Snowden Says He Took No Secret Files To Russia 220
mspohr writes "There's an interesting interview with Edward Snowden in the NY Times. He talks freely about his decision to start collecting documents. His experience in reporting problems and abuse convinced him he would be discredited. He also states he didn't take any of the documents to Russia and that the Chinese don't have them either. 'What would be the unique value of personally carrying another copy of the materials onward? There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,' he said. Snowden turned them all over to the journalists. He also corrects last week's NY Times story about the derogatory comment in his personnel file; it was due to him discovering and trying to report a vulnerability in the CIA's internal software."
Zero Percent Chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else. He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.
Re:Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
1. He has done the US a great service in the long run.
2. He is personally more trustworthy than the people in the US government and the intelligence community who have been caught lying already.
My 2 cents.
Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The important thing to remember is that if it was so easy for him to get these documents, then that also means that there are about a million other people with the same clearance level as him who would find it equally easy. What's the betting that none of those are Chinese agents? Especially given how many Russian agents we've learned were working for the NSA and CIA during the cold war.
People focus on Snowden's disclosure as if it's possibly giving information to America's enemies (or, at least, not-so-friendly friends), but any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released. It was only secret from the people to whom these agencies should be accountable.
Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (Score:5, Insightful)
If only there were proof that they did have the documents. Better to spread FUD no matter the case, right?
"Land of the free, home of the brave". Biggest joke of all time. Osama may be dead but he won the war with such success far beyond his wildest dreams.
Re:Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.
The government and the NSA are NOT the Country. The PEOPLE are the Country.
What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?
Wrong question.
The correct question is- WHO should we believe MORE, Snowden or the NSA? We know Snowden scooped up docs and turned them over to journalists in a responsible fashion. We also know the NSA has been lying to Congress and the Courts as well as the American People, violating their own policies and violating Court orders.
Given their respective track records, only a complete fool would take the side of the NSA in this.
The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West;
He's neither a traitor nor is he a defector. He has made absolutely no efforts or claims to renounce his citizenship, he has not taken up arms or given aid or succor to an Enemy of the State. Thus, he is also not a Traitor.
If you have evidence otherwise, I'm sure the NSA in particular would love to hear about it.
Re:Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, as one of his countrymen, I don't feel stabbed in the back at all, at least, not by him. I feel more like....I thought there was a knife in myback, I wasn't sure exactly how big or how far it was in, or what it looked like, but I felt it was likely there.
What I see him having done is tell me about that knife, exactly whose hand was on it, and how deep it was into my back.
Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (Score:4, Insightful)
If only there was proof. At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.
Hmmm
Who believes that? The security services or the Politicians? I cannot help but remember that prior to the Iraq war the UK's security services produced reports on WMD in Iraq that were full of cautions about the evidence, these cautions were subsequently removed as the report was doctored, or "firmed up" as it was referred to, when the Politicians and their advisor's got involved when trying to make a case for war,
Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (Score:5, Insightful)
Bin Laden's stated goal was not to turn the west to Islam. Why would he want a bunch of white devils screwing up his precious Islam. He hated us remember?
His goal was to destroy Wall St and the US/Saudi economy (He was mad at his rich family and their rich US friends - Like the Bush's and Clintons!). Hence crashing planes into our primary economic hub. Remember that part? Makes much more sense as a tactic for financial ruin opposed to a recruiting strategy wouldn't you say? [forbes.com]
This is why I always laugh at the phrase "Never Forget." Everyone keeps forgetting!
Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.
One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.
The fact that there are no angels in Hell doesn't change the other fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Snowden directly handed files over to anyone other than Glen Greenwald. "Oh, they can read it in the paper like everyone else!" Big fucking deal - we're not talking about that, we're talking about the claims that he directly and intentionally gave top secret documents to the Chinese and Russian governments; a claim Snowden has denied, and to date not a single fucking soul has managed to prove.
I know this is a bit lofty of an ideal for statists like yourself to understand, but there's this concept called "presumption of innocence" that requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.
Crazy idea, I know.
Re:Zero Percent Chance? (Score:4, Insightful)
People this is not flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot needs to stop with the hero worship. Any time there is a person who does something people on Slashdot deem good and beneficial, it seems they go in to full on hero-worship mode, where said person can do NO WRONG, and whatever they say must be true and so on. We saw it with Hans Reiser. Tons of people whining and bitching about him being arrested and then convicted of murder. How he was set up, how the government was laying, etc, etc. Of course then he confessed and led police to the body.
Look guys, everyone, including heroes, are human, and can have flaws. You can view Snowden as a hero for what we did. However that does not mean he is above reproach, it does not mean that he never lies, it does not mean that he can do no wrong. People can do both right and wrong, even good people.
For example, here's another possibility (not saying it is the truth, or even that likely): Snowden brought classified documents to Russia. That is why they chose to give him asylum and put him under state protection. After all, this is a nation with a pretty poor human rights and transparency record, not a shining bastion of freedom. So he gave them these to buy his way in. However the Russians don't want the US to know that, and Snowden doesn't want to tarnish his reputation admitting he sold out, so he makes these claims.
The parent is very valid is saying that Snowden's statements shouldn't have any relevance to the validity of the claims that he gave data to the Russians. The reason is that a person's claims generally aren't useful. If you are innocent of what you are accused of, you of course say you didn't do it since you in fact didn't. However if you are guilty of what you are accused of, you also very often say you didn't do it since you don't want to be saddled with that.
I mean look at athletes and steroids: How many of the athletes busted doping straight up came out and immediately said "Yep, I doped, I probably shouldn't have but everyone else was doing it, what choice did I have?" and how many said "No, I never doped, these accusations are false, etc, etc."
You can't take Snowden's denial as evidence for or against anything. It is what it is. People need to stop acting as though the guy is above reproach, as though he can do no wrong. That he did something heroic does not mean he doesn't have flaws and couldn't do something else non-heroic.