Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Snowden Granted 3 More Years of Russian Residency

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the backwards-world dept.

Government 266

SiggyRadiation writes Edward Snowden is allowed to stay in Russia for three more years. According to the NYPost:"His lawyer, Analtoly Kucherena, was quoted by Russian news agencies on Thursday as saying Snowden now has been granted residency for three more years, but that he had not been granted political asylum. That status, which would allow him to stay in Russia permanently, must be decided by a separate procedure, Kucherena said, but didn't say whether Snowden is seeking it." The question that remains, of course, is did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him? Or is the positive PR in itself enough for the Russians in the current climate of tensions and economic sanctions relating to the Ukraine crisis?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Meanwhile ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621751)

Before the circlejerking Slashdot hero's welcome to Snowden starts up consider this [npr.org] and weigh that against how much more private your matters are than they were pre-Snowden.

Meanwhile ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621803)

Your matters weren't private before Snowden since the govt. was violating the 4th amendment without your knowledge. Just because the revealing of an illegal practice modifies the behavior of others does not make that illegal practice legitimate.

Re:Meanwhile ... (0, Flamebait)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 3 months ago | (#47622015)

Just because the revealing of an illegal practice modifies the behavior of others does not make that illegal practice legitimate.

Of course not, however it means Snowden has reveal much more than necessary to make his point and has grabbed an insane quantity of data to make it leaking this data to external sources.

This being said, I am not convince you can link the change in encryption software from Al-Qaida and the likes to Snowden's stunt. In the meantime there were also cryptography courses that were made available through MOOC offerings and one thing these courses emphasize on is: don't do your own crypto software use commercial or open source crypto software which will happen to be much more secure than anything you can develop unless you are an expert within a team of experts with considerable means. It is perfectly plausible they switched to open source crypto after someone of them enrolled into such a course instead of listening at Snowden's leaked stuff.

Circumstancial proofs must be taken with caution.

Re:Meanwhile ... (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47622771)

The idea of punishment is that being punished is more expensive to you than keeping the law. Else, why bother being a law abiding citizen? If all I have to fear when I get caught shoplifting is to pay the price for the item I stole, why bother paying unless you got caught?

Consider the surplus of information revealed the punishment the US got.

Re:Meanwhile ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621887)

Since I prefer freedom over safety, it looks to me like you have no valid point, even if what that article is saying is true. Snowden releasing the information was morally right. It is not wrong to tell people about the immoral/unconstitutional activities of the government, even if they're doing it to keep us 'safe.' And that's a big "if."

We are supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' after all. We can't be free or brave if we trade away our freedoms for security and allow the government to violate the constitution. Snowden released the information, and now it's up to all of us to stop the government's activities.

Re:Meanwhile ... (0, Troll)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 3 months ago | (#47622043)

Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point. That is where the leak become much less morally right.

Don't be naive, knowing the government will be after him after such a leak, he probably got much more than needed to have something to trade in exchange of his own security. And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.

Re:Meanwhile ... (4, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622113)

Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point.

Yes, he did. We deserve to know exactly what how our government is violating the highest law of the land, and that includes details of the program. Both so we can better defend ourselves against this (if only be being aware of it) and so we can see what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. Knowing all the details lets us make better informed decisions.

You are a coward.

And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.

Alright, what freedoms is Snowden saying that we should sacrifice to the government in exchange for safety? You're a moron.

Re:Meanwhile ... (1, Insightful)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 3 months ago | (#47622429)

Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point. He is going far beyond his point with the GB of information he has leaked than just proving the NSA has violated the Constitution.

For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security. Talking coward here...

Re:Meanwhile ... (4, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622497)

Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point.

Yes, it is, and I explained why. Without knowing the full extent of the program, it becomes more difficult to defend oneself until it stops, and it also becomes more difficult to stop it from happening again by having the right protections in the right places. Besides that, The People need to know how, exactly, the government is violating the constitution.

For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security.

You are confusing surrendering everyone's freedoms to the government with going to Russia because your own government will likely strip you of your freedoms if you do not. There is a difference between someone choosing to go to Russia and the government violating people's freedoms. Try to keep up.

Talking coward here...

You or I have done nothing even close to what Snowden has, and likely never will. He's not the coward here.

Re:Meanwhile ... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47622849)

Snowden giving up freedom for safety. Now that's rich. I guess anyone who stood up against tyranny gave up his freedom in exchange for the safety of his prison cell in your books, eh?

He gave up his freedom, hoping that we'd be able to reclaim ours.

