Edward Snowden: The World Says No to Surveillance
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Sadly, I don't have a source, but I remember him saying in an interview that when he handed over the documents to Greenwald and Poitras, he thought nothing would come of it. That it would be forgotten and never get on the radar.
That isn't the case.
Sure, we have a long way to go, and the situation is much more nuanced than he makes it to be, but from his view, this is progress.
The obvious rebuttal is "But China"...but beyond that, among the Western powers: France and Britain, among others. And Snowden acknowledges this (which is why I don't assume he wrote the headline, necessarily):
> Spymasters in Australia, Canada and France have exploited recent tragedies to seek intrusive new powers despite evidence such programs would not have prevented attacks. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain recently mused, “Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?” He soon found his answer, proclaiming that “for too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.”
Again, it's not that Snowden is wrong in his opinion about surveillance. But it's wrong to think that the world, or any kind of non-U.S.-status quo, is anti-surveillance. The battle is much more uphill than that and those who want to fight it have to keep that in mind.
Ed Snowden's larger point was about the public reaction to learning they were being surveilled; obviously, governments already knew whether they themselves were spying. In this sense I think the world has indeed said no to surveillance, it's just that in some cases the government doesn't wish to listen (well, not to that, just everything else!).
A lot of people hate the government, but only in the same way many Americans hate the government. And you're right that they see the CCP as being reasonably good, compared to the alternatives they've had.
In many ways, the central government is much better liked than the local / provincial governments, as they are the ones who clean up corruption when people complain.
No-one likes internet filters (except for the "think of the children" crowd - the filters also block porn). But anyone who really cares can get a VPN, and most people just use puns or images to say things that would normally be filtered.
Yes, you can be hauled to the police for a "tea chat" (literally a cup of tea, and a chat) if you're a popular blogger who is stepping on the wrong toes. But it's not like they're shooting people for dissent - the process is roughly: deleting posts, threats, contacting family / employers, eventually maybe house arrest, fines, prison, etc.
Black arrests are typically internal party matters (e.g. corrupt officials), people protesting in person, organisers, and people going to a capital to petition a higher level of government (some local leader with gang-connections might try to keep people from petitioning his boss).
What annoys the Chinese isn't free speech, per say. It's corruption, pollution, unsafe products, abuse of eminent domain, etc. And things like jobs, education, healthcare, and house prices - they've got a lot of problems, and free speech isn't the biggest one.
Revolutions are expensive. It's a crap-shot whether you get real reforms, or a new strong-man (think Putin). Mostly, they want gradual reform, and that's what they tend to get.
Wow. Also, they do shoot people for dissent. Those who aren't cowed or jailed.
> they've got a lot of problems, and free speech isn't the biggest one.
Not the biggest, but one of the most central. You can't agitate for anything you need if speaking out is forbidden, and you can't organize if you're being monitored.
> Revolutions are expensive. It's a crap-shot whether you get real reforms, or a new strong-man (think Putin).
Very true.
You actually can complain about anything as long as it doesn't challenge the position of the CCP as the only government possible.
Also, agitation is what we call speech we don't like. If we do, it's lobbying, or raising awareness, etc.
The test of a society is if speech is allowed (not forbidden) even if the powers-that-be consider it agitation.
Sure, China isn't perfect, but it's getting better, and for a significant fraction of a billion people, good enough.
Certainly, but in France people are known to demonstrate and block the country when they are not happy with a particular Law or government plan. For surveillance, I am still waiting to see anyone protesting in the streets in any meaningful measure. That says a lot on how much actual people care.
On the other hand, since the vote, it seems that the surveillance law became the top 1 example of how our politics betray us, where we used to quote corruption and lust, so people are well aware of a problem, in many different social classes.
Hacker news is full of engineers so they'll take issue, which is fine, they are also right.
My feeling is Snowden++, he's doing a great job. It's going to be a long battle and he is helping a lot.
The knife cuts both ways. If we say that things which aren't acknowledged by the majority don't count then pretty much every government is out.
"Do you want everything you do and say to be kept in a permanent record to be used by the current and any future government against you at their discretion."
See if you can get even 1 who says yes, or "that's ok with me"
May not say "no" loudly enough to be working yet. Don't mistake that for yes.
And nobody I know does have that level of trust and I'll lay dollars to donuts you don't either.
- "Do you support local police?"
Yeah it's about that simple. Maybe you need to explain what a nuclear weapon is to someone who hasn't heard of them - and that's about where we're at.
You can support the local police all you like and most people do and they still don't want total surveillance.
This is not a how to massage "opinion polls" discussion like it's news to everyone as it was when we were second year of highschool or whenever that was.
Lay out the pros of total surveillance, lay out the consequences. Do it as impartially and arbitrarily as you like and you'll get a wonderful unity of opinion about it.
You're not just trusting this generation of police and this government public servants and elected but you are trusting all possible future governments, all possible future police, all possible future public servants who get the keys to it. And not just trusting them to be good people but trusting them in that they are awesomely competent and that they keep all that information completely secure.
The opinion is whether you have that level of trust or not. I don't know anyone who does. Not one. But i respect that someone may well hold that opinion and that's where opinion ENTERS this. Prime them with all the "Think of the childeren war on terror" you like just as long as you make that FACT clear that this is the trust they have to have.
