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 One-Year Asylum In Russia

timothy posted about a year ago | from the nobel-still-in-the-works dept.

United States 411

New submitter kc9jud writes "The BBC is reporting that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has been granted temporary asylum in Russia. According to his lawyer, Snowden has received the necessary papers to leave the transit zone at Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow, and the airport press office is reporting that Snowden left the airport at 14:00 local time (10:00 GMT). A tweet from Wikileaks indicates that Snowden has been granted temporary asylum and may stay in the Russian Federation for up to one year." Reader Cenan adds links to coverage at CNN, and other readers have pointed out versions of the story at Reuters and CBS.

cancel ×

411 comments

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

Hooray for Russia (5, Informative)

prasadsurve (665770) | about a year ago | (#44445535)

Guess that gives him 1 year to plan and execute his trip to South America.

Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (0, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#44445551)

Sorry to all you Republican-lite libertarian freedom-lovers, but metadata was never private communications.

Metadata is everything EXCEPT your private communication, including NOT communicating.

When third-parties know all your metadata, that means it's NOT private. Do you know how many dozens of people/companies see your IP headers as it goes across the internet? Are you Republican-lites dumb enough to think that kind of metadata was supposed to be private?

The only private communications are the ones only between sender and receiver, which the NSA does not spy on without a warrant, per US constitution's 4th amendment.

Also, every single NSA employee is well aware of constitutional law as well as the Posse Comitatus act. If there WERE illegal activities at the NSA, you would know about it from actual employee leakers, like what happened during your beloved Bush administration, when several bona-fide employees leaked the illegal activities of the Bush administration under evil Dick Cheney.

Sorry to all you Slashdot Republican-lite libertarians, but the NSA under Democratic leadership is VASTLY different from the Republican party that you idolize.

That is because the Democratic party is vastly different from your dearly beloved Republican party.

Or did you think the Republicans were going to pass socialized health-care?

Everything you Republican-lites believe in is 100% incorrect. Just stop now with your dumb ideas. Don't ever have your dumb ideas anymore. You're just not smart enough. Your small-government libertarian theories is for 12-year-olds, backwater rednecks, and really poor high-school dropouts, like Edward Snowden and other morons that think people with low power have "freedom." These are some of the most insanely dumbest theories in the world that no adult takes seriously just dumb as rocks.

A big government is much better than a small government. We liberals know that, and intend to grow the power of government at the expense of private parties.

We liberal socialists do NOT want private parties to have unlimited powers. We prefer to control private parties so they don't gain too much power. There is nobody in this world that is interested in giving private citizens unlimited powers, regardless of what you free-market libertarian hippies want to believe.

Life is not about what you want to do. It is about what we want to do.

The only thing the Republican-lites need to do is follow the orders of us liberals.

Thanks.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445601)

I'm not sure if you're trolling, since I've seen posts of this ilk that are completely serious...

Anyway, I'll take the bait -- the NSA can read your "private communications": http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data [theguardian.com]

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (3, Insightful)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#44445609)

It's not the government's right to know. Yeah your email goes through a service provider.. and they could theoretically track it.. the admins could read it.. sure and they probably do.. But they are not the government. I think you are trolling, but it's possible you are just insane.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44445677)

Note that he was at -1 before even being modded down.

You know why the left hates the libertarians? Because the libertarians are everything that the left wing used to be before they sacrificed their ideals to the alter of political correctness. Now they can't even be tolerant. Behold his hate.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44445763)

You know why the left hates the libertarians? Because the libertarians are everything that the left wing used to be before they sacrificed their ideals to the alter of political correctness.

Supporting slavery has never been left-wing. By insisting that they be able to pay people whatever the market will bear rather than a living wage, libertarians are insisting that they should be able to keep slaves.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (3, Informative)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#44445823)

Then go Green, it's all the good parts of libertarianism, without the economic extremism.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (5, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year ago | (#44446035)

Other than the land redistribution that occasionally makes it into their party platform. Radical fringe political groups are radical - stunning.

