
Edward Snowden: The World Says No to Surveillance - digisth
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/opinion/edward-snowden-the-world-says-no-to-surveillance.html
======
nabeelahmed13
Those mistaking Snowden for being naive and idealistic, note that he _may
actually believe_ there has been progress.

Sadly, I don't have a source, but I remember him saying in an interview that
when he handed over the documents to Greenwald and Poitras, he thought nothing
would come of it. That it would be forgotten and never get on the radar.

That isn't the case.

Sure, we have a long way to go, and the situation is much more nuanced than he
makes it to be, but from his view, this is _progress_.

------
danso
I don't disagree with Snowden's sentiment, and I know it's possible he didn't
write the headline...but "The World Says No to Surveillance" is simplistic and
inaccurate.

The obvious rebuttal is "But China"...but beyond that, among the Western
powers: France and Britain, among others. And Snowden acknowledges this (which
is why I don't assume he wrote the headline, necessarily):

> _Spymasters in Australia, Canada and France have exploited recent tragedies
> to seek intrusive new powers despite evidence such programs would not have
> prevented attacks. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain recently mused,
> “Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot
> read?” He soon found his answer, proclaiming that “for too long, we have
> been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you
> obey the law, we will leave you alone.”_

Again, it's not that Snowden is wrong in his opinion about surveillance. But
it's wrong to think that the world, or any kind of non-U.S.-status quo, is
anti-surveillance. The battle is much more uphill than that and those who want
to fight it have to keep that in mind.

~~~
tanderson92
The world's response is more than the aggregate will of the governments. To
take your case of China, I would be wary of claiming that the people of that
country are content with the surveillance state in which they live. Rather,
they are an oppressed people, and the surveillance state does them no favor in
this regard.

Ed Snowden's larger point was about the public reaction to learning they were
being surveilled; obviously, governments already knew whether they themselves
were spying. In this sense I think the world has indeed said no to
surveillance, it's just that in some cases the government doesn't wish to
listen (well, not to that, just everything else!).

~~~
tmalsburg2
A few years back, I visited China for a couple of weeks and I was pretty
surprised by the people's opinion about the government and government actions
that we in the west perceive as abhorrent. Short version: For most of the 20th
century, China was in deep shit and bullied by almost anyone who felt like it.
In the eyes of many Chinese people, the economic success and regained self-
esteem justify almost any measure the government deems necessary. Even if that
leads people to be ok with things that we might find horrible, I kind of see
where they are coming from. Bottom line: as westerners we have no idea what
the world looks like from the Chinese perspective. For many or most Chinese
people, the current system doesn't stand for oppression but for the liberation
from oppression. I'm sure my story is grossly oversimplified; Chinese readers,
please correct me.

~~~
wisty
Not Chinese, but I've lived there.

A lot of people hate the government, but only in the same way many Americans
hate the government. And you're right that they see the CCP as being
reasonably good, compared to the alternatives they've had.

In many ways, the central government is much better liked than the local /
provincial governments, as they are the ones who clean up corruption when
people complain.

No-one likes internet filters (except for the "think of the children" crowd -
the filters also block porn). But anyone who really cares can get a VPN, and
most people just use puns or images to say things that would normally be
filtered.

Yes, you can be hauled to the police for a "tea chat" (literally a cup of tea,
and a chat) if you're a popular blogger who is stepping on the wrong toes. But
it's not like they're shooting people for dissent - the process is roughly:
deleting posts, threats, contacting family / employers, eventually maybe house
arrest, fines, prison, etc.

Black arrests are typically internal party matters (e.g. corrupt officials),
people protesting in person, organisers, and people going to a capital to
petition a higher level of government (some local leader with gang-connections
might try to keep people from petitioning his boss).

What annoys the Chinese isn't free speech, per say. It's corruption,
pollution, unsafe products, abuse of eminent domain, etc. And things like
jobs, education, healthcare, and house prices - they've got a lot of problems,
and free speech isn't the biggest one.

Revolutions are expensive. It's a crap-shot whether you get real reforms, or a
new strong-man (think Putin). Mostly, they want gradual reform, and that's
what they tend to get.