Re:Meanwhile ... (0)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 3 months ago | (#47622493)

And just to make sure you understand the point. Snowden did make his point without leaking ALL the information he got. That's the proof he took much more than necessary to make his point. So far, only a very thin part of what he has taken has been leaked.

Re:Meanwhile ... (2)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47622517)

And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.

Alright, what freedoms is Snowden saying that we should sacrifice to the government in exchange for safety? You're a moron.

He is trying to make the claim that Snowden is hiding out in Russia, sacrificing his freedom for the sake of security from American persecution. Ignoring, of course, that Snowden is much more free in Russia than he would be in the United States.

Re:Meanwhile ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622321)

Your absolute freedom? Absolutes are the only way to argue this traitor cozied up with Putin.

Putin offering those Ukraine's freedom?

Euros have the freedom to choose their nat/ gas supplier?

You Snowden lovers are finding it tougher and tougher to defend his crimes.

He belongs in a US max prison.

Re:Meanwhile ... (5, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622389)

Your absolute freedom?

Our constitutional and fundamental freedoms. You know, the things that the government is violating.

Then you go on to list a bunch of irrelevancies that have nothing to do with Snowden, other than the fact that he's... currently in Russia, I guess?

You Snowden lovers are finding it tougher and tougher to defend his crimes.

It's as easy as ever, because law does not equate to morality, even assuming he did break laws. The sooner you fools learn that, the better.

Re:Meanwhile ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622743)

Obviously you haven't been to Ukraine in the past 2-3 years.

Re:Meanwhile ... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47622857)

What for? Defending the constitution? Has that been turned into a crime while I wasn't watching?

Re:Meanwhile ... (0)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 3 months ago | (#47622417)

What about Snowdens leaks regarding all the valid activities that the NSA et al were up to?

Re:Meanwhile ... (2)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622513)

My definition of "valid" differs from yours, government worshiper. For instance, I think everyone has rights, and that we shouldn't spy on allies or spy on people en masse period. There should be standards even when you go to spy on foreigners.

Re:Meanwhile ... (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47622631)

"Legal" activities in terms of a technicality, not "legal" in terms of the spirit of law (which includes the US Constitution). You really should learn the difference, because the former is why we are having such severe problems in the USA.

If there are changes need to the Constitution there is a process for changing it, very clearly defined in fact. Bypassing the law or ignoring the law because someone does not like the Constitution is illegal, period.

Re:Meanwhile ... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47622873)

Last time I checked this is called "collateral damage" today, and if the recent wars are any indicator it's a-ok as long as the goal is important enough.

Huge nit to pick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622549)

Since I prefer freedom over safety

That's a false dichotomy that needs to die. The question isn't "freedom VS safety." The question is "freedom AND safety VS tyranny AND danger."

We are less safe because of the mass surveillance and other bull crap we are subject to.

Re:Huge nit to pick (4, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622727)

That's a false dichotomy that needs to die.

No, it's an important point. By saying you prefer freedom over safety in general (which isn't a false dichotomy, by the way), you make it clear that the issue isn't about safety, but about freedom. That is, even if their programs were *proven* to keep us safe, you would still oppose them out of principle, as people who want to live in a free country should do.

While it's sometimes important to point out when the programs don't actually do what they say they do (whether it be the NSA's surveillance, DUI checkpoints, the TSA, etc.), I feel that it's much more important to let it be known that these things aren't okay under any circumstances.

Re:Meanwhile ... (1)

dosius (230542) | about 3 months ago | (#47621917)

AFAICT, Snowden didn't reveal anything that wasn't plain as the noses on our faces already.

-uso.

Re: Meanwhile ... (5, Interesting)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 3 months ago | (#47622035)

The difference is, before the leaks, people who made that claim were dismissed and ostracized as conspiracy nuts.

Now that it is fact, the public is a whole lot more paranoid.

The Patriot Act was Al Qaeda's greatest achievement.

Re: Meanwhile ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622723)

The Patriot Act was Al Qaeda's greatest achievement.

Second-greatest achievement.

The TSA comes in at #1, since it got us accustomed to presenting our papers, submitting to arbitrary searches and the like even when travelling within national boundaries. Just like the old Soviet Union.

The Patriot Act is arguably more far-reaching, but less blatantly visible.

Re: Meanwhile ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622769)

The Patriot Act was Al Qaeda's greatest achievement.

Over two hundred years of American History, many many thousands of people dead in civil war, world wars, cold war under the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction and we let the greatest threat to the US Constitution and the future of Liberty in the United States end up being twenty guys with razor blades and the morally vacant people that use their terrible acts of murder as an excuse (and an opportunity).

