Thread: Edward Snowden and his stay in Russia

Originally Posted by Deborski

My post above was a Russian article which said the same thing, 14Russian.

Comments I see on American political threads are quite volatile. People say things like "He's a traitor and he should be SHOT!" I tell them they sound like Nazis to me.

How about "He's an idiot and he should go to one of the rogue states where he belongs"?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

How about "He's an idiot and he should go to one of the rogue states where he belongs"?

Sounds very ignorant, on many levels.......................

The thing is.. as good as his intentions were, I think his deeds in the long run would only practically benefit the extremists of all kinds. Surely enough, Showden ruined a couple of careers of his superiors (and some of his fellows) and that is driving some of those powerful guys insane, so his immediate contribution is heroic. (I mean, it's always a healthy thing to let those in power down once in a while, just for the sake of it, maybe even causing them to be replaced despite the well-known fact that the new ones who'd come to replace the old 'evil ones' will be in no way better and maybe even worse, but merely more cautious this time). How much of a whistle-blower is he.. is a good question. Well, I think he probably is a honest whistle-blower. However, unlike the Hollywood movies where a person could win a struggle against an evil system by exposing its ways to the public, the real world works slightly differently. As much as I personally respect Snowden as well as I admire his intellectual abilities, I think he is yet to mature.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The thing is.. as good as his intentions were, I think his deeds in the long run would only practically benefit the extremists of all kinds. Surely enough, Showden ruined a couple of careers of his superiors (and some of his fellows) and that is driving some of those powerful guys insane, so his immediate contribution is heroic. (I mean, it's always a healthy thing to let those in power down once in a while, just for the sake of it, maybe even causing them to be replaced despite the well-known fact that the new ones who'd come to replace the old 'evil ones' will be in no way better and maybe even worse, but merely more cautious this time). How much of a whistle-blower is he.. is a good question. Well, I think he probably is a honest whistle-blower. However, unlike the Hollywood movies where a person could win a struggle against an evil system by exposing its ways to the public, the real world works slightly differently. As much as I personally respect Snowden as well as I admire his intellectual abilities, I think he is yet to mature.

"I think his deeds in the long run would only practically benefit the extremists of all kinds." - Huh?

It doesn't really matter what it does to 'his superiors.' I don't really think it should matter if he's selling secrets or if he's a hero or a traitor or maybe he's a puppet of his superiors who want the public to recognize that they are slaves to their Governments who want to send a message that they're under public scrutiny - that is, that they have no privacy or control. What is important here, imho, is that people are talking about this, that they are comparing society to *1984* - that this isn't some fictional story but real life. You have the sheeple saying 'we knew this', 'who cares, whatever' or they are content in being spied on. That's fine. Most people have their heads in the sand but when things progress and get worse, at least, people saw it coming.

Perhaps, the Government wants everyone to be stupid and complacent and not mind having everything being scrutinized and being under constant surveillance. After all, what fun is it for those running the show if people only have a limited sense of what is going on.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

"I think his deeds in the long run would only practically benefit the extremists of all kinds." - Huh?

Your skepticism is appreciated, however, let's face it, no power runs in isolation and that what is missing in the bright Hollywood sagas about honorable knights bravely fighting evil dragons systems. It's true, the power feeds on the public, but the public is not homogeneous. There are those who 'put their heads in the sand' using your expression (i.e. don't care who rules them as long as they could live their lives); there are those who support the government either way, because it's their government (i.e. the patriots so to speak); there are those who do not support the government in a belief nobody should tell them what to do at their home, bed, company, city, state, and so on; there are those who want the government replaced because they think they know people who would run the country better; and all the shades in between. In addition, there are other powers who fight the government simply because the nature of the power is to eat or be eaten at all kind of levels within the country as well as outside the country. And the mind of all people (I'm serious, no exceptions) interprets all events in a way which would support their previous beliefs. The perception is the reality. Up to this point I think we have a mutual agreement.

As you might know, the Soviet propaganda used to be one of the most powerful and influential in the world. So, they had a very nice cliche they used to apply to whoever critcized the Party: "What mill do you water?" Meaning, by criticizing the Party you are not improving the situation, but merely helping the enemies of the Party.

Those who 'put their heads in the sand' are the best people actually in a sense they are not power greedy and do not participate in that 'ultimate championship', but rather try to be content with what they have (or maybe wish to have a bit more). And those who do fight seriously are extremists. They would not care what is right or what is wrong, but how could they overturn their opponents.

