|
Nektu posted:So, you mean he has a choice? If putin throws him out, the US will get to him in days... Yeah, unfortunately Snowden's superheroics begin and end with his data and collaboration with Greenwald. Getting stranded in Russia might mean that his day to day is tolerable, but make no mistake he will be on a short leash for the rest of his life. The only thing protecting him now is his implicit propaganda value to Putin. I think he will be stuck there for decades until a future US President pardons him and a future Russian president has sufficiently de-Putinized the Russian intelligence services to make a clean break. Not holding my breath for either one. edit: Although it appears that Snowden has turned around and called bullshit on Putin's answer. Edward Snowden posted:On Thursday, I questioned Russia's involvement in mass surveillance on live television. I asked Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, a question that cannot credibly be answered in the negative by any leader who runs a modern, intrusive surveillance program: "Does [your country] intercept, analyse or store millions of individuals' communications?" amanasleep fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Apr 18, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
That article completely ignores what he provided to Putin. The audience for whom the interaction was intended will never see Snowden's take on it. It's nice that he got Putin to issue a blanket denial and everything, but who is that supposed to benefit? Americans who know he's mass snooping anyway? Journalists who don't have the time or inclination to follow up? Snowden has shown that he is at least as savvy as your average D&D goon, so there's really very little excuse for his participation. I'd be more forgiving if he had written instead "what do you want me to do? Am I supposed to live without hookers sent to my dacha? Am I supposed to live period? If they gave me nipple tassels to wear and a script that said 'Crimea is Russian' I'd have done it. I want to live."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That article completely ignores what he provided to Putin. The audience for whom the interaction was intended will never see Snowden's take on it. It's nice that he got Putin to issue a blanket denial and everything, but who is that supposed to benefit? Americans who know he's mass snooping anyway? Journalists who don't have the time or inclination to follow up? He can't say that either. I agree that it seems like this was an obligation for him and that Putin still gets the better of the deal. I also would not be surprised if his response in the Guardian is fully sanctioned by Russian intelligence. Snowden's perceived independence in the west is also valuable to them, and like you said his response will have very little impact in Russia. It is pretty laughable to compare it to Wyden's question on the floor of congress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Snowden has shown that he is at least as savvy as your average D&D goon, so there's really very little excuse for his participation. I'd be more forgiving if he had written instead "what do you want me to do? Am I supposed to live without hookers sent to my dacha? Am I supposed to live period? If they gave me nipple tassels to wear and a script that said 'Crimea is Russian' I'd have done it. I want to live." Yeah, but part of the deal is probably that he can't say that kind of thing. Even if he's never explicitly given a script he's under an immense amount of pressure and it wouldn't be at all surprising if he developed a stockholm syndrome like sympathy for Putin & Co.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Right, the sad part is that he seems like he might be nursing a belief that he accomplished something, that he somehow made Putin more accountable by taking his appointed place in the yearly media fête. It makes me wonder if his handlers would have even permitted him to make the appearance without issuing the statement afterwards, as that would have made the coercion more apparent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Local story I saw. Does this sound to anyone else like it was going to be a parallel construction case and the cops blew it? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/glenview/chi-lawsuit-traffic-stop-police-video-20140417,0,3037183.story quote:Pruente, one of seven Chicago narcotics officers working the case that day, testified that after the traffic stop he smelled marijuana in Sperling's gold Ford Taurus while waiting for the Glenview man to produce his driver's license and insurance. He said Sperling admitted at the scene to having “a little weed” with him, an allegation Sperling denied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That article completely ignores what he provided to Putin. The audience for whom the interaction was intended will never see Snowden's take on it. It's nice that he got Putin to issue a blanket denial and everything, but who is that supposed to benefit? Americans who know he's mass snooping anyway? Journalists who don't have the time or inclination to follow up? The problem is that politely asking a government figure in public or in front of a camera will never cause them to reveal their secret intelligence programs or