That said, I'm just going to note here that the bill to strip the NSA of these powers was supported by more democrats that republicans -- but the split was by no means a party-line vote. Here, left-right is not a good identifier. I /would/ use the word libertarian here (except that word has been tainted by corporate flogs) so lets say "people who think government should not be allowed to run a police state, and people who will sacrifice a little freedom for temporary security." That's not a party split - it's not a left-right split (note: these programs and worse originated under a VERY right-wing presidency) - it's a split on a basic understanding of the nature of governmental power - should government be forced to act in the open with clear checks and balances, or in the shadows with only internal brakes on government overreach.

I'm definitely on the side that thinks the NSA program amounts to a general warrant, and is therefore unconstitutional no matter what FISA says about it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

-GiH

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (4, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#44446145)

The major problem we have is the third party doctrine, which says you lose 4th amendment protection when you share info with a 3d party because you then have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But that isn't really true. People share info with 3d parties all the time and expect and demand that information be kept confidential. It really is impossible to participate in the modern world without engaging in such transactions. But the Supreme Court has just gone off the rails on the notion that once you do this, you have no expectation of privacy.

If that theory was really the case, people wouldn't freak out when their email accounts get hacked and people snoop on their mail. People wouldn't go to jail for doing that. People would walk down the street handing out their credit card to everyone they meet. People wouldn't make their facebook pages private ... on and on.

There needs to be legislation that destroys this 3d party doctrine exception to the 4th amendment. The underpinning of all these NSA programs, is that piece of warped Supreme Court logic.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44446057)

Hahaha... oh wait, you're serious?

In Wisconsin, the Greens are both economic AND environmental extremists. They are worse than just about everything else.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about a year ago | (#44445861)

Think you've missed some history of the Democrats there...

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year ago | (#44446069)

Democrats /= Left, Republicans /= Right. Parties are not constants - they are groups of people and their ideologies shift over time. The Republicans of the 50s and 60s were consumed by the southern democrats, there has been a complete flip in party politics over the last one-hundred years.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44445877)

By insisting that they be able to pay people whatever the market will bear rather than a living wage, libertarians are insisting that they should be able to keep slaves.

Behold the left-wing argument, complete with no substance yet full of appeal-to-emotion bullshit like "living wage" and "slavery."

This is an appeal to people to hate the Libertarians. More hate from the left, and ironically the one thing this man didn't quote from the person he replied to was about the intolerance and hate of the left-wing.

Exactly.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445907)

Sorry, you don't understand the definition of slavery.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445679)

I think you are trolling, but it's possible you are just insane.

This guy has several posts in this vein. I think he's serious about this. Looks like your second point about insanity was right...

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44445985)

As an admin who could watch people's traffic and read their email, let me just say that I don't. I don't want to know and it would be unprofessional to pry like the town gossip. I'm not really sure why it would be interesting in the first place, just a bunch of people I don't know talking to a bunch of people I don't know about other people I don't know.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#44445631)

also.. the government is already VERY LARGE.. how is that working out exactly. Can you tell me how is this country going? It's not a matter of making it bigger... it's already big. Most of the socialized systems are bankrupt or nearing it. USPS, our school system, social security.. .How are those things playing out? Please explain how these systems are in great shape?

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44445727)

how is that working out exactly.

For who? Seems to me it's working out just as intended for those quietly operating the controls...

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44445659)

That is because the Democratic party is vastly different from your dearly beloved Republican party.

I can tell, because in addition to the end of secret courts and the rest of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo closed, we left Iraq on the Bush timetable, and drone strikes have ceased.

Or did you think the Republicans were going to pass socialized health-care?

You mean like the Medicare Part D that was passed by a Republican House, Senate, and President? You are right, that would never happen.

Otherwise, it goes a bit too far, but is a pretty solid troll.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#44445867)

Don't forget it took the Democrats to pass Nixon's healthcare plan (minus the liberal parts):

citations:

GOP-centric:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/16/ellen-ratner-obama-health-care-nixon-republicans-liberal/ [foxnews.com]

DNC-centric:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=1& [nytimes.com]

Medical-Industry-centric:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx [kaiserhealthnews.org]

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (2)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year ago | (#44446091)

You mean like the Medicare Part D that was passed by a Republican House, Senate, and President? You are right, that would never happen.

