So I Guess I Must Be Troubled or Serious or Gloomy Then.

[jones jones]

Why? Well because I usually post light-hearted Threads and the opposite of light-hearted is troubled/serious/gloomy. This of course means that this isn’t a light-hearted Thread.

It’s about one Edward Joseph Snowden who, depending on where you stand on this matter, is a whistleblower, spy, hero, traitor, patriot, turncoat. {Tick the block you believe best describes him.}

I have my own opinion of this earthling who chose to leak thousands of secret files to the media and then flee to Russia. His explanation for his actions? "I don't want to live in a society that does these sorts of things.” [Surveillance on its citizens.]



Then why on earth choose Russia? You haven't exactly been living in another galaxy dude.

And Mr Snowden why didn’t you just leak these allegations and leave out the stuff about operational details of top secret global surveillance apparatus run by the NSA (National Security Agency? Your so called “revelations” include a great deal of material that has nothing at all to do with anyone’s “personal privacy.”

Anyway Intelligence Services the world over have been spying on their citizens since day one. How else do you stop terrorists, gangsters and spies? And if you are NOT doing anything illegal and have nothing to hide, it shouldn’t be unduly alarming.

So what gave Mr Snowden the right to leak not only the USA but also their allies closely guarded secrets on among others Al Qaida, the Taliban and other terror organizations?

These leaks have played into the hands of Russia and have dealt a serious blow to the security of the West and the safety of many people. But Mr Snowden should not get too comfortable in his new job doing “website maintenance” or sleep too soundly at night. He will be handed over to the USA eventually when it suits his hosts.

And here I was thinking that the reason Russia had got a trifle too uppity lately was because they were hosting the Winter Olympics.

[LarsMac]

I have puzzled over this guy, myself.

Simple facts.

Yes, governments spy on their citizenry. Governments spy on each other. This has been going on as long has there have been more than one group of humans walking the planet.

So, some call him a hero, some a patriot, some a traitor, etc.

I reckon him to be all of the above.

Thing about being a hero, though, they usually do what they do in spite of the cost to themselves. They are willing to accept the consequences of their action.

If the US gets their hands on him, they have every right to deal with him as they see fit, within the limits of the law.

And why would any other country want him around? They certainly can't trust him. he is a traitor.

As you say, he will be where he is until his hosts become tired of him and have no more use for him. He then might well have a moment to wish he was in custody of his own government, again.

[Bryn Mawr]

The bit that gets me (alwa7ys has and always will) is :_

And if you are NOT doing anything illegal and have nothing to hide, it shouldn�t be unduly alarming.


No, I've done nothing illegal and I've nothing to hide but that does not give *anyone* the right to spy one me - not my own government and especially not a foreign government.

[jones jones]

Bryn Mawr;1447159 wrote: The bit that gets me (alwa7ys has and always will) is :_



No, I've done nothing illegal and I've nothing to hide but that does not give *anyone* the right to spy one me - not my own government and especially not a foreign government.


But do you have proof that any government is spying on you?

[Bryn Mawr]

jones jones;1447160 wrote: But do you have proof that any government is spying on you?


You mistake me for Katsung, Sir

Seriously, I don't need proof - the fact that they claim the right to is sufficient evil in my eyes

[jones jones]

Bryn Mawr;1447162 wrote: You mistake me for Katsung, Sir

Seriously, I don't need proof - the fact that they claim the right to is sufficient evil in my eyes


Then you have I assume ... ticked the box marked "Hero."

[Bryn Mawr]

jones jones;1447163 wrote: Then you have I assume ... ticked the box marked "Hero."


Not in the slightest - my choice from the list would be "Whistleblower".

I tend to stick to the descriptive words rather than the emotive ones.

[jones jones]

Bryn Mawr;1447164 wrote: Not in the slightest - my choice from the list would be "Whistleblower".

I tend to stick to the descriptive words rather than the emotive ones.


Fair enough choice but all that balancing on the fence will sooner or later make you dizzy!

Had Mr Snowden confined his leaks to those concerning only so called "spying" on innocent citizens, then I too would brand him "Whistleblower."

I have however ticked "traitor."

