Pardon Snowden | Hacker News Reader

Pardon Snowden

pardonsnowden.org

2,553 pointserlend_sh781 comments

Maybe 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 targeted for more intense data collection by the NSA?

God, I hate how quickly you can get paranoid these days. A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

This is the so-called "chilling effect" that's one of the most worrying implications of mass surveillance on a society... people feel afraid to speak out due to a concern they may be added to a list of some sort, and face negative real-life repercussions due to expressing their free speech.

There were a couple of times where I actually called the public contact numbers for NSA & GCHQ regarding particular stories about which I was especially upset, identifying myself by name and politely but firmly expressing my views. NSA told me to go away, but surprisingly the woman at GCHQ heard me out for several minutes and let me finish my rant. That's the British establishment for you I guess - they can be assholes, but polite assholes.

Snowden risked everything to inform us all of the crimes of the FVEY governments and the least we can all do is take inspiration from his actions and stand up and publicly make our views known, whatever they may be. The day people stop being willing to express their political views publicly is the day we lose something very important.

NSA - my name and XKEYSCORE selectors are in my profile. Feel free to add me to whatever lists I'm not already on.

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

The United States government has done an excellent bit of propaganda to convince the bulk of the public that they are the most free people on earth. We salute the flag and sing the national anthem at games. We have the presidents' pictures on the walls of our classrooms. We chant "USA" at political rallies.

But the government of the United States has perpetrated terrible violence and destruction of liberty against its own citizens and many more abroad. Through endless military engagement abroad to harassment, detainment, and imprisonment at home, the government serves its own interests first, and enhancing and preserving your liberty is not among them.

I should be very concerned about coming to the attention of anyone within government -- at any level. Even the local code enforcement board can extract time, energy, and money from you should you come under scrutiny.

But as others have said, you're already on the lists. No need to be paranoid. Go ahead and sign the Snowden petition. It's just one more data point on your dossier. The government already has enough on you to put you away for life if you become inconvenient to the state. Three Felonies a Day[1] and all that.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

You know what? I don't think that's an unreasonable concern and it's exactly why this situation is so horrible. It's the return cold war communism paranoia. "Of course I'm allowed to do this, but will this get me on some watchlist?"

I guess the ethical answer is that, the more people will sign this (think a million?), the less likely it is to be used as some kind of filter. Even though what's one million names in a database? Sigh... Awful.

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

It's ironic that given all the valid concerns in your post, you also fell for the oldest piece of propaganda in the book by the very government you're concerned about and that you think that socialism has something to do with dictatorships, rather than it being just an idea that itself has nothing to do with dictatorships in itself, but was in the past implemented by dictators, same as capitalism was in Latin America and elsewhere.

Nazi ideology is much more inherently tied to strongmen and dictatorships than socialist ideology is.

You also seem to be talking about communism, rather than socialism as such and fail to see the distinction between these two, or indeed between communism and Stalinism, but that's for a longer discussion...

Your comment puts Snowden's actions in perspective. He risked his liberty, if not life, so that we could learn about the scope of US mass surveillance.

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.

> what would the risk be for me to sign this?

You could end up in prison. It's not likely, but it's possible. Signing this petition could get your name on a secret list of people who are likely terrorist sympathizers, and that in turn could lead to your arrest on trumped-up charges, or perhaps even non-trumped-up charges based on coincidental circumstances that would never have been noticed had you not signed. There are also a whole host of other less serious possible consequences. You could end up on the no-fly list. You could be denied a government job. Who knows?

And that is exactly why you must sign. Ed Snowden put a lot on the line so that we can know for sure that we are facing risks like this, and possibly even do something about it. The least we can do IMHO is to take a small risk to help him come home. That's why I signed (and made a modest donation).

I signed it and to be honest I'm not the biggest fan of Snowden but think he deserves an opportunity for pardon.

I'm honestly not the slightest bit afraid of retaliation, and if I was targeted it would be evidence in favor of Snowden's cause.

I don't understand how an American citizen could be afraid of exercising their free speech rights -- if they are violated, then one can vocally draw attention to their situation. I'm really not afraid of repercussions as a random American.

"You shouldn't change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing. If we sacrifice our values because were afraid we don't care about those values very much." ~ Edward Snowden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M#t=1840

Normally I'd call that paranoia. But after reading about the case in which a Goldman Sachs programmer aroused suspicion [0] from the FBI for using "Subversion" and occasionally erasing his "bash history", I think it's reasonable to remember that anything you say can and will be used against use in the eyes of the law

[0] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman...

"They seem to have learned the habit of cowering before authority even when not actually threatened. How very nice for authority. I decided not to learn this particular lesson." -- Richard Stallman (http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/109)

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

what does socialism have to do with this? maybe you meant to say "a mode of thought I would expect in totalitarian police states..."

it's true that some totalitarian police states have, nominally if not really in practice, also been socialist. however, there have been just as many fascist, capitalist, monarchist, and theocratic totalitarian police states as well.

so I ask again...what does socialism have to do with this?

As an US citizen, you don't have to fear, you have freedom of speech.

This exactly why I think we should sign it. The fact that you now second guess everything shows this is very wrong. It will only get worse if we keep our mouths closed.

First the pardon will never happen. Neither Obama nor any other President can or will pardon him, lest they encourage the next Snowden. So signing it will not actually help Snowden.

Second, it's entirely possible that your fears will come true - obviously the government will receive your information and they can use it how they see fit. Not only that, but they appear to be running a co-registration campaign with the ACLU, and you don't know exactly who else will get your name, email, and physical address, or who those people will sell it to. I would be also curious to see what kind of remarketing cookies they are using. You can easily be put in the bucket of "HN users that visited the support Snowden page" and be stalked accordingly by advertisers across millions of Adsense-supported sites, Google search, Facebook, and the general web with just two or three remarketing cookies.

The creators of this site undoubtedly know that their stated goal will never be accomplished. So this looks more like an attempt to build a marketing database of people with a specific viewpoint than anything else.

All acts of resistance have consequences. That's because it's important, and "they" know it's important. I think it's reasonable to assume this gets you put on a watchlist if you're not already.

As others have (snarkily) pointed out, this is a pretty mild form of resistance, so I'd imagine the consequences would be pretty mild.

Literally millions of Americans think Snowden should be pardoned. Expressing that belief won't make me a target.

That being said, I could see the government trotting it out if there were ever a separate case against you. "captainmuon is already known to harbor sympathies for known traitor Edward Snowden."

It's awful that you are thinking about this, imho, as am I. I signed it, because I'd prefer not to live under an unaccountable surveillance superpower.

Being in Australia, I'm at best, someone that kowtows to a surveillance superpower. Sucks to be me, I can't even vote to not be surveilled.

Assuming any of those lists exist, you're not trying hard enough if you're not already on them.

Risks aside, signing this is useless. President Obama hates whistleblowers and will not pardon Mr. Snowden. I would be willing to put money on it.

There is no risk to signing this.

Asking, "Will the government persecute me if I democratically voice my opinion against a crime executed by the same government?", is exactly the type of questioning that should be avoided.

It is same as asking, "Will the mafia kill me if I speak the truth about the murder as an eyewitness?" Government is not supposed to operate like a mafia. (But sure they can violate Human Rights and the Constitution, and public will not even care.)

However, I am afraid by asking that very question we are already talking from within the context of a regime that is "totalitarian". The various degrees to which an average US citizen believes that they are not in a totalitarian country unlike those "other" "socialist" or whatever countries out there, is irrelevant:

Surveillance is Totalitarianism.

It is no surprise for people get paranoid in a country with large-scale surveillance technology. And that's the point. Because it has never been merely about the "terrorists" who are "out there"...

For people who are concerned about getting a "high score" in whatever threat inventory, we are all a threat already. That's the very basic rationale behind mass-surveillance. For the record, a majority of HN members would hypothetically get pretty "high scores"...

Back to the topic of the thread, Obama will not pardon Snowden.

By logging into "hacker news" regularly, mentioning the NSA (and probably other key terms: data collection, US citizen) I'm sure you are already on a list.

Sadly you've almost certainly been added to a list simply for commenting on this article.

If you signed a petition in Thailand, and it had anything to do with the royal family, then you would be arrested and imprisoned under the lese majeste laws. If you signed a petition in North Korea or Syria, you would be tortured and killed.

Be thankful that you can exercise your right to sign this petition in the US, and the only thing you might need to worry about is increased scrutiny from the IRS.

I had the same thought, but I signed it, because he did a helluva lot more for me than sign a petition, and also because "failing to do the right thing because of concerns about your personal safety/convenience" is known more succinctly as cowardice.

(Whether "signing an online petition" is "doing the right thing" is outside the scope of this comment.)

I made a small donation to Glenn Greenwald, back when he was writing for Salon. (Back when concerns were hanging chads, weapons of mass deception, and the like.)

I've had occasion in recent years to speculate how many lists that has put me on. And to explain to a few friends "three degrees of separation" and what that might imply for them, as well.