Medicare Part-D isn't healthcare, its a funnel for pouring cash from the federal coffers into the accounts of insurance companies - and very little more than that.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44445941)

You are deeply wrong and your understanding of privacy is very one dimensional.

Consider walking somewhere in New York city. You will be 'seen' by potentially thousands of people but noticed by none. Ask them 5 minutes later and show them a picture of you and you'll get no useful information. Yet you were in 'public' and were seen many times over. That is the privacy of being lost in a crowd that you can have even in a public space.

That privacy can be violated by following a specific person or (in the case of the NSA) by following everyone such that later you can know where the person came from and where they went.

I run a router in the internet. yes, I can see your IP headers. I could see yoiur email headers but I don't look. I know not who you are and I don't bother to do reverse lookups on the IP addresses. I don't care. I don't store that information. I don't care about it. You have the privacy of being anonymous in a crowd.

Ask me tomorrow if I saw any packets going to 192.168.201.192 and I won't be able to tell you one way or another.

So sorry, but as much as I would like to believe the Democrats are still fundamentally different from the neocons, I'm having a hard time buying it. I wish they were. I hoped they were.At this point, an old-school Republican like Eisenhower better reflects the will of a liberal than the current Democratic party. (I said Better, not necessarily well)

I'd like to see more actions against little brother (the corporate version of big brother) and big brother. I would like to see REAL healthcare reform, not an insurance mandate originally authored by the Republican opposition. I'd like to see the corruption swept out and abominations like NSA, TSA, DHS, and DEA disbanded.

Signed, a disgruntled left leaning libertarian.

Re:Don't EVER be a freedom-loving libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44446067)

I run a router in the internet. yes, I can see your IP headers. I could see yoiur email headers but I don't look. I know not who you are and I don't bother to do reverse lookups on the IP addresses. I don't care. I don't store that information. I don't care about it. You have the privacy of being anonymous in a crowd.

Ask me tomorrow if I saw any packets going to 192.168.201.192 and I won't be able to tell you one way or another.

Nitpick: packets to and from 192.168.201.192 won't touch the Internet.

Re:Hooray for Russia (-1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44445713)

In Soviet Russia one year gets YOU!

In Soviet Russia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445543)

Asylum seeks you!!

Re:In Soviet Russia (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44445599)

But seriously. Think back a quarter century and ponder what someone would have said if you told him that a US citizen flees to Russia to beg for asylum because he's being prosecuted for telling the truth...

Re:In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445651)

I know, if I would not have beleived that when I was a kid. Either things are changing, or my brainwashing is slowly wearing down.

Re:In Soviet Russia (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445761)

It's a bit of both

Re:In Soviet Russia (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445719)

Back then many of us were naive enough to believe the U.S. propaganda. But that didn't make it true, even then. Looking back, I realize that most of the "U.S. is so free, Soviet Union is so repressive" canards that I grew up on were mostly bullshit. The U.S. was never nearly so free or noble as it pretended, even in its heyday. All these post-911 revelations have done is just highlighted the hypocrisy.

Re:In Soviet Russia (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44445771)

Looking back, I realize that most of the "U.S. is so free, Soviet Union is so repressive" canards that I grew up on were mostly bullshit. The U.S. was never nearly so free or noble as it pretended, even in its heyday.

While that's true, it's also never been so heinous (for the bulk of its citizens) as Russia. We may well be wending that way now; it certainly does appear so.

Re:In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445789)

Well, when he got his security clearance he signed a legally binding contract that is valid through the rest of his life, and he broke that contract.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he blew the whistle, but he broke his contract by releasing classified information.

Re:In Soviet Russia (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44445809)

The difference might be that this isn't about a contract. If it was, the worst that could possibly happen is a cash fine, considering that contract issues are part of the civil, not the criminal, code.

Re:In Soviet Russia (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445899)

Well, when he got his security clearance he signed a legally binding contract that is valid through the rest of his life, and he broke that contract.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he blew the whistle, but he broke his contract by releasing classified information.

