This is the problem with the media today. Edward Snowden is not the story!
The story is that the governments are illegally bugging people. They are not stopping the terrorists (Woolwich/Boston). They are harassing legitimate activists. They are not serving the people they are meant to represent.
EDIT: And of course we, the general public, are not free of responsibility either for the media choosing to cover the personal interest story rather than getting their teeth into the politicians who might improve things.
"Take the following event. A car drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus on? On the car. On the person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. How he experienced the crash (if he survived). What kind of person he is (was). But – that is all completely irrelevant. What’s relevant? The structural stability of the bridge. That’s the underlying risk that has been lurking and could lurk in other bridges. That is the lesson to be learned from this event."
Also:
"Terrorism is overrated. Chronic stress is underrated. The collapse of Lehman Brothers is overrated. Fiscal irresponsibility is underrated. Astronauts are overrated. Nurses are underrated. Britney Spears is overrated. IPCC reports are underrated. Airplane crashes are overrated. Resistance to antibiotics is underrated."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. In all those cases, both sides of the story have been told. Indeed, I've seen more articles concerned about the safety of bridges then of the people in the car. You make claims of overrated or underrated. Are astronauts overrated? Are nurses underrated? We seem to be so quick to suggest as such, but astronauts are the public face of Nasa. And the good that has come out of Nasa should not be forgotten.
Overrated and underrated are subjective terms. Without the so-called "overrated" stories, the underrated stories wouldn't be written.
Hell, we're commenting on a so-called overrated story.
The claim that governments are not stopping terrorists is ridiculous. There are people who are sitting in jail right now who have pled guilty to plotting terrorist attacks that were prevented. No, you can never stop all terrorist attacks, but that is a poor reason to not bother preventing others. You are free to argue that current surveillance practices did not actually help prevent these attacks, or that additional regulation and oversight is necessary, or that you'd rather have the terrorist attacks than any surveillance, or that terrorist attacks are really the fault of some U.S. policy that should be corrected, or whatever else you want, but whatever you argue you really should not just avoid reality and invent your own.
You're correct. Some plots have been stopped. And how they were stopped is important. And that's something the media should be talking about as well as chasing Snowden.
As an aside if I was inventing my own reality it would be a lot nicer than the front page of the Guardian today. While the right-hand story is Snowden the left-hand story is exactly why his leak is so important.
> who have pled guilty to plotting terrorist attacks that were prevented
The fact that them pleading guilty played a major part in their conviction should tell you a lot about how much effort was put into getting them to plead guilty, if you catch my drift.
>There are people who are sitting in jail right now who have pled guilty to plotting terrorist attacks that were prevented.
Well that proves it doesn't it! Except that those people were entrapped by the US government. Talked into doing attacks they'd have never actually done sans government involvement and suggestion.
The actual terrorist attacks that have been tried either worked or failed because the terrorist was incompetent. In any case, terrorism is such a minuscule cause of death or injury that there is no reason to even consider it. Just ignore it like the gnat that it is.
I, and many others I suspect, would just prefer to have a CHOICE - and some CONTROL of our own lives.
If you prefer the safety and protection of this New America, then you are welcome to it.
But if there were an Old America, an America ruled by the original words and meanings of the Constitution, an America where you could be proud of the goals and ideals of your government, yet humble and grateful that you and your family were part of it - THAT America is the one I would CHOOSE to live in, and the one I would defend with my life if called upon.
> If you prefer the safety and protection of this New America, then you are welcome to it.
He didn't write that, though, did he? He merely asserted that a very broad spying program was likely to have nabbed some actual bad guys. I don't get why people can't simultaneously believe that and also be against all the secret courts and lack of checks and balances, or indeed the spying itself.
I don't know, I find the fact that my government has singled out an individual to harass and torment unfairly an interesting story.
edit:
Also most of the spying program is secret. I think I have heard reports detailing most of what he has released. I have heard several reports on the secret court. There just isn't that much information available as it is all classified.