I don't particularly like being listed. But I really don't like and fear the utter lack of transparency and accountability, and how such information can and apparently is "weaponized" against individuals for personal, political, and financial objectives.

Not only is it scary. It is, ultimately, a wasteful mis-use of resources. All this dirt digging and slinging and lawyering up takes away from more useful activity. Like fixing blight and illness before it engenders disfunction.

Call me an optimist. I believe -- or at least hope -- that we can do better.

I'm tired of living in perpetual fear.

I think you're being ridiculous. This is being run through the ACLU, which has over 500,000 members.

I just signed and donated $50.

I don't know what to make of this. We lose if Snowden is "pardoned", because that would mean he did something morally wrong. Snowden loses his life in the US if he's not pardoned.

I'm not American, but the issue cuts across all countries and Snowden is a representative.

I think about this sort of thing quite often, actually: Your fears are exactly why i've not signed it. I'm American, living in Norway. I don't really plan on living in the states again, but I very much want to be able to visit family. I already wonder if that doesn't put me on some sort of secret list, but there isn't a decent way for me to find out. I don't even feel I have adequate representation anymore - I can vote based on my previous address in the US, but I highly doubt I'd be listened to. Not that it was adequate to begin with, but I at least had the facade.

It is really unnerving truth be told.

When you start to feel that way is when you need to stand up the most. We get further into this mess by staying silent out of fear and we get out of it by being millions strong and protesting the state of things.

> I wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border?

I would be hugely surprised to learn that anybody would spend any time or attention to whoever votes how on a petition. There are thousands of those and only so many border agents, and making trouble to an US citizen carries a non-zero risk. Your profile is too low for that.

> Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble?

Possible, but other things should be like donating to known ISIS front or frequenting a Hezbollah darksite, or something like that. Otherwise it's just noise.

> Increased scrutiny from the IRS

Unlikely, IRS is interested in money, not online petitions. You'd need to do something more spectacular to deserve special scrutiny, that puts you out of the crowd. Voting on online petition puts you in the crowd.

> but "they" might say hell why not?

Customized treatment on these scales is rather expensive. If voting on online petition had triggered customized treatment, they'd have to do a lot of useless "increased scrutiny". If they did, you won't be different from millions of people, but most probably they don't.

> Inability to get security clearances in future?

Security clearance is one area where such scrutiny could be warranted. But given who gets clearances, at least at low levels (like terror operatives working at airports and security companies, etc.) not likely unless we're talking about very high clearance levels.

> Being targeted for more intense data collection by the NSA?

Unlikely, again, you'd have to get out of the noise level for that and voting on a petition does not do that. If you'd be a close personal friend of Snowden then it'd be a different thing...

If Snowden revealed something is that the NSA and accompanied services are very smart, very powerful and very resourceful in achieving their goals. Nothing suggests they are so stupid as being unable to distinguish between signal and noise. They may be collecting a lot, but it all would be useless if they couldn't distinguish between interesting things and noise. Signing an online petition is noise.

I don't think the paranoia is unreasonable, however, it is exactly this sort of self censorship that dictatorships bank on to stay in power. People don't speak out for fear of repercussions. Snowden sacrificed almost everything to do what was right by not only the people of the U.S. but what was right for the people of the world.

I think it's only right that we all put our neck out for him, the same as he did for us - if only to say thank you for having our backs. I'm signing it.

Edit: I have signed it

Why do you think this won't happen if you write that exact comment here? Quite sure for writing here we are all added to the database or our attention factor gets slightly increased if we already are in it, maybe depending on how critical the word cloud of our comment looks to their analytics software. And don't think it's different if you are a US citizen or not. They probably add people from everywhere. A few billion data sets are probably not as big a deal anymore nowadays.

I tend to doubt your fear is to have your "terrorism points" incremented in some database, but rather the cold and distant nature of the federal government makes it nearly impossible to reason through how you're _not_ a terrorist (assuming you're not). There's no organized mechanism by which you can disprove your terrorism affiliations. Otherwise, being put in a database would be as much an issue as changing the wrong address on your insurance policy.

Better to be on the right side of history. I mean, if you are asking the question, you have already made a personal decision that you would like to sign it. Not doing so would be betraying yourself. That would be worse than not getting a security clearance I would have thought. In any case, I doubt the spooks would be really that bothered. You can still spy AND take the moral high road :-)

I had a similar thought, but it was more just normal internet guardedness: I don't know who these people are that are asking for my PII.

I am reasonably certain signing this petition would increase your bad karma with NSA. This in itself may not cause a problem but next time you come on their radar this might hurt you.

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

USA is moving rapidly towards socialism though it is much behind than say UK or France. This sort of government overreach is inevitable.

The fact that you, the US citizen, asks this questions and has these worries says everything about what US has become, unfortunately.

North Koreans see themselves as 'The Cleanest People'. We see ourselves as the freest. We're both wrong.

There might be a risk. But if you do not act the risk is much higher. I am not talking about social good or sacrifice. Just think about the state in which your children's and their children's will live in. It is not worth living in a state like that. Its like we are being prepared for breeding future slaves.

Paranoid? Naah. I'm working on the assumption this site (pardonsnowden.org) is run by the CIA, or one of it's proxies, whatever, to gather the names of Snowden sympathisers.

Surely, right. If history has taught us anything. I mean, we know some of the things the CIA has gotten up in the past.

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

What is your definition of "socialist" ? A lot of European countries are "socialists" in a way (always a nuance) but they don't have an aggressive kind of local NSA (even if some have a local NSA).

I don't think they would have a problem with people signing this. It lets the people blow off steam with no real effect. Once you sign it, you think "well, I've done my part. I signed the online petition, and changed my Twitter/Facebook icon."

The fact that the United States government can indiscriminately designate people as being "in trouble" and then use this as an excuse to trample upon their rights. The real trouble is a situation in which Snowden is not pardoned.

I think the point is, the reason you are doing this is to mitigate the very same effects you are afraid from.

You are now concerned about getting on the no-fly list.

Think about being concerned doing a Google Search, Buying this item, Putting much money into this and this.

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

I hate this notion. I stay in India -- a socialist nation, which has its own problems but "lack of freedom" compared to any other nation in the world is not one of them.

I accept that I've probably said enough nice or not-bad things about Ed Snowden that I'd probably never get a security clearance as a U.S. citizen; and as a dual citizen I have no hope at all to begin with.

I think signing that petition is the least of your worries, the amount of data already collected about you including this comment here will be used to profile you for years to come.

A lot of Germans had this attitude back in the late 30s early 40s.

If you aren't willing to risk being on the NSA's shit list, we will never be able to break free of their oppression. Action breeds confidence.

They would have to man in the middle the petition site to log you as it is in https. Can they do that for everybody just like that? I am not sure.

The problem seems to be that you use "socialist" as a replacement for totalitarian. And since you don't even know your enemy...

Even if there is some correlation between signing this petition and some of the things you say, the expected (in the statistical sense) damage to you is tiny compared to the cause in question and the principles, so frankly I think it is lame of you to even be writing about this, and I don't think it should be the top comment. It makes HN readers look like a bunch of #firstworldproblemers lacking perspective and fretting about minor inconveniences to their privileged lifestyles.

For a non-US citizen it might be a case, especially if they are thinking about moving there eventually.

Chilling effects have a long tail.

Pretty sure I was denied clearance because I had made pro-Snowden remarks in public.

The NSA most likely already knows this about you if you have a twitter or facebook.

I'd be more worried about the consequences of not signing it.

Uhm... Bernie Sanders signed this. I think you'll be okay.

According to a journalist who gave a talk here (Stuttgart, Germany) last week, there is a speed radar and license plate scanner at the local NSA installation, and going by too slow gets you on the 'suspicious people' list.

At the very least you'll be placed on some form of watch list and labelled a domestic extremist.

In socialist countries... they sign it all for you already.

About 3 years ago, a story broke up about a three-letter agency requesting from Twitter (subpoena IIRC) the list of handles who were following a particular Swedish Pirate Party politician.

I remember reading the article via twitter and after a while watching a tweet from the politician in question appear in timeline.

I didn't even recall following her, but at some point in time I did. I froze and panicked, my twitter account is eponymous.

What will happen to me when I cross the US border? Hopefully/Probably nothing, but the thought lies in the back of my mind.

If you fear signing this, _and don't_, you really don't understand long risk mitigation and are just preparing yourself to be scared even more in the long run.

Just like privacy doesn't exist without others, signing this will at least help by giving strength, and privacy, in numbers.

Leaving this resistance alone, as if they were some heroes you respect but won't stand by, is really a cowardly way of being anti society and skipping your citizen duty.

First they came for them, etc... You know how it ends.

Morality is difficult to stand up for. Civil rights was tough to fight for (still is). The right to privacy and govt transparency in the face of tyranny is another of those difficult battles.

Let's be like the founders and stand up to our government [1].

