Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Can someone remind me why Snowden became a public figure in the first place? The second leaker is anonymous and practically invisible, and here Snowden is, constantly getting more press. It's like he wants to be as visible as possible while other leakers want the opposite.

Edit: Can somebody tell me what was downvote-worthy about this comment? This is getting ridiculous.




Have you considered that other leakers may still be working for their employers? Snowden was willing to leave everything behind and move to another country, but not everyone has that option (family obligations, etc).

You're probably getting downvoted because your first question is a matter of public record and your assumption that he wants to be extremely visible is inconsistent with the number of interviews of a biographical nature he has conducted. Almost all of his interviews with the press have focused on the NSA, GCHQ, and the like. He explicitly redirects journalists to the real news when they probe too much into his personal life. In this light, your comment could be interpreted as a poor attempt at character assassination.


You are downvoted because you imply Snowden was not wise for becoming a public figure, and it looks like you think he didn't want to be as visible as possible. This is exactly opposite to his strategy.

He wants to be visible as much as possible for two reasons.

The first is that this is the way for him to make the release of documents as effective as possible, something which he has been very succesful at.

The second is that being in the public eye makes it more difficult for organisations to lock him up or assassinate him quietly. The same reason why you'd arrange to meet up with a stranger at a busy public location.


People are reading too much into my comment, then. I didn't imply anything, actually - I made a comparison and provided no detail that could lead a conclusion, other than the idea that he wants to be visible, and questioning that decision.

Your first reason doesn't make sense because all the other leaks by secret leakers have caused uproar and changes, so a person behind them isn't necessary, clearly.

Your second reason doesn't make sense because as long as nobody finds out who you are, they can't kill you. Other leaks in the past have been done with anonymity. And honestly, they'll rendition him regardless of the public outcry because he's broken the law.


Every movement needs a figurehead. Plus, there's not much more that can happen to him. Others who aren't identified have more to lose.


First, the article clearly points out that there is quite a bit more that can happen to him and he's fighting to stay hidden. Second, what movement?


If he now, as a public figure, disappeared, it would be headline news and people might assume the U.S. government eliminated him, potentially making it look more sinister, validating his claims and turning him into a martyr. So exposure provides some security. Nonetheless, he stays hidden because better safe than dead.

But yeah, he also comes off like a grandiose megalomaniac.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: