
Edward Snowden, after months of NSA revelations, says his mission’s accomplished - uptown
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-after-months-of-nsa-revelations-says-his-missions-accomplished/2013/12/23/49fc36de-6c1c-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html
======
eliteraspberrie
The Washington Post sat on the Collateral Murder video. [1,2] The New York
Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping scandal at the request of the White
House. [3] CBS sat on the Abu Ghraib torture scandal at the request of the
Pentagon. [4]

What is the Washington Post _not_ telling us?

[1]
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15617022129](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15617022129)

[2]
[http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wapo_denies_allegation_it_sat....](http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wapo_denies_allegation_it_sat.php)

[3] [http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/the-scoop-that-
got...](http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/the-scoop-that-got-spiked/)

[4] [http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100787/CBS-
Let...](http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100787/CBS-Lets-the-
Pentagon-Taint-Its-News-Process.aspx)

~~~
foobarqux
I think Snowden inadvertently demonstrated the only effective way to get media
to publish leaks: Send them to multiple outlets in different countries. Doing
so provides publishers with both impetus and cover.

~~~
robterrell
I bet it wasn't inadvertent at all. I'm sure he saw it the same way you do.

~~~
derefr
I think the GP meant that the _demonstration_ was inadvertent. As in, Snowden
intended to use the strategy himself, but he didn't intend to _teach_ the
strategy through his actions.

------
hooande
But what has really changed?

The NSA is under pressure from the public, less so from the intelligence and
defense communities. If anything Snowden has caused those areas of government
to close ranks even tighter. There's nothing a leader wants more than a highly
visible enemy to unite his or her people. There are orders of magnitude more
people who hate General Alexander now than there were two years ago. But his
own people love him even harder.

The NSA may or may not lose some funding in the coming years. It will probably
just transfer over to the NRO or the Office of Intelligence and Analysis or
one of the dozen other agencies that we haven't come to know and hate yet. If
there's one thing government is good at, it's maintaining the status quo.
Public support has never meant much to the intelligence community. These are
people who signed up to serve in secret, who have dedicated their lives to
what they believe to be just causes. They won't pay a thought to a year or so
of bad press.

Snowden's future is unclear. He'll probably be in russia for several more
years, if he doesn't overstay his welcome. It's possible that some future
president will see pardoning him as a free goodwill card. Or perhaps he'll be
able to start a life as an overseas media personality, reaping the benefits of
what many see as a heroic action. One thing is for certain: US intelligence
agencies will continue business as usual.

Edward Snowden has shown the light, and his work is indeed done. It's up to us
to effect real change and shape our government in our own image. Maybe things
will change, maybe they won't. But those who dislike what he has revealed have
their work cut out for them.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
Well IMO it's kind of silly to care about the government snooping through my
data when huge corporations are the ones who actually own the fiber and can
siphon all the traffic they want -- then sell it. You're basically choosing
between the US government or a combination of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and
Deutsche Telekom.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "You're basically choosing between the US government or a combination of
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and Deutsche Telekom."

Honestly I'd be more happy with the telecom companies doing it. They can do
much less harm with any data they get.

~~~
phillmv
I'd prefer it if no one did it. I can imagine a future where your credit
rating is influenced by your Facebook profile and it's not a fun one.

------
quesera
> “If I defected at all,” Snowden said, “I defected from the government to the
> public.”

He can't run til 2020, but I'll cast an early vote now.

~~~
eru
They'll probably make him a felon, won't they? (Can you vote for felons in the
US?)

~~~
gonzo
Yup.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility)

~~~
jasomill
Speaking of which, if he were convicted and then elected President, one could
make a reasonable argument that he could then pardon himself.

------
znowi
_I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to
determine if it should change itself._

Despite a fair amount of indignation from the public, it seems to me that the
majority has accepted the new surveillance reality.

~~~
samstave
The weird invasive thought I keep having is if Snowden could, if at all, be a
limited hang-out-OP/MISO (PsyOp) to gauge just how much the public would
accept.

There have been enough revelations to see that the NSA got to keep what it is
in entirety; mission accomplished.

~~~
john_b
This is definitely tinfoil hat territory. Some very high level people in the
intelligence community may lose their jobs or (if things go very well) face
charges in the next year or two. If the whole Snowden affair is an inside job
then those high level people must have been ignorant of it since they would
never accept the personal risk of the shitstorm that has resulted.

~~~
samstave
Yeah, I mean just look how afraid Clapper was of lying, completely knowingly,
to the Senate under oath. He must really be afraid of putting himself out
there as the threat to his personal freedom is far too great.

------
acqq
It's a good moment to think again about the words uttered by, at that moment,
vice president Cheney on September 16, 2001:

(at that time published on whitehouse.gov)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20011116191708/http://www.whiteho...](http://web.archive.org/web/20011116191708/http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-
speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html)

" _We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We 've
got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world._ A lot of what
needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion,
using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if
we're going to be successful."

And, for the opposing view, also to think about the 2006 speech of then
senator Obama:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfX7RI7DGI8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfX7RI7DGI8)

"No President is above the law. I am voting against Mr. Hayden in the hope
that he will be more humble before the great weight of responsibility that he
has not only to protect our lives but to protect our democracy.

Americans fought a Revolution in part over the right to be free from
unreasonable searches -- to ensure that our Government could not come knocking
in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to
make sure we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of
innocent Americans. We have to find a way to give the President the power he
needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power. It is
possible to do that. We have done it before. We could do it again."

And as Snowden mentions, the oath the President makes is:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States)

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, _preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "_

The Constitution.

It's the end of 2013.

~~~
jonhohle
> We need to find a way forward to make sure we can stop terrorists

Why is this such a trumping goal (or even a goal at all)? It's an impossible
task without singnificant imposition on everyone's lives (we're no where close
to being able to stop anything, and things are already leaning too far away
from the people).

A disproportionate amount of time and resources are already being dedicated to
"fighting" terrorism, with diminishing returns and uncountable atrocities done
by our government.

~~~
err4nt
I never understood this either. Aren't heart disease and obesity much bigger
killers (statistically) within US borders? What if they flipped the medical
and military budgets for just ONE term, what would happen…

------
suprgeek
His mission yes - giving up the comforts of a stable paying job in Hawaii and
exposing himself to tremendous danger from a variety of nation-state level
adversaries for life - in the bargain. Amazingly commendable - all for the
sake of preserving core Liberty and Freedom as we know it.

What happens next ? Will things go back to businesses as usual?

~~~
randomfool
His job is done, now it's up to the rest of us.

~~~
d0ugie
I wonder if Snowden were aware when planning his mission that his actions
would only yield some isolated populist outcrying, a few more people using
Tor, some political awkwardness and pretty much nothing else, as appears to be
case.

------
mladenkovacevic
Jesus Christ some of the comments on that article. I wonder if there was some
way to analyse what percentage of it is astro-turfing and what percentage is
real red-blooded Americans just brainwashed into thinking government knows
best. Americans you are lost. It's been nice knowing you.

~~~
krapp
>Americans you are lost. It's been nice knowing you.

There are fewer than 500 comments on that site as of right now, that doesn't
mean anything about anything.

Sometimes I wonder if people are actually aware that the United States has
more people in it than can fit into a single room.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
It's what would in most industries be considered a reasonable sized sampling.
When you then look at this poll then, things start to look grim indeed:
[http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-
ph...](http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-
tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/)

~~~
prostoalex
This is a self-selected sample. People who read the article and thought "meh,
whatever" did not bother to leave a comment.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Exactly. See also "voluntary response data are worthless" by prof. Velleman
(in the tokenadult comment):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772533)

------
jliechti1
If the "terrorists" are following this whole story, wouldn't now be a prime
time for another attack?