[Bryn Mawr]

jones jones;1447165 wrote: Fair enough choice but all that balancing on the fence will sooner or later make you dizzy!

Had Mr Snowden confined his leaks to those concerning only so called "spying" on innocent citizens, then I too would brand him "Whistleblower."

I have however ticked "traitor."


Not sitting on the fence at all - taking an objective view of the world

I don't imagine he had time to go through all of the data item by item making a value call on each

[G#Gill]

In the late 80s whilst we were running our charter/trip boat business, I was sent (out of the blue and unbidden), a very comprehensive catalogue of surveilance gadgets. Now you will appreciate that this all happened 30 plus years ago, so heaven knows what such technology is capable of now. At that time, there were sophisticated listening devices where you could sit in a car, point the microphone at a house 70 yards away and you would be able to hear conversations in that house, and you could record them too. There were 'electric three pin plugs' that were nothing of the kind, but were listening devices, but who would know that when the plug is inserted in the usual wall socket ? There were ball-point pens that could film and audio record from out of a man's top pocket of their jacket. In fact there was a mass of all sorts of devices that could be seen working in TV series like 'Dangerman' starring Patrick McGoohan as John Drake, a special agent. That series was televised in the 60s and we marvelled at the cunning and clever devices. It was unbelievable that such things were made !

This catalogue of surveilance gadgets also listed prices, and those prices quite honestly were in the reach of many ordinary people ! So from the time I received this catalogue through the post, I realised that if anybody, or any company wanted to keep an eye on someone, they could very easily do so undetected. As I said, I received that catalogue back in the late 80s, so what would such surveillance equipment be capable of these days, and undetectable ?

Quite honestly what's the point of getting paranoia over this sort of thing. I doubt very much that anybody has escaped being 'studied' and full data logged by 'them' . The sort of people who pass on information, will always be around, spying, 'hacking', and selling their data to whoever for as much money as they can get. With these sort of people, it's just the money, I doubt there is any loyalty involved. So I would tick the mercenary traitor box.

[jones jones]

Bryn Mawr;1447173 wrote: Not sitting on the fence at all - taking an objective view of the world

I don't imagine he had time to go through all of the data item by item making a value call on each


I don't imagine he did.

However as a member of the intelligence community, albeit a junior infrastructure analyst, he would I am certain, have been able to easily distinguish between documents that could place the lives of citizens of the USA in danger and those they were allegedly only to do with the government spying on the man in the street.

Mr Snowden stole 1.7 million classified documents from the NSA ... talk about overkill when you only want to expose spying on civilians!

[fuzzywuzzy]

I think people are missing the point here. He didn't just expose spying. and if everyone is so upset with him then why did Obama change the spying laws in the US? Governments only change laws when when they need the populace onside....the people wanted their privacy.

[Bryn Mawr]

jones jones;1447278 wrote: I don't imagine he did.

However as a member of the intelligence community, albeit a junior infrastructure analyst, he would I am certain, have been able to easily distinguish between documents that could place the lives of citizens of the USA in danger and those they were allegedly only to do with the government spying on the man in the street.

Mr Snowden stole 1.7 million classified documents from the NSA ... talk about overkill when you only want to expose spying on civilians!


I wouldn't be too sure - it sounds like a dump of a complete document store rather than a selective extract, a smash and grab raid rather than pick and mix.

Copying the entire storage container would be far quicker and easier than requesting the individual documents or even selecting classes of documents by keyword.

[jones jones]

Bryn Mawr;1447310 wrote: I wouldn't be too sure - it sounds like a dump of a complete document store rather than a selective extract, a smash and grab raid rather than pick and mix.

Copying the entire storage container would be far quicker and easier than requesting the individual documents or even selecting classes of documents by keyword.


Too true ... but my point is that he would surely have been aware of the potential damage his leaks would cause. Like I said earlier, its no fluke that he ended up in Russia. He could have sought refuge and been accepted in any number of other countries, always provided that he did what he alleges he did ... blew the whistle on government spying on civilians.

[AnneBoleyn]

I think Snowden was backed by the Russians from the get-go.

[jones jones]

AnneBoleyn;1447345 wrote: I think Snowden was backed by the Russians from the get-go.


I'm with you Annie ... The rest was simply a smokescreen.