convince them to cut it out. Hell, let's not forget NSA officials lied to not only the public but Congress as well. And that seems to be what Snowden was going for - everybody knows every major country has mass surveillance, but having a major leader come out and lie about it gives the press a reason to dig into it. Not that it's likely to affect much, as I doubt Putin has allowed the KGB to become as lax or leaky as the NSA, but it's something Snowden honestly in believes might happen. I think the outright hero-worship Western activists have of Snowden, as well as the complete dependence the anti-surveillance movement still has on his leaks, may have given Snowden an inflated view of his importance and his ability to contribute to the cause. However, there's really nothing else Snowden can do as an anti-surveillance activist; no one is ever going to let him anywhere near a secret document ever again for the rest of his life. All he can do is use his fame to make statements on TV. It's not like he's particularly savvy, either - he's just a Paulite who had complete unrestricted access to this stuff, poked around, and sent the whole cache of documents to a journalist. I think he seriously overestimates the Russian government's vulnerability to public and media pressure. Dum Cumpster posted:Local story I saw. Does this sound to anyone else like it was going to be a parallel construction case and the cops blew it? Nah. Cops do that poo poo all the time, the only surprise is it happening to a white guy. He probably mouthed off to a cop once. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Nah. Cops do that poo poo all the time, the only surprise is it happening to a white guy. He probably mouthed off to a cop once. Cops know a guy has weed in his car before talking to him or pulling him over all the time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That article completely ignores what he provided to Putin. The audience for whom the interaction was intended will never see Snowden's take on it. It's nice that he got Putin to issue a blanket denial and everything, but who is that supposed to benefit? Americans who know he's mass snooping anyway? Journalists who don't have the time or inclination to follow up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Cops know a guy has weed in his car before talking to him or pulling him over all the time? Not wanting to reveal an informant is more likely than anything else, but even that doesn't really explain this: quote:The five cops – Chicago police Sgt. James Padar and Officers William Pruente and Vince Morgan and Glenview police Sgt. Theresa Urbanowski and Officer Jim Horn -- have been stripped of their police powers and put on desk duty pending internal investigations. The state's attorney's office is looking into possible criminal violations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Not wanting to reveal an informant is more likely than anything else, but even that doesn't really explain this: Ah, I didn't think about that. Makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Snowden said what prompted him to pull the trigger was seeing Clapper lie under oath to Congress to a very similar question. Raising that question in the Russian political system may very well prompt the same sort of denials that could prompt a Russian leaker to come forward. I'm sure that there's been a private conversation between Putin and Snowden to the effect of "for real though, if you had leaked FSB files I'd totes have had you strangled. Cheers!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Cops know a guy has weed in his car before talking to him or pulling him over all the time? Did they actually know he had weed in the car at that time? Stopping someone, claiming to smell weed, and searching the car is common as hell. If they didn't find anything, they'd just let him go (or, if he pissed them off enough, dragged him to the station on an "obstructing an officer" charge they'd drop within a day) and there wouldn't have been a drat thing he could have done about it. Like I said, the only surprising part is it happening to a white guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Snowden and posters itt are being incredibly naive if they think he can spur some kind of civil discourse about security surveillance in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Snowden and posters itt are being incredibly naive if they think he can spur some kind of civil discourse about security surveillance in Russia. Your post is full of substance and convincing. It is not an unevidenced put-down seemingly disguised to project superior wisdom and experience onto yourself "Hey guys, it won't work, why you bother, so naive/newb". Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, but part of the deal is probably that he can't say that kind of thing. Even if he's never explicitly given a script he's under an immense amount of pressure and it wouldn't be at all surprising if he developed a stockholm syndrome like sympathy for Putin & Co. Yep. People expecting Snowden (or anyone under that kind of pressure) to be some sort of machiavellian savvy mastermind completely and all the time are really the most naive ones of all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
I've been pretty understanding of Snowden since he clearly did not intend to end up in Russia, but this is not defensible. It's not like he was calling into C-SPAN, this was a tightly controlled propaganda session. Snowden had to know Putin was just going to smoothly deny anything, and it's not like he would have any opportunity to ask a follow-up question or access to some trove of FSB documents to contradict him. This was either coerced or stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I've been pretty understanding of Snowdon since he clearly did not intend to end up in Russia, but this is not defensible. It's not like he was calling into C-SPAN, this was a tightly controlled propaganda session. Snowdon had to know Putin was just going to smoothly deny anything, and it's not like he would have any opportunity to ask a follow-up question or access to some trove of FSB documents to contradict him. This was either coerced or stupid. Interesting. I think most people would actually agree that C-SPAN is also a tightly regulated propaganda session. First up, you get a nice mish-mash of Washington 'insiders' debating in a ping-pong fashion. Following that you get a mish-mash of C-SPAN callers afterwards to emphasise just how crazy and untrustable the masses of people in America are to remind you they cannot be trusted with much decision making. Therefore, we must choose between the Washington insider caucuses. I kid, but anyways. You assert 'he had to know he was going to deny anything' (without any actual import to why that matters) and then go on a bunch of irrelevant stuff. You then apply the classic false dichotomy that it was either coerced or stupid. What this actually boils down to you is that you speculate it may be coerced but have no evident but personally think its stupid. Anyways, do I think its stupid? Im not entirely formed of a view yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I've been pretty understanding of Snowden since he clearly did not intend to end up in Russia, but this is not defensible. It's not like he was calling into C-SPAN, this was a tightly controlled propaganda session. Snowden had to know Putin was just going to smoothly deny anything, and it's not like he would have any opportunity to ask a follow-up question or access to some trove of FSB documents to contradict him. This was either coerced or stupid. Snowden did know that Putin would lie - and also that no one would believe Putin's lie. He compares it to Wyden asking Clapper if the NSA was conducting mass surveillance on Americans - Wyden knew the real answer to the question, he knew Clapper's answer was a lie, and they probably knew from the start that he was going to lie to them. To Snowden, the question wasn't asked in order to give Clapper a chance to spew propaganda, nor was it asked in order to get a truthful answer. Instead it was asked in order to get Clapper to clearly, blatantly, unambiguously lie, publicly and on the record, which got a lot of media play later on. Snowden says he was aiming for the same sort of thing with his question to Putin, except he vastly overestimates the Russian press's ability to use the obvious lie to somehow humiliate or pressure Putin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Did they actually know he had weed in the car at that time? Stopping someone, claiming to smell weed, and searching the car is common as hell. If they didn't find anything, they'd just let him go (or, if he pissed them off enough, dragged him to the station on an "obstructing an officer" charge they'd drop within a day) and there wouldn't have been a drat thing he could have done about it. Like I said, the only surprising part is it happening to a white guy. They had him under surveillance for a while and he had a pound of weed. I'm guessing he had just picked it up and they correctly assumed he was holding but without any actual proof of it so they decided to just make some poo poo up and lie on the stand. The judge seems pissed though so hopefully they'll get burned hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Snowden did know that Putin would lie - and also that no one would believe Putin's lie. He compares it to Wyden asking Clapper if the NSA was conducting mass surveillance on Americans - Wyden knew the real answer to the question, he knew Clapper's answer was a lie, and they probably knew from the start that he was going to lie to them. To Snowden, the question wasn't asked in order to give Clapper a chance to spew propaganda, nor was it asked in order to get a truthful answer. Instead it was asked in order to get Clapper to clearly, blatantly, unambiguously lie, publicly and on the record, which got a lot of media play later on. Snowden says he was aiming for the same sort of thing with his question to Putin, except he vastly overestimates the Russian press's ability to use the obvious lie to somehow humiliate or pressure Putin. Clapper lying under oath and this farce aren't even remotely analogous (I realize that was his argument not yours). If this is the true extent of Snowden's naiveness and delusion, I'm extremely disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
