Edward Snowden; Hero or villain?

[garrence]

Every country that can possibly spy on another country does it whenever they can. That is how it's always been & it wont change because of a bit of publicity about it.

 

Other than the UK, which countries are trying to keep their citizens under Total Surveillance?

[anywebsite]

Other than the UK, which countries are trying to keep their citizens under Total Surveillance?

 

USA, China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran & probably most other countries with the resources to be able to, we just don't know for sure because some of them try to keep it secret & are more successful at that than our government.

 

These revelations are about spying on the citizens of other countries... They're trying to have total internet surveillance on as much of the world as they can, not just the UK. Plenty of other governments will be doing the same, or at least trying to. It's not just governments doing it either, organisations like Facebook & Google are tracking a lot of your web history (and passing that info to the NSA, maybe GCHQ & other governments too).

[Jonny5]

Other than the UK, which countries are trying to keep their citizens under Total Surveillance?

Seriously?

 

The government of every country on Earth would do that if they had the resources. Those that can't afford it use a climate of fear to keep everyone in check.

[flamingjimmy]

These revelations are about spying on the citizens of other countries...

 

No they aren't, that's only part of it. It is also very much about the government spying on its own citizens.

 

Where are you getting your news? Because you have been badly misinformed if you think that.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Where are you getting your news?

Heard it on the grapevine?

[tsuchan]

Snowdon put his life in danger and chose a path of vilification and exile for the cause of truth, freedoms and civil liberties of his compatriots and world citizens. Doesn't that define him as a hero?

 

Even if you're American and support the surveillance of your citizens and friendly countries, where's the argument argument for suppressing the information that it's happening? It's certainly not an anti-terrorist argument.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Snowdon put his life in danger and chose a path of vilification and exile for the cause of truth, freedoms and civil liberties of his compatriots and world citizens. Doesn't that define him as a hero?

 

Alternatively, he "put his life in danger and chose a ath of vilification etc" because he was a stupid prat who didn't think about discussing his problems and reservations with his superiors - who would have been more than ready to guide him (and move him into alternative work, if necessary.)

 

Even if you're American and support the surveillance of your citizens and friendly countries, where's the argument argument for suppressing the information that it's happening? It's certainly not an anti-terrorist argument.

 

The obvious argument, perhaps, is the oath of non-disclosure he swore voluntarily.

[flamingjimmy]

Alternatively, he "put his life in danger and chose a ath of vilification etc" because he was a stupid prat who didn't think about discussing his problems and reservations with his superiors - who would have been more than ready to guide him (and move him into alternative work, if necessary.)

Nope, that does not appear to be the case, and you have absolutely no reason to believe it:

 

I'll let him speak for himself:

 

"When you're in positions of privileged access like a systems administrator for the sort of intelligence community agencies, you're exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale then the average employee and because of that you see things that may be disturbing but over the course of a normal person's career you'd only see one or two of these instances. When you see everything you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses. And when you talk to people about them in a place like this where this is the normal state of business people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them."

 

"But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about. And the more you talk about the more you're ignored. The more you're told its not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government."

 

Do you really think that he's going to make that decision on a whim without ever trying to discuss things with his colleagues and superiors?

 

Going to make a decision that would have such a huge impact on his life, could well lead to his death or imprisonment. Seriously?

 

The obvious argument, perhaps, is the oath of non-disclosure he swore voluntarily.

That's not an argument to keep all this stuff from the public at all, you have answered a different question to the one that was asked.

[tsuchan]

Alternatively, he "put his life in danger and chose a ath of vilification etc" because he was a stupid prat who didn't think about discussing his problems and reservations with his superiors - who would have been more than ready to guide him (and move him into alternative work, if necessary.)

 

It's clear he thought about it carefully enough. It's not always possible to serve Superiors and The Public Interest at the same time, is it.

 

Your argument seems to be that if he was unable to escape from the belief that his disclosures were in the Public Interest, he should have taken whatever steps were necessary to 'disabuse' himself of any perceived moral responsibility.

 

Just to test the extent of your belief, if he had come across irrefutable evidence that the authorities for which he worked were secretly murdering fellow citizens, would you still hold him to his oath of non-disclosure?

[Harleyman]

Russia's leader Vladimir Putin is making it very clear that he's happy enough for US-Russia relations to move again into the cold war era

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2013 at 16:43 ----------

 

It's clear he thought about it carefully enough. It's not always possible to serve Superiors and The Public Interest at the same time, is it.

 

Your argument seems to be that if he was unable to escape from the belief that his disclosures were in the Public Interest, he should have taken whatever steps were necessary to 'disabuse' himself of any perceived moral responsibility.

 

Just to test the extent of your belief, if he had come across irrefutable evidence that the authorities for which he worked were secretly murdering fellow citizens, would you still hold him to his oath of non-disclosure?

 

That's nothing to do with the issue.