Does what I said make more sense now?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

...And the mind of all people (I'm serious, no exceptions) interprets all events in a way which would support their previous beliefs. The perception is the reality....

Disagree. This is like confirmation bias. It is not universal.
Certainly there are 'world view' and 'buzzword thinking' people. But there are also evidence based people. "I don't know what this data is telling me. Collect more data." "Do we have any verification." In this set belongs the development of active predictive capabilities resulting from distillations of data, evidence etc. And so included is an appreciation of error measurement, "the theory is only as good as its predictive ability." Iterate, more data, refine theory/model or whatever.

Modal thinking or modes of thought. Critical thinking vs fantasy, buzzword thinking, etc. Fix car with critical thinking/evidence based thought.

There isn't any doubt to me that many people do have this "the perception is the reality" kind of mind set. But it doesn't apply to all the activities of everyone's minds.

Originally Posted by Seraph

There isn't any doubt to me that many people do have this "the perception is the reality" kind of mind set. But it doesn't apply to all the activities of everyone's minds.

Ok, I wouldn't insist. I agree, what I said is a confirmation bias and as such it cannot be true by definition.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

You have the sheeple saying 'we knew this', 'who cares, whatever' or they are content in being spied on. That's fine. Most people have their heads in the sand but when things progress and get worse, at least, people saw it coming.

Perhaps, the Government wants everyone to be stupid and complacent and not mind having everything being scrutinized and being under constant surveillance. After all, what fun is it for those running the show if people only have a limited sense of what is going on.

Russian 14, what is happening in the U.S. right now is that there are more important things to us that we do care about and we don't have our "heads in the sand" for and we were not complacent about...what took place in Texas and North Carolina and the Supreme Court Rulings. It is what the government can tell us is legal or not legal about our medical care and rights to our own bodies and whom we can marry and if the federal government can discriminate. We care more about those things. We care passionately on both sides of those issues and you will find people who cross party lines, economic and racial lines as well.

Russian 14, one woman stood up to the Federal Government and won her case. One Woman. And by doing so she has help to end discrimination in the United States by having equal treatment under the law for all married couples... One Woman.

Maybe if Mr. Snowden had followed a different path, if he had obtained counsel instead of "leaking" the information, maybe he would have helped his case and he would not be in the situation he finds himself and he would been seen as a true whistle blower and not a traitor.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

This is NOT about acknowledging they are using Facebook info of some stupid kids posting pics and telling how their day went.

I guess you have not been following this story??? I'm not talking about kids posting pictures and talking about how their day went. This shows you that it is not the NSA that we really have to be afraid of, it is everyday people.

Teen Jailed For Facebook Post Expresses Regrets : The Two-Way : NPR

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...usive.cnn.html

Now, here is a case where we have a whistle blower who has been fired and he did use an attorney. Now he has a case for wrongful termination and should be held up as an example of what happens when you do the right thing even though you may feel in your heart it was not right or against your work rules and you should not do it and could cause you harm.

IT director who raised questions about Zimmerman case is fired - CNN.com

Or better yet, an example of what really happens when you tell the truth in America... Paula Deen.

RT is really doing a stellar job reporting on this story, while the BBC and Euronews are doing their best to pretend it's not even worth reporting on! I think Germany is the only European country to acknowledge how important this is. We who work in IT know that this is our worst nightmares confirmed, and if it's not 1984, it's certainly 1983...! It's just a matter of time. Double speak is already in full swing for those who have read the book.

Anyway; Apparently the reason that Ed Snowden didn't leave for South America, is that he was on some "no fly" list which apparently the USA is able to impose on ALL airlines, including Aeroflot.. And the incident with the Bolivian president's plane being forced down was a good indication of what would happen if the US had even the tiniest reason to suspect that Ed was trying to make his way across the Atlantic.

I honestly thought the whole thing about him being holed up on the airport was a cover story, and that Russia sorted him out the minute he made it to Moscow; i.e. gave him a new identity in Russia, sent him incognito to South America, or whatever.

Perhaps he wanted to go to South America for language reasons; I suppose he might already speak Spanish but maybe he thinks he'll remain an outsider in Russia because of the language.

But let's face it; unless he fancies hiding somewhere that's entirely closed off to the rest of the world - the only two countries that can protect him and got enough spine to do it right now, are Russia and China, and between them Russia seems a much more pleasant choice.

@ Rockzmom, sorry I can't agree with you on this one and YES, luckily it turned out that there were some countries that wanted Snowden after all. Quite a few in South America, and it seems Russia isn't so fussy about upsetting the "American partners" after all....
I understand that you feel p-d off that Snowden "betrayed" your country, but from his point of view he's trying to save it from going down the wrong way, and have some honesty between the state, the tech companies and the population. So he had only good intentions.