The Guardian has been releasing the information Snowden has given them and been reporting on it daily for weeks. There are several news companies that have been doing the same.
The problem is that most people are more interested in Snowden (people are always drawn to the human aspect of a story) and that's why he is now getting so much attention.
> people are always drawn to the human aspect of a story
It's not just that. Snowden is staying in the news because his story has had developments. If it keeps "NSA" in the headlines for another week or so, I am more than happy to have The Guardian report on every move he makes.
Snowden's past, which has admittedly received quite a bit of attention, is not the story.
Snowden's future is showing future whistle-blowers what they can expect, and is therefor hugely important. I urge any who still haven't to sign the pardon petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... - it already has enough that it should officially be responded to, but the more signatures the more likely a real response of some sort). Whistle-blowers are the only check we have against abuses in secret programs, unless you expect our representatives to prefer the public good over that of private companies when only those private companies know enough to make campaign donations based on it.
To be fair to news organizations, the only thing that has changed since yesterday is that Snowden is no longer in the HK. It's hard to get people to read a story without news.
> This is the problem with the media today. Edward Snowden is not the story!
But it's not "the story." It's "a story."
> The story is that the governments are illegally bugging people.
Are you suggesting that this story hasn't been told at all? That the only story that's been told is Snowden's travel plans? Because I've read more stories about the governments illegal bugging than I have of Snowden's travel plans. I'll admit, I haven't counted up all the stories that have been published.
I thought it unlikely he'd fly via Cuba: the great circle route from Moscow flies much too close to US or Canadian airspace for my comfort, if I knew there was an Espionage Act warrant out for my arrest and the establishment wanted to make an example of me. ("Diversion due to technical issues" and an unscheduled stop at Gander in Newfoundland would totally ruin my day, even short of an intercept and diversion by F-15s over the Caribbean.)
Just guessing here, but the real route (if Ecuador is in fact his destination) may be something like bizjet to Iceland, refuel, continue to somewhere in North Africa, refuel, then over the south Atlantic. And that's assuming he was ever in Moscow in the first place.
I don't know about international laws regarding flights passing other countries airspace. But if the US would force down a Russian civilian airplane, to perform an arrest after the request to perform this arrest on Russian soil was denied, I guess that would cause some major diplomatic trouble between the US and Russia. I doubt it would be solved by summoning the ambassador.
I think you'd find the international security area at the airport is still sovereign soil; the country just, for obvious practical reasons, doesn't insist on people going through immigration and customs in order to transit through.
Without being too confident, I think he is in Moscow, given all the evidence save for the fact that no third source has actually seen him there.
It makes great sense he did not take the flight to Cuba he was expected to go on; I think he will take a flight suddenly and unexpected and to a country we did not consider. To avoid any presence of other nationals[0] and journalists on the flight.
This will his plan all the way to his final destination. He might even at times move through means we did not consider (e.g. by train or car; under diplomatic protection, of course).
Could it be possible that he requested asylum in Ecuador after in arriving in Moscow because he is trying to get them to transport him from Russia to Ecuador privately?
Possibly. It has been stated numerous times that he has advisers from Wikileaks on the plane, and they may have suggested this solution. I am confident that they also suggested him not to take the flight he was scheduled for.
This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
"Beyond Vietnam", A Time to Break Silence By Rev. Martin Luther King
Yeah sorry I got confused, busy trying to find a paper map and some pins, and a maybe load of little aeroplanes and CIA figurines and one of those poker-chip-shoving thingies.
If you look at the above-linked twitter feed, he's talking about it being 5 minutes from now. Imminent basically.
"In five minutes, press briefing on visit to Vietnam and the case Snowden, from Hanoi, the capital of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam" - @RicardoPatinoEC
What I don't get is – all the journalists made it sound like he was definitely in Moscow yesterday, yet by the sound of it nobody actually saw him get on or out of the HK to Moscow plane? Is that not a huge journalism failure?