What would Snowden have done in this situation if he was as brilliant and cynical as you can possibly imagine? Why do you even care whether he is naive and delusional or not? Do you think this accomplished something important for Putin? Are you imagining that someone somewhere actually believed his answer? Honest questions, I have no idea why people think Snowden's character is a central issue at this point and I can't even begin to imagine what you think the wise course of action would have been in his situation if not this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:What would Snowden have done in this situation if he was as brilliant and cynical as you can possibly imagine? Why do you even care whether he is naive and delusional or not? Do you think this accomplished something important for Putin? Are you imagining that someone somewhere actually believed his answer? "Shoot the messenger" more or less worked with Manning. Going after Snowden as a person is the best remaining option once the police state itself is completely indefensible on its face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
At the outset of the entire affair, I recall Snowden supporters bristling at the notion that he was making a dumb move running into the arms of Putin. Guess what, he's a propaganda prop tool now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:What would Snowden have done in this situation if he was as brilliant and cynical as you can possibly imagine? Uh, not made the appearance? Unless it was actually under coercion. quote:Why do you even care whether he is naive and delusional or not? Do you think this accomplished something important for Putin? Are you imagining that someone somewhere actually believed his answer? In Russia? Likely. How effective it is as propaganda isn't as important as the fact that this happened at all. quote:Honest questions, I have no idea why people think Snowden's character is a central issue at this point and I can't even begin to imagine what you think the wise course of action would have been in his situation if not this. Did somebody imply his character was a central issue? It's an unfortunate blemish on somebody that appeared smarter than this, and does give his detractors actual mud to sling, but that doesn't somehow invalidate the case against the NSA or his contribution to bringing it to light. Do you believe he had no other choice? If that were the case, than yeah, I won't judge him for doing what he has to do to survive. But that's not necessarily the case. chairface posted:"Shoot the messenger" more or less worked with Manning. Going after Snowden as a person is the best remaining option once the police state itself is completely indefensible on its face. Yeah but it's not US goverment that made him make that appearance, if anybody did. And for the nth time: if he was coerced it's a whole different situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:
What about indirect or passive coercion? Does he have to have a gun to the back of his head here or does Putin turning off his electricity for the month count? I don't think Snowden is being directly physically coerced here, but I do think he's in a situation where he's very vulnerable to manipulation. And I don't blame him for being in that situation because after the decision to contact Greenwald he's had an ever-narrowing pool of available choices. The move to Hong Kong was the most rational thing given what was being done to Manning, the move to Russia was his only option when Hong Kong kicked him out, and now that he's in Russia he's likely reliant on Putin for everything from food to information. At this point, I don't really fault Snowden for making bad choices; he's not a completely free agent, he doesn't have any good choices left, and he made the right choice when it counted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What about indirect or passive coercion? Yeah, depending on the specifics, that could totally be exculpating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:At the outset of the entire affair, I recall Snowden supporters bristling at the notion that he was making a dumb move running into the arms of Putin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
I guess the other aspect about this is when was the last time did we have an American public figure coerced into being a propaganda tool by a foreign power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I guess the other aspect about this is when was the last time did we have an American public figure coerced into being a propaganda tool by a foreign power. Snowden is a non-entity in this story. He could go on a shooting spree tomorrow and it wouldn't suddenly justify the NSA hamstringing the security of the internet so that they can spy on US citizens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