Re:Meanwhile ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622593)

Snowden leaked a ton of information on the methods NSA uses to do the job we want them to do. All the exploits Schneier reported are exactly the things we want NSA to be doing. None of those exploits had any effect on your constitutional rights or freedoms. Now due to the leak of these sources and methods, America's abilities have been degraded and that is what makes him a traitor.

Re:Meanwhile ... (2)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622759)

Snowden leaked a ton of information on the methods NSA uses to do the job we want them to do.

Who is "we"? I know I don't want them to keep exploits in the dark, thereby making everyone less safe (without good reason) just so they can exploit some so-called "terrorists." Fuck that. And to say these things wouldn't be used for other nasty purposes is just naive.

Re:Meanwhile ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621943)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc [wikipedia.org]

Re:Meanwhile ... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621957)

This is obviously a first post from an NSA working group. Notice the low-level dig against us for discussing Snowden, and on top of that this is a blatant attempt to steer the conversation away from the main points.

Remember, there is a rather active disinformation campaign in place right now. And this is an example of it.

Re:Meanwhile ... (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 3 months ago | (#47622235)

Yeah. It's supposed to be difficult to surveil people. These days it isn't very difficult, so we're moving in the right direction.

First post (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621765)

He should be able to live wherever he wants!

Re:First post (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47622039)

He should be living in prison. Or 6 feet under ( we still execute traitors )
( once convicted.. )

Re:First post (5, Insightful)

mariox19 (632969) | about 3 months ago | (#47622087)

The traitors are those in power who have operated using unlawful actions. Nothing is more dangerous than a government operating outside of law. Get your priorities straight.

Re:First post (-1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47622195)

I was NOT commenting on our government, or giving them a pass. Their legal transgressions is a different discussion.

I also could care less what you 'feel' as it is not relevant. Snowden broke the law, and must be held accountable for his actions. How hard is that to understand?

Re:First post (4, Insightful)

AnOnyxMouseCoward (3693517) | about 3 months ago | (#47622273)

So, you're Lawful Evil then?...

The government also tends to _pass laws_, I don't know if you noticed. The "law" is supposed to be rooted in morals and ethics, and it is entirely possible to act in a lawful and yet unethical manner. In this case the government has been lying to us for years, but revealing that the government is behaving unethically yielded a witch hunt for the lone unlawful rebel instead of a scandal about how the government has been acting all along.

This is like a king yelling "Traitor! To death!" when evidence is published that the king behaved wrongly for years.

Re:First post (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 3 months ago | (#47622329)

Snowden broke the law, and must be held accountable for his actions.

Just like Schindler should have been held accountable for illegally saving the lives of all those Jewish factory workers?

The Nazis should have thoroughly put an end to the idea that the law is right and people should always be law abiding. Seriously, I know Goodwin's law is about this cliche, but the thing is the Nazis provided all the best counter arguments to your line of reasoning, because they showed empirically what happens when you follow your reasoning to the letter.

For some reason however when people like you year "Nazi", instead of thinking "oh hey actually my reasoning has some really unfortunate potential consequences", they instead thing "omg you compared me to the nazis get a real argument I'm not listening".

What Snowdon did was absoloutely morally the correct thing to do. He did it for his country and the greater good of its citizens. The only account he should be held to is the one where he gets the medal of congress for putting his life on the line for blowing open large scale illegal activities in the government.

How hard is that to understand?

Re:First post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622101)

He should be living in prison. Or 6 feet under ( we still execute traitors ) ( once convicted.. )

Mod parent up

Re:First post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622129)

We should be throwing him a ticker-tape parade and thanking him for delivering the governmental transparency that Obama promised but didn't have the balls to deliver.

Re:First post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622203)

You should be executing him as a traitor

Re: First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622233)

I'm going to assume that, by "him", you meant Obama and all hands complicit in this widespread breach of constitutional rights, and then I'll agree with me about what I assumed you meant and bid you good day.

Re: First post (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 3 months ago | (#47622475)

It's "Good day, Sir." You will have a hard time winning people to your side of the argument. Nobody but nobody is going to agree to their own extinction if you talk to them that way.
Except Rodney King. Rodney it seems, still aked the question "Can't we all get along?" Even after getting beaten like a pinata. Which only goes to prove you can't beat sense into people. Fortunately, Eric Garner was hardly beaten at all, which makes his death at the hands of a totalitarian state much more palatable. My point is, words, like guns, can cause irrevocable harm if used indiscriminately.
And global warming. Don't discount the role global warming plays in any Slashdot discussion. There.

