Pardon Edward Snowden

More than anything, the movie drove home how much he is "one of us". Everything down to the dorky jokes (his "mantle of power") reinforces that he comes from the same subculture, and he's just another hacker. In a lot of ways he could have been someone you or I know.

I don't either. I think it's about obnoxious intellectuals but that might just be me projecting my own opinion of the characters.

This was an impressive HN experiment, at the very least. 14 comments now and only one person even glanced at the article.

It's a piece of fiction. Writers writing what they know, which means writing about writers thinking about writing.

The content of the petition is irrelevant to the story; the actual content is all about a) the feelings the author has about Liz and her relationship with the petition-writers, and b) the credibility of artists trying to make their political action "artistic".

I loved it. Not just the story, but it being here, with this title, and the ensuing confusion.

I'm no expert, and trying to explain short fiction and poetry is probably a mug's game (one of the themes of this piece!) but here's my two cents worth: this story isn't about Snowden, the man; it's about Snowden, the cause, and the idea that causes can be political and wrenching and divisive in a way that is divorced from what they're ostensibly about. The protagonist spends the entire story wrestling with whether or not to sign the petition (how would it affect him professionally? what would his friends think of him signing it? is it okay to be associated with a popular cause if it means supporting someone he doesn't like?) without even a cursory thought about whether Snowden ought to be pardoned or not.

That theme - people being more concerned with how their stance on a political issue reflects on them and how it makes them feel than with the content of the issue - seems very relevant right now, and as relevant here at HN as anywhere else. This thought gnaws at me every time there's a political controversy being discussed: that so many of the comments seem so obviously to be about the writer and how they see imagine themselves and how they want to be seen. Virtually every accusation (that someone or something is racist, or sexist, or blinded by political correctness, or what have you) comes with the unspoken, "...unlike me."

A good example of this was the brouhaha over Curtis Yarvin being disinvited from Strange Loop a few years ago. If you missed that one, an obscure developer of an obscure open source project got blackballed from an obscure conference over his incredibly obscure political writings because someone you've never heard of said they were racist on twitter. And for a day or two, a lot of HN had an opinion on it! Not on what he wrote, mind you, which is dense and contradictory and not very interesting. Just the fact that it happened was, to many people, yet another piece of irrefutable proof that Silicon Valley is being ruined by either the right-wingers or the left-wingers.

So, that's what I got out of this. The protagonist is faced with a very simple decision (sign a petition or don't), but he is so wrapped up in his own insecurities that, by a weird sort of alchemy, that boolean choice becomes a referendum on how he feels about aging and poetry and Bob Dylan and so forth. The story ends with his decision, but you can easily imagine him justifying that decision in an email or a forum with some made-up guff about Snowden and privacy that has nothing to do with his real reason for not signing. And in this light, how amusing that it should cause a few HN commenters to launch back in to the "Edward Snowden is a hero / Edward Snowden is a traitor" wars without actually clicking the link! It's a cliche that life imitates art, but that doesn't just happen by accident - life imitates art IFF the art has successfully managed to capture a real and relevant piece of life. I think this story did that, which is why I liked it.

True, but mods lean heavily towards original titles vs editorializing.

Really? I thought they were asking for Snowden to be forgiven, usually phrased in the language of him doing a public service by leaking. sure, they're not simultaneously, asking for the people who made this surveillance happen to be punished, but that's like asking for $10, getting turned down, and then someone telling you that you should have asked for $100. One thing at a time, especially since a pardon can help shape public perceptions of NSA surveillance and its legality.

Two reasons: 1. The practice of intelligence sharing makes the distinction between spying on one's own citizens and foreign nationals less meaningful. Collaborating with foreign intelligence agencies like five eyes is a convenient way to bypass the outdated legal framework around domestic intelligence gathering.

2. While spying on foreign nationals may be, within a limited perspective legal; performing dragnet collection on the private communications of millions of people may still be unethical and disproportionate to the U.S.'s interest. Not to mention a violation of the human right to privacy of these people.

We are all foreigners - it's a term that only has meaning within the context of a given country. In case you hadn't noticed, those of us who do not not hold US citizenship and do not live in the US have the same inherent rights, and deserve the same protections, as those who do. We are not lesser people than you, and to suggest that it's perfectly ok to treat our privacy as less important than your own is simply arrogant.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the disclosures to the US itself, his actions benefited humanity globally by exposing the evil and corrupt nature of the US intelligence agencies, along with those of the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and my own country, Australia.