~~~
fineman
> But it's not like they're shooting people for dissent - the process is
> roughly: deleting posts, threats, contacting family / employers, eventually
> maybe house arrest, fines, prison, etc.

Wow. Also, they do shoot people for dissent. Those who aren't cowed or jailed.

> they've got a lot of problems, and free speech isn't the biggest one.

Not the biggest, but one of the most central. You can't agitate for anything
you need if speaking out is forbidden, and you can't organize if you're being
monitored.

> Revolutions are expensive. It's a crap-shot whether you get real reforms, or
> a new strong-man (think Putin).

Very true.

~~~
caskance
Agitating for any reason is stupid if the current powers that be are already
doing all they can to fix the issues you yourself prioritize highest.

~~~
fineman
There are seven billion people and maybe 200 'powers'. What's the chance any,
let alone yours is doing the exact thing, in the exact way, that you
prioritize highest?

Also, agitation is what we call speech we don't like. If we do, it's lobbying,
or raising awareness, etc.

The test of a society is if speech is allowed (not forbidden) even if the
powers-that-be consider it agitation.

------
uptown
"As you read this online, the United States government makes a note."

~~~
skidoo
"Let's give them something to talk about.' \- Bonnie Raitt

~~~
jeff_marshall
Love, for the NYT? surely you jest.

They've got a long way back before they have my trust, let alone my love.

------
dpweb
I'm no apologist for someone who works for our government and publicly
releases secrets that may damage the nation's security - and I've been fooled
before - but I was quite moved by the HBO documentary - both in describing his
situation and point of view, but also with his intelligence and way he
conducted himself.

He would and will have to very sharp (and lucky) to stand any chance against
the forces aligned against him. I think a United States congressman publicly
called for his murder at one point. I can't imagine. I think, if he does truly
care as much as he claims, he will inevitably have come back to the US to face
trial. The time is coming when that will be the most important thing he can do
to advance his cause.

~~~
ohazi
I would prefer to see him pardoned within the next 1-3 US presidents.

~~~
cpursley
If Rand Paul becomes the next president, I bet we'll see it in his first term.

------
spcoll
Snowden is a traitor and deserves to be locked up.

~~~
luckydude
I think technically you are correct but ethically you are way off base. He did
the right thing. I'd like to think that if I was in his position I would have
had the balls to do what he did. Not sure that I have them.

Instead of waving the traitor flag you might look at what he exposed and get
pissed about that. That's the real problem.

One could make the argument that he is a patriot and a hero. He's trying to
get our country to actually uphold our constitution. Seems like he made the
right choice at a huge personal cost.

------
vph
I don't get this guy. He seems smart and naive at the same time. He's living
right under the nose of one of the largest spy agencies in the world: the KGB.
Okay, I can see he doesn't want to talk about them. Fine. But he seems to call
for the destruction of the American spy agencies. Really? Russia, China, and
all of our "allies" ain't going to close their spy agencies even if the US
does. What do you want? America with no spies operating in a this world? How
about we give up all of our weapons too? That will make the world a safer
better place? Right? I just don't get this guy.

~~~
Sacho
Why do you get the sentiment that: 1) he wants to destroy american spy
agencies? 2) only american spy agencies

If we presume his call against the current mass surveilance programs equates
with the destruction of the NSA(which I can't really agree with), then ypu
would also conclude he dislikes the burgeoning mass surveilance from other
countties, e.g. France, the UK and others listed in the article.

He didn't mention Russia explicitly, but I cannot fault his political tact
considering his situation.

I don't think your interpretation of his words is very charitable. Their
underlyimng message is a poaitive one - people reject something they aren't
comfortable with and using many avenues(political, technological, social) they
enact change to combat it. In our age where voters are largely
disenfranchised, this is a positive demonatration of the power we hold as a
society.

There is a discussion to be had about the authority spy agencies should have.
Perhaps eventually a reasonable surveillance program with checks and balances
may be enacted, which people are content with. We wouldn't even have this
conversation, however, if not for people like Snowden. The US government
preached total secrecy in the name of "national security", and basically said
"trust us, you don't need to know".

Thanks to Snowden, we are, with some hope, on yhe road to such a conversation.
That's what I "get" from him.