It was illegal for NSA to gather and to keep that information from the people. Contracts that require illegal acts are invalid.
After NSA decided to work beyond the law Snowden was no longer bound by that contract.

Re:In Soviet Russia (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#44445869)

My first thoughts exactly. Who'd have thought, after just a few short decades, that the tables would be so profoundly turned? Not that Russia is any shining beacon of democracy and civility, but the fact that someone must seek asylum from the United States, in Russia of all places, is quite telling.

Re:In Soviet Russia (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about a year ago | (#44445891)

Glad you got this one before me. Otherwise it'd be my karma being shot to hell...

Gone (4, Funny)

Rubinhood (977039) | about a year ago | (#44445547)

...aaaaaaaaaaand he's gone. Hopefully out of reach of all repressive regimes, including the USA.

Re:Gone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445583)

Because Russia is such a gleaming example of freedom, right?

Re:Gone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445597)

Maybe it's not, but Russia isn't pissed at him at the moment, so it's still better than being in the US.

Re:Gone (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44446059)

Maybe it's not, but Russia isn't pissed at him at the moment, so it's still better than being in the US.

Exactly. We only have to look at Bradley Manning to see what treatment Snowden is likely to face if the US gets its claws into him.

But Snowden had better be prepared for a more protracted stay in Russia (if permitted), since he is likely to be intercepted if he attempts to travel anywhere else [theguardian.com] .

Re:Gone (5, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about a year ago | (#44445635)

No, it definitly is not.
And that is why it is so sad to see that the nation that just can't stop telling how free and great they are comes of looking worse than the Russians.
The Russians might just do it to simply piss off the US, but a trully free and just country should not have any problems winning this PR battle.

Seriously? I mean seriously? (-1, Redundant)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year ago | (#44445925)

Just what do you think would happen to a Russian citizen who leaked a ton bucket load of FSB secrets? I can tell you what - they'd be dead within a week. Last time I looked the USA didn't assasinate opposition politicians (look up Sergei Yushenkov amongst others), do show trials of citizens who pissed off putin and send them off for 20 years hard labour and poison citizens who've sort asylum in other countries eg Alexander Litvinenko. And you think the USA looks WORSE than a country that does this simply because they quite rightly want to arrest a traitor??

You "poor oppressed liberal us" stick-it-to-the-man types need to really need to wake up and never mind smell the coffee, inject the bloody stuff and get a grasp of reality!

Re:Seriously? I mean seriously? (2, Informative)

pe1rxq (141710) | about a year ago | (#44445981)

The first sentence of my post only contained five words....
Please wake up yourself and READ them.

Re:Seriously? I mean seriously? (1)

Racemaniac (1099281) | about a year ago | (#44445999)

And still america isn't managing to come out better looking than them in this situation... how hard could it be for the "land of the free"

Re:Seriously? I mean seriously? (0)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#44446055)

The Americunt government just assassinates civilians and other suspected "terrorists" (including Americunt citizens).

As I said in a previous post, everyone hates the Americunts, because the Americunts export their shit. Russia mostly keeps it inside their own borders, as do the other oppressive regimes that the apologists (apologists for the ills done by the Americunts) love to harp on about. How many times has Iran invaded anyone in recent history? Was it none, or one. Now, how many times has the USA invaded anyone? Oh, just a few times in the last 20 years. Not many...

Re:Seriously? I mean seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44446077)

Last time I looked the USA didn't assasinate opposition politicians

I suppose that depends on whether you consider leaders of Hamas and Taliban politicians. Of course, I remember when the USA didn't assassinate anyone, and had several executive orders banning the practice.

Maybe that was before our leaders woke up, smelled the coffee, and got a grasp of reality.

Re:Gone (1)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about a year ago | (#44446013)

Look at the timescale he has been at the airport, I am sure there have been constant high level discussions about this, Snowden is now a pawn on a chess board, the USA wanted him back, but would not grant the Russians a concession they were after... To think that is it done for freedom, it is not, 100% political, asylum was granted to make the USA look bad / freedom hating.