I think the first they heard he was going to Moscow he was already on the flight. Then he was in the secure area of the airport so probably difficult to get to and find. Considering the number of journalists involved they definitely failed but I don't think as badly as it looks. Not to mention WikiLeaks 'confirmation' he was in Russia.
The guardian just posted a relevant update, 'How do we know Snowden was ever in Russia?', which essentially would be better titled 'Why we thought he was ever in Russia'.
Sounds like it is quite possible that the whole Russia thing was an intentional diversion planted by Snowden / Wikileaks, to divert media and US official attention from the true destination..
Sure, no alcohol on some planes ... but I'm sure they'll get at least one night of debauched journo-drinking before having to fly back to their stations!
* The Oslo flight left only 20 minutes after the Hong Kong arrival
* That route would involve four flights to reach Iceland (stopping in Moscow, Stockholm, and Oslo). The trip can be done in two: you don't need the Moscow or Oslo stops.
Considering they claimed one of their sources was within wikileaks, it's likely it's part of a wikileaks/Snowden plan to obfuscate his real travel plans.
Is anybody else watching this with glee? This is the stuff movies are made of. The school yard bully who has been tolerated for years is finally being put in its place. "Oh shit, Snowden poked you in the eye? Maybe if you didn't spend so much of your time bullying everyone else, he wouldn't have done that... P.S. if you want him, you're gonna have to go through all of us... we're not putting up with your shit any more either."
Yeah, imagine a "what if" movie where Snowden is on the Aeroflot flight from Moscow. You have journalists and secret agents on the plane. Some agents try to talk sense into him, others try to block them (no weapons allowed so they resort to slapping each other), journalists snapping pics and posting stuff on Twitter. All the while the plane is closer and closer to NATO airspace with trigger-happy generals. At the same time you have maybe 5 people on the plane that don't know what is going on and actually want to fly to Cuba (for a vacation say). And, there is no alcohol on board...
Maybe he is clinging to the landing gear Bruce Willis style.
With all this mess, I wouldn't be surprised to wake up tomorrow to see "Snowden says 'screw it, take me back to Hong Kong.'"
Unless this is all some very well orchestrated smoke screen, it must be crazy stressful. Maybe he should just parachute out and take his time to figure out what to do in international waters.
Hollywood can make the story without his side, they have enough info. You can bet, a hundred people are furiously and actively penning their scripts regarding this.
Did he actually have a ticket for this flight in his name? If not this is just a seat on a plane that a lot of incorrect people thought he would be on.
I read yesterday that sources within the airport/airline confirmed that his name was on the passenger list. Also the cabin staff has a printed passenger-seat list, no doubt that in a plane full of journalists at least one of them will get a glimpse on it.
...and nobody gives a shit about Bradley Manning anymore, the nerdrage industry has already moved on.
the "real" story should be how seemingly easy it is to get into NSA systems. billions of dollars in security and they failed to notice what this guy was accessing/downloading. assume for every Snowden there are at least 5 real spies in it for the money.
Protecting a system against a malicious administrator is an incredibly difficult problem. You can bet if the NSA can be stung by it, then so can almost every other organization.
At the very least you should avoid third party companies. I suspect in many European countries like France or Germany such leak would be less likely because their government are less prone to trust third parties.
no doubt, but this is the NSA. a data breach in an organization built around security and data intelligence. if facebook screws up, ok, not their core competency - but the NSA?
Manning basically dumped a whole lot of private data, rather than reveal one specific and very "unamerican" program. He's probably getting treated worse than he ought to, but I don't know if I really see him as a whistleblower in the same way I see Snowden.
Manning dumped a whole lot of private data concerning killers who are funded by billions of printed and confiscated money from you, who then kill much less powerful people overseas, making everyone angry up to the point to provoke more and more terrorism acts against (surprise!) you again.