Re:First post (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 3 months ago | (#47622419)

LOL, "Booth was a patriot" (per your .sig), but Snowden isn't?! That's the most hypocritical thing I've read all day.

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622601)

we still execute traitors

Then how come you are still alive?

Re:First post (-1, Flamebait)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#47622453)

He should be able to live wherever he wants!

He can... Of course, if he moves to a place where the USA can extradite him the handcuffs will limit his movements. But that's the breaks when you violate a contract with the US government. Right now apparently he wants to live in Russia and Putin doesn't mind keeping him so he can keep jabbing the USA in a sore spot. Eventually, that will change.

Look, It doesn't matter if what he did was right or wrong morally, he violated his contract with the government and must answer for that, and unless he dies before the US gets their hands on him, he will. If you believe what he did is right, then like rebels of the past who broke the laws of the day he needs to be ready to stand up and face the consequences. and make his case to further the cause. IMHO, The longer he waits, the more he proves that he's really not interested in the cause, just in himself and getting his 15 min of fame. I'll bet he is pretty unhappy and unfulfilled being used as a pawn by Putin.

Re:First post (5, Insightful)

ruir (2709173) | about 3 months ago | (#47622623)

Cut the crap. Would you come back if you know all was waiting for you was a puppet trial and living the rest of your in prison?

Russia will never kick him out (2, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | about 3 months ago | (#47621773)

Anyone who thinks that Russia would deport Edward Snowden does not know much about the long history of Russian spycraft.

Yep. He's now a pawn and a prisoner (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621855)

The Russians are never letting him go - at least not for free. They'll have to get something to give him up. Snowden probably couldn't leave Russia even if he wanted to.

But the Russians will treat him well - to make an example of him: "Leak classified US data and the Russians will take care of you."

At least until the US offers Russia something substantial for him - then the Russians will ship him back.

Re: Yep. He's now a pawn and a prisoner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622451)

I'm not so sure. It seems more likely at the moment that the Russians will allow Snowden to stay just as long as it proves publicly frustrating to the United States. It costs them very little to keep him around and they get to watch our officials fume as long as he's out of their reach.
From that perspective, any as yet unreleased documents they can get are a bonus and not an end result.

Re:Russia will never kick him out (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622073)

Anyone who seriously uses the word 'spycraft' has read too many Tom Clancy novels. HAND.

Snowden is a traitor (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621809)

Snowmen revealed American secrets and then fled to our enemy. He must be brought to American justice ASAP. Personally I think he should be executed for espionage and his head hung on a spike to warn other potential "whistleblowers".

Re:Snowden is a traitor (3, Interesting)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 3 months ago | (#47621989)

Ah, I see the NSA is here :)

Re:Snowden is a traitor (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47622067)

i agree. Regardless of ones *feelings* about what he did, the fact remains that he **broke the law** and needs to be in court. Not doing that makes a mockery of our laws.

Sentencing is where you can take into account 'intent', but not his guilt or innocence..

Re:Snowden is a traitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622225)

Well said

Re:Snowden is a traitor (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622261)

Not doing that makes a mockery of our laws.

Our laws make a mockery of themselves.

This would be a good time to use jury nullification, if the opportunity presents itself.

Re:Snowden is a traitor (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#47622565)

Not doing that makes a mockery of our laws.

Our laws make a mockery of themselves.

This would be a good time to use jury nullification, if the opportunity presents itself.

Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.

IMHO, he's not really interested in the "cause" except that it brings him fame and feeds his ego. He's all about Snowden and nobody else and cooked up this media angle to justify his self importance. In reality he is a coward who dropped and ran when the going got tough.

Re:Snowden is a traitor (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 3 months ago | (#47622637)

Will he get a fair trial? We both know he wont, so stop talking out of your own arse.

Re:Snowden is a traitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622639)

Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.

Uh, the point of him staying in Russia IS to stay protected from a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral, or otherwise. Your government has already lied to you and been caught. Why would you assume they wouldn't keep doing it?

Re:Snowden is a traitor (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622687)

Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.

Because he's not a masochist, a martyr, or any number of other things you might think are righteous. Given the US government's shady activities, there's no reason to think there would be a free trial, that the jury would not turn against him, or that some other horrible outcome wouldn't happen.

IMHO, he's not really interested in the "cause" except that it brings him fame and feeds his ego.

Yeah, because fame and ego is worth having to constantly worry what your future holds because you've pissed off the most powerful government in the world. Right.