Re:Gone (0)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44445683)

At least they won't throw him incommunicado into a prison cell for the rest of his life. That's a lot better than he would get in his home country.

Re:Gone (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44446051)

Sadly, it is in this case, relatively speaking, it is. (Note that I wouldn't say that in the more general case)

It should be deeply embarrassing to any American patriot that Russia is granting political asylum to an American whistleblower and far more embarrassing that he needs it.

Re:Gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445625)

Hopefully out of reach of all repressive regimes

I hope you're joking.

Re:Gone (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44445847)

...aaaaaaaaaaand he's gone. Hopefully out of reach of all repressive regimes, including the USA.

Snowden left a free society and the first place he landed was a city in a one party communist state, the People's Republic of China, well known for its repression. From there he somewhat improved things by going to Russia, which left communism behind, but now has been sliding back towards authoritarianism for some time. From there Snowden hopes to travel to one of several leftist regimes in Latin America. Those regimes are not exactly known as beacons of freedom and respect for civil rights. Snowden traded life in a free society for life in repressive regimes. I suppose it is somewhat fair given the damage he did to the security of the US and its allies.

Re:Gone (0)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year ago | (#44445929)

+1. He's a vainglorious fool, not a Freedom Fighter.

Re:Gone (5, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about a year ago | (#44445935)

I don't know if Snowden likes those countries anymore than you, however if you want to get away from the US government it isn't a bad move to go to those coutnries least likely to turn you over....

As for Latin America.... compared to the US just about any country could be called 'leftist'. For me (as I am not an American) that doesn't necesseraly mean a bad thing.
Especially since most of those 'leftist' regimes have been democraticly chosen and have replaced US backed rightwing dictators.

Re:Gone (4, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#44446041)

This is such bullshit. He went to these places because from a practical standpoint, they aren't yet America's goatse doll.

The only way political dissent can survive, is if there are safe places to go to and dissent. The US can house dissenters from China, and vice versa. But if the entire world was completely friendly to the US, the space for corruption becomes enormously vast while the space for dissent becomes non-existent.

One thing the Snowden incident has made clear to me, was why people have feared a One World Government. I've never been partial to that perspective, and I've certainly insulted the "black helicopter" types. My perspective was shaped ... go ahead and laugh ... by Star Trek. The Federation of Planets being a benevolent organization allowing people to maximize their potential. On a smaller scale, a Federation of Nations on a single planet could operate the same way. So in my younger years, I was a big fan of globalization seeing it as a way to such a Federation of Nations.

What I failed to take into consideration however, was that politicians don't act from moral and ethical considerations, like those in Star Trek would. So instead of providing a world in which people are free to self-actualize, a One World Government would almost certainly be a repressive, brutal, corrupt, jobs-destroying threat to liberal values.

You know what -- why don't you take this canard about Snowden going to China and Russia, and shove up your goatse hole, and as a good authoritarian, ask your bossman for more.

They called our bluff! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445549)

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/07/25/2135207/us-lawmakers-want-sanctions-on-any-country-taking-in-snowden

^_^

Re: They called our bluff! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445645)

The muzzling conditions and one year limitation are not good examples of them calling our bluff.

Re: They called our bluff! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445721)

The muzzling conditions and one year limitation are not good examples of them calling our bluff.

Snowden specifically asked for the one-year temporary asylum.

Re:They called our bluff! (1)

Kumiorava (95318) | about a year ago | (#44445777)

Best way to deflect any talk of sanctions is to say like this : "Mr Putin's foreign policy advisor Yury Ushakov said the situation was "rather insignificant" and should not influence relations with the US."

Re:They called our bluff! (1, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | about a year ago | (#44446061)

Best way to deflect any talk of sanctions is to say like this : "Mr Putin's foreign policy advisor Yury Ushakov said the situation was \"rather insignificant\" and should not influence relations with the US."

FTFY. Double quotes inside a double-quoted string must be escaped.

"Our" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445817)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. "We" had absolutely nothing to do with any of this, and the bluff you are talking about sure as hell wasn't "ours".