And this is not at all fully against the USA: It seems that France and the UK are doing a very good job of the spying too. It says a lot that it was actually an American who was brave enough to raise the flag on this. Why didn't a Brit, a German or French person come forward?

As for Russia; Whether it's got it's own PRISM programme.... What do people here think?
Either Russia has better things to spend money on (hopefully), or they are in fact doing it, only Snowden has no info to prove it, since Russia is not in NATO and wouldn't have shared the intel with the CIA like Europe does. So Snowden wouldn't know what the score was. But he might have suspicions, and perhaps that's why he was reluctant about Russia.

For people without an IT background:

1) Anything that passes through the internet backbone in the USA or Europe gets listened to and can be saved. I.e. emails and stuff you type in places like this. This affects anyone who is using MR, essentially. Your interactions are being auto-scanned for keywords or patterns that would flag that it's a conversation worth listening to. There is nothing you can do about that, other they use a completely anonymous VPN or TOR.

2) Anything you do on social networks is particularly under scrutiny. Your info is saved and can be pulled out and scrutinized if you are suspected of some security related crime.

3) Your search history, emails and phone calls, ditto.

Again, I repeat: Most people in IT suspected this was going on for many years. But we hoped we were just being paranoid. It is just beyond awful to have our worst nightmares on this score confirmed. But sadly, the rest of the public don't care, and many techies have already sold their soul and can't protest. That is why Ed Snowden is such a hero. He had so much to lose, but I couldn't keep quiet about what he knew, on principle. That is real heroism if you ask me.

It seems like someone knows "Ed" on a much more personal (I would even say intimate) level

I think his deeds in the long run would only practically benefit the extremists of all kinds.

In what way? Could you elaborate? Do you believe that extremists are so almighty in the USA that the only way to deter them lies through sacrificing constitutional rights and freedoms of Americans? Is there any evidence for such interpretation of events?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Your skepticism is appreciated, however, let's face it, no power runs in isolation and that what is missing in the bright Hollywood sagas about honorable knights bravely fighting evil dragons systems. It's true, the power feeds on the public, but the public is not homogeneous. There are those who 'put their heads in the sand' using your expression (i.e. don't care who rules them as long as they could live their lives); there are those who support the government either way, because it's their government (i.e. the patriots so to speak); there are those who do not support the government in a belief nobody should tell them what to do at their home, bed, company, city, state, and so on; there are those who want the government replaced because they think they know people who would run the country better; and all the shades in between. In addition, there are other powers who fight the government simply because the nature of the power is to eat or be eaten at all kind of levels within the country as well as outside the country. And the mind of all people (I'm serious, no exceptions) interprets all events in a way which would support their previous beliefs. The perception is the reality. Up to this point I think we have a mutual agreement.

As you might know, the Soviet propaganda used to be one of the most powerful and influential in the world. So, they had a very nice cliche they used to apply to whoever critcized the Party: "What mill do you water?" Meaning, by criticizing the Party you are not improving the situation, but merely helping the enemies of the Party.

Those who 'put their heads in the sand' are the best people actually in a sense they are not power greedy and do not participate in that 'ultimate championship', but rather try to be content with what they have (or maybe wish to have a bit more). And those who do fight seriously are extremists. They would not care what is right or what is wrong, but how could they overturn their opponents.

Does what I said make more sense now?

Nope.
Those who 'put their heads in the sand' are the best people actually in a sense they are not power greedy and do not participate in that 'ultimate championship' - no, this is not true.

There's tons of greedy people out there.

"And those who do fight seriously are extremists. They would not care what is right or what is wrong, but how could they overturn their opponents."
On the contrary, most folk don't care what the Government does if it's right or wrong or they would not be clueless zombies - that is, they would stop voting for them. So, you are wrong again. Furthermore, you seem to insinuating that if you oppose the Government, you're an 'extremist.' So, you've taken your cue from the 'Government textbooks?' Who says, that everyone who opposes the Government supports violence? Also, it is the Government who tries to portray such a theme or idea. They often spin any opposition as someone who is violent and in the wrong instead of the other way around.

If Power corrupts or someone is unethical in a position of power and authority, one should be allowed to stand up and make a statement about it. One of the most common ways to censor and silence such a person is to label them a 'right-wing extremist.' So, no, you don't make sense because your entire argument is based on something false and dangerous.