In reality he is a coward who dropped and ran when the going got tough.

No one who releases documents that prove the government violated the highest law of the land and basic ethics is a coward. He's done much more good than you, PTA moron.

Re: Snowden is a traitor (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about 3 months ago | (#47622377)

While it suits your irrational argument to argue the law in black and white terms, you have to know that the law is far from that.

If a criminal breaks into your house, assaults you, you shoot him, and he happens to die, we don't call that murder and give you a more lenient sentence because you were defending yourself. We call that self defence.

Equally so, technically what Snowden did "broke the law". But that's a pretty obtuse way to look at it considering the greater good he achieved by demonstrating that our own government is, and has been, breaking the law.

What he did was in defence of our nation. He has more courage and character in his nail clippings than you have in your whole body. Now turn off Fox news and develop your own opinion.

Re: Snowden is a traitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622651)

Apparently you have never watched Fox News. Your remote stuck on MSNBC?

Re:Snowden is a traitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622455)

...the fact remains that he **broke the law** and needs to be in court.

OK, as long as the following happens FIRST:

1) all the individuals in government who conspired to subvert the Fourth Amendment are tried, convicted and imprisoned
2) secret courts and secret evidence is abolished forever

Would that be OK with you? Or do you simply want Snowden's head and no one else's?

Re:Snowden is a traitor (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47622797)

Start with his.

Not about leverage or influence (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | about 3 months ago | (#47621815)

Russia isn't using this to leverage information or to influence Snowden. Russia is using this to stick it to the US. And if, every once in a while, they can trot him out like a useful puppet (like they did during Putin's televised Q&A), then all the better

Re:Not about leverage or influence (1)

towermac (752159) | about 3 months ago | (#47621959)

Yep.

And to answer the summary; the positive PR value is enough.

Since you already know this is the kind of guy that will fall on his sword, bullying him would get you little of value, while throwing away the 'useful puppet' advantage.

If we don't like the situation, nothing is stopping Obama from offering him a deal.

Re:Not about leverage or influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622657)

Re:Not about leverage or influence (0)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#47622699)

If we don't like the situation, nothing is stopping Obama from offering him a deal.

Oh yes there is. Snowden wouldn't take a deal, Putin wouldn't allow it and Obama would never offer it. Snowden won't because he is a coward and is unwilling to come home and face the music in support of his supposed "cause". Putin won't allow it because Snowden is still useful for taking jabs at the US, using Snowden to bludgeon Obama over a domestic political hot potato. Obama won't willingly take the domestic political hit of offering Snowden anything and having to weather the firestorm it would create from both his base and the right and basically have the potato explode in his own hands.

None of the major actors here are motivated to change the situation, so we are in a holding pattern until something changes. Maybe after the mid-terms things will change with Obama, but I'm guessing that we are looking out past the 2016 election before we see any political changes here in the USA. I'm not familiar with the election calendar in Russia, but unless something major happens in that country Putin is a shoe-in for the next decade so I don't expect any changes on that front. Snowden's perspective is the least important of them all. I'm guessing he will have no choice once Putin and the US get tired of playing with the pawn.

All the above (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621993)

The question that remains, of course, is did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him? Or is the positive PR in itself enough for the Russians in the current climate of tensions and economic sanctions relating to the Ukraine crisis?"

Why does every issue have to have one reason?

If I were a leader of a foreign power that has a history of hostility towards the US and someone like Snowden fell into my lap, I'd be milking him every which way I could.

Stick it to the US. Find out NSA operations. Propaganda. Leverage. And I'm sure they're more that I can't think of.

Re:Not about leverage or influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622063)

If Russian wants to get more information out of Snowden wouldn't they just, like, read the newspapers? Why would you try to coerce information out of somebody whose whole MO is putting it in the public domain?

Re:Not about leverage or influence (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#47622761)

The Russians are not interested in Snowden for "information". Likely they already had any information that Snowden could have provided them, even before he leaked anything.

The Russian interest in Snowden is about propaganda. Snowden is tolerated because he is useful to gain media attention when they want/need too.

Re:Not about leverage or influence (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about 3 months ago | (#47622159)

NSA's grab of data is one debate that has nothing to do with Snowden. That grabbing is still there and will continue to bet there. It was going on before Snowden ever showed up.

More upsetting to me than grabbing big data is the government's failure to learn from Manning regarding how many worker ants have access to the big data.

Snowden (and Manning) walked in; got the stuff; and walked out.

THAT's the larger problem which continues today.

