Edward Snowden in Hindsight | Hacker News Reader

Edward Snowden in Hindsight

zdziarski.com

25 pointsjzdziarski49 comments

Edward Snowden is the last person we should ask to speak out against Russia. Almost every other Russia-resident who might speak out against the invasion could, the next day, show up in Madrid, Berlin, Mexico City—wherever in The West—and expect to receive political asylum.

But if Snowden steps foot into Western-aligned soil then he’s just kicked off a slow, inexorable ride via extradition to American prison. As such, Snowden is more incentivized to stay silent than anyone else I can think of.

An unfortunate and extremely ironic side effect of standing up for freedom against a mostly-free state is that he is forever trapped in a very-not-free despotic state. This is his punishment. Why this blogger feels he has the right to demand Snowden sacrifice himself again with likely worse consequences is inexplicable to me.

> An unfortunate and extremely ironic side effect of standing up for freedom against a mostly-free state

From his situation, USA is the most authoritarian regime in the world, and its clutches reach very far. The state crimes he exposed are still unresolved, and his prize at home for denouncing them would be solitary confinement.

Definitely the most unlikely person to endanger his precarious situation by criticizing his own protection, though.

It's easy to ask for Snowden to be more vocal against the Russian government when you are not a) in Russia, b) treated as a terrorist by your country and c) in the constant fear of Russia dropping their support for you. The man just became a father, cut him some slack, he lost everything once.

For us this means taking what Snowden has to say about the Russian government with a bucket of salt.

> The man just became a father, cut him some slack, he lost everything once.

Why cutting some slack for somebody who knew what he was getting into, all while using his family circumstances as a vehicle for appealing for compassion in the matter unrelated to his family status at all?

>> Snowden has chosen the path of silent compliance with Russian law, and in doing so traded in the same free speech he has so hypocritically called America to task for over the years. One cannot act the part of hero and claim to have convictions, only to then run away from every form of accountability.

A big part of freedom of speech is the freedom no to do so. I'm not going to fault someone for going silent. I will fault them for being publicly active and not speaking out but I would never criticize someone for withdrawing from public life, nor would I read anything into that withdrawal. Sometimes people just want to move on. There is no obligation to explain such actions... at least not until you come back.

This is like saying that somebody who devoted half their life doing charity work should be shamed for not doing the same with the other half. Not even taking into account what we know about the situation he has put himself in by becoming an exile, and much more importantly, what we don't know.

I am appalled and disgusted by this thoughtless post.

Why does he have to have a public position on Russia/Ukraine? We defer to him for his expertise on and experience in surveillance technology, not international politics.

What he did years ago was brave. It's not hard to understand why he just wants to live as normally as possible now.

Zdziarski does great work, but his conservatism sometimes seems to get the better of him.

Snowden is likely facing much more scrutiny in Russia, a totalitarian regime he became stranded in.

He gave up a very comfortable life once and landed in a far much less comfortable one. Blaming him for not risking his life again, and now likely also his SO and child(ren), comes across as naive or at least reductive.

> Blaming him [..] comes across as naive

Calling this naive is itself naive. It's not naive - it's malicious. The author dislikes what Snowden has done in the US, so he is trying to demonize him by holding him to some saintly standard of self-sacrifice that almost no-one could live up to.

I was trying to assume the most generous interpretation. A cynical take is that this person is a paid government shill.

> self-sacrifice that almost no-one could live up to

Like Navalny?

"almost"

If the gist of the article was "Snowden is pretty brave, but there exist people even more courageous and self-sacrificing", I wouldn't have much issue with it.

> Ideals are meaningless without sacrifice.

He sacrificed his life in Hawaii with his then-girlfriend. He didn't know that she would want to follow him. He didn't know if he would have a home again, and where it would be, but he was going in exile (and has remained so).

The OP writes with the implicit assumption that patriotism is a moral good and that America also is something to defend in and of itself (moreso than any other country).

Some people (myself included) would argue that nationality should (ideally) be of little importance and patriotism misguided affection. We might suggest that mercy and liberty for any individual, no matter their nationality, is at the crux of it of more value than feelings of nationalism.

