
'Pardon Snowden,' one tech exec tells Obama, report says - fraqed
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57616044-38/pardon-snowden-one-tech-exec-tells-obama-report-says/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
======
ilamont
This is a self-serving opportunity for Mark Pincus to look like the good guy,
after years of acting like a tyrant when he was in charge of Zynga. I'm not
just talking about pushing games designed to exploit users in various ways.
Remember the incident where Pincus "demanded certain employees surrender some
shares or be fired"? (1) He also laid off more than 500 people earlier this
year,(2) managed problems by "address(ing) the symptoms rather than the root
causes"(3) and padded his own nest while loyal investors who stuck with Zynga
stock got roasted.(4)

Appearing in a photo opp with Obama and saying "free Snowden" is a low risk
way for him to improve his image among his peers (rich Silicon Valley people)
and the public.

1\.
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020462190...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204621904577018373223480802)

2\.
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/06/03/zynga-l...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/06/03/zynga-
layoffs-mark-pincus/2385291/)

3\. [http://www.fastcompany.com/3007544/where-are-they-
now/mark-p...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3007544/where-are-they-now/mark-
pincuss-clowns-are-still-haunting-zynga)

4\. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/07/01/the-fall-
of-m...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/07/01/the-fall-of-mark-
pincus-from-billionaire-to-zyngas-former-ceo/)

~~~
sneak
There's a big fat line between being a dick of a manager (it's not illegal to
say "surrender shares or be fired", simply asshole-tinted capitalism) and
imprisoning someone for life for performing a heroic act (involving
sacrificing his own personal freedom) to uphold some of the most important
ideals of our society.

Please learn the difference between "asshole" and "evil".

You can be a stark raging asshole (e.g. Pincus, or weev) and still not be
criminal, such as the activities of Obama, the DNI, and the NSA.

~~~
walshemj
I think the average man on the google shuttle bus or any SV employee would
consider "surrender shares or be fired" to be evil.

~~~
sneak
And it's exactly that that I suggest they learn not to do. It's a dick move,
but it's not evil or criminal. It's within the rights of the person doing it,
distasteful as it may be.

~~~
walshemj
In my book its breach of contract between the employer and employee and that
is illegal.

~~~
sneak
No, that's breach of contract. It has nothing to do with criminal law or
legality.

You seem to be conflating civil and criminal law.

(Also, there is no employment contract in the world that gives up at-will, so
", or be fired" sentences aren't even breaches generally.)

------
dpratt
"The Obama administration has stated that if Snowden were to return to the
United States, he would receive protection under due process laws."

That sure is nice of them.

How did it get to a point where this is actually up for debate? It sure sounds
to me like that's a statement from somebody who thinks that they have options
in how Snowden should be treated by the government.

~~~
timje1
Was Manning's treatment due process? Because it seems she was stripped naked
and kept in isolation for several years.

I think I'll take the exile, thanks Barry.

~~~
antiterra
Manning was in the military, and the operating interpretation of Article I is
that Congress and the President have the power to regulate the Armed forces,
the rest of the US Constitution and civilian law largely notwithstanding.
Draconian punishment and treatment, while concerning, is nothing new for those
subject to the UCMJ, even if the code itself appears to prohibit it[1].

The scary scenario would be the classification of Snowden as an enemy
combatant, who would then be subject to military justice. I hope that all
three branches of the US government consider that to be a ridiculous stretch
of the imagination.

[1] [http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-
pre...](http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-
title10-section813&num=0&edition=prelim)

~~~
girvo
Would you put money on the fact that they wouldn't do that?

~~~
rtpg
I would. They would gain nothing from doing it, and everything to lose
(especially in the court of public opinion). Plus the case is already pretty
clear, he's gone and admitted everything anyways. Literally nothing to gain
from trying to put him through a military tribunal.

~~~
herge
There's 158 guys in cages in Guantanamo that would beg to differ...

~~~
rtpg
There might not be strong enough cases against some of the prisoners in
Guantanamo, so holding them there, under their special status, allows the
gov't to hold onto them without having to go through all these bothersome
limits on detention. Plus there's the argument that people in Guantanamo could
be especially dangerous if re-released (not defending this).

There really isn't that sort of problem with Snowden. A videotaped, non-
coerced confession? Hundreds of articles sourced by him? How could the facts
be clearer-cut? Trials could begin immediately, the worst he could do is pull
an Assange-style blockade in some embassy.

------
Draco6slayer
With all that's being said about the NSA, and how we should add self-
restraint, with all that the government is admitting about the current state
of the NSA being bad, why not?

If it's that clear that Snowden did the right thing, why not pardon him? I
feel that not pardoning Snowden is roughly equivalent to making a statement
that people should be in the dark about the government's spying programs, and
that the government should be free to spy on its people, unchecked.

~~~
rfnslyr
This is the United States government. By pardoning snowman they set a
dangerous precedent.