So you've been:
1. Robbed via taxation.
2. Robbed via inflation.
3. Left without any voice via complex bureaucratic system and multi-level censorship (licenses, regulations, "chilling effect" threats etc).
4. Bombed by people being angry that your government bombed theirs.
5. If you try to speak about it out loud, you'd be kicked, threatened, laughed at etc. And if NSA collects info on you, they'll use all that info about your public activity to manipulate you if needed.
All that while you yourself had neither intentionally, nor accidentally hurt anyone around you or anywhere in the world.
I think Manning deserves zero torture while everyone who tries to punish what he uncovered deserve all the blame and blacklisting from civilized society: courts, senators, president, all of army and police. Everyone who professionally kicks asses of normal people to get paid for kicking even more asses.
On 2., if you have studied any economic theory, you would know that in the long run the real value of goods and wages stays the same, its only the nominal value that changes in the long run. So no, you have not been 'robbed' via inflation, and thats silly to say anyways because inflation affects everyone.
As we both probably agree, the nominal money supply does not matter. E.g. there is no functional difference between 1 million dollars in total supply and 1 billion. All prices are nominally higher in the latter case, but the relative distribution of wealth is the same. (In other words, rename "1000 dollars" into "1 shmollar" and you'll get the same prices in 1bln economy as in 1mln economy.)
Since all that matters is relative distribution, when anyone increases money supply, it matters to whom it will go. If your central bank prints new dollars and distributes them to everyone in proportion to their existing holdings, relative distribution does not change. Prices will rise, but wealth will not move.
If, however, the central bank prints new money and gives only to some people, they will have higher purchasing power comparing to anyone who did not get the new money. The money is being shifted towards those who are closer to central bank, so their economical decisions get more power. Example: today we both have $1 and compete equally for 1 apple. Tomorrow I get extra $1, so I can outbid you for 1 apple at a price $1,15 per apple. You didn't get the best apple and I still have $0,85 to outbid you elsewhere on the market. So my new money raises prices for both of us, but I have more of it, so I'm more frequently outbidding you and buying what you cannot buy anymore.
If this game is voluntary (e.g. if we voluntarily use gold as money and some people dig it from the ground on regular basis), I have no problem with it. If suddenly someone discovers an infinite gold mine and starts affecting everyone's wealth, I may choose to use something more stable as money. Or may stick to gold if its utility is still better than the price of inflation.
However, if the game is not voluntary, then we have a huge conflict of interests. If everyone in the country is OBLIGED (directly with legal tender laws and taxation in USD, and indirectly via various currency controls) to significant extent to store and transact money in centrally-controlled currency (e.g. USD), then those who control money supply get huge power. They can reallocate resources wherever they please in a nice hidden manner. And users of the money cannot invalidate the scheme by switching to other money because of the aforementioned laws. And laws (by definition) are legal threats against disobedience. So if you don't like that your wealth is being diluted towards certain persons (e.g. generals and soldiers in Iraq), the only way to really confront this is to avoid using USD. But it's not that easy because of tons of guns pointed at various levels at many different people in the whole economy. If you even try to do something money-related, you'll be attacked pretty quickly on "money laundering" and "helping terrorists" grounds. Just look at what problems Bitcoin exchanges face and how banks are self-censoring by preemptively shutting down exchanges' accounts to avoid regulatory intervention and losing their license.
PS. On the "long run": it never happens. It is a moving target, but never a destination. A lot of individuals during "short runs" define how the wealth is spent and where investment goes. If music-loving individuals print themselves some money, the whole economy will slightly shift towards their music preferences and you'll have more music halls, concerts and sound studios than if they didn't print that money or if people could blacklist that printed money, or switch to another money.
The story is that the governments are illegally bugging people. They are not stopping the terrorists (Woolwich/Boston). They are harassing legitimate activists. They are not serving the people they are meant to represent.
EDIT: And of course we, the general public, are not free of responsibility either for the media choosing to cover the personal interest story rather than getting their teeth into the politicians who might improve things.