Yikes, I hadn't read that yet, but I have to say (I'm sure it's been debated a lot already) that their arguments are specious.

What Snowden did was just shine a light into a world that had been growing ever more powerful and yet darker and less transparent while still operating under the letter of the law.

I think that there is a need for a fundamental distrust of government in these cases, and as a Republican, it makes me insanely sad that my party has been on the wrong side of this issue for so long.

So yeah, WaPo should own up to the inconsistency (even if that's just too attribute it to being contributed to by a dynamic and different set of voices).

I disagree.

Snowden didn't go to senators or congresspersons with top secret classified documents to try to responsibly get the public to understand that the head of the NSA lied under oath. He fucking handed them over to journalists to pour through and decide for themselves. They aren't capable of understanding what should be released and in many cases released information they shouldn't have, like the joint collaboration with Canadian embassies for radio monitoring. That stuff shouldn't have gone public.

Yes our democracies have a right to know in a broad sense what our governments should be doing, but we shouldn't allow one random person to do so without first trying to go through government channels to try to fix it with people our people have entrusted to safeguard our national security.

The outcome of what Snowden did was good in some ways, but the manner in which he did it was not and shouldn't be advocated for or encouraged.

Your point is valid only assuming the government wasn't aware of the thing and would have acted differently in perfect good faith, but real world ain't fairies and unicorns: politicians are blood and flesh mortals who can be corrupt exactly as every normal citizen. We'll never know the answer to a what-if different situation, but if I had a time machine to check, I'd bet everything that, had Snowden informed the government in advance, he would probably be dead of "natural causes" by now.

I always get downvoted when I talk about Snowden because people want to see it in all or nothing terms like you do but our governments don't just go around killing people that are trying to do the right thing.

Plus, if he wanted, he could have always set up a complex insurance scheme so that if he died the documents came out.

Honest, I wouldn't have taken the risk either in his place. Going to your local senator sounds overly naive.

We can agree to disagree, but I think what he did was the smart play there. Here's why I think so. Who in the government should he have gone to? We're talking about a lot of reps and senators, some of whom are either on intelligence committees (and possibly approving these actions, or at least the autonomy of those making those choices), or people who are beholden to those congressional members who are. Or he could have gone to people who have no experience with this or no influence to do anything.

Given what he knew of what happened to people who "work against" the US, do you really think the Bradley/Chelsea Manning option was one he wanted to risk?

I don't think our government is full of corrupt, evil and hateful people trying to kill as many people as they can.

Instead, I think it's full of hard working, well meaning people who succumb to the same pressures and tunnel vision that we all do. And sometimes, those people, under pressure from us, the populace, make them try to find solutions that may inch towards tyranny without us knowing it.

Snowden is an idealist, but he needed to show that same populace what our desire for safety was leading to.

I don't believe the guy should be deified, but I don't think he actually matters other than as a part of history and someone who showed us a mirror.

And I don't think you should dump on the fact that he handed them to journalists.

They literally are one of our government's greatest resources in keeping it honest. Not because it's an inherently noble profession, but specifically because our freedom of the press allowed them to have incentives in routing out corruption, whether that's money or fame, etc.

why not?

(it's purely a question to know why not, not a provocation)

Because the power of one individual keeps going up. Just relying only on your own judgement without at least deferring first to a higher authority and attempting to get the issue addressed with their help is reckless and could get a lot of people killed.

Yes people should take a personal stand sometimes, but they shouldn't start there. I understand that previous NSA whistleblowers were gutted, and that was stupid of the NSA because that secret was getting out at some point, but in either case talking to a senator is way, way, way better than talking to a random journalist. There are plenty of reasons not to talk to journalists, not the least of which is that they're often spies. Bringing all the material to Hong Kong was also reckless, though it is possible he took countermeasures to stop himself from giving up the password if he got tortured at the border.

I can choose to leave my phone, or buy a wifi only device, or take the cell modem out.

I can't choose not to be tracked by computers and cameras I don't own, generally. Therefore, the Chinese system is greatly more nefarious since there is no opt-out.

>> I can choose to leave my phone, or buy a wifi only device, or take the cell modem out.

And you can choose to hide in a hole, or go live on a deserted island. In short, you'd have to seriously inconvenience yourself to avoid being spied on all the time.

The reason such surveillance is a problem is that it gets the majority of the population by placing itself smack in the middle of their everyday activities. If it was easy to avoid it, or if it was targeted at uncommon activities nobody 'd be worried about it.

You can choose to live in remote areas by the countryside where there are no cameras.

And thus bump yourself way up the list of possible "troublemakers"...

The very same sort whose phones go offline from time to time (unreachable baseband or no discernible motion for long stretches). What are they hiding? It might be better to put them on a list and cross-reference the dark periods with others with similar questionable behavior. Naturally,it's all done by a computer, and it doesn't count until a human analyst looks at the data so no laws are being currently broken.

>> I can choose to leave my phone, or buy a wifi only device, or take the cell modem out.

In some countries perhaps. In China, you need your phone for everything. Paying for stuff, getting a taxi, food, etc. Everything tied to a phone.

Optionally, so no. Cash exists, even in China. The surveillance cameras everywhere are much harder to avoid.

It is not so optional though. Living in China without a phone is very hard to do. Having spent time there just a few months ago many places wouldn't take cash and even did not have enough cash to make change.

The cameras I think are impossible to avoid. I read an article recently where the police found a man within 7 minutes or something using the cctv system.

How about wearing Sombrero?

Although, I agree with you in principle. In reality it is a little different. Just because you don't take your phone out doesn't mean other people aren't. Its the same principle as Facebook being able to figure out who your relatives are even though you may not be on Facebook. Its all about data points. With enough data points, it doesn't matter whether you bring out a phone or not.

1. you can choose to stay in your private home not fitted with those cameras. 2. you can choose to wear a mask when walking on streets, there is no law stopping you doing that, going to a bank or metro station is a different story. 3. you can choose to live in remote areas. 4. as a foreigner, you can choose not to visit China. 5. as a Chinese citizen, one can choose to leave China and live in countries without such "problem".

Yes you can opt-out of anything technically. Both are fairly large sacrifices in the end.

most Chinese people are too poor to leave. Masks I imagine would be outlawed as soon as they became a common method of subverting the state.

that, and sesame credit, and the great firewall blocking whole wide avenues of thought, the abuses will pile up as high as the mountains

I'm not defending surveillance in the US, but given the very different institutions and political systems involved, maybe different conclusions can be consistent?

Snowden is a hero by the way.

Note, though, that most Chinese people will use the exact same argument to justify the actions of their government.

From what I know about posts circulated in WeChat timeline, I would bet that most Chinese have already been brainwashed that national security should be defended at all cost and that Edward Snowden is a traitor whose action indirectly benefited motherland China, and therefore he should be applauded but not be learned from. Think the Nineteen Eighty-Four.

A fair amount of people think the same about our national security, but they're obviously not brainwashed, just good old patriots.

That's true, and their argument is valid, assuming they really are okay with trading off some potential increase in short term security with a rather certain long term oppression.

The question is how different the two political systems are, if they're both constantly spying on their population, and nobody can really do anything about it in either case.

One difference is that in China dissidents are thrown in prison in large numbers.

I suspect the WaPo's apparent hypocrisy is driven by actual hypocrisy - not biting the hand that feeds it. The CIA is a very big client of Amazon's.

> why are they not as appalled about the mass surveillance used by their own government on their own fellow citizens?

I just read the piece, and I think you're being deliberately uncharitable. The rationale behind not offering a wholesale pardon appears to be based in the notion that not everything he leaked actually deserved to be leaked - which is quite orthogonal to the accusation that they're somehow laissez faire on domestic surveillance.

Am I being unfair?

Let's imagine for a bit what WP would write if a Chinese Snowden escaped China with a drive full of state secrets and sought asylum in the US. Do you think it'd ask for them to be extradited, so that they could be punished for breaking the law in their country? Or do you think it'd hail them as a hero who defied an oppresive regime to bring the free world the truth etc etc? Because I can imagine very well what the Western press, in general, would say in such a case.

The article even points out that Snowden can basically forget about having a fair chance to represent himself, if he gives himself up to the US justice- for security! How likely do you think it is that our hypothetical Chinese hero would get a better chance at a fair trial in China? Miniscule, of course. And wouldn't the WP be the first to point out that this is a major reason not to deliver the hero to the tyrannical Chinese? In the case of Snowden though, it's just brushed aside- eh, so, he can't have a fair trial, it's his own fault, c'est la vie, he should do the time like proper civil disobedience practitioners- well, except for the ones who escape from the oppressive regimes in their countries and seek asylum in the West, that is. That's "the best tradition" too, I guess.

No, I don't think I'm being unfair. I think it's fair to say that the Western press, even the liberal press, is always eager to do the state's job for it, and publish what are essentially propaganda pieces. The article above is exactly that- anti-Chinese propaganda. It draws the attention to the oppressive surveillance of its citizens by the Chinese state, which is fair and proper to do; but at the same time it ignores the 195 kg Gorilla gorilla in the room: that the US state itself is doing exactly the same.

It is very easy to see articles like that as a deliberate attempt to show our Western democracies in a positive light, compared to the oppressive, undemocratic regimes that just so happen to also be our political and economic rivals. I, for one, in the light of the previous article on Snowden, certainly do.

> Do you think it'd ask for them to be extradited, so that they could be punished for breaking the law in their country?

First of all, you're arguing based on a hypothetical. I don't agree with your foregone conclusions, and there's little utility in debating them since your entire scenario is fictional.

Secondly, the article you linked to didn't call for extradition.

> The article above is exactly that- anti-Chinese propaganda. It draws the attention to the oppressive surveillance of its citizens by the Chinese state, which is fair and proper to do; but at the same time it ignores the 195 kg Gorilla gorilla in the room: that the US state itself is doing exactly the same.

Disagree, since it specifically highlights similarities (and differences) between Chinese and US surveillance programs. They are quite clearly not "exactly the same", even in light of the Snowden revelations.

> It is very easy to see articles like that as a deliberate attempt to show our Western democracies in a positive light, compared to the oppressive, undemocratic regimes that just so happen to also be our political and economic rivals.

The US is far from perfect, but the amount of state supervision and intrusion into private life is an order of magnitude greater in China. Whether that's positive or negative is subjective, but the fundamental fact is inarguable.

I am en EU citizen, therefore an outside observer, and I find the amount of state surveillance in both China and the US to be way beyond what is acceptable.

There may be a difference (I wouldn't call it "inarguable" based only on articles in the Western media, really) but it's more like the difference in falling from 1500 and 1200 feet- not the difference between falling and not falling, say.

Btw, I don't think you're as reasonable as you think, in not wanting to discuss the kind of hypothetical scenario I'm proposing. We could look at cases where exactly what I say has happened. It was very common back in the days of the Cold War with people defecting from the USSR to the US, etc.

> I am en EU citizen, therefore an outside observer

I don't recall asking, but while we're throwing bona fides around - so am I

> I find the amount of state surveillance in both China and the US to be way beyond what is acceptable.

The fact that both are bad in no way means both are remotely equivalent - far less equivalent than your altitude analogy would imply

> Btw, I don't think you're as reasonable as you think, in not wanting to discuss the kind of hypothetical scenario I'm proposing. It was very common back in the days of the Cold War with people defecting from the USSR to the US, etc.

I'm apparently reasonable enough to recognize the world has changed since the cold war - not least of which China - sufficiently so that it's hardly a reasonable point of comparison

>> I don't recall asking, but while we're throwing bona fides around - so am I

Did I say something to offend you? I'm sorry if I did. Anyway I see you don't really enjoy the conversation. Apologies for that, too.

Don't forget that he never actually leaked anything. He stole data but did not place it in the public domain. Instead, he handed it over to a group of journalists who were given the function of filtering the data before publication. To date, only about 5% of Snowden's material has been published.

> He stole data but did not place it in the public domain. Instead, he handed it over to a group of journalists who were given the function of filtering the data before publication

I understand that, but strictly speaking it's not relevant. He stole the data, and is therefore responsible for whatever eventually gets disseminated - good and ill alike. As far as ownership goes, it doesn't really matter if it was eventually published via the Guardian, Wikileaks or his nextdoor neighbor.

Is it wrong for a newspaper to hold opposing opinions? I think not.

You're right. However hypocrisy is wrong, very much so.

One is a news story, reporting on China. The other is an editorial. Do you want the editorial board to censor the Post's reporters? There is zero hypocrisy here.

WP's editorial section is independent from other parts of the paper. Their editorial tends to be much more conservative, hawkish, what have you than the rest of the paper. I don't think you can really accuse the paper of hypocrisy, the people calling for punitive measures against Snowden aren't the same people criticizing China for its mass surveillance.

It's an opinion piece

Should I judge the Wall Street Journal based on its op-eds, or on its balanced reporting? You posted an op-ed.

The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy. (It was also not permanent; the law authorizing it expires next year.) Worse — far worse — he also leaked details of basically defensible international intelligence operations: cooperation with Scandinavian services against Russia; spying on the wife of an Osama bin Laden associate; and certain offensive cyber operations in China.