
Bill Gates Says Snowden is No Hero - nherbold
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/14/bill-gates-says-snowden-is-no-hero/?ncid=rss
======
pg
"I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn’t characterize him as a
hero."

That seems strange reasoning. Many heroes break laws.

Plus the NSA broke the law worse.

~~~
mathattack
Non-violent resistance (civil disobedience) is all about willfully breaking
the law. His reasoning would also exclude Martin Luther King and Gandhi from
his pantheon of heroes.

~~~
noblethrasher
It also means submitting to the authorities when you break the law; MLK spent
a lot of time in jail. In fact, he often pointed out that the segragationist,
who were also breaking many laws, were cowards because they wouldn’t risk jail
time.

~~~
aric
Who created that rule? People must martyr themselves in cages, in blood, and
in torture to peacefully resist, disseminate, and earn approval?

Lunacy.

There are stark differences to Martin Luther King, Jr. This current era is a
time when people transcend borders more easily. King was fortunate to seize
upon an entire network build-up behind a cause and behind him over many years.
The punishments he faced by breaking segregation laws are gentle in comparison
to the brand of "justice" and punishment Snowden is likely facing in his
"homeland." One might imagine the likes of King, Mandela, and so on,
recognizing this new face of oppression as did King did against the industry
of military and against a government that's willing and eager to invade
Vietnam and obliterate the Vietnamese under the mirage of virtue. One might
imagine King now standing vocally strong in support of anyone who dares to
_not_ become a disposable pawn to today's prison economy. Yet it matters not.
One might not want to conjecture; for, as always, a person's words are only
one person's narrow perspective.

~~~
noblethrasher
I was specifically referring to the _definition_ of civil disobedience.

If you are arguing that civil disobedience may no longer be an effective tool
of resistance, then you're preaching to the choir. Similar to the Borg of Star
Trek, it's clear to me that at some point the establishment is going to
develop effective adaptations against that particular tactic; it's been
disturbed too many times by it. I don’t think that we’re there quite yet, but
we’re close enough that I stay up worrying about it.

~~~
aric
That's not the definition of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is not, in
any way, exclusive to waging disobedience within a regionally localized or
symmetric form. By definition, it's only exclusive to _disobeying_ one's
government, laws, or other civil institutions.

True enough on that last part. These chilling effects compound rapidly.

~~~
noblethrasher
I am using the definition of civil disobedience as first proffered by Thoreau,
and effected by Gandhi, MLK, et. al. [1]

It entails neither locality nor symmetry. Indeed, it exploits the fact that
there exists a dimension where the faceless establishment cannot hope to enjoy
a beneficial asymmetry: _sympathy_. When you kill or imprison a man for merely
using a certain restroom, or sitting in a certain place on the bus, or casting
a ballot, etc, you are making a gross injustice apparent to all, and you put
yourself in the position of prevailing against the sympathies and
sensibilities of society (including some of the oppressors). Thus, it turns an
asymmetry that the establishment normally enjoys into a liability.

Upvoted because this discussion has caused me to think of some new and
interesting thoughts.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_\(Thoreau\))

~~~
aric
Upvoted as well. We ultimately agree. I'm sure you understand my contention.

> _" It also means submitting to the authorities when you break the law; MLK
> spent a lot of time in jail."_

I interpreted that phrase as exclusive although you probably implied it as
inclusive. I simply don't want anyone to be mistaken. Civil disobedience
_doesn 't_ require submission to authority. Enough people as it is make
irrelevant equivocations about Snowden and others having to flee the [United
States | {or insert regime}] out of fearing for their lives. Civil
disobedience feeds on strategy. MLK had his legions and knew some fleeting
jail time would actually work in his favor. I appreciate Thoreau. :) I wish
more people would take his thoughts (and the thoughts of other like-minds) to
heart. Peace!

------
joezydeco
_" If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in
civil disobedience..."_

Kind of hard to do that when you're sitting in 24 hour solitary confinement in
Guantanamo, Mr Gates.

------
orlandob
He is explicitly anti-Snowden and agnostic on Government surveillance (love
the "we need more debate" trope). Bill Gates knows who butters his toast.

~~~
tptacek
Yes. Big Polio.

