Privacy and the State

[french frank]

Other count[r]ies may have a lot more dodgy things to hide than the US which can be sold to newspapers without any need for dishonest snoopers like Mr Snowden to join their secret services to discover.

The logic of this sentence defeats me. So, why have they anything to fear from Snowden in particular?

[scottycelt]

Herefordshire, perhaps? (especially as I live there for the time being!). No - clearly you mean "countries", but...

Yes I do indeed mean "countries", ahinton ... well figured!

Poor, poor Herefodshire ...

[ahinton]

Are you answering your own questions on my behalf now, ahinton ... ? :laugh:

My actual answer is contained in my last response to ff.

No, I am not; my "I thought not" was merely an assumption on my part in response to the absence of one on yours and, for the record no such answer is contained in your "last response to ff".

[QUOTE=scottycelt;309180]a) I assume you, like me, would tend to prefer a situation where governments around the world were not particularly 'naive' and 'stupid' ... ?[/quote
One naturally tries to live in hope, scotty!...

b) The information I've gleaned from news channels from all over the world, ahinton. For a genuine attempt at impartiality I would particularly recommend Al Jazeera.

I am not arguing with the credit that you give to the impartiality of Al Jazeera but, as I have pointed out before, the number of countries to which Mr Snowden is known to have applied for political asylum is but a small proportion of the world's nations and less than half of those to whom he has indeed applied have yet responded negatively.

Precisely. Which is excactly what I've been saying and you appear to have been arguing against all along?

Then you have misread and misunderstood what I have written; governments who have acted or may have acted unconstitutionally will naturally be suspicious and distrustful of anyone who seeks to expose them for having committed such acts because they do not wish to be found out for having done so. I thought that I had made that clear; I was not therefore arguing with what you said so much as the basis upon which you were saying it.

Yes, ahinton, I'm sure you are absolutely right that Mr Snowden didn't apply to every known nation on the planet for political asylum. As yet no country on the same planet has come forward to grant him his wish. However, as I say, there may well be one who may do, eventually.

Indeed - but, I ask again, why might that be so? Do you not countenance the possibility that some would be wary of publicly declaring their willingness to harbour him because of an understandable fear of possible US reprisals?

Nevertheless, our hero whistle-blower is not exactly spoilt for choice at the moment is he ... ?

On the basis of the numbers of countries that might be approached, I would find it very hard to agree with you there.

[ahinton]

Yes I do indeed mean "countries", ahinton ... well figured!

Poor, poor Herefodshire ...

Herefordshire, actually - or Herefordistan, as it is sometimes known in certain circles; its poverty, real or perceived, has no impact on the subject under discussion here, however.

[scottycelt]

The logic of this sentence defeats me. So, why have they anything to fear from Snowden in particular?

What do you find particularly challenging here, ff?

I'd imagine that somebody like Mr Putin would not take very kindly to the distinct prospect of a Mr Snowden suddenly turning on his hero-welcoming hosts by phoning the Guardian or Der Spiegel concerning something he found particularly distasteful about some Russian government activity he had encountered during any asylum residence, wouldn't you?

[scottycelt]

Herefordshire, actually - or Herefordistan, as it is sometimes known in certain circles; its poverty, real or perceived, has no impact on the subject under discussion here, however.

The second 'r' omission, unlike the first, was quite deliberate, ahinton ... do wake up!

[amateur51]

What do you find particularly challenging here, ff?

I'd imagine that somebody like Mr Putin would not take very kindly to the distinct prospect of a Mr Snowden suddenly turning on his hero-welcoming hosts by phoning the Guardian or Der Spiegel concerning something he found particularly distasteful about some Russian government activity he had encountered during any asylum residence, wouldn't you?

He has not done what you suggest in either Hong Kong or Moscow, scotty. Do you not understand that it was what he found, not what he sought, that he has revealed to the world subsequently about the activities of USA's secret services?

[ahinton]

The second 'r' omission, unlike the first, was quite deliberate, ahinton ... do wake up!

I'm well awake, thanks but the evidently deliberate omission of that letter still makes no sense to me.

[Richard Barrett]

I'd imagine that somebody like Mr Putin would not take very kindly to the distinct prospect of a Mr Snowden suddenly turning on his hero-welcoming hosts by phoning the Guardian or Der Spiegel concerning something he found particularly distasteful about some Russian government activity he had encountered during any asylum residence, wouldn't you?

That would only be a "distinct prospect" if by some freak chance he were to gain access to Russian state secrets while in some waiting area at Moscow airport, but that doesn't seem very likely to me. Probably he has resigned himself to the "distinct prospect" that no state is ever going to let him near classified information again and he'll be investigating alternative careers, don't you think?