[1] List of quotes:

- The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." --Patrick Henry

- "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --George Washington

- "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

I don't know what long risk mitigation is, but I'm offended. /s

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, a wanted traitor and saboteur of the USA.

*There is however a good chance that the money grubbing bastards at one of the third party contractors the NSA eats up reports and analytics from will profile you into something you are not (or lets face it, you are) and that will be ingested into our intelligence pipeline.

I'd be very surprised if the NSA doesn't collect these signatures for later matching. Doesn't mean that you'll have black vans following you around because of it - they have lots of lists for all kinds of things.

The most obvious application in this case is that you would be automatically disqualified for a security rating in the future. You'd never get to know the reason of course, you'd just be rejected.

EDIT: I still think people should sign of course. Let's not let them win by default by letting our fear control us. Do you really want that security rating if these are the requirements?

>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.

Good point. At some point in life you won't be able to run away from standing up for what you believe in (at perhaps small or medium risk to self) or else direr consequences may result.

If you believe he acted ethically, then sign the thing with me.

In addition, history is long and tech grows fast. I imagine at some future point and well within our lifetimes it will be trivial to infer our political attitudes and assign semi-anonymous screen names to real persons just by scrapping the web of 2016. Especially since absolute certainty of guilt is not the highest priority in these cases.

And since there's very real possibility of having a lunatic at the helm of government at some point, yes, one had better speak up now.

Thank you. Signed.

This is a great point which I completely agree with.

Who are these guys? Registrar is in Panama. The site says "partnership with ACLU and Amnesty International", but I cannot find any links from those sites to pardonsnowden.org

Both ACLU and AI have their own petition forms with different letters.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/edward-s...

https://action.aclu.org/secure/grant_snowden_immunity

Wondering if ACLU and AI are a little late to confirm, or if this is an elaborate attempt to get qualified contacts info.

Spot on.

The top comment in this thread is paranoia about whether this site is a hostile name collection honeypot (I think if it is, so is commenting on this thread, hello nsa).

One way of combatting such paranoia is to establish trust. This site accepts donations, but nowhere does it say WHO is running it. It has neat ACLU, Amnesty International, and HRW logos at the bottom, but anyone can put graphics on a page. It has a whole list of supporters, but all without any citation of their support (you would expect the Chomskys, Lessigs, and Greenwalds, but the Soros are a bit more surprising).

This is at best a rushed, uncoordinated release. At worst, it IS a name collection honeypot.

If this group does in fact have support of ACLU, AI, and HRW, it should link to those organizations' press releases of this particular domain. If it has the endorsements of popular figures, at the very least link to a tweet of theirs.

Snowden should be pardoned because he revealed that in the land of the free, we should always be looking over our shoulder asking if this is an NSA sting job. A good way of fighting that paranoia lifestyle is with credibility. These guys are failing that fight.

Ed himself tweeted that it's a collaboration between ACLU, Amnesty and HRW. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/776090123616288768

So, we're good?

> The American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International are ready to launch the "Pardon Snowden" campaign... pardonsnowden.org.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37341804

https://shop.aclu.org/product/ACLU-Edward-Snowden-Limited-Ed...

> Front features artist Shepard Fairey's iconic portrait of Edward Snowden

> Back includes ACLU logo and pardonsnowden.org URL

Human Rights Watch press release:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/13/us-obama-should-pardon-e...

ACLU blog links to it: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/obama-should-pardon-e...

Also, the FAQ page https://www.pardonsnowden.org/faq mentions, "We've partnered with the nonprofit Center For International Policy (CIP) so that we can offer tax deductibility to donors. Your donation goes to the CIP, they enable tax deductibility, and it is then transferred to us to be used for the campaign."

EDIT: Dan below + another source told me this is actually legit.

I 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 care.

Edit: I normally don't do these edits, but seriously, why am I getting downvoted for this? Obviously this is bad, that does not make it any less true. You must be the ones downvoting sad YouTube videos and the reason why Facebook had to introduce multiple like variants.

Snowden's actions were effectively an attack on the mechanisms of governance: if they let him off the hook, they fear they will encourage more people to act like him, and that affects the solidity of the lever of governmental power.

If government is a tool, it's a rare politician that votes to make the tool less reliable. Note that this is distinct from changing the scope of what the tool can affect: this is about the reliability of the tool. Even politicians that were in favour of what Snowden did, who thought he contributed positively, and voted against surveillance, would still likely baulk at making life too easy for more people like him. That's because government is supposed to flow from the top down, and policy change is not supposed to emanate from the machinery. The machinery is supposed to execute the orders of government.

And you know what's also awful? We expect neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump to pardon Snowden in the future. In this sense, Democrats and Republicans are not all that different. It's still all about the interest of the powerful.

I think people are confusing your statement of the situation as endorsement of the situation.

The reality is, I think you're right. Sadly, for the majority of people, this is not an issue they care about.

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 to defend NSA or whoever, I just think that what Snowden did was partially wrong. Of course, caching the Internet like NSA and others are doing has human rights consequences, and those should be discussed publicly. But question the very existence of such practices is unreasonable in the situation the world is in nowadays. There are LOT of people in the world today who would want to wipe off the whole Western civilization, if they could... there must be a protection from them.

I agree. It's like he wasted his efforts.

I'm still genuinely curious about what the intelligence community thinks of him, if it's bad, what are the arguments against him. I've heard Mike Baker on the Joe Rogan experience say that he did not trust Snowden one bit.

In the intelligence world, it's common to be very cautions about leaks since foreign actors like Russia can really benefit politically from such scandal.

It can be difficult to really know all the details since it's covered in secrecy, and Snowden himself will knowingly avoid to say too much to reduce the damage.

In my view, digital surveillance is a complex issue because people don't really understand how it's done, the west is still waging a war against terror to avoid attacks in land, and agencies will often want to screw the due process to catch terrorists however they can.

From what I've gathered, the intelligence community thinks bad things about him; their view is "fix it from the inside."

Public leaks can be incredibly damaging to our operational advantages against various adversaries, and it's often non-obvious which data will be most helpful to them.

The main reason I stand behind him is the matter of the director of the NSA lying to congress under oath. We don't even have the illusion of a democracy if we can't have effective congressional oversight of intelligence agencies with as broad a reach as the NSA.

My conservative friends, not in the intelligence community, really don't like him. They try to be civil, but I can almost hear them hiss when I mention "Snowden".

It's odd to me. They don't mind digital surveillance at all. They think it's good if it makes everyone safer.

Throwing in my two cents, what interests me on the Snowden topic, is his character. While I'm glad Snowden took the initiative and risk, I don't believe he did it for altruistic reasons: sacrificing himself for the greater good. My opinion is based on seeing and hearing Edward Snowden talk in the documentary "Citizen 4" and other interviews. Many people say, "Look at what he did. He gave up his life in America. He sacrificed everything for no financial reward. He's a hero." It's true he took a big risk; he could still spend a lot of his life in prison. But he has gained huge from this risk. He is famous and respected by many; they're making a fucking movie about him. It reminds me of the line at the end of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford": "You know what I expected [after I killed Jesse James]? Applause."

Though I won't name any names, I have heard a big reason is that he was indiscriminate about what he leaked.

Well his colleagues who lost their jobs because they trusted him probably aren't fans of his.

The thing I hate about all petition sites is that they ask for my personal information for... what purpose exactly? They don't even seem to try to verify anything. They just look like scams to me, which is a shame because I really think they shouldn't be...

Petitions cannot/should not be anonymous.

The fact that your name and address is known to the entity receiving the petition shows that you really mean it. Also, for some entities it might be illegal to be moved by petitions signed by non-citizen. Unfortunately, those petitions systems only ask for your address, not for your citizenship. But we can assume citizenship from the address for the first order.

To prevent ballot stuffing I would assume. With a name and email address you might check the validity of a petition by randomly mailing some of the petition signers to validate that they did sign it themselves.

> The thing I hate about all petition sites is that they ask for my personal information

Yes, that's how any petition works. People really need to learn the basics of citizenship at school.

The thing I hate about them is that they don't also recorded dissenting views and register numbers of dissenters.

A petition only works if each vote is tied to a real individual.

I am for a full pardon. The risks to our privacy are greater now than they have ever been and a lot of people think it will keep us safe. If I knew more about history I'd be tempted to compare it to something like a more insidious version of the cuban missile crisis, but it's probably a bad comparison. Any historians around here - what would you compare it to?

How about comparing it to the war on drugs over the last 100 years? is the war on privacy taking a similar path?

Starts out using racism by claiming we need to restrict privacy (drugs) to prevent muslims (hispanics) from terrorizing us. Next it's associated with sexual deviants (reefer madness), and anyone who opposes it must be one of them. Then people start to realize that privacy isn't just an ideal, but it's a physical feeling of freedom - a feeling that they have never felt before, the freedom to be the captain of your life (damn hippies!) - people have tasted freedom and they want more of it. To fight against it, governments spends trillions of dollars hunting out anyone who provides privacy services (drug smuggling).