Both Snowden and Manning are so last year. Snowden's value now is for Russians to trot him out now and then, much like the Republicans put Lewinski on the runway in an effort to discolour Hillary.

Again, we need to keep our eye on the ball and it's the little round thing.

Apparently, we have another Snowden mole. Who's to blame for that incompetence?

Re:Not about leverage or influence (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#47622185)

I'm not so sure about the "influence Snowden" part. By giving him a temporary stay when he's got very few other places to go they're giving him a lot of incentive to be that useful puppet, as opposed to a permanent stay. If they did that, he might withdraw from the public spotlight or start pointing out it's the pot calling the kettle black. No doubt the Russians have similar operations of their own.

Re:Not about leverage or influence (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#47622835)

You don't go around Russia calling attention to the government's abuses, citizen or not. You manage to embarrass Putin in the media and you are in *serious* trouble. You do remember the "girls band" members that tried to desecrate the church right? Russia is not kind to it's detractors.

Re:Not about leverage or influence (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 3 months ago | (#47622325)

For years the US portrayed Russia/USSR as an evil empire.
Russia would respond with "but the US is no better".

Snowden is the poster child proving Russia right all along.
Where ever he goes, Snowden will always do that.

Re:Not about leverage or influence (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#47622665)

Nothing's proving Russia right when there's a wall of evil doings proving the counter. Snowden is one of the few things they can genuinely cling on to.

For all of the US' wrongs there's nothing changing the fact that Russia is an evil empire, well, that's a lie, it's not an empire any more thank god, it just wants to be, but it's still evil.

Let's just look at a few of the things they've done this year alone, let's start near the beginning of the year where the scene is that there is a popular uprising against Russian influenced Yanukovych, during these protests a number of key protesters were abducted by men with accents from Russia itself, some were left to die but managed to live to tell the tale:

http://www.rferl.org/content/u... [rferl.org]

http://www.rferl.org/content/u... [rferl.org]

Others weren't quite so lucky:

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldn... [reddit.com]

The uprising was eventually successful, in response, Russia sent in breach of the Geneva convention soldiers into Crimea posing as civilians and annexed the territory, despite the fact that only a few weeks prior it was clear that there was nothing like majority support for joining Russia:

http://www.cityam.com/blog/139... [cityam.com]

Coupled with the unverifiable "poll" and the followon fuckup by Russian bureaucrats in posting the actual results that show there was actually no majority support for joining Russia it became fairly obvious it was an illegal annexation of foreign territory. Of course, it didn't stop there. The Crimean Tatar population that did not want to join Russia have since been treated like Jews in Nazi Germany circa 1939 with their houses being marked:

http://www.turkishpress.com/ne... [turkishpress.com]

Other Tatars have simply been disappeared by death squads:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga... [bbc.co.uk]

The rest of them? Well, they just get silenced and beaten:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/... [themoscowtimes.com]

If this sort of thing doesn't send chills down your spine as to how close it is to the way the Nazis operated then there's something wrong with you.

Since then of course there's been the case of Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine, the debate goes on about whether they're genuinely Ukrainians that want to join Russia, or whether they're simply Russian special forces, or a mix of both, but either way, what's not in dispute is the following and that Russia wholeheartedly supports them:

- They admitted having Buk and shooting down MH17 believing it was a Ukrainian military transport:

http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]

http://www.themalaysianinsider... [themalaysianinsider.com]

- They've been abducting, torturing, and parading civilians:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]

- They've admitted to carrying out summary executions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... [bbc.co.uk]

- And they've been preventing all males from leaving the warzones they've been part of the parcel in creating

Now, the usual response from Putin lovers would be to say "Oh you're quoting biased media like Fox News!", unfortunately, as is clear above, these reports aren't coming from Fox News, they're coming from everything from US, European, Turkish, Qatari, Malaysian and even Russian, sources.

Fact is, Russia is probably one of the single most evil nations on earth right now. Holding Snowden up isn't going to magically change that for them unless they rapidly reverse course in so many other ways. The things I pointed above have happened in merely the last 8 months alone and relate only to the Ukraine. God only knows how far Vladolf Putler will have managed to go in the final 4 months of the year.

Re:Not about leverage or influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622511)

Putin might be greedy and probably criminally insane.
That doesn't mean that he considers himself to be any of those things. The reasons Snowden is allowed to stay in Russia can be a completely altruistic move from people who considers themselves to be good people, even if the rest of the world doesn't think of them that way.
In fact, I have never heard of anyone who considers themselves to be evil. The worst evil I've ever encountered are people who are willing to do bad things for what they consider the greater good. (NSA) Then you have the people who are truly insane but even there you have an overlap with the first kind. (Osama bin Laden or Anders Breivik comes to mind.)