[scottycelt]

That would only be a "distinct prospect" if by some freak chance he were to gain access to Russian state secrets while in some waiting area at Moscow airport, but that doesn't seem very likely to me. Probably he has resigned himself to the "distinct prospect" that no state is ever going to let him near classified information again and he'll be investigating alternative careers, don't you think?

Well, clearly I was referring to "if and when" he is granted any political asylum.

I agree no country is likely to let him anywhere near their own sensitive information but that does not necessarily mean he couldn't or wouldn't cause trouble for his hosts by highlighting practices national governments might prefer to be ignored.

Why should any goverment take the risk of even touching this guy with a barge pole? It seems to me they have nothing to gain and maybe something to lose in propaganda terms by doing so. Then, as others have pointed out, there is the added issue of good diplomatic relations with the US.

I hear the Guardian this morning has now come out and criticised Mr Snowden for fleeing to 'Putin's Russia' and is urging him to return to the US to stand trial. The illogical absurdity of Mr Snowden fleeing to China and Russia in the wake of purporting to stand up for individual freedom and privacy finally now appears to have dawned on one of his most originally sympathetic media allies.

So even the Guardian is now clearly distancing itself from our hero-whistleblower. Mr Snowden is not in a very good position and indeed his situation appears to be becoming desperately worse by the day.

[amateur51]

Well, clearly I was referring to "if and when" he is granted any political asylum.

I agree no country is likely to let him anywhere near their own sensitive information but that does not necessarily mean he couldn't or wouldn't cause trouble for his hosts by highlighting practices national governments might prefer to be ignored.

Why should any goverment take the risk of even touching this guy with a barge pole? It seems to me they have nothing to gain and maybe something to lose in propaganda terms by doing so. Then, as others have pointed out, there is the added issue of good diplomatic relations with the US.

I hear the Guardian this morning has now come out and criticised Mr Snowden for fleeing to 'Putin's Russia' and is urging him to return to the US to stand trial. The illogical absurdity of Mr Snowden fleeing to China and Russia in the wake of purporting to stand up for individual freedom and privacy finally now appears to have dawned on one of his most originally sympathetic media allies.

So even the Guardian is now clearly distancing itself from our hero-whistleblower. Mr Snowden is not in a very good position and indeed his situation appears to be becoming desperately worse by the day.

"Illogical absurdity"? Really? Is the USA really going to risk having to take on either China, to whom it is finanicially craven, or Russia in order to grab Mr Snowden? - remember the USA has 'form' in invading sovereign states for its own short-term purposes. You may not appreciate the logic scotty, but this may be a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.

[Richard Tarleton]

Logical in terms of not being grabbed by the US from those countries, ams, but surely the illogicality lies in his seeking refuge in countries which ruthlessly suppress political freedom and freedom of speech and expression?

[ahinton]

Logical in terms of not being grabbed by the US from those countries, ams, but surely the illogicality lies in his seeking refuge in countries which ruthlessly suppress political freedom and freedom of speech and expression?

But is there not a quite distinct shortage of countries that don't do this at all? Some do it far worse than others, of course but, of those 20 countries to which Mr Snowden applied for political asylum and did not subsequently withdraw his application, how many would you say fit into that category (and which ones)? - for the record, we're talking here about Austria, Brazil, Finland, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland which have rejected his applications, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands and Nicaragua where his applications remain pending and France and Venezuela whose response seems as yet to be unconfirmed and almost half of these are EU states.

[amateur51]

Logical in terms of not being grabbed by the US from those countries, ams, but surely the illogicality lies in his seeking refuge in countries which ruthlessly suppress political freedom and freedom of speech and expression?

Surely this clarifies what his priorities were from the start: to reveal what he had discovered, to warn the citizens of the world about what their governments are up to, not to continue snooping as scotty believes. Snowden's priority now must be his own safety and keeping himself at the top of the news agenda. Once he slips off that radar, anything might happen.

[Richard Tarleton]

Surely this clarifies what his priorities were from the start: to reveal what he had discovered, to warn the citizens of the world about what their governments are up to, not to continue snooping as scotty believes. Snowden's priority now must be his own safety and keeping himself at the top of the news agenda. Once he slips off that radar, anything might happen.

Yes, he's clearly not going to have access to anything in future wherever he goes, his only tradable commodity is what he has now. Given that he clearly has no intention of being a martyr, could it be that he just hasn't really thought it through?