Eventually there is reform,etc etc... so, it took like a century for cannabis.. 20 years for privacy?

Lots of crazy shit has been walked back over the years, and I assume it felt very doom-y at the time. That said, I don't see this being walked back. Snowden outed the US Government as ever conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare minus lizard people, and the country kinda shrugged.

I'm not a historian, but consider that the "medium" if you like, the Internet, all it's awful mudpie history of protocols etc, is ripe for the plucking by both sides.

Do you stand idly by while the hostile ones (whatever that might mean) use it to their advantage, or do you get your government with their huge funds to help in this regard?

The latter, of course. Trouble is when that agency becomes rogue, which it certainly seems like the NSA have, with rubber stamping.

But we still need some form of accountable defense I think. It's just gone horribly wrong.

That debate will always be at the forefront of security. In the 19th century, when the first professional police departments were established, people were outraged and convinced that the police were there to take away their liberty.

It doesn't excuse all action to improve security, but we do have to occasionally align our security with modern standards. What would happen if we left all cybersecurity (including banks, power systems, etc) to the private sector?

And then, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for the FBI to target people who visit a child pornography site? Most would say yes... People who download The Anarchist's Cookbook? Probably another yes. But what about collecting info on the people who supported that whole ordeal with Clive Bundy? Or people who belong to a non-state sponsored militia? That's where the line starts to gray for many. The point being, it's never cut and dry.

To pardon Snowden seems like a very popular opinion around here. Can anyone help me change my opinion on this matter?

The way I currently see it:

- Snowden indiscriminately hovered up so many documents, it was impossible to vet all of them.

- The vast majority of these documents do not constitute whistleblowing, but are standard operating procedure for the NSA. The US expects the NSA to do this.

- Leaking standard-operating-procedure documents damaged the NSA, and thus the security / defense of the US.

- Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels.

- Snowden leaked / whistleblowed these documents in an operation using his secret agent skills.

- Snowden fled to Russia, a currently not-so-cold competitor of the US.

- Snowden's documents ended up in the hands of Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies.

- Snowden's innocent leaks, such as the entire Intellipedia, damaged the intelligence community, causing them to "clam up", and place more mistrust on "outsiders", such as high-school diploma Snowden.

- Snowden gave the document cache to incompetent journalists. Greenwald send his boyfriend to smuggle documents through British customs.

If Snowden had given only the slides on the NSA spying on American citizens, and cooperating with US companies, that would have been whistleblowing. As it stands, to me, it feels like a Russian operation to inflict PR/diplomacy damage on the US.

I have a lot of respect for whistleblowers, and also for Snowden. What he did is nothing short of heroic. But I do not believe in a pardon for someone who misuses his admin privileges to download all the documents he could get his hands on, then flees to Russia. What's missing for me?

Here is a well produced oxford style debate between qualified debaters on the topic. I found it very enlightening and hope everyone gives it a listen. It's available as a video or podcast. http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-jus...

> What's missing for me?

facts. you mis-stated several things about the story. I don't have time to do your research for you. there's a lot about it on the internet already. begin by educating yourself about the facts and then make your judgments.

> high-school diploma Snowden.

vicious cheap shot and ad hominem. why did you say that? do you only respect people with piece of paper signed by a university dean?

> - Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels.

See Binney, eg:

"William Binney HOPE 9 KEYNOTE": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqN59beaFMI

The "internal channels" have been broken for years, and do not work. Snowden was aware of this, and AFAIR has commented on that on several occasions.

> - Snowden gave the document cache to incompetent journalists. Greenwald send his boyfriend to smuggle documents through British customs.

What? Incompetent? They managed to do their job, in the face of GCHQ and the NSA. Just because they made some mistakes, that doesn't make them "incompetent". If they were, we wouldn't have heard anything at all!

> - Snowden leaked / whistleblowed these documents in an operation using his secret agent skills.

So, being competent is a strike against Snowden, but being incompetent is a strike against Greenwald (who presumably doesn't have any training from GCHQ)?

> - The vast majority of these documents do not constitute whistleblowing, but are standard operating procedure for the NSA. The US expects the NSA to do this.

Everyone who was paying attention knew a lot about the clearly illegal stuff that NSA have been doing, from previous leaks - that doesn't mean the leaks didn't have value.

> I do not believe in a pardon for someone who misuses his admin privileges to download all the documents he could get his hands on, then flees to Russia.

The first part was in my eyes a prerequisite for having a sizable useful set of documents to leak. The second part is really two parts: he fled - he didn't submit himself to capture, torture and/or assassination in the US. He did this by fleeing to Hong Kong.

Then he went to Russia, the only port within reach that offered sanctuary. I'm ashamed that Norway didn't - for example. But of course we're NATO allies, and with the not too distant history of Mossad carrying out a botched assassination (successful kill, wrong person) on Norwegian soil, and Norway being complicit in extralegal detention and torture by allowing CIA's "white planes" to transit through - it would probably have been hopelessly naive for Snowden to try to flee here, even if offered "safe passage".

Snowden used journalists (really just greenwald) to vet the documents.

He did attempt to use internal channels.

His original intent was not to go to russia, it was a last resort.

While I think it's true that he took too many documents and probably released too many documents, I think his intentions were good, and overall was an important contribution to public knowledge of the way our governments work. It was an eye opener for a lot of tech companies, to be sure.

He was essentially forced to flee to Russia-- no other country could protect him. I don't think it's where he wanted to end up.

I don't think he should be pardoned. He committed crimes, and possibly could have found a better way to get this information out there. I do think he should be offered a generous plea-bargain in return for coming home and debriefing the NSA/CIA and congress about what exactly he took, how he took it and the status of all of those secrets.

My goodness, this reads like Stewart Baker is sock-puppeting. If you'd like to convince someone, perhaps sticking to the truth when stating "facts" would be a start. For instance,

> - Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels.

is simply false.

> - Snowden fled to Russia, a currently not-so-cold competitor of the US.

Nice innuendo. Please state your concerns in a concrete fashion. If it is that he fled, then it doesn't matter to where. If it is that he was stranded in a regime unfriendly to the U.S. regime, what do you expect him to choose? England? Canada? It is also good to remember that U.S. actions are responsible for him being in Russia.

> - Snowden indiscriminately hovered up so many documents, it was impossible to vet all of them.

You elide the difference between taking documents and releasing them. As others have said, vetting was done by journalists.

> - Leaking standard-operating-procedure documents damaged the NSA, and thus the security / defense of the US.

1) Assuming "damage" is defined as spending money and time to evaluate the breach and implement corrective measures, sure. I've yet to see anyone point to anything beyond "I can't tell you, but be very afraid". Remember how the release was going to lead to imminent terrorists attacks in Missouri?

> - Snowden's documents ended up in the hands of Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies.

Proof, please.

> - Snowden leaked / whistleblowed these documents in an operation using his secret agent skills.

"Secret agent skills?" Isn't that normally spelled with a "z" on the end?

> - Snowden's innocent leaks, such as the entire Intellipedia, damaged the intelligence community, causing them to "clam up", and place more mistrust on "outsiders", such as high-school diploma Snowden.

"High-school diploma"? WTF? Have the courage to say what you mean or cut the cheap shots. I except that sort of low-rent smearing from Slashdot and gov-contractor flacks, not Hacker News. And which is it - is Snowden a mad-1337 super agent super hacker, or and uneducated outsider? Character assassination works much better when you're a bit more consistent.

Anyway, shorn of the non-sequitur schoolyard taunting, what is the complaint? Intelligence operatives, shown to have expanded surveillance far beyond the imaginations of the voters in the democracy that supposedly as a voice in what they do, had their feelings hurt when they were exposed?

This is the same argument made by police apologists: if you keep taking pictures of us illegally killing people, we'll stop doing our jobs.

> - Snowden gave the document cache to incompetent journalists. Greenwald send his boyfriend to smuggle documents through British customs.

So you don't like Greenwald. That's lovely. Now please describe how the romantic connection indicates incompetence, and what exactly the bad result that said incompetence lead to.

> But I do not believe in a pardon for someone who misuses his admin privileges to download all the documents he could get his hands on, then flees to Russia.

Please describe the conditions under which whistleblowing is acceptable to you. If Snowden had received the documents from someone else (thus hadn't "misuse[d] hist admin privileges"), would that make it OK for him, but not for the hypothetical other person? Of it he hadn't been stranded by the U.S. in Russia (he didn't choose to stay)?

Based on your litany above, it sounds like intelligence whistleblowing is only acceptable to you when the documents involved are officially released, the release doesn't damage any existing power structures, no intelligence operatives have their fee-fees hurt, and the leaker is better educated and collaborates with journalists you personally like more.

Most of you points are simply blatantly false tho.

>- Snowden indiscriminately hovered up so many documents, it was impossible to vet all of them.

That's why he gave them to a small group of well respected journalists, so they could use their professional discretion to vet them.

>- Snowden indiscriminately hovered up so many documents, it was impossible to vet all of them.