Why That Question? (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 3 months ago | (#47621905)

The question that remains, of course, is did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him?

Why is that a question? Has there been any indication that anything like that has happened? No? Well then why does that question come up for you? I believe it is because you know that if you said what you are implying outright, the unanimous response would be, "Citation Needed!"

Don't propagate bullshit suggestive questions [wikipedia.org] that try to make a point you don't have the balls (or the evidence) to present in a forthright manner. Leave that kind of rhetorical crap to the downward spiral that is major media news. Here, you will be held to a higher standard.

Re:Why That Question? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622001)

+1 Sick Burn Mod required. Interesting will have to suffice.

Re:Why That Question? (1)

fey000 (1374173) | about 3 months ago | (#47622345)

Have you recently been to Sweden? Because that was a 10 x 15 km serious frikkin burn.

Re:Why That Question? (0)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 3 months ago | (#47622477)

At least we know Russia is playing the Snowden card on the public relations side. Don't you remember his implication in the recent TV program during elections in Russia?

he's not there though (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621923)

He's not in Russia, simply put.

Of course he has... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621947)

...Russia hasn't finished getting inside information from him yet...

Re:Of course he has... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#47622899)

Seriously? I'm betting Snowden didn't leak anything the Russians didn't already know or strongly suspect in the first place. He's been there over a year now so I'm betting *any* deficiencies in what they knew that Snowden could clear up have been dealt with.

Snowden's only value now is as a propaganda tool for the Russians.. They can keep poking the US in the eye over their surveillance programs by trotting Snowden out to make some inane statements or ask Putin scripted questions and basically stir up anti-US sentiment using the media coverage.

Anal what? (3, Informative)

cloud.pt (3412475) | about 3 months ago | (#47621951)

Nice typo, Anatoly Kucherena will be pleased :D.

Apparently the original source, among other sites, added the extra L, so poster has an excuse :D

Analtoy is the correct spelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621987)

nt

Re:Anal what? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47622127)

It's a nice Freudian slip: lawyers often have to be quite "anal" about all the legal details.

Not leverage, but payback (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47621995)

This is just payment for all the secrets he has given them we dont know about. Dragging it out this way looks less suspicious.

damned traitor.

Re:Not leverage, but payback (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622045)

Why do government bootlickers like yourself always show up in every article about Snowden?

Re:Not leverage, but payback (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47622227)

Where did i say i supported the government? Why do you show up to support people that break the law and put this country at risk?

Re:Not leverage, but payback (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47622283)

Why do you show up to support people that break the law and put this country at risk?

It's not Snowden that's putting the country at risk, but people who attack those who reveal the government's wrongdoings under the guise of wanting to enforce the law, without even realizing that not all laws are just and our government is horribly corrupt. People like you.

Re:Not leverage, but payback (3, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47622141)

damned traitor.

Would you really like to live in an alternate reality where all the Snowden's revelations would never have happened?

Re:Not leverage, but payback (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622147)

This is just payment for all the secrets he has given them we dont know about. Dragging it out this way looks less suspicious.

damned traitor.

The Government of the United States of America is the only traitor in this saga. President Obama should be impeached, face trial in a court of law, and when found guilty sentenced to death by lethal injection. I mean there is a good chance he might survive the botched lethal injection. The remainder of the political class and the bureaucrats should face the same fate minus any trials. "American Revolution - Part II"

Re:Not leverage, but payback (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47622489)

I *never* said the government was innocent, as we know it is not.. I only state that Snowden is a traitor and broke the law, and the legal process MUST be followed. Exceptions can not be made for anyone, or none of us are safe from its abuse.

"Questions" that remain, not question (2)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 3 months ago | (#47622049)

There are many _questions_ that remain. How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned? How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers? What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets? What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?

The concept that there is "the only remaining question", and posing the question to cast the Russians as aggressive victims, is a straw man. It's a side issue distracting debate from much more important issues.

Re:"Questions" that remain, not question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47622407)

If the russians were half as good as I am (or most of slashdot) they would have already sniffed out the canary assuming that it's network based and found a way to eliminate it.

All of the united states secrets are likely being held by the russians as leverage. All they have to do is eliminate the canary and the info goes public.

Re:"Questions" that remain, not question (1)

clubby (1144121) | about 3 months ago | (#47622483)

How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned?

