic Source Protection Defence Fund) and who runs it?
Courage is a trust, audited by accountants Derek Rothera & Company in the UK, for the purpose of providing legal defence and campaign aid to journalistic sources. It is overseen by an unrenumerated committee of trustees. Edward Snowden is its first recipient. The terms of the fund and its trustees can be obtained from Derek Rothera & Company.
I'm not sure if those documents were previously disclosed or what, but the ones that I just mentioned relate to an internally targeted NSA propaganda campaign designed to keep their analysts complacent. It's pretty obvious if you read the documents.
Do you really believe your life and freedom are in greater danger from visiting edwardsnowden.com, but not from, say, hanging out on Hacker News? Or following Edward Snowden's twitter account along with a million other people and counting? Or visiting any site hosting any story related to Edward Snowden? Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist. He was on the cover of Time Magazine, so all Time subscribers are also on a permanent NSA watchlist.
Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect, apart from that caused by people warning about a global chilling effect.
Don't let your need for bias confirmation and your desire to play the victim-protagonist in a dystopian narrative cause you to act with more caution than necessary.
Lets back up and use an analogy. Domestic abuse (aptly put I'd say). A man beats his wife, but only occasionally and when he has been drinking. He drinks in private though, so the wife has no way of knowing when he will become combative. The wife then begins to have a pervasive, long lasting fear over time that greatly affects the way she speaks and how she does things.
You are basically saying that it's the wife who creates the fear, not the abuser, and not only that, but you are saying the wife isn't in any more danger from washing the dishes than she is from talking to the husband about drinking, which I think is obviously false.
You then proceed to make some very strange logical leaps:
" Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist."
No I don't think anyone has said that but you. An attempt at a straw man perhaps?
"Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect"
You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise. For example, a recent high profile suit against the US by Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and others.
"Don't let ... [this] cause you to act with more caution than necessary."
I would agree with this, as FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise.
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.
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.
As of parent comment, we are not being monitored but recorded and there is big difference. As Obama said "nobody is listening to your phone conversations". Obviously it is impossible for any number of government employees to listen to 300MM people's daily conversations. It was about seizure/recording of said materials that's what is a Constitutional no-no.
Everybody but you, since you seem to think it's for a reason other than fear for his life. Do you think the powers-that-be in the US are joking when they say that they're going to execute him?
Your unstated presumption is that this doesn't happen here, and I think that's a presumption that up for debate. Not only that, but the surveillance engine is generally the precursor to any such more overt totalitarianism (as warned of by Thomas Drake, speaking of prosecuted for crimes not actually committed by the way).
Not to mention as a programmer / sysadmin you are a prime target for exploitation of credentials if the NSA wants to access to company employing you.
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-tr...
and the related discussion on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10279853
Why or why is this not a good idea?
Now he's got twitter and edwardsnowden.com?
Personally, I give him the benefit of the doubt in all cases. I think there was a lot more that he could have leaked and didn't, because he believes in the value of the NSA. I think he was careful to only leak things that dealt with mass surveillance of American citizens. I think he gave up a lot of comfort to try to inspire a society that he knew in the back of his mind probably wouldn't care. I think he loves his country. Most of all, I think he's probably further on the side of national security in the privacy vs security debate than people would probably think.
But other people aren't like me. I really hope Snowden is able to bring the conversation in the right direction, because this debate about what our government should be doing is far from settled and there's a lot riding on his demeanor. There's a lot riding on whether average Joe sees Snowden as profiting from his whistleblowing or giving up his comfortable life.
Snowden making funny tweets is extremely high risk.
New he just needs to survive without getting assassinated.