I highly doubt that, but even if it that were true those documents aren't the ones being leaked by the journalists, only the ones showing the NSA doing illegal things are.

>- Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels.

Yes he did.

>- Snowden leaked / whistleblowed these documents in an operation using his secret agent skills.

Lol wut. He was just a contractor, not a secret agent. He just copied files, fled to China and shared them with a small group of people, none of which required "secret agent skills"

>- Snowden fled to Russia, a currently not-so-cold competitor of the US.

So? You can't blame Snowden for that, blame the Justice department. If Snowden could have been even remotely safe anywhere but Russia, he wouldn't be there now. You can't chase after somebody then blame them for hiding somewhere safe.

>- Snowden gave the document cache to incompetent journalists. Greenwald send his boyfriend to smuggle documents through British customs.

No he didn't, he gave them to perfectly competent journalists. Greenwald is very competent and well respected as a journalists. Doesn't matter how he got the documents in Britain the important thing is that he did without them getting leaked earlier than he wanted.

>If Snowden had given only the slides on the NSA spying on American citizens, and cooperating with US companies, that would have been whistleblowing.

He tried that and nobody took him seriously.

>As it stands, to me, it feels like a Russian operation to inflict PR/diplomacy damage on the US.

Considering he only ever entered Russia after he had distributed the documents and none of them ever entered Russia this opinion is based on nothing other than emotion and isn't substantiated by any facts.

For those outside of the US the link (https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/Edward-S...) does not work. Anyone know what the correct link should be?

I suspect Obama won't care too much about what people living outside the US think on this one.

I did some search it appears that it doesn't exist now or that it never existed in the first place.

It's working for me

"Why do you ask for my address when I donate?

We need your address to process your credit card payment. This lets our payment processor (Stripe) verify your identity and process your payment. We don't ask for information beyond what's required by Stripe. The people at the pardon campaign will be able to see your name, email address and physical address, but we will never see your financial data. Here is Stripe's privacy policy; here is our privacy policy."

That's a straight up lie. Stripe does not require physical address, it's entirely optional. Know what you're signing yourself up for.

Holy 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.

You're surprised to see Chomsky there?

The only one I find surprising among those three is Soros. He's a pretty Janus-faced individual though in general, so... maybe shouldn't even find that surprising anymore.

According to the comment just above yours, those "signatures" are unauthenticated?

Pardonning Snowden while allowing the NSA to continue their business as usual would be strange.

Politics is the art of compromise.

Not necessarily.

One could take the position (not mine) that the NSA's "business as usual" was appropriate, that Snowden was mistaken in his adjudging it something that needed leaking, but that he was operating in good faith, honestly - mistakenly - believed it needed disclosure, and honestly believed internal channels would be ineffective at best. If we're going to have a massive secret surveillance apparatus, of course we need to encourage people in-the-know to blow the whistle if they suspect it is being misused.

Pardoning is already a good step. It's acknowledging that leaders don't know whether he did something right or wrong, and that it's up for the citizen to decide. It may change the mind of many citizen who currently view him as a traitor. Articles will have to defend their position (such as "E.S, that we view as a traitor") rather than be credited with government force (currently written as "E.S., a traitor that is the world's most wanted criminal").

But I was wondering: Isn't Obama at risk if he pardons him? Wouldn't he be interrupted if he started a speech about Snowden? That's been the #1 interest of his most powerful agencies during his mandate, of course they've thought about the risk that Obama pardons him. He could try to secure the pardon beforehand, by sending the pardon papers to Snowden, but in which kind of letterbox would he post it given NSA's and FBI's reach on communications? He could try to communicate with journalists, but do we still have journalists left after Hillary's body count? etc.

It would make sense, though, in a twisted way - it would send the message "Nothing you did has had any consequence whatsoever, and to show you how little we care, we are not even sending you to jail for it".

(I consider that highly unlikely, though.)

The pardon itself could undermine "business as usual" at NSA, because it would embolden others with knowledge of NSA crimes to alert the public.

Pardoning would at least validate and justify what he did.

> Pardonning Snowden while allowing the NSA to continue their business as usual would be strange.

It would certainly not be symmetrical, since Snowden committed a crime while NSA has not (despite the rather theatrical claims of some).

Whatever your opinion on the actual Snowden case - I think pardoning someone is seen to active condone whistle-blowing within the miltary / intelligence community, which I can't see the Government wanting to do.

They should be condoning it. For that, a lot of things would have to change first though, like, for example, the community has to come to the realization that the (supposed) ends do not justify the means and that it's therefore the right thing to do to whistle-blow about them. They also need to realize that the internal mechanisms to whistle-blow are "not effective", to say the least.

Technically, whistle-blowers are already supposed to be protected by the law, though in practice they are often not.

I cannot sign this. I'm happy there is a debate over our privacy, and the information has come to light, but I still believe this man to be a traitor and he should be punished. A pardon is out of the question.

When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind: Being a traitor does not mean someone is wrong or deserving of punishment. The implication is that a person's country is always right, and also that if he had been a Russian spy, he would have been a patriot. No. Right and wrong are not governed by national borders and laws.

How about this? We can try Snowden if we similarly convict all government heads guilty of perjury or damage to the United States. Bush and Obama Administrations will have a lot of people in line. So will Congress. So many people with so many trials that Snowden might get lucky and hit statute of limitations. Congress and Presidential candidates won't because they take bribes or perform fraud on a regular basis. ;)

Funnier thing about many of the Snowden opponents on TV is they can't stand that he leaked our capabilities to media for responsible disclosure but are fine with U.S. military leaking similar things to media on daily basis just to brag about what they can do. If revelation denies ability to use tool, then the U.S. military chiefs deserve longer sentences for giving enemies even more details. Especially drone feeds that send stuff unencrypted which terrorists already intercept with cheap equipment. Talk about aiding and abetting the enemy during live operations. ;)

If you believe he revealed this information for the purpose of debate, so the people can be made aware and have a choice/opinion in the matter, then you have to admit that he has acted on behalf of the country. It is unquestionable that he betrayed the government, but the distinction between government and country is an important one.

Appreciate you putting the unpopular opinion. How id he a traitor. What did he gain from this? Stop. right there what ever you think he gained is nothing compared to what he lost. I don't think he should be publicly pardoned because it would send the wrong message to copy cat idiots but I would not call him a trator

Also don't forget about Manning who actually went to prison and is not getting any publicity now.

Just last night on the radio they were talking about Manning ending a hunger strike and getting some medical attention and having the surgery suggested by her psych doctor.

I'm for a pardon for Snowden, but not Manning. Snowden released info on a deeply classified and unethical program, targeted to dismantle the programs in question. Manning carte blanche released TONS of data about TONS of things, trusting only Wikileaks to filter out sensitive data.

I have mixed feelings about Manning. What did she release that made this country "better". Snowdon's leaks were controlled, and focused. The content has had a meaningful impact.

Chelsea Manning needs it more, and in my opinion is just as much deserving of a pardon. I wish Manning was getting more attention and pressure for a pardon.

While I also agree Manning deserves a pardon, to be fair, he was significantly more careless than Snowden.

Basically all the arguments (lies) they use to damn Snowden can be fairly applied to Manning.

I'm kinda suspicious of this site -- none of the ACLU, HRW , Amnesty International links work at the bottom. And none of those organizations use whoisguard.

I'm in agreement. Despite what I might think about their cause (I support their cause), I can't get a bead on who actually is behind the site. The site is constructed in a very non-transparent way, a very scammy feel to it.

I have found that the ACLU links from their site to the Pardon Snowden site. Interestingly, Human Rights Watch does not link to the site, but seems to have their own petition (maybe connected?) and that's as far as I went.

Even with that bit of confirmation that this site is legit. I am not that promiscuous with my information.

Because they're not links, they're images.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/09/leaving-edwar...

I know that I'm putting my name on a dissenters list, but isn't that kind of the point? I hate how it's become this casual reality that the government is always working behind the scenes to further its own interests, often regardless of the actual benefit to the average citizen. Today's political climate is like the fever that our society is enduring to effect change. Honestly, I'm not sure why Obama would not do this. I mean, I know why everyone thinks he wouldn't but the sense that there is something to lose, as though the favor of all these Washington back scratchers was worth anything, seems really just like an illusion. Obama doesn't seem to me like an insider. He seems to me just like a guy I'd have a beer with who has a solid head on his shoulders. I believe there's a part of him that would just love to do this and believes it is right. I guess we'll see what happens.

Whether or not Snowden get's pardoned depends on one thing and one thing only: Whether Obama wants it as part of his legacy.

Either way it's not going to happen till after the election and most likely not till the end of his term in January. I'd expect it to be more likely for him to be pardoned if Trump is elected as otherwise Clinton, by association, would be dogged with "granting quarter to an enemy of the state".

Of the 3 possibilities for granting pardon (Obama, Clinton and Trump), the only real chance for Snowden is Obama.