None. As Snowden himself has repeatedly explained, that would be fucking stupid. Lots of people want to see more of the documents than Snowden is willing to show, and those people could get their wish simply by killing him, if he had some kind of deadman's switch set up. He's not dumb enough to incentivize his own murder.

How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers?

Well, if Snowden's saying it to the press, I'm not sure the Russians will be able to deduce any more than the Chinese or Saudis or anyone else. Not sure why you think Russia's intelligence community has privileged access to news published for public consumption.

What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets?

Hopefully not much. What many people are hoping, is that its policies will change instead of being protected.

What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?

Uh, are we accusing him of inspiration via minor details now? That's ... pretty specious. Just gonna leave it at that.

Re:"Questions" that remain, not question (1)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#47622653)

I'll give you my answers to your questions. These answers are based on little to no real data, mostly just reasoning about how Snowden's flight most likely went down, and a (reasonable, I think) assumption that he's a fairly ordinary guy, not a brilliant and nefarious planner. I also doubt that he extracted much, if any, data prior to his big grab-and-run, because it would have been too risky. So I don't think he had much time to do things between getting the dump and hightailing it.

How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned?

None. This would have required more planning, and probably more time, than is evident. Any place he might have tried to drop data in the cloud would be too risky because the NSA's tendrils are too widespread. Physical dead drops are more feasible, but they'd have to be in the US, and probably not too far from Snowden's normal stomping grounds. They'd also have to be fairly easy to locate (since he'd have to provide instructions, which he'd have to be able to remember accurately), but also well-hidden enough not to be found accidentally. That's not impossible, but it's harder than it appears, as anyone who's tried to place geocaches knows.

Of course, he could have done something like left the supposed additional, unrevealed data, or the location of the data, with an attorney or other trustworthy person. But again, the NSA has long arms, and has undoubtedly pulled out all the stops to trace his steps before he ran.

Nope, I think taking time to drop data between grabbing the dump, delivering it to the news agencies and running would have been too risky and require too much planning, so I doubt he did it.

How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers?

Very little that's useful. I doubt it's all that difficult for them to gather information about NSA policies, and the really valuable stuff was all turned over to the Guardian and has been published anyway.

What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets?

I doubt Snowden knows much about that. He was a SharePoint admin, remember, not an operational guy. The data he collected may contain quite a bit on that, but I strongly suspect he doesn't have that data. I certainly wouldn't have kept it on my when I took off... much safer to deliver it all to a news agency and travel without it.

What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?

Nothing, unless the Russians are stupid, which they're not. Nothing that we've learned about the NSA's surveillance methods were at all surprising. The only surprising things were (a) the scope, (b) the fact that they weren't being careful about targeting US citizens and (c) that they were actively working to undermine security systems, in direct violation of one of their two missions. If you had asked the computer security community "Hypothetically, supposing the NSA decided to take the gloves off, ignore the law and ignore their responsibility to ensure the strength of US security technology in both public and private sectors, what would they do?", the answer you'd have gotten would have been a pretty accurate description of what they've been doing. The "what" and "how" are quite obvious.

Oh, and while I'm at it:

did the Russians use this as leverage over him to get to more information or influence him?

I don't think they could use it as leverage to get more information, because I don't think he has any more information. As for influence, well, I suppose, but what would they be influencing him to do? Just giving him a place to live accomplishes a significant goal for them, that of poking the US in the eye. I suppose they could try to convince him to strengthen their PR play, by taking Russian citizenship and denouncing the US, but I don't think they'd get anything out of that. The old USSR would have done that, and been thrilled about it, but the USSR was playing an ideological game, trying to convince the world (and themselves) that communism was superior to capitalism as an economic and social structure. Putin's Russia doesn't have that motive.

Leverage? PR stint? (1)

J.R.C.L. (3739333) | about 3 months ago | (#47622281)

Definitely Russia is just using him.

Will they use him as part of any deal over ukraine (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 months ago | (#47622765)

Will they use him as part of any deal over ukraine?

Russia may use him as part of any deal to end the sanctions and / or war over Ukraine

Course of action (4, Insightful)

blue9steel (2758287) | about 3 months ago | (#47622877)

I haven't seen anything that Snowden has revealed that hurt our national security in any serious way. Sure, plenty of embarrassment for the administration but that's hardly the same thing. Personally, I'm glad that he did what he did since it's started a very real discussion about intelligence service over-reach and lack of sufficient oversight. The right thing to do would be for the president to grant him a pardon on the condition that he come back to the US and turn over any remaining materials. That way we keep the information out of the hands of our rivals and demonstrate that we protect whistleblowers at the same time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?