------
theonemind
Gates is worried about law breaking now? I guess this law breaking won't make
him any money.

He's too smart and rebellious to actually care about the law. He's not stupid
enough to believe what he's saying about lawbreaking and herohood. He means he
likes the system the way it is because he's on top, and he has no motivation
to rock the boat or have the establishment against him

Which is a shame, because he has the money and power to defend himself and say
what he really thinks and stand up for real justice.

He lost some of the respect I had for him because of his philanthropy when I
read this.

------
dpweb
Gates is right to be moderate on the question. Expecting him to come out and
call Snowden a hero is ludicrous. Even asking the question "Is Snowden a hero"
is bullshit. It's a oversimplification designed to generate a good headline.
Hence this story's headline..

The country is incredibly polarized and its a negative thing for the USA. As a
world leader and he is one, the responsible thing would be for him to be (at
least publicly) moderate on the topic, and he happens to be right, we need the
debate to figure out several very important issues about our democracy and
what are the real threats to it.

As far as tactics, civil disobedience (ala MLK or Gandhi) is definitely the
way to go. As a tactic, it let's you get the moral high-ground. That is
incredibly powerful. Throwing a brick through a window (or releasing state
secrets), doesn't get you that, even if its justified. So I would agree with
Gates, Snowden could have used a better tactic. Although, how do you get
attention to the issue through the noise and lies of the media without doing
something drastic. I don't know. It's a tough issue.

~~~
subsection1h
> So I would agree with Gates, Snowden could have used a better tactic.

Which tactics would have been better?

And since it's been 10 full months since Snowden released the documents, you
and Gates are in a much better position than Snowden had been to make an
informed decision regarding which tactics would have been better.

So I repeat, which tactics would have been better?

------
thinkpad20
People criticizing Bill Gates' opinion is fine, but doing so on the basis of
the fact that he is very rich is silly. I don't think Snowden is a hero
either, and I'm just a working shlub. Obviously, I think there are perfectly
legitimate reasons to not think he's a hero that have nothing to do with
whether or not you run a multibillion dollar corporation. I wouldn't say the
reason for my opinion is that he broke the law, but I don't think that's what
Gates meant by saying that either; I think that what he meant was that the law
that Snowden broke exists for a good reason, and that the manner in which he
broke it was bad.

------
bediger4000
Wow, that really gives me pause! A multi-billionaire says Snowden is no hero.
Don't know about you, but I often let Gates, Trump, Buffett, the Walton heirs
and the Koch Brothers dictate my opinions for me! Just because they're rolling
in it!

But really, Gates isn't a philosopher, isn't a lawyer, isn't a politician, and
arguably represents the very worst that the stale status quo has to offer. Why
should we let him assure us that upsetting the system that gave Gates
_billions_ of dollars is bad, bad, very bad? It would be news if he said
something _opposite_ to "Snowden is no hero", if he advocated some very
serious changes, and put his money where his mouth is. As it stands, this is
non-news, it's predictable.

~~~
gamblor956
Believing that Snowden isn't a hero doesn't make Bill Gates worse than the
others. It simply means that Gates doesn't think Snowden is a hero. He doesn't
say whether he considers Snowden to be a _villain_ , which is entirely
separate from not being an hero.

 _if he advocated some very serious changes, and put his money where his mouth
is_

You must be unfamiliar with the billions he's spending on medical research,
education, and various other nonprofit causes. He's the single largest
charitable donor in history (excepting Nobel, who has the advantage of a
century's headstart on inflation).

Moreover, you bring up Trump, the Waltons, and the Kochs and then call Bill
Gates the worst of the bunch?

~~~
bediger4000
Context is everything dude. "Serious changes" with respect to the topic under
consideration, NSA overreach and mass, probably unconstitutional surveillance.
Why try to broaden the context to include Gates' philanthropic work? It's not
relevant.

But given your fondness for irrelevancy, I can see why you would ignore
mockery of Arguments from Authority. Such mockery eats at the foundation of a
worldview and theology that puts Very Rich People at the summit of humanity.

Good day, Sir.

------
futurist
Bill Gates is an old fuddyduddy with too many friends in high places to ever
side with Snowden. His answer isn't the least surprising.