After the Snowden thing blew up, Obama made an angry rant about wanting to punish whistleblowers to the utmost extent the law allows. Obama isn't a good guy, and he seems to like all the power he's got. At least, that's what I heard when he went off on Snowden. There wasn't enough nuance in Obama's speech for me to grant him any national security leeway - he was just grumpy and lashing out because he was getting challenged on his policies.

In general, Obama had a bad run because he did a pretty bad job, so his legacy is shot. Clinton is no small part of his failures with the Benghazi incident, Libya in general, Egypt, Ukraine, and the asinine "Russia reset". Clinton's campaign is disintegrating, so I think she'll fade before the election.

Trump is a complete mystery. He could be a totalitarian, using Obama's extra-constitutional maneuvers as a springboard to dominate the people. Or, he could be a populist and flop around whichever way the wind blows - he could pardon Snowden just to placate the mob and get some short-term bump in approval ratings - or just as easily put a hit on the guy to get the same.

When Trump is not adjusting his message for an audience, I get the sense he thinks he can govern like a big city boss does. In the best case scenario, I envision Trump will be unable to govern because capitol hill won't respond to his small ball policies, belligerence, and whining. Congress will just plow forward with their profligate debt spending and toss him a policy bone from time to time.

Looking forward to donating when they accept bitcoin. I have no expectation he'll be pardoned, but the other important thing here is that there's a documented movement for it. History will show that people wanted this and Obama and Hillary/Trump refused it. It will be more difficult for blind patriotic bias to weasel its way into the history books.

History is written by the victor. There was a large number of people who did not want the US to secede from Britain (including John Adams) but the history books (as given to the normal population) show us a proud group of united patriots who struck out against their oppressors...

More recently, the "greatest generation" signed up for WWII in droves, right? Actually over 50% were drafted with another estimated 100,000 Americans injuring themselves or fleeing the country to avoid the draft...

This is based on the assumption that people support Snowden.

No evidence one way or another that this is true.

These digital signatures are the equivalent of chain letters, send this to 100 people and your wish will come true.

If we as a people want to make change, we should use the net to organize people to make change in the real world not the digital world. Make time, get in the streets, protest, actually pick up the phone and call your politicians, write to them, write to the government. Overwhelm them so much that they are forced to say yes.

Presidents and politicians wish to be loved, they are like Emperors, they want to appease the people. If they people make plenty of noise, they cave.

As someone who has done strategy for NGOs for years... the petition doesn't make change, of course not. It makes a mailing list with consistency bias in the NGO's favor. Once you've signed a useless petition, you are MUCH more likely to do the next thing they ask of you. Tell a friend, donate money, call a politician, attend a rally, whatever. It is a very important tool, but it is a gateway tool.

Pardoning Snowden would still leave too many unanswered questions. If he's innocent, then a trial would clear the air.

Otherwise, future IT workers will believe mass exporting SharePoint/file servers as leverage is acceptable.

While "rule of least privilege" is a good default access control policy; Gov and corporate IT departments are now over compensating their sharing policies due to the precedence Snowden has set.

"Pardoning Snowden would still leave too many unanswered questions. If he's innocent, then a trial would clear the air."

That's not true given it's Espionage Act. The ridiculous setup of that Act essentially says he can be hit with highest charges, not provide anything classified for his defense, have released entirely legitimate stuff, and still get convicted due to technicality of the law. Plus, our legal system is an adversarial one not designed to bring out truth: prosecutors aim for convictions while attempting to dismiss anything that undermines it.

Best way to get truth, like him or not, is a pardon where he can say anything with immunity. If he's bad and ego-heavy, he'll slip up eventually. He already does on some things while enjoying the interviews too much. ;)

On a practical note, is it possible to pardon someone who hasn't yet been convicted of anything?

Presumably Obama could instruct the AG to drop the charges but that wouldn't prevent a future president from pursuing them.

Yes, it's possible to pardon someone for past unindicted crimes. Nixon was pardoned for Watergate by Gerald Ford, for example.

Its the first petition that I find worth signing. I did it through Amnesty Intl as I dont live in the US. Only with an email address I dont know how credible the petition is, I wanted to prove that I'm standing up and supporting him. We either die all together like Maya, or we win.

I didnt understand where the money from donations go, but I could donate also for the right cause.

"By taking action you agree to receive occasional email updates from the Pardon Snowden campaign."

This alone is enough to deter participation. These campaigns need to separate social action from database building.

I'd say the database building is the only important part. The single social action is very unlikely to make an impact, but if they can continue to build a contingent of very interested participants, they can continue to push for their desired outcome.

I think there also needs to be a 'Protect all whistle blowers' petition also. A petition to pardon Snowden is a noble goal (IMHO), but there are deep rooted issues which are not addressed by simply pardoning one individual. I wonder why there is no, 'Pardon Chelsea Manning' petition also? Could it be related to transgender issues?

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/save-chelsea

Why does the site need a Donate button shoved in my face. Auto opt-in to mail list is also selected. Also for a petition do they really need my home address and rest of the details? Shouldn't name and email suffice.

Happy to sign the petition but not at this site. Is there a way I can send a letter myself to the president?

I can understand why an address might be necessary to coorberate that some random signer from the internet matches to an physical US address.

But after I signed, it presented a donate page. I don't want to give them money since they have my addresses. They would have been more likely to get my money if they provided an anonymous donation portal.

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/edward_sno...

This arguments fails to see Snowden in context.

Edward Snowden went to the press with revelations because he was aware of the experience of previous whistleblowers.

Drake, Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark followed the official channels and reported their concerns within the system. There was intense retaliation against them. They were arreested, fired and charged with crimes that could put them into jail for the rest of their lives.

It did not stop there. John Crane who worked as assistant inspector general of the DoD was supervising the whistleblower unit as well as handling all whistleblower allegations. He faced retaliation after taking them seriously.

Before Snowden: The Whistleblowers Who Tried To Lift The Veil http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-w...

How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...

I don't see where Snowden said that "he specifically took the job with the intent [...] to release to journalists in those foreign countries"

He also made no effort to disclose or inform internally - it's pretty cut and dry. Even if the President personally wanted to, it's simply not a precedent any administration can afford to set.

I don't agree with Snowden's actions completely, but, on the whole, he acted in good faith.

I think the mass dump was a little ill advised, and he maybe could have thrown his lot in with slightly more responsible journalists who could have arbitrated what would be useful for the public to know a little more judiciously (I like Greenwald, but he can be unreasonable sometimes). However, on the whole I think it was for the good. I think its important to remember that he didn't have a lot of time to act once he started down this road, so I'm sure some hasty decisions were made.

He didn't mass-dump like Wikileaks does though; Greenwald has been dripping out the vetted content over time..

I think Snowden is a true patriot for revealing what our government was doing against us. That said, a full pardon isn't going to happen.

What they should be shooting for is a fair trial. One that isn't being prosecuted under the Espionage act which would allow his lawyers to use the "for the common good" defense. Under the espionage act it severely limits his affirmative defense options.

I wish we could sign as citizens of other countries.

You can:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/Edward-S...

And you think that pardonning him is suddenly make everything okay with his former bosses? I'm pretty sure there are people in high places that feel they've been made a fool of by what he did.

If he gets back on US soil, he'll suddenly disappear at a convenient time when the entire country is too busy with other stuff (eg. post-election, superbowl, christmas, some war).

John Schindler's reporting works as a kind of explainer on why Obama/Clinton/Trump are v. unlikely to pardon him: https://20committee.com/2014/05/31/the-xx-committee-snowden-...

What a nut! That's certainly a kind of explainer on why it was better when the nation was run by the people's elected representatives rather than unaccountable unhinged spooks.

That screams conspiracy!

I think maybe we should re-think the method of whistleblowing -- I think the best way in the current climate would be to leak to congress first, if nobody responds, hold a press conference (from Russia) -- and let them know the nature of evidence you have, and that you want whistleblower protection and then you'll go before congress and divulge the full nature... -- everyone in government should at least be able to see the nature, then they can leak/share whatever won't hurt national sec interests, --but it'll still get a lot of the issues out front and center... --though I still support Snowden in a big way--if it were me--something like that would be better, and provide less liability.

But they could definitely use a government whistleblower protection mechanism... But good luck with that.

Seeing mostly downvotes for those not in agreement with the herd.

I, too, do not support a pardon. He should stand trial, and if he in fact broke laws should pay the penalty. I wouldn't want to set a legal precedent that it's OK to join one of our intelligence agencies and leak information.

can he do that? pardon someone that hasn't been apprehended nor trialed yet?

In the case of Ford's pardon of Nixon, the pardon covered "any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president," as Wikipedia currently has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

As the entry goes on to state, that was controversial, but it worked. So it should be able to work in a case like this as well.

Clinton pardoned Marc Rich [0] who was, at the time of the pardon, a fugitive in Switzerland.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

Ford pardoned Nixon for whatever he had done against the country. It's possible despite unlikely.