Do you not realize that every time you refer to the government's actions, words, or decisions as "ours" you are lending support to THEM, rather than yourself?

... if he leaves in 6 months ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445555)

He'd better be careful. If he waits a few more months, he'll be snowed-in and unable to leave at all.

Re:... if he leaves in 6 months ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445691)

Winter in Russia is quiet beautiful, and it's also the cheapest time to get a flight. I paid $600 to fly from New York to Moscow in February. It is cold where i was -30c but i enjoyed it. He wont get stuck ( they suck at clearing the roads in the winter if they do at all, it usually becomes this big compacted snow road ) but, the airport is well cleaned.

Re:... if he leaves in 6 months ... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44446115)

Winter in Russia is quiet[sic] beautiful, and it's also the cheapest time to get a flight. I paid $600 to fly from New York to Moscow in February.

I don't think Snowden is looking for cheap flights to New York just at the moment.

Re:... if he leaves in 6 months ... (5, Funny)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#44445805)

Maybe he could live in an igloo. He'd be a snowed-in snow den Snowden.

Re:... if he leaves in 6 months ... (0)

Alicat1194 (970019) | about a year ago | (#44445901)

I have no mod points, but bravo sir, bravo :)

CIA's next move (4, Funny)

mwfischer (1919758) | about a year ago | (#44445561)

Since the CIA can't outright shoot him, they'll just alter a few videos to make it look like he's gay in Russia.

Re:CIA's next move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445671)

They'll probably try to trump up a rape, child molestation, or murder charge (or something along those lines). He should probably be very wary of strange women and maids showing up to his door wanting to have sex.

Re:CIA's next move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445881)

I'm surprised they didn't "find" (i.e. plant) child porn on his work computer.

Re:CIA's next move (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year ago | (#44445903)

You've been watching too many Bourne movies [imdb.com] .

Re:CIA's next move (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44445997)

The classics:
Big Russian truck with very poor breaks?
Would make the mystery files find their way onto the net.
After Assange and Mordechai Vanunu, the world should be wise to any friendly new people.
Wait the year out and try for a transit grab again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair [wikipedia.org] should give the press some idea about what the FSB would be facing.
Depends who has the sway in the USA: the soft, smart MI6/GCHQ 'optics and character' ideas or the CIA "German" results team....

Re:CIA's next move (3, Interesting)

bluegutang (2814641) | about a year ago | (#44445685)

You mean like they did with Bradley Manning? :)

Well that'd be easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445707)

Just tell the Russians he left his ballet/pole dancer girlfriend to be hang with Putin or something

Re:CIA's next move (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44445753)

Why can't the CIA shoot him?

Seems to me that you are in error. They can shoot him and very little will come of it if they do.

They wouldn't shoot him tho, but not because they can't. It's because there are better ways to kill him.

Cardiac arrest. Car accident. Accidental fall. Overdose. ...

Re:CIA's next move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445853)

Why not shoot him? Public relations.

Not just the "oh, it would make us look like Bad Guys (tm) if we shot him", although they certainly are playing that angle. After all, America is a land founded on freedom and justice, right? It's ideals of rule-through-law would be subverted if a CIA goon walked up to him and shot him in the head, and regardless of what many people think, the continued belief in that ideal is still very important to maintaining the American hegemony. After all, you're much less likely to do business with somebody if you know there's a good likelihood of turning up dead if he disagrees with you.

But on the other hand, it's very important that America isn't seen as a pushover either. The powers-that-be want to make an example of Snowden; they want him rotting in jail. "Mess with us and see what you get!" is an equally important message. Accidental death gets rid of the problem but doesn't send the same message. After all, if he keels over from a heart attack, it /could/ just be a heart attack, in which case Snowden "escapes" from American "justice".

It's all about the perfectly crafted message that America wants to send. Not "dangerous goons" but also not "pushovers". After all, it's not as if Snowden is a continued threat; he's shot his load and is unlikely to get another chance. The damage is done, as far as Snowden's activities are concerned.