The story of Nathan Hale gives us a glimpse of exactly why this sort of patriotism is problematic when we read about the British officer tearing up the letters he wrote before his execution, why do this to a fellow man sentenced to death if not misguided nationalism over common humanity.

The problem with the kind of patriotism America seems to demand is that it allows for mercy & kindness to it's own, at the expense of others.

From the point of view of a global humanitarian rather than a blind American patriot, Snowden's leaks make a lot of sense. It's the lens you have grown up with, OP, which colours everything you've said here. As someone from (not America), many of us appreciate that the cover was pulled back, it made us all look to our own democratic governments and ask the hard questions.

In hindsight Snowden has deftly negotiated the line between bravery and stupidity. I very much hope he keeps his mouth firmly shut about Ukraine and spends the rest of his life with his family.

This is fairly transparent slander, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has a “company” relative.

Anyone living in Russia with the level of international profile Snowden has, isn’t speaking out, so I don’t think pragmatism makes you a coward.

Anyone who says so hasn’t been in those shoes!

I believe the reason Snowden isn't saying much is not because he can't find a VPN, but because the Russians can read his Twitter account and Substack and they know where he lives. Also, he has a family.

I mean, come on, how do you think it works? As long as he lives there, he's not free to criticize Russia. And what's the benefit? Many other people are doing that already.

I mean if you're Edward Snowden, you get to make one enemy. Yeah he could keep on playing hero and make more and more enemies until he is in jail, but aren't there people in the FSB or something better poised to play that role? Edward Snowden would just be a martyr for its own sake in this case.

It's interesting how often people who write from the comfort of their home in a country that has never oppressed them criticize someone for not wanting to die.

Absolutely nutty to me how many bloggers who (apparently) liked Snowden before have done a complete 180 after Russia attacked Ukraine. Look, basically nothing about Snowden's personal situation is changed, except that he probably has even less incentive to speak out.

Why now? It really comes off as an attempt to be seen as supporting $CURRENT_THING instead of a genuine ideological disagreement with Snowden.

As far as I know Snowden never said Russia was a hypocritical free country (mostly probably because he knows it is not free).

Sour grapes taste badly. Who would guess!

What a crock of shit. The poster is angry that Snowden doesn't stand up and question the dictatorship he has found himself stranded in? Would he/she rather Snowden put himself in more harms way to become a political pawn? Not only does ES have to fear the western empire's wrath for outing their unconstitutional crimes, but now has to fear his stock as a pawn to be brokered between two sociopathic nation states. I presume the author believes Julian Assange is remiss & 'at home' sitting quietly in Belmarsh, too.

TLDR: Clickbait shit-poster gains clicks. News @ 11.

> During his time in Russia, we have seen the whistleblower system work effectively here at home. The details of Trump’s Ukraine call, and the subsequent freezing of security aid seems rather relevant today. More impressively so, this same whistleblower system Snowden criticized worked against a sitting president having no capacity for restraint.

It's just laughable to believe that "the system works" because certain leaks and whistleblowing was permitted in order to harm Donald Trump. Makes me wonder if the author even knows there is such a thing as "the intelligence community" with its own autonomy, imperatives, and loyalties which are not necessarily in lockstep with every sitting POTUS.

It's actually a bit distressing to see that after everything which has happened after the past several decades, someone could still come to the conclusion that Snowden would have been treated the same as Mr. X.

There does seem to be a political mindset attached to leaking. If it's a leak against conservatives, it's written as heroic and patriotic. If it's a leak against liberals then it's a threat to democracy and a crime. Snowden is no hero and I think defection was his intent all along.

What if it's a leak for the benefit of all?

You're conservative, politicising what doesn't need to be.

"The system works" when it benefits globalists and harms populists. When the system benefits populists and harms globalists, it is dangerously outdated and needs to be completely overhauled or abolished.

Social media was a tool to usher in a new era of freedom during the Arab Spring, which produced Egyptian students eager for a communist government. Right about the time Donald Trump's candidacy became serious, social media became a dangerous weapon of radicalization that needed to be strictly regulated by the government.