Even if he gets pardoned, I think he will just disappear.

Maybe he would have a tragic car accident, or commit suicide.

Might be we should also campaign to give Snowden the peace nobel price.

I think there have been one such campaign at least in the past few years. But I totally agree, there should be continuous campaigns till he gets one, and by then if he is not pardoned, it will be a big embarrassment to the US government.

I always wish there were a way to vote "no" on these things.

That's a great idea. He did break the law, but he alerted this country to things that we need to be aware of. I fully support a pardon for him and will sign it.

I'd like to sign the petition. I generally try not to think too much about implications of free opinion actions, to avoid these worries stop me from voicing my opinions. In these case also I'm not an US citizen so it is somewhat easier to do. But looks like only US citizens are allowd to sign this. Do you think that the signature of a non US citizen worths something?

Pfft, the form itself has mandatory fields, but doesn't seem to check the veracity of any of them... just put your name, put random content in any of the fields you're uncomfortable giving information for, choose California and 90210 as the ZIP and it'll let you submit.

How do you know this guy (and the whole set of characters and institutions that he legitimizes -- Greenwald, Omidyar & co, Washington Post, Guardian, the Intercept, the 'blessed' crypto, etc.) -- are on the up and up?

Everything about this story, its central "hero", and the cast of characters of the show, smells imo.

What's your point? Regardless of the personalities involved, I don't think anyone has refuted the facts of the leaked documents. Yes, humans are human and nobody is a perfect angel or robot ... but what does that have to do with the facts of what was released?

The information and claims provided have been substantially and independently verified and/or attested to, including by those who are clamouring for Snowden's punishment, trial, and/or execution.

How to take action outside US ? The link to Amnesty international on the Take Action page is broken.

My opinion of what we should do with Snowden. Not quite a pardon, but almost.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/what-us-should-do-edward-sno...

Is this petition being championed by the ACLU?

Would donating to the ACLU be more effective in affecting real pressure?

Just like subscribing to Linux Journal, or running a tor node, if you sign this petition your information will end up on a list of "person to keep tabs on".

A pardon would be very unlikely. Since Snowden is being "made example of" to prevent similar whistleblowing and leaking activity.

Even if the government pardons him, the country is full of armed lunatics on meds, he wouldn't be safe.

> And technology companies around the world have been newly invigorated to protect their customers and strengthen our communications infrastructure.

Yet among the supporters, no mention of Larry Page, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, and so on.

Everyone seems to forget that Snowden didn't just leak information about domestic spying, but also about unquestionably legitimate spying on foreign countries. There's no way he gets a pardon for that.

> unquestionably legitimate

Absolutely questionable. There's a concept called "human rights" and just because the US has failed to force unaccountable government agencies into acting in a humane and moral manner doesn't mean that what they're doing is justified. Invasions of privacy on foreign people on such a granular level is abhorrent and that fact hat it's not illegal doesn't mean Snowden did anything wrong by disclosing it.

Those of us who don't live in the united states have rights too, including that of privacy.

Doesn't pardoning assume convicting him first? Or does it mean there won't be open trial? I think an open and media covered trial will be more valuable to the public. Not sure about himself.

No. Addressed multiple times in this thread. Notably: Nixon pardoned by Ford, and Vietname War draft-dodgers pardoned by Carter, without necessity of prior convictions.

The assumption is that he has been convicted by a secret court (FISA).

Even if pardoned how could he ever come back? Surely they will paint a target on his forehead and "oops" casualty of a car accident or maybe he magically gets cancer etc.

Snowden has become a pop culture icon for this generation. I don't know if it makes sense to punish him given the kind of debate he was able to create in the last few years.

Pardon my paranoia but, who's running this campaign?

I'm not sure he deserves a pardon. Yes he did some good blowing the whistle on survalence but he crossed the line releasing everything else.

They need to add a Bitcoin option for donations so we can donate without risking a lifetime of issues with the TSA and other government agencies

I signed the petition at whitehouse.gov that got about 142,000 signatures... it didn't help much but I will take action here too.

Can Obama really pardon Snowdon? If so, I'd think that he can be arrested again for something or the other by the next power.

They should add a simple 'Approve' or 'Like' button on the page.

On the website, I clicked on the 'TAKE ACTION' button and for about half a second I actually considered writing a "letter to the president"... but then I came to my senses and realized that I don't actually know ANY of these people.

I approve of the idea of Snowden and the idea of Obama pardoning him but this is all very abstract in my mind... Feels like writing a letter to Santa Claus.

People on H1B, Green-cards, who might be dealing TSA, USCICS, IRS for any reason etc. better not sign this one.

If it doesn't happen now, what 's the probability that Hilary/Donald would grant pardon?

Donald Trump wants Edward Snowden executed, extrajudicially if necessary.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130624/17270323599/donal...

I doubt Hilary would consider it seriously and I strongly doubt Donald would even give it a second thought because of his primary voter base.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/52r6im/bernie_sanders... "Bernie Sanders, Daniel Ellsberg, former members of the NSA and more weigh in: 'Edward Snowden did this country a great service. Let him come home'"

For those who have downvoted me!

I would say none.

Doesn't matter. Bernie will take care.

I will not support Snowden. He invaded the government's privacy by releasing those documents.

Why does it show four months of countdown if voting's in a bit more than two months?

Because the sitting president doesn't leave office on voting day. The actual hand-off (Inauguration Day) doesn't happen until January.

Where is the question of a pardon if one has not faced trial and been found guilty?

I think Obama should not just pardon Snowden, but nominate him to a position of NSA director.

Snowden is both a top professional and cares about our rights and freedoms. NSA is still needed (in some form) in the real world, and I would definitely feel safer if Snowden was at its controls.

I can't edit the letter before submitting it... Is it my browser?

I love the black and white nature of this.

A crime is a crime even if done for good.

But I like Snowden.

Tough call.

> A crime is a crime even if done for good.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

It is true that the law said it was illegal for Snowden to do what he did. It is also the case that the law allows for a pardon.

It'll be odd if he comes back, safer to remain in exodus.

One of the problems I see with this is that Snowden probably is an asset/agent of the Russian FSB at the moment. Quite possibly he already was one at the time of his defection.

Even with a official pardon, I highly doubt he could ever return to the US. At some point he might just disappear, or gets into a car crush or things like that. Accidents happen.

i mean we should try. but after 8 bloody years of that dick head in office, ppl really think there's any fruit to pick?

Not a fan of how much information the PardonSnowden.org form asks for.

Respect the brave!!! Admire the braver!!! LONG LIVE SNOWDEN

the donation pop-up is broken :(

Just being nosy... here's the source of the page (post render) piped through sed 's/^[ \t]?//;s/></>\n<'|egrep '(form|input)'

    <form method="post" id="takeActionForm" action="/take-action">
    <input type="hidden" id="FormId" name="FormId" value="27448">
    <input type="hidden" id="AdditionalAdvocateFormId" name="AdditionalAdvocateFormId" value="27452">
    <input type="hidden" id="EngagementId" name="EngagementId" value="236633">
    <input type="hidden" id="UserAgentHeader" name="UserAgentHeader" value="Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36">
    <input type="hidden" id="UserIpAddress" name="UserIpAddress" value="22.40.531.428"> EDIT: I shuffled my valid external IP address...
    <input type="hidden" id="RefererHeader" name="RefererHeader" value="https://www.pardonsnowden.org/">
    <input type="hidden" id="RedirectToAction" name="RedirectToAction" value="Donate2">
    <input type="hidden" data-val="true" data-val-required="The DisplayCampaignSubscribeLanguage field is required." id="DisplayCampaignSubscribeLanguage" name="DisplayCampaignSubscribeLanguage" value="True">
    <input type="hidden" data-val="true" data-val-required="The DisplayThanksForDonation field is required." id="DisplayThanksForDonation" name="DisplayThanksForDonation" value="False">
    <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * First Name must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '60'." data-val-maxlength-max="60" data-val-required="The * First Name field is required." id="FirstName" name="FirstName" value="">
    <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * Last Name must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '60'." data-val-maxlength-max="60" data-val-required="The * Last Name field is required." id="LastName" name="LastName" value="">
    <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * Address Line 1 must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '255'." data-val-maxlength-max="255" data-val-required="The * Address Line 1 field is required." id="Address1" name="Address1" value="">
    <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field Address Line 2 must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '255'." data-val-maxlength-max="255" id="Address2" name="Address2" value="">
    <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * City must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '250'." data-val-maxlength-max="250" data-val-required="The * City field is required." id="City" name="City" value="">
    <input type="text" class="select-dropdown" readonly="true" data-activates="select-options-9f05dea8-21fe-9153-1eed-9b52a0b1255f" value="Alabama">
    <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * ZIP Code must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '30'." data-val-maxlength-max="30" data-val-required="The * ZIP Code field is required." id="Zip" name="Zip" value="">
    <input type="email" data-val="true" data-val-email="The * Email Address field is not a valid e-mail address." data-val-maxlength="The field * Email Address must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '250'." data-val-maxlength-max="250" data-val-required="The * Email Address field is required." id="EmailAddress" name="EmailAddress" value="">
    <input checked="checked" data-val="true" data-val-required="The I agree to receive occasional emails from the ACLU, our campaign partner. field is required." id="aclu" name="AcluOptIn" type="checkbox" value="true">
    <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="CfDJ8NLtLyWwUzRIooGDwJFKIrt9vYAjiCpeZejgvGQHEf2k-wesrFUsmYg4qRtQqkfPwiEKAwh2k4kcf6IWPVfAsnHRaU_XfsRXCICY7oFAfiNFWVkaIi2Z5kJi6gdHw44Ht2y2Gigzh3UmtkUigpw62uU">
    <input name="AcluOptIn" type="hidden" value="false">
    </form>

...So, AcluOptIn is being forced to false?