But beware to any future whistleblowers. Those are the ones who risk being permanently silenced before they can reveal what they know...

Re:CIA's next move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445911)

In this case, would they really put in that much effort to make it look fake even tho nobody would believe it?

Just shooting him probably will have more people believe its not them because "it would be too obvious its them".

Re:CIA's next move (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44446095)

Why can't the CIA shoot him?

Because everyone would see right through that, and it would cause a major international incident. Discrediting is so much more effective, and much less risky. When the head of the IMF starts challenging the primacy of the U.S. dollar [guardian.co.uk] for example, you don't assassinate him. Way too messy and risky. Instead, you arrange [washingtonpost.com] for something a little more subtle, but just as effective.

WOW! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445571)

Wow. Just. Wow.

So he survives past the end of my attention span (4, Funny)

John.Banister (1291556) | about a year ago | (#44445595)

I'll think of it as forever.

Re:So he survives past the end of my attention spa (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445887)

I'll think of it as forever.

And we will think of you as an idiot, which you
quite obviously are.

Attorney Bruce Fein quote (5, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#44445613)

"There may be a time where it would be constructive to try and meet and ... resolve this in a way that honors due process and the highest principles of fairness and civilization,"

Seems resolved to me. What remains to be sorted out:
  * who is accountable for all of the laws broken by the NSA
  * what programs they still have in place which are illegal
  * when these illegal programs will be terminated

Let's not forget, if the NSA/US had followed the letter of the law, Snowden's claims would have been pointless.

Re:Attorney Bruce Fein quote (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44445699)

The problem with the idea of "due process" on this is that I find it very difficult to believe that the government would even acknowledge that the NSA has been breaking the law. The lens through which Snowden's actions need to be interpreted is that of whether the government was or was not breaking the law and hiding behind classification.

A subject upon which the government and a growing segment of the populace seem to disgree rather vehemently.

Re:Attorney Bruce Fein quote (5, Informative)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#44445779)

Exactly. The government is viewing this as "Guy exposed classified programs to the world including our enemies. This helped our enemies and hurt us therefore he needs to be punished severely." This is true (up until "therefore..."), the mitigating factor of the program being extremely illegal is completely overlooked. In fact, worse than overlooked, it's being actively ignored and the rest of the story trumpeted over and over to give the impression that the "government version" of the story is the ONLY version of the story.

Re:Attorney Bruce Fein quote (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44446017)

The way they are trumpeting the "Congress said it was ok by passing various laws" is also pure nonsense, in that congress does not have the authority to create laws which violate the constitution. Ability, sure. Authority? No.

Re:Attorney Bruce Fein quote (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44445819)

Ha, I can answer those now:

  * who is accountable for all of the laws broken by the NSA

No one will be.

    * what programs they still have in place which are illegal

None will ever be found so.

    * when these illegal programs will be terminated

Just as soon their differently-named successors that do the exact same thing are ready.

Just because you don't like the law... (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#44445965)

I'm sorry, which programs were illegal and which laws were broken? I'm sure you missed the news that these laws were written and passed by the House and Senate, funded by same, and just recently re-affirmed in the House.

See, that's the thing about "laws" - they're written by the legislature and confirmed by the executive branch. Unless and until the judicial branch finds them to be technically inadequate or violating the constitution, they ARE the law. It's how a representative democracy works. Or would you rather have a dictatorship, a monarchy? Perhaps you hold up Russia as a shining light of transparency, liberty, and justice?

Constitution (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44445995)

See, the funny thing about a constitutional republic is that the legislature, executive branch, and judiciary do not have the authority to exceed nor violate that constitution. They have the ability to do so, but authority? Not even remotely.

Good (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44445629)

He would be thrown incommunicado into a U.S. prison and never let out again if he ever came back here. We all know his trial would just be a show trial.

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year ago | (#44445883)

We all know his trial would just be a show trial.

Ridiculous hyperbole does not do your argument any favours at all. The US has independent courts, jury trials and plenty of activist lawyers any number of whom would absolutely love to make a name for themselves defending this guy. The simple fact of the matter is that