Snowden doesn’t owe shit to anyone, much less that blogging wanker.

I simply see both acts as completely divorced from each other i.e.: revealing the spying and being silent post Ukrainian invasion. First is an act of bravery, second an act of cowardice and well, those are the choices he made and they aren't in contradiction of each other. He was brave once and now he's not, and the truly important thing is what he revealed more so than our opinion of his character.

Snowden has shown that he is intelligent, very cautious and plans long in advance. I don't know his situation in Russia, but it must have been pretty precarious already. Maybe he's planning to leave Russia, but I don't know what his options are.

I think this is a really shitty way of framing it. Snowden doesn’t owe you anything but you likely owe him something. He did a thing once that loads of others didn’t because it was the right thing to do. He paid very dearly for that and is now living under a government that is holding his life in its hands. In the US Snowden faced prison for his actions. In Russia he faces torture and death if he steps out of line. I think it’s completely out of bounds to call him a coward in this case.

I meant it free of judgement, which I guess is hard to do with a word like "cowardice." I'm sure I wouldn't say anything either if I were in his shoes. Point is he's (most likely) keeping silent for good reason, cause he's scared of repercussions from the Russian state. What would you call that if not cowardice?

Edit: and I guess my larger point, is the two acts have nothing to do with each other, other than coloring your opinion of Snowden which is ultimately irrelevant.

Cowardice implies (to me at least) an unjustified fear. Snowden fearing Putin is entirely rationale and justified.

I always thought cowardice had nothing to do with whether the fear was justified. It does usually have the context of being judged as improper behavior.

In any case maybe a less inflammatory way to state my point: You can continue to admire Snowden for revealing the NSA spying program without necessarily demanding he martyr himself like Nathan Hale.

Honestly what does he expect Snowden to do? He went to Russia as very few places were safe from extradition, etc. If he joined in the social media slacktivism over Ukraine he'd be booted out. It would be different if he could actually do something about it, like his previous whistleblowing.

The military is the most popular entity in any country, (except when they are actively and publicly engaging in internal indiscriminate genocide). If you speak against it you'll be a very lone voice and you'll very soon find yourself socially isolated and without allies, which is exactly what happened to Snowden.

Even at the very extremes such as Abu Grahib the population attacked George W. not the military.

Snowden overestimated the potency of the material that he leaked, if the public didn't turn against the military for Abu Grahib then his material wouldn't have cut it either.

In order for whistleblowing to work and for the whistleblower to be safe and continue living a normal social life, it has to be political in nature, it has to be a hit to the reputation of a political or social leader who is already dancing around 50% or less approval rating and always in danger of falling off the cliff (like Nixon, Trump, Bill Clinton or given the current partisanship any future POTUS).

If you blew the whistle on Nixon then you had the whole left embrace you and protect you, if you blew the whistle on Bill Clinton affair, all of the sudden the right would love you.

Snowden managed to piss off both the left and the right so he had to escape to Russia, of course he won't repeat the same mistake again

I disagree with a decent number of things in this article.

>Yet for all the pontificating...today I rather see the pattern of a common deserter in Snowden, rather than the champion of free speech that some position him as

A person doesn't have to behave perfectly all the time - bravery and heroic acts remain so, despite imperfections of the person doing those acts. What Snowden did was undoubtedly brave and heroic, despite his opinion or lack thereof, of whatever issues of the day.

That's assuming I find fault with Snowden for remaining silent on the Ukraine issue - which I don't. How much does a person have to give and sacrifice, really? I don't blame Snowden for determining that he has given enough, and deciding to live a quiet life, outside the public sphere.

>During his time in Russia, we have seen the whistleblower system work effectively here at home. The details of Trump’s...

I'm not sure I agree with this statement either. While it is nice to see the whistle blown on obvious bad actions, I'm not convinced that it is an example of the system "working", but more an extension of the political division in our government, and how normal and essential government functions are weaponized for political ends. I have strong doubts that any whistleblowing would have happened under a more "establishment" president, with an equivalent level of misdeeds. Do you really think that Joe Biden's administration is that more ethical than Trump's?