And here's the thing, you can Still support the authorities without supporting such things which most people actually do when they understand and work out those consequences. It's the same as:
"I support the FBI catching criminals but they probably shouldn't have a medieval torture dungeon and their own meth labs and distribution network."
You'd be hard pressed to find 1 person in 10 who thinks they should have a medieval torture dungeon and that be a legal thing. You'd be hard pressed to find 1 in 10 in the FBI who thought so or at least you'd fucking hope that's the case otherwise they need to start the firing and replacing them with humans beings.
But tech savvy you can explain further to any random people that when everything is recorded it becomes the motherlode for anyone who is going to gain by blackmailing. That data is now a target for organised crime, hostile foreign powers, and everyone you hate and wishes you harm. If they get it, eg because someone who has access to that info but also has a gambling problem, or their big brother likes little boys or whatever is their weakness given they're all obviously good, proper and righteous americans, those enemies of america will use the information and that probably won't be a positive thing for freedom, democracy, america or even for any random three letter agency.
It's not a fucking popularity poll commissioned by a news service pushing an agenda.
You ask 10 people if they want everything they say and do on a permanent record to be accessed by all current and all future possible governments forever or whether that is a step too far and watch the unity across the political and socio-economic spectrum.
Phrase it like that because it's ACCURATE. If you think it's inaccurate - make that case.
And fuck anyone who doesn't want me to mention the downvotes too. No really, fuck them. Downvotes are for opinions you want hidden because they are off-colour and lack legitimacy in a civilized discussion.
This is just plain wrong, it's far from obvious. "But the tiny number of Chinese presently in power." That may be fair but you have zero idea or appreciation of the breadth of opinions or lack thereof of the population of China.
Differential empathy.
When he says "The world says no" I think he's right. I'm yet to meet someone who is in favour of everything they say to their friends, foes or just out loud taken down and kept in a database forever where it could be used against them at any point in their future or their children after they are gone by not just current, but all possible future powerful entities. After the revolution that your political enemies succeed at by force, they can use it against you.
Really, absolutely nobody I have ever met wants that. Not one person. It's a sentiment that crosses politics, cultures, ethnicities, wealth you name it.
The world says no.
Therefore they would like the police to have more latitude to investigate. They think we should be lenient when police bashes someone, because they think too often people don't comply to police instructions and get away thanks to the law. They're ok with shutting down 3G metworks punctually "to avoid a mob" and prevent pictures from being uploaded in live. And they enjoy that the government can spy on citizen, so we can investigate on illegal networks.
Of course they're wrong. But they exist.
Don't worry, I'm working on them. One argument is usually quite popular: Stories where policemen are caught using such tools to track their ex. Funny enough they're not generally afraid that police might be corrupted.
They've got a long way back before they have my trust, let alone my love.
He would and will have to very sharp (and lucky) to stand any chance against the forces aligned against him. I think a United States congressman publicly called for his murder at one point. I can't imagine. I think, if he does truly care as much as he claims, he will inevitably have come back to the US to face trial. The time is coming when that will be the most important thing he can do to advance his cause.
Cite needed. From a non-lunatic source, and of course outside the NSA.
> He would and will have to very sharp (and lucky) to stand any chance against the forces aligned against him.
Very true.
> if he does truly care as much as he claims, he will inevitably have come back to the US to face trial. The time is coming when that will be the most important thing he can do
If his wants to join the gulag, next to Chelsea Manning, yeah. Otherwise, no.
> his cause
Oh, what is his cause? You mean legal government? Is that a cause these days?
What do you think he needs to prove? Will you only acknowledge the leaks when he jumps through some hoops?
Pardon and release Chelsea and let her leave the USA, then entice her back with a hero's welcome and an apology, and still let her leave when she wants, and then in a few years Ed may decide it's worth coming home, let alone safe enough to try.
Instead of waving the traitor flag you might look at what he exposed and get pissed about that. That's the real problem.
One could make the argument that he is a patriot and a hero. He's trying to get our country to actually uphold our constitution. Seems like he made the right choice at a huge personal cost.
If there's a traitor, it certainly isn't the whistleblower.
If only there were some agency in charge of national security so that we could prevent these things from happening.
If we presume his call against the current mass surveilance programs equates with the destruction of the NSA(which I can't really agree with), then ypu would also conclude he dislikes the burgeoning mass surveilance from other countties, e.g. France, the UK and others listed in the article.
He didn't mention Russia explicitly, but I cannot fault his political tact considering his situation.
I don't think your interpretation of his words is very charitable. Their underlyimng message is a poaitive one - people reject something they aren't comfortable with and using many avenues(political, technological, social) they enact change to combat it. In our age where voters are largely disenfranchised, this is a positive demonatration of the power we hold as a society.
There is a discussion to be had about the authority spy agencies should have. Perhaps eventually a reasonable surveillance program with checks and balances may be enacted, which people are content with. We wouldn't even have this conversation, however, if not for people like Snowden. The US government preached total secrecy in the name of "national security", and basically said "trust us, you don't need to know".
Thanks to Snowden, we are, with some hope, on yhe road to such a conversation. That's what I "get" from him.
He's explicitly said he thinks the NSA is a good thing. He did voluntarily work for them for years after all.
He just believes the NSA should operate legally