If someone fights the government simply because they want that power, that is mutually exclusive. That's a different story. But, if one allows the Government to label them one and the same, that is not only totally unethical but very dangerous.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Whether it's got it's own PRISM programme.... What do people here think?

Have you ever felt enough of that naive logic? Your good old facebook already IS 'PRISM'. Just as the e-mail and messaging services you use. All the information you leave there becomes the property of those who run the services and they can sell or give it away anytime they want. For example, the guy, who is now being prosecuted for the Boston explosions, used to think that he has deleted his instagram account, yet CIA has recovered it instantly with all the extremist content within.
In the global network, where you can't hide from those who actually put their efforts and authority to pursue you, everyone is already is under such 'PRISM'. Well, unless you use a dynamic IP, send your encrypted e-mail via your own e-mail server and completely refrain from linking yourself with any social network.
So, no, we do not have our own PRISM programme. But we do participate in the global one. It's called the Internet.

Listening to traffic is Okay in my opinion. Of course, until the collected data are used to harm honest citizens. Like when chief of the police is the major criminal of district.

Launching network attacks on the other hand is harmful and is a crime.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Listening to traffic is Okay in my opinion. Of course, until the collected data are used to harm honest citizens. Like when chief of the police is the major criminal of district.

Launching network attacks on the other hand is harmful and is a crime.

Well obviously nobody minds if they prevent a terrorist attack.

But at what price? And when will they start using it for other purposes? And even for those who trust their government; you don't know who'll be ruling the country in 5 years. It might be someone who wants to go after people precisely like you. And thanks to PRISM and similar programs they already have people's confessions, in their own words. Or the infrastructure to find out anyone's thoughts on anything they care to mention online.

Another perspective is that things like that are bound to get out of hand. First they look for terrorists, then for pedophiles... then for pirates...... economic criminal, industrial espionage, then ANYONE who somebody doesn't like.

Do you think it was okay that people's letters where opened and read at various points in Russia's past as well?
I don't see how this is any different. I think this is a principle and it doesn't matter who does it, or what they say their reasons are. It shouldn't be done!

But thanks to Edward Snowden, at least now we know it's going on as a matter of routine, in Western democracies.

And no, I've never really used Facebook, precisely because I don't want all my personal data in one location like that. Got an account but it's got hardly no info and I never enjoyed using it.

Fyi...
This aired August 2, 2012, it is from the HBO TV series Newsroom

It might be someone who wants to go after people precisely like you.

Can't believe this could happen is Sweden. In some countries - maybe. But it always surprised me, how quick the men, just had acquired the power could find and address their opponents. This is probably because their opponents are people who were in power for decades, and they left too much of paper work. So what can we do with Snowden or without: may be only amend to the constitution: "And your mail can and will be read." (And anywhere several video cameras will be pointed at you, of course)

And answering my own question: I still believe that all companies making biggest social networks just want the money. Nothing personal.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Can't believe this could happen is Sweden. In some countries - maybe. But it always surprised me, how quick the men, just had acquired the power could find and address their opponents. This is probably because their opponents are people who were in power for decades, and they left too much of paper work. So what can we do with Snowden or without: may be only amend to the constitution: "And your mail can and will be read." (And anywhere several video cameras will be pointed at you, of course)

And answering my own question: I still believe that all companies making biggest social networks just want the money. Nothing personal.

The companies do but they will sell it if they are greedy enough or let the Government obtain what they want. Most of them are owned by individuals or a few people or a few own and control the corporation.

Yeah, Sweden is one of the countries I could see easily violating all kinds of rights. They are another country in bed with the USA and their closest allies.

The internet is one of the last bastions of freedom so it's a threat to the Government and politicians so naturally, they would want all your info. People think, bah, it's just some facebook crap but talk about easily obtaining info. How often do they get the opportunity for FREE, VOLUNTARILY GIVEN information?!? People miss the big picture as usual.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Interesting new development...

Ъ-Online - Эдвард Сноуден встретился с российскими правозащитниками и попросил убежище в

"Бывший сотрудник ЦРУ Эдвард Сноуден, обвиняемый США в шпионаже, сегодня встретился с российскими правозащитниками. На встрече, прошедшей в аэропорту «Шереметьево», в транзитной зоне которого господин Сноуден находится с 23 июня, он попросил политического убежища в России и пообещал выполнить условия президента Владимира Путина, чтобы остаться в стране."

I think it is time for Edward Snowden to learn the Russian alphabet!

Well, probably we'll get a new forumee here soon.