Was Snowden a Russian Agent? | Hacker News Reader

Was Snowden a Russian Agent?

nybooks.com

23 pointsartsandsci27 comments

> "By pulling back at the end of his book, Epstein tries to have it both ways: weaving conspiracy theories while maintaining plausible deniability and some veneer of evidence-based journalism. But his indulgence in speculation, his treatment of questionable claims as established facts, and his misunderstanding of surveillance combine to undermine his book’s credibility."

TLDR - Epstein's book is horse shit and the accusation of Snowden being a Rus. agent is horse shit.

"Was Snowden a Russian Agent?" .. no, he was an outside contractor with a conscience, illustrating the perils of outsourcing your spying. Why an IT functionary would need access to the raw files to do his job just beggers disbelief. After all if you wanted to compromise a security service, what better way than infiltrating some IT services company or even simpler, start one yourself.

>I think there's a difference between what really motivated him to leak & what he's leaked out of self-preservation

Glenn Greenwald - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688

I always come back to this Tweet when this subject comes up. Like the article suggests, it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when. I would like to think it was after he was stranded in Russia with no hope. That might explain his later actions but I don't think it can ever justify them. If even Greenwald thinks Snowden has "leaked out of self-preservation", I find it hard to support the narrative of a whistleblowing American hero who deserves a pardon.

If Snowden basically handed it all over to Russia because the US revoked his passport while he was in a Russian airport, the US is the ultimate cause of the event by their choice of timing.

"it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when"

Strong accusation. I suppose you have solid facts behind your claim? Or do you count the tweet as a fact for anything?? Because it is kind of vague ...

Greenwald knows more about it than either you or I do and I don't see much vagueness in the quote. Who does Snowden need preservation from? The two current options are the US and Russia with the Chinese having temporary influence over him immediately after the leak. The logical conclusion is that some of the information Snowden leaked was done to placate the US, Russia, or China. I think we can rule out the US considering Snowden is still living in exile and there seems to be little to no contact between him and the US government. That leaves China and Russia. Considering the time spent in both those countries, I think Russia is the more likely of the two. Greenwald seems to be implying that Snowden has leaked information in order to gain favor with Russia. Where is the flaw in this conclusion? What else could "leaked out of self-preservation" mean? Who else could he need self-preservation from?

" I think there's a difference between what really motivated him to leak & what he's leaked out of self-preservation"

It could also refer to, what he did NOT leaked.

" Who else could he need self-preservation from?"

To not land on a certain list, some people openly joked about wanting to put him on? I also do remember some remarks, how he did not leaked everything he had, so he had some backup(at his lawers/friends) to be leaked, in case he suddendly had a heart attack, car accident or simple explosion.

And in case he actually did give some information to russia out of desparation, why the harsh judgment

"but I don't think it can ever justify them"

without actually knowing what kind of information? Especially considering the good things he did revealing the treachery of the secret services?

>It could also refer to, what he did NOT leaked.

I can see how you would get that impression if you only read the Tweet I highlighted, but Greenwald was responding to a conversation questioning if Snowden's disclosures were in fact whistleblowing. In context Greenwald is clearly referring to what was leaked and not what wasn't leaked.

>To not land on a certain list, some people openly joked about wanting to put him on? I also do remember some remarks, how he did not leaked everything he had, so he had some backup(at his lawers/friends) to be leaked, in case he suddendly had a heart attack, car accident or simple explosion.

This is intertwined with my previous comment. Beyond that, if Snowden was leaking things to gain favor with the US government or intelligence communities he would have to be leaking something that puts them in a positive light. I haven't seen really anything Snowden leaked that would counteract the negatives he leaked about the US intelligence community.

>And in case he actually did give some information to russia out of desparation, why the harsh judgment "but I don't think it can ever justify them" without actually knowing what kind of information? Especially considering the good things he did revealing the treachery of the secret services?

That isn't the way the law works. You can't do "good things" and use that as currency to payoff your crimes, especially if those "good things" appeared to have occurred before the most serious and potentially treasonous crimes even occurred (EDIT: I'm talking about cooperating with the Russians and not stealing the data in the first place which is a much lesser and pardonable crime in my opinion).

"I can see how you would get that impression if you only read the Tweet I highlighted, but Greenwald was responding to a conversation questioning if Snowden's disclosures were in fact whistleblowin"

Hm, I read a bit of that conversation before, but didn't got that impression. I will read deeper into.

" to gain favor with the US government or intelligence communities he would have to be leaking something that puts them in a positive light."

Or ... he choosed not to leak some other dark secrets, he learned about. But still has them as a life insurance ...

"That isn't the way the law works."

Erm, first of all, I thought we were talking about your opinion on the matter and afaik, you are not the law. And secondly, yes you can indeed negate crimes, if you did something good ... if the "crimes" were the only way to do the good. That's the whole concept of whistleblowing - it is a crime to reveal secrets, if you agreed not to. But you are allowed if you show, that the persons you work for, were (at least partial) criminal in the first place. And this is what Snowden did.