This could have the effect of validating the NSA's activities in many
Americans' eyes ("see, the NSA is unable to its job without invading our
privacy") and we would see a whole new round of new laws capitalizing on
Americans' fears of terrorists (which means their terrorism succeeded).

~~~
snowwrestler
The NSA makes the lives of terrorists much harder than it would be otherwise.
Terrorists undoubtedly welcome Snowden's revelations--both for revealing
tactics, and for creating the possibility that the NSA will be constrained by
public outrage.

That doesn't imply that what Snowden did was wrong, though. We trade security
for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and now we have a chance
to debate that tradeoff for digital data.

~~~
pnathan
> We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and
> now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data.

This is something really important: it's not out-of-the-box obviously wrong
(talk to people who aren't into civil liberties for this perspective) that our
communications are monitored. But it is very important that, as US citizens,
we have an understanding and a grasp of what is done and what could be done in
our name, and _that we regulate its activities_ based upon our choices, _not_
that of shadowy figures telling us we don't have the capacity to understand.
As a representative democracy, we have the right to be informed and to select
representatives & leaders who take policies that we can agree (up to majority)
on.

~~~
jgg
I disagree entirely. The genius behind the the US Constitution was its
acceptance of the idea that power, no matter how just, will eventually
corrupt, which is why our freedoms were supposed to be rather absolute. I
think there are almost no sane reasons to infringe on a basic human right in
general: the burden of proof should be on the government to do it selectively,
and even then it should be treated with great scepticism.

Further, we have almost no power as a representative "democracy": the public
can't recall a representative at all, for example, and it is only done by an
internal chamber discussion (it has happened very few times in the history of
the US).

Thus, we're really not supposed to "vote away" basic, sane axioms in the first
place. The point of the US was to have those rights held firmly in place, and
for its citizenry to use their right to bear arms to protect themselves
against a government that tried to take them away. It's indicative of the US's
culture at this point that stating this position (which is easily backed up by
many of the founding fathers' writing) brands you as a "libertarian wingnut"
or "on the fringe." Am I advocating violent revolt now? No, because most would
not actually know what to revolt against (and probably don't perceive the
corporate/government power structure in place in the US).

Then again, any attempt to do the aforementioned has failed in this country. A
great example are the Alien and Sedition acts, which were passed conveniently
around the time of the French Revolution.

~~~
pnathan
It's Christmas Eve, and I'm enjoying my coffee and feel rather disinclined to
get into a political argument, so I'll just toss a few thoughts around without
intending to respond (I'll chat via email tho'). I agree that increasing power
_should_ be treated with great scepticism (But it isn't, honestly. And that's
a shame).

Point: Police power is inherently a use of force on the citizenry. The Army is
the same, loooosely.

Point: Taxing, coining, patenting are all applications of force.

Point: The 5th amendment clearly lines out uses of force.

Point: The 5th amendment also includes a key phrase, "due process of law",
indicating that the government is limited. The 3rd amedment supports this as
well, requiring a limitation on quartering in time of war via law.

Point: Law & regulations, period, are the application of the government's use
of force to ensure a smooth governing (See Hobbes for a work known in the late
1700s).

Conclusion: The US founders designed the government to have power (Unverified
statement based on recollections - _but_ split in such a way that each arm of
government was naturally incented to limit the power of the other arms).

Nit: The US is a republic, not a democracy. It's regrettable that a district
can't recall its representative wholly on its own. Perhaps that would restrain
certain foolishness in the system...