I don't think anyone's made the claim that the NSA is right because of this. We're just saying that it's newsworthy. It's peculiar to see erstwhile Snowden supporters go "Snowden is unimportant. Who gives a poo poo about him" and repudiate him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:At the outset of the entire affair, I recall Snowden supporters bristling at the notion that he was making a dumb move running into the arms of Putin. Seriously, "running into the arms of Putin" do you forget that whole thing 'where in the world is Snowden' and they were holding up planes of foreign countries leaders and crap. You are the propaganda tool. It is really beyond honestly clear you have an emotional attachment to his character and the drama of this in your mind and it is making GBS threads up good conversation to be had about the disclosures/ state of Surveillance in the 21st Century. You aren't the only one doing this dw but ungh Jacobin fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Clapper lying under oath and this farce aren't even remotely analogous (I realize that was his argument not yours). If this is the true extent of Snowden's naiveness and delusion, I'm extremely disappointed. I know, right? It's almost as naive and delusional as leaking a shitload of classified intelligence documents describing the efforts of the most powerful country in the world to spy on literally every human being on the planet except for North Koreans. A leak of this magnitude is itself a sign of poor decision-making, especially when the Manning leaks demonstrated that leaking is unlikely to bring about real change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I know, right? It's almost as naive and delusional as leaking a shitload of classified intelligence documents describing the efforts of the most powerful country in the world to spy on literally every human being on the planet except for North Koreans. A leak of this magnitude is itself a sign of poor decision-making, especially when the Manning leaks demonstrated that leaking is unlikely to bring about real change. I really wouldn't classify the two into the same category of naivete, but sure, if you want to. I said it would be incredibly disappointing, not incredibly surprising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:At the outset of the entire affair, I recall Snowden supporters bristling at the notion that he was making a dumb move running into the arms of Putin. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden Main Paineframe posted:I know, right? It's almost as naive and delusional as leaking a shitload of classified intelligence documents describing the efforts of the most powerful country in the world to spy on literally every human being on the planet except for North Koreans. A leak of this magnitude is itself a sign of poor decision-making, especially when the Manning leaks demonstrated that leaking is unlikely to bring about real change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's peculiar to see erstwhile Snowden supporters go "Snowden is unimportant. Who gives a poo poo about him" and repudiate him. Manning was a traitor, Assange is a rapist*, now Snowden is a defector. Fake concern works just as well as outright derision in deflecting all discussion into an irrelevant personal drama, as this thread talking about nothing but Snowden Snowden Snowden for days now demonstrates, again. It's not peculiar to repudiate the source, it's necessary. There's always going to be some way to tar the source, even if it requires the US Government to take action to manufacture the situation as it did in revoking his passport and shutting down flights to strand him in Russia. *Before this spawns fifteen more pages of deflection on that issue yes Assange should go face his rape charges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
According to ACLU attorney and Snowden adviser Ben Wizner, Snowden wasn't coerced and indeed thought he was criticizing Russia.quote:“I know this is hard to believe. I know if I was just watching from afar, I’d think, ‘Wow, they forced him [Snowden] to do this,’” Wizner added. “But it’s not true. He just loving did it.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
The best kind of shill believes that he's your respected adversary, after all. I'm sure Abby Martin sees herself the same way, subverting the power Putin gave her to question his legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
The source Daily Beast article reads like he either didn't talk to others about it or was told in advance it was a bad idea. For people described as close associates, key advisers, and otherwise "in his camp", there's a lot of third person used in their quoted reactions. Wizner had to be intending that that line be repeated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:You assert 'he had to know he was going to deny anything' (without any actual import to why that matters) and then go on a bunch of irrelevant stuff. You then apply the classic false dichotomy that it was either coerced or stupid. What this actually boils down to you is that you speculate it may be coerced but have no evident but personally think its stupid. quote:NSA leaker Edward Snowden instantly regretted asking Russian President Vladimir Putin a softball question on live television about the Kremlin’s mass surveillance effort, two sources close to the leaker tell The Daily Beast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
CSM posted:Why is revealing the truth naive and delusional? Expecting it to be effective enough to potentially ruin your life over sure is. Look at Manning; in the end, nothing came of that leak except, what, how many years in prison? Manning doesn't even get the privilege of being remembered as a martyr, since Snowden completely overshadowed what little recognition remained after his conviction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:54
|
|