>... certainly far less than the charges Snowden brought on himself or the freedoms he gave up by not using the right channels. Instead of following process, Snowden fled the country under the Obama administration, who was a teddy bear compared to Trump.

I can't tell if the author is naive or deliberately obtuse, but this is where the article lost all credibility for me. I don't see how Snowden could have faced a fair trial and while it was Donald Trump's admin that started the persecution of Julian Assange, I have no doubt that Obama's Justice Department (which was infamously and shamefully prosecutorial to whistleblowers) would have been even more severe to Edward Snowden. In hindsight, not only do Snowden's actions seem reasonable, but they also seem intelligent and resourceful and perhaps the only way to stay out of jail for decades.

>If I could reach him today, I would tell Snowden to come home and face the consequences of his actions, and set an example for his children of what patriotism and conviction really means. Ideals are meaningless without sacrifice.

This is very easy to say when you don't have to sacrifice anything. Especially when it seems to ignore any aspect of reality. At this point, I believe the article to be malicious because of how divorced from reality it appears to be.

For potential whistleblowers: there are legal avenues to expose wrongdoing.

http://whistlebloweraid.org offers free representation to those navigating the process, founded by a (legal) NSA whistleblower.

If even Congress cannot compel the head of the NSA--under threat of perjury--to publicly admit to an illegal dragnet then what chance does this organization have?

Well, it was founded by the NSA 12333 whistleblower, and assisted in representing the Facebook whistleblower, so… a pretty good chance?

From the Snowden revelations themselves, the probability that that website is on a watchlish is basically 1, meaning they're aware of your existence and intentions before you even click upload.

This might seem outrageous but that's the mindset of militaries and intelligence agencies in every country. If they have a chance to learn about a potential threat they will instinctively take it and it wouldn't be even slightly controversial. Snowden's revelations only confirmed that, they'll take everything they can, hide whatever they can and debate its legality later.

Yes, indeed, and they offer signal and TOR instructions as well OFC, don’t visit with a work/personal devise if considering whistleblowing.

First, that's not very reassuring.

Second, Snowden tried to use official channels, but that failed and he wasn't so stupid to let them cut him off before he could pursue others.

But third, you'd fault him for not using technologies that either didn't exist or weren't effective at the time and ignore the fact that they only became so precisely because he revealed what he did? Seriously?

The man who understood and maintained these surveillance systems better than almost anyone decided he couldn't trust anything but extreme precautions employed by an expert against the technology of a decade ago, let alone today. As above, Intel agencies aren't truely accountable, are ridiculously capable and will never accept the situation of being stumped by obvious threats because they use Signal and Tor. If they need a how-to website they've already lost.

Snowden defected to China, then Russia. He is neither a hero nor a patriot in my book. While the programs he identified may have been bad for democracy and America, it was not his place to blow the whistle, and he went about it in such a shady, criminal way that I can never forgive him.

Who's place was it to do it then? Seriously? You already work in government - so tell me, what mechanism should have been employed? Seems like no one else in the ranks had the balls to do it except him.

At least according to Snowden he raised concerns through official channels. Clapper perjuring himself in front of Congress in response proves that the NSA values its unconstitutional dragnets more than the people's freedom from unreasonable search.

Wrong. He never defected to China. He travelled to Hong Kong to share the info with journalists and went from there to Russia.

And it was absolutely his place to do that, just as it's everyone's place to protect democracy and do what is right. Can you suggest how the system itself would have otherwise disclosed those abuses?

He doesn't need your forgiveness, but he deserves your appreciation.

> While the programs he identified may have been bad for democracy and America

The fact that you even use such qualified language to describe mass surveillance of the entire civilian population shows just how far your Stockholm Syndrome has led you to identify with our predatory government and ruling institutions.

You know who else was shady and criminal? All the planners, bureaucrats, functionaries, and even code monkeys who built the NSA's dragnet in the first place. But I'm sure we'll never hear a peep about them from you.

"He is neither a hero nor a patriot in my book". This man literally exposed government spying on people mainstream and brought it into public light by putting his life on line. Your bio says "I work in government", let me guess NSA ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com