Happy Holidays.

~~~
snowwrestler
I meant to stay out of this but this is a pet peeve: the U.S. is both a
republic and a democracy. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

We're not a direct democracy, we're a representative democracy, but that is
still a form of democracy.

For an example of a democracy that is not a republic, see the UK.

For an example of a republic that is not a democracy, see China.

------
w_t_payne
Sorry, Ed, but we are nowhere near "mission accomplished".

This debate may have begun with worries about the risks posed by NSA
overreach, but it does not end with them. As Bruce Schneier pointed out, the
tools of today's spies are the same as the tools of tomorrow's criminals.

Whilst I am not exactly comfortable with the idea of persistent, intimate
state surveillance, this discomfort fades into paltry insignificance when I
consider the implications of criminal entities controlling the computing
devices that I use to analyse and understand issues, make decisions and
interact with the world.

I studied Artificial Intelligence as a student. I buy (somewhat) into
Kurzweil's view of the future. Today, my computer may be a "bicycle for the
mind", but tomorrow, we may have difficulty distinguishing between rider and
vehicle.

The security of today's internet; today's computing devices, profoundly
affects how securely, how effectively, and how independently I will be able to
think in 20 or 30 years time.

We need to start talking more (much more) about the weaknesses and security
vulnerabilities inherent in the architecture and design of our public
communications and computing infrastructure. This debate has to get detailed
and has to get technical. Fast.

------
yetanotherphd
I am in awe of this man. We all owe him our thanks for bringing this
information to the public, at considerable risk to himself.

------
kochb
> "Until you’ve got to pull the trigger, until you’ve had to bury your people,
> you don’t have a clue."

Falling to the "you don't know what it's like" argument is never a good sign.
You're acting out of pain and so emotionally invested in justifying your
actions that you're incapable of communicating an evidence based rationale to
an outsider. You can't reach a reasoned resolution like that.

------
tinfoil007
Thank you, Edward Snowden. You're true hero.

It's a shame, that your leaders can see in technology only surveillance, war
machinery and ways to humiliate and subjugate others.

It's a shame, that USA's participation in computing is still a "donkey work",
as tortured (and probably killed) Alan Turing once said.

------
nicholassmith
His mission is done, our mission isn't. He gave us the information we need to
start banging on doors and saying to our elected representatives, 'is this
right? Is this reasonable?'.

Some won't listen, some will, some won't rock the boat, some will. But unless
you push you'll never know.

------
Fuxy
You have to admire his willingness to risk everything to give the people a
chance to change this broken system.

He is right though the system is broken it gives too much power with too
little oversight.

~~~
notdonspaulding
At the same time, this is exactly what we should expect of every American put
in his position. And others were in his position before him, so you kind of
have to shake your head that this wasn't disclosed sooner.

What I find admirable is the way he's gone about disclosing these documents in
such a responsible and controlled manner.

------
stevewillows
I just hope at this point that we don't see a high-budget movie starring
Justin Timberlake or Jesse Eisenberg playing Snowden.

------
marquis
"All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are
governed".

If these are his words to be remembered by, history will have kind thoughts
for him.

------
memracom
Amazing that for so many decades under so many leaders, the American
intelligence services have relied on the oath of allegiance to the
Constitution to preserve secrecy. The Brits do it right by making people sign
the Official Secrets Act which both binds the agent to keep secrets and
educates them in full detail what that means.

~~~
gobakhan
Kind of like the Non-disclosure agreement everyone with a security clearance
has to sign.

[http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-
forms/sf312.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf)

------
tokenadult
I wish Snowden would roll up his sleeves and start working on the same problem
in Russia, where he now lives, and in China, where he stayed briefly on his
way to Russia. His mission has hardly begun.

~~~
woah
The whole argument about Russia being way worse than the US, and Snowden
staying there is ridiculous. He isn't staying there as some sort of celebrity
endorsement for the tourism program. He's staying there because it is the only
place he was able to reach in time, as Russia is one of the few countries too
big to be invaded by the US military.

~~~
Grue3
He's there because he's a coward with no backbone. If he is so sure of his
innocence, he'd be facing the court instead of propping up a government with
terrible human rights record.

~~~
Peaker
Do you really believe the court system works to determine innocence? Do you
believe he would be guaranteed a fair trial? Do you think Manning got a fair
trial?

Do you believe that by taking refuge in Russia he's "propping up" their
government? How?