Let's say they pardon snowden, in the future, if more whistleblowers appear,
all they have to do is say "but snowden was pardoned!" And then what?

~~~
adventured
If more people do what Snowden did, and reveal the kind of violations he has,
then they too should be pardoned for the same reason he should be.

The proper response by the government to future cases is to judge them each
case by case.

~~~
rfnslyr
None of this is going to happen. The moment they open that door all hell
breaks loose.

I really wish, but it won't. The system is solidified.

If they open this door, and then do anything against people using Snowdens
precedent, the white house will be in a much worse position than now.

------
cschmidt
Here is the list of people who Obama _has_ pardoned:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bara...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Barack_Obama)

It looks like many of them were just erasing the record of those who committed
minor crimes a long time ago. I wonder how you get to be so lucky.

~~~
jnbiche
I don't know, but Obama's been pretty stingy with the pardons compared to past
presidents.

~~~
basch
wait until his last day in office

------
peatmoss
Pardoning Snowden has practical upsides for the President and NSA apart from
morals, ethics, or scoring popularity points with tech execs. Namely, by
pardoning Snowden, there's a good chance they can get him back on U.S. soil
and possibly prevent more leaks that are damaging in other ways.

It strikes me that much of Snowden's original leaking was protecting civil
liberties for U.S. citizens--let's call that patriotism. And it seems that
reasonable people and federal judges agree that knowing about and fixing these
abuses is a Good Thing.

As it stands now, the heavy handed government rhetoric / smear campaign,
combined with the threat of legal (or worse, extra-legal) penalties at home,
might make anyone skittish. And a skittish guy with a whole lot of government
secrets seems like a Bad Thing.

So, let's bring this guy home and throw him some parades before Russia, China,
Iran, and everyone else knows everything about our cyber warfare capacity--
i.e. "legitimate" spy stuff that all nations take part in.

------
danso
Kind of strange that in a discussion that is ostensibly related to the
disastrous Healthcare.gov, that you'd invite the CEO of a gaming company that
thrives off of manipulating users through gamification. I know Zynga has been
successful in many ways that most could only hope to emulate...but really,
there weren't more relevant CEOs to bring to the table?

But good for Pincus for asking the question. How embarrassing it is for Obama
to equivocate on morality and principles with a CEO whose gaming company is
often criticized for having neither.

~~~
just2n
To remain off topic:

It's not just him. The full quote:

"Obama met Tuesday with 15 tech executives, including Apple CEO Tim Cook,
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Yahoo CEO Marissa
Mayer, and Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, with the official purpose of discussing
how his administration can improve its Healthcare.gov Web site."

None of these people seem particularly good candidates for a discussion on how
to make healthcare.gov better. It's also highly questionable that only highly
ranking executives were invited. It feels to me this was more of a face saving
publicity stunt or a talking point. It would've been more useful and cheaper
for Obama to just have Google or Yahoo build a replacement healthcare.gov
website, or open source the task and ask them for contributions.

Where's the "let's get shit done" focus?

------
mikeash
My first reaction was, "Cool!"

Then I got to thinking about it a little more, and I can't figure out why this
is the _least_ bit interesting.

"Pardon Snowden" is a pretty common sentiment among the tech crowd. And tech
execs _generally_ follow the same sort of opinions as the rest of us. I'm sure
there are substantial differences, but there's no surprise that there would be
tech execs who think Snowden should be pardoned.

So then what _is_ the supposed surprise? That the guy was brave enough to
actually voice his opinion to the President? This is not the USSR and you
don't get thrown in the gulag for expressing an opinion that the President
disagrees with.

------
walshemj
The last thing Ed Snowden needs is a shady character like Pinicus vouching for
him what next will Donald Trump get in the act or gorgeous George Galloway MP.

He needs some higher quality supporters if he does want to negotiate a way out
of his predicament

------
wavefunction
Until that exec is willing to state their support for a pardon in public, this
is all just a bunch of PR for Obama and the big tech companies.

------
znowi
Now wait and see how top tech execs will be gaining cheap karma points during
this "call for reform" campaign.

------
pablovidal85
Obama cannot pardon somebody who's not a criminal, in any case he may be a
witness or a liar.

------
batemanesque
well, if a tech exec says it...

------
contextual
Edward Snowden is the Martin Luther King Jr. of my generation. History will
vindicate this man and hail him as a hero. It's great to see at least _one_
tech exec with the courage to speak up for him.

~~~
mdemare
But why did it have to be Zynga's Mark Pincus...

~~~
brianbreslin
I was kind of surprised Pincus was in that room. Are our virtual farming
habits being analyzed by the NSA too?

~~~
kylnew
He was another CEO's 'plus one'

~~~
sp332
Well if you send "Mark Pincus would like to play Presidential Advisor with
you!" to enough people, someone will click it :)

------
Bahamut
Just a note, the president cannot pardon someone who has not been convicted
yet I believe.

~~~
nknighthb
Have you heard of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford? What about Jimmy Carter and
the Vietnam draft evasion pardons?

