So Edward Snowden passed through town... I imagine the Chinese government let him go to Russia because they didn't want the hassle of dealing with him. A multi-year high profile diplomatically sensitive asylum trial is not the kind of PR they're looking for.

But anyway, what do you guys think of Snowden's actions? He technically doesn't meet the definition of a whistleblower because the programs he leaked aren't illegal. They were just secret. The fact that the NSA is legally spying on well, everybody, doesn't make me feel a lot better about it. Is Snowden a hero or a criminal?

Can't he be both? Granted, even the ones who are happy with the reveal don't seem all that enthused about Snowden himself.....

AFAIK all he did, was confirm what privacy concerned/paranoid folk always suspected. And AFAIK he did not leak any information, that directly makes the NSAs work harder (such as exposing secret agents or specific ongoing observation targets)*.

So what he did was forcing the US asministration to either stand behind a potentially unpopular policy (and thus open the possiblity for forming a lobby to change the policy), or to discontinue it, rather then keep things going and avoiding to publically commit to any decision.

That his actions have been illegal is easily possible (depends on what sort of agreements he had to sign to get his job and overall requires more legal knowledge then i have) and if so it is quite correct that some form of punishment awaits him in the US, as long as it is not out of proportion.

That the US go to such great length such as putting diplomatic preassure on potential asylum countries is way overblown. That some european countries, presumbly due to US requests did not allow overflight of the Bolivian presidental airplane because Snowden was suspected to be in it, and thus hassle foreign dignitaries, just for a chance to get him, is completly out of proportion. This is also IMO counterproductive for the US and it's allies. If they just filed a minor request with Interpol and refrained from any great efforts, there would be a good chance, that after a week everything would have become a minor footnote.

* I assume some criminals before Snowden being sure of observation, because they have some privacy settings on facebook, but now changing to an actually secret way of communication is not particulary plausible.

Y'know, I've been itching to start this thread, but I couldn't decide on a way to frame the conversation. Now I can't even compose a serious post.

Even if he was a hero, he's definitely a criminal. Leaking stuff like that is illegal, ya know. Martin Luther King was a criminal.

And he could be considered a whistleblower if he's concerned with the constitutionality of the programs in question. I can see why he would be. This is definitely close to the border-line.

So do you support what he did, whether it was illegal or not?

Question wasn't directed at me, but yes.

I'm not sure. He definitely started a national conversation that needed to happen. This wasn't the best way to do it, but I think we may have waited long enough for the better alternatives.

I absolutely support what he did.

It's even better than a national conversation. The government has been blocking legal challenges to this sort of surveillance for years on the grounds of "state secrets" that would be exposed; some of those cases are now being allowed to move forward.

I think that Snowden is undoubtedly in violation of the laws of the United States. If he should be somehow brought to "justice" he will undoubtedly be found guilty.

I'm still glad he did it, though. Someone had to shine a light on what the NSA was up to under the cover of secrecy. What he did was both illegal and necessary for the health of the United States and its beleaguered constitution.

I'm personally amazed that Snowden himself, rather than the surveillance program, has become the media focus. I suppose it's a good human interest story, but isn't the US government overreach and surveillance of its own citizens more important? Where is the fifth estate, here? Anyone?

Do you mean fourth estate?

If so, then that is my sentiment exactly. I am a common person with no special connections whatsoever and yet I have known this was going on for YEARS. Back when Bush was still in office there was a (multiple?) ex employee of the telecom business acting as a whistleblower trying to expose how the industry was working with the government to set up the infrastructure to collect all the data. It was reported once or twice but the mainstream media virtually ignored the story. Of course, trying to expose this sort of thing back then was almost always met with charges of the disapproving party not caring about national security or even being a terrorist sympathizer. It is ridiculous how people who defended the Bush administration so adamantly are now trying to hang Obama for the same thing.

Think how those of us that have been crying foul during both administrations feel.

Is that more or less ridiculous than the people who were outraged when Bush did it, but are defending it under Obama? (In a Pew poll right after Snowden's leak, 64% of Democrats found the NSA surveillance acceptable). But so what? Focusing on who is or isn't being hypocritical is as much of a distraction from the real issue as media attention on Snowden is.

That's politics for you. One of the reasons I don't even bother anymore.