Do you believe that giving up a 6-figure salary and life to expose violations
of the US constitution is an act of a coward?

Are these opinions harbored by real people, or is this a troll?

~~~
Grue3
I believe he'd get a more fair trial than Navalny and Khodorkovsky did.

This one is pretty much obvious. It is a massive PR win for Putin, looking at
uninformed online comments such as yours.

I believe he's paid much more by Russian intelligence services for all the
secrets he has "exported".

The last question doesn't even deserve a response. If you're this closeminded,
you shouldn't argue on the Internet at all.

~~~
Peaker
How is Russia not giving fair trials relevant? You suggested he throw himself
at the american system, which we both know won't give him a fair trial but
will torture him and throw him to jail for the rest of his life whether he's
guilty by law or not. And yet you suggest this should be his course of action.
You realize this is ridiculous right?

Everyone understands Snowden is hiding in Russia to avoid torture by the US.
Everyone also knows Russia does worse than NSA things. There is no
contradiction, and trying top highlight a contradiction smells of dishonesty.

You believe he's paid but you have zero evidence for it. Russia gains
virtually nothing from it, Snowden can't live a normal life for the rest of
his life.

Would you be content with the NSA continuing illegal oversight and building a
total surveillance society?

------
frozenport
Maybe Snowden was a trial balloon? _They_ wanted to see how far the American
public could be pushed? :-)

------
ck2
NSA must be thrilled. Like the TSA, the mainstream public has become
completely complacent.

Bet they were worried for a whole minute there.

I won't be surprised if like Homeland Security Theater their funding will
increase and not decrease after the exposure.

Well at least gitmo was closed. Oh wait. Guess we accomplished less than
nothing.

------
mrobot
I didn't see anyone ask. Does "mission accomplished" mean no more leaks from
the Snowden pool?

What was the last leak, then, RSA security?

"By the way, RSA sucks! Mission accomplished."

------
NN88
I just can't help but think most people already knew this before he revealed
it...but then I remember...so many people are just under a rock

------
jokoon
I wonder what will happen when his 1 year thing with russia will end...

Maybe canada or south america ?

------
cabbeer
This came to mind when I read the title:
[http://i.imgur.com/bPn53M1.jpg?1](http://i.imgur.com/bPn53M1.jpg?1)

~~~
aggie
Ok, but did you read the article? Snowden is talking about the mission of
starting the conversation, which he has done.

“'For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission’s already
accomplished,' he said. 'I already won. As soon as the journalists were able
to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because,
remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance
to determine if it should change itself.'”

~~~
beedogs
This was basically his stated goal when he started this whole thing: getting
the public informed and starting the conversation about how much government
intrusion into our private lives is _too_ much.

------
Grue3
Hopefully he'll stop hogging the frontpage then. Just like nobody remembers
Julian Assange anymore.

~~~
Peaker
Do you want the NSA to keep on spying on US citizens without oversight, to
turn over its data to US law enforcement for "parallel reconstruction"?

Do you want to live in a total-surveillance society?

------
codex
The world, especially the intelligence world, is more than black and white. A
myriad hues exist, some of them dark and dirty, some grey. Here is a portrait
of a man who is color blind. Experiencing the world only through a computer,
he lacks the judgement to jump to the right conclusions, and goes
thermonuclear only to find that mainstream Americans don't share his
disability. He wants to be another Assange, but in the end he is another
Manning.

~~~
wmt
You cannot seriously believe that an NSA contractor would be morally
colourblind. He was expecting those shades of grey but instead found an agency
more focused on spying it's citizens than Stasi.

~~~
Grue3
>more focused on spying it's citizens than Stasi

How in the world is it possible to post something as ridiculous as this? Is
this what you kids truly believe? Snowden might be colour blind, but you sure
are tone deaf.

~~~
Peaker
Well, the NSA collected more data on US citizens than the Stasi ever collected
on Germans.