I guess we can give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that my http client information is being saved to prevent automated form submissions?

whistleblower protection?

I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12495376 and marked it off-topic.

It's amusing or distressing to see that "socialist" has became such a bad word in the US. Basically, if you're for things such as public education or healthcare, you're also suspected of being some kind of Stalin supporter. Successful propaganda.

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-wing) social democrat, but not a socialist.

I know for example in France, the middle-left-wing party calls themselves socialist... I believe they are slightly left of what you'd call "liberal" in the US.

They meant "communist", I assume, and communist countries are always totalitarian, I can't think of an exception.

If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits, own their own property and things, and not have to pay taxes to cover others' social benefits, right? Without going to jail, right?

If not, then I guess we're talking about some form of authoritarianism.

To talk about "socialism" in a sense that doesn't break the non-aggression principle (necessary for non-authoritarianism), you need to think of volunteer communes. IOW, use pooled money (just think of it as a necessary evil) to buy 1,000 acres, build a master-planned community, and offer residency to people who pitched in to buy it, and then use socialism as the guiding ideology within that commune. If it doesn't work and people want to leave, they can leave.

That's a non-authoritarianism version of socialism. If you think there are others that exist in practice, I implore you to look into every true socialist country in history, including the currently failing state of Venezuela, wherefrom there is a mass exodus underway.

Same.

In theory those are different. In practice though there hasn't been a single socialist country that hasn't at least devolved into authoritarianism or even has been so right from the start (Scandinavian Socialism and modern day German Social Market Economy could be considered exceptions but I doubt these can really be considered socialist.).

People keep saying: "This isn't true socialism." Well, then true socialism seems to be nothing but a pipe dream that in reality can't be implemented and hence should either be revised or replaced by a better concept.

Email Opt-in

This label isn't strictly accurate, since the checkbox is checked by default.

I am Canadian and I cannot sign this due to the address form being confined to US addresses.

Just putting this out there for any future endeavors of this kind.

Thread now in position 11 by upvote count

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page...

I've just signed the petition;

I say pardon him at this point, you'd be better off having him in America than somewhere in Russia being forced to leak further info for continued asylum

Snowden hasn't leaked anything since 2013. This is kind of a trifling point but it's one that the US government has intentionally misconstrued in the past. Snowden handed off his documents to journalists in HK and hasn't released anything personally. He doesn't have the capacity to release new material because he doesn't possess any of it anymore.

Well he was a patsy so pardoning him reduces the risk he will blow true story of the most successful increase in intelligence gathering capacity since WWII... So there's that. Pardon him for sure. And never doubt he's a patriot. But he doesn't believe in openness. He helped usher in a new age of secrecy. I think that's a good thing. I also think people should actually know the real.

The story of Snowden being a patsy is going to come out. It will be even more entertaining than the snowdengate tale act 1. But it will probably come out in 20 years.

Fat chance ;)

Admired The brave!!! Respect the braver!!! Snowden. Long live Snowden.

Pardoning Snowden implies he did something wrong. apologizetosnowden.org

Pardoning Snowden implies he did something in violation of US law. If a pardon is a moral judgement at all, it is a judgement that what was done was not wrong.

Please read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

Care to make a point?

But he didn't just leak information concerning his homeland. He actually leaked information about allies of his homeland e.g. the UK.

I'm pretty sure that alone will ensure he won't get pardoned. It could cause one of the biggest diplomatic incidents in history between the US and UK. Particularly with Theresa May as PM - who has been instrumental for years in building up the security services powers.

The UK is even more one-sided totalitarian in their views on state surveillance, so you got a point there.

Snowden should be put on trial for committing treason. No matter how bad it is what he exposed. He broke the law[0]. What he exposed are policies of the United States by people put in power in a democracy and free country.

If you don't want that shit happening in your country, let the people in power know. Go on the streets. Millions of poeple are not happy with what is going on, but literally nothing changed. Sadly, American citizens and the West in general have been trained from a young age to be apathetic and those that have the audacity to fight back have been systematically beaten down. They rather create parallax websites with fancy countdowns than actually trying to change something.

When's the last time they've had to mobilize the National Guard because there was a protest? The entire American economy could collapse because of a giant banking scandal and people wouldn't even raise a fist in anger.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Criminal_charge...

> Snowden committed treason

The only people that behaved in a treacherous fashion are the one that are spying on you because for them you're just a criminal by default.

Furthermore he didn't commit treason, he didn't spy for a 3rd party country. He revealed to the world the scope of NSA spying and did everybody a big favor. There is nothing democratic with secret laws and spying. Today you cannot say you don't know and deny reality. But you can choose to ignore it... until the system turns against you. Today if you accept PRISM you become a willing participent and a slave to that system.

What you don't understand is one day, an irresponsible administration will come to power and use all this system for its own personal gain. There is nothing stopping that right now. It's funny how people get all worked up by Facebook censoring some insignificant content when they directly collude with the government to hand over data. So does Google, Yahoo and all big tech companies in US.

>What he exposed are policies of the United States by people put in power in a democracy and free country.

Voting politicians into office does not legitimize any and all potentially illegal and/or un-Constitutional activities they or Government agencies carry out.

> If you don't want that shit happening in your country, let the people in power know.

Isn't that the point of this petition?

> Sadly, American citizens and the West in general have been trained from a young age to be apathetic and those that have the audacity to fight back have been systematically beaten down. They rather create parallax websites with fancy countdowns than actually trying to change something.

Whereas you find it more productive to post brave internet messages about how other people should face off with the National Guard, while simultaneously arguing that "no matter how bad" a state behaves, someone who exposes that badness/illegality should be tried for treason.

I agree with you that he should stand trial. That's what we do in law-based democracies, however justified we consider the individual's actions. The best, but unlikely, outcome is that he is given a fair trial, and a fair sentence if he's found guilty. But there's the rub - there's no way he'll get either a fair trial or sentence (or indeed a pardon). Whistleblowers everywhere would be encouraged if they believed they'd get fair treatment after leaking state secrets.

So we'll continue with what we have. Some people saying he's completely innocent, others saying he's completely guilty, and he himself will probably spend the foreseeable future right where he is.

Kind of difficult to let your elected sycophants know you don't want it happening when nobody knows it's happening.

Treason has a specific two point definition in the US Constitution and it is hard to see how his actions rise to the criteria enumerated therein.

Personally, I think he should be criminally pardoned but left open to civil proceedings for breach of contract should his former employer seek to bring forward a suit.

I don't think he should be pardoned. He claims that it's because he helped the public see the sinister plot of our government and their internal spying. Ok, fine.

So, should we have pardoned Jack Ruby (if he were alive) for killing the guy that killed JFK? No.

Why does Snowden deserve any different treatment. He still release confidential information. It's not like what he did can just excuse that fact. He exposed US spying, internally, externally, around the globe. He didn't just focus on the US... No pardon. Doesn't deserve it.

Just my opinion.

Ruby protected nobody, and thwarted a possibly avenue of information on the Kennedy assassination.

Snowden has done a service to the world, revealing the threats they're under (through both the NSA and any other entity which could exploit the weaknesses they use), and promoted a great deal of relevant and useful information into the public discussion. As you've just conceded.

Snowden may have broken regulations, and may have broken laws. But he served both the US Constitution, and the cause of Justice. Regulations, laws, and the NSA, serve the Constitution and justice. A pardon is a means for correcting instances where laws fail to serve justice.

Your comparison makes less than zero sense.

In this case, people were knowingly breaking the law and stamping "confidential" on the evidence.

You can't just go about breaking any law and cover your tracks by labeling it with something you paid $4.99 for on vistaprint ... what an absurd position to defend.

Because making public the knowledge that our government is illegally surveilling the entire population is in the public interest. He tried to stop violations from within, and when that was ineffective he used the only other recourse he had.

Did you just compare murder to whistleblowing?

I don't think the comparison with murder is justified at all.

You can't pardon someone until they've been convicted. Snowden hasn't been tried and convicted and so can't be pardoned.

Not true. See Ford's pardon of Nixon.

completely incorrect in regards to a presidential pardon in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com