And if he later after revealing, was left of no choice, than to go to the russians - because nobody in the US-Government said, "ah good, you showed the people the truth, now come home, we work things out for the better" - I could understand that, to give then the russians minor secrets, if forced to. What else could he have done? But this is only speculation and far from being a fact. And I don't think, the russians did pushed him in such a way, because of public opinion ...

There will never be any sure facts about any spy stuff. But his role as a figurehead of "look what happens in us, democracy is broken, don't blame us" message from Russia is just too golden. Stuff like that simply does not happen by accident in Russia and without fsb being involved.

Well ... it didn't happened in russia, but in Hong Kong.

I'm not sure what is being referenced either but perhaps it's not self-preservation from Russia but from China, e.g. the fact that Snowden leaked to the South China Morning Post (while in Hong Kong?) the documentary evidence that the US was spying on them (http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusive...) ?

Has the account of artsandsci changed owners?

I see he/she's been a member for 900+ days, submitting a story every once in a while. Then starting 27 days ago he/she began submitting over 12 stories a day on average.

Nope, same old me, just got into the habit of submitting stories. I did see this for the first time a couple days ago: "Please don't submit so many links at once that the new page is dominated by your submissions." so I've been submitting less often.

157 submissions in the last 7 days (22 per day).

The piece in WSJ from 2014 titled "Was Snowden's Heist a Foreign Espionage Operation?" is worth reading (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542...).

Even though I am sympathetic to Showden for his disclosures of gov't surveillance of American citizens and others, the scope, complexity, and execution of operation leaves many questions unanswered.

National security officials (both Republicans and Dems) are quoted in the piece that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist.

From the article:

"On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden’s theft of documents as “an act of treason.” A former member of President Obama’s cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-Russian operation."

So on one hand we have people like the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Obama officials who were neck deep in intelligence work, and on the other we have feel-gooders like Oliver Stone, who really don't know what's going on, and who might never ever find out what really happened, because it could be classified for ages...

Because you should take everything everyone says at face value. Always.

The author of that WSJ piece is Epstein himself, who also authored the book under review.

Your statement at the end basically says, we have classified sources saying Snowden was a Russian/Chinese spy, and we have "feel-gooders" like Oliver Stone saying otherwise, so who do we trust?

The submitted article is by a reporter more neutral and level-headed than either Epstein or Stone, and he basically concludes: there is nothing at present but wild conjecture supporting the "Snowden was a spy" theory. So I think that may be the answer to your implicit question.

>that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist

Of course they say that. They have to. They're the ones that authorized (if not authorized, they very well knew about it) all the shit the NSA does. Yet to my knowledge there's no evidence for it. One cannot consciously call themselves American while also calling Snowden a traitor (Scotsman fallacy be damned). The egregious misdeeds he revealed far outweigh any laws he himself broke.

> "On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden’s theft of documents as “an act of treason.” A former member of President Obama’s cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-Russian operation."

The problem with this is you are taking the word of people who:

A) Genuinely and honestly believe that their domestic surveillance apparatus is legitimate.

B) The bias from A has resulted in a true lack of introspection on any real level that what they are doing with A might be viewed as "wrong" by an American citizen.

Once you realize that and realize almost everyone who is used to support that narrative is from the same pool of pro-Domestic-Surveillance folks, it isn't hard to realize their beliefs are likely an outcome of their biases rather than an observation of objective fact.

The truth is we are not going to know until/unless the FSB ever declassifies their debriefing attempt(s) in regards to Edward Snowden. If the intelligence community truly possessed a smoking gun in regards to Edward Snowden, even if it compromised a valuable source or sources, it would be worth using it to terminate the political threat and scrutiny of their operations. The fact they have not means nothing they have on Snowden is conclusive. In other words, no one in the US (or its allies) really knows if Snowden is a foreign agent (or not).

Ultimately, at this point, the fallout appears to be effectively 0 and there will be an expansion of domestic surveillance powers whenever something 'bad' happens. Regardless of the legitimacy of the tool, the fact they are unable to protect it appropriately means its as dangerous to them as it is to us and they are simply too naive to realize it.

No, a Russian agent wouldn't have leaked anything to the western press. A Russian agent would have only disclosed what he knows to his superiors. Russian agents that leak anything to the public usually end up dead pretty quickly.

The reason why he ended up in Russia from Hong Kong is that his passport was voided by US authorities and Russia ended being the only country willing to take him without sending him back to US.

"those who hold darker views about Snowden include lawmakers and officials who “base it on classified reports” and “have been at least partially briefed” about the NSA’s investigation. "

I only skipped the article, but this seems to be the main content and vague rumors around. People who have been caught lying over and over again, are now a trustworthy source for anything?

Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

No.

Next (ridiculous) question please?

It's not really a ridiculous question.

The popular narrative of Snowden's actions and motivations doesn't add up when you look at all the available evidence.

It's quite reasonable for people to suspiciously probe the mythos built up around him.

Sure it does. His statements about his motivations are consistent with his actions. It's remarkable, actually, just how consistent it all is, and that's part of the reason people admire him.

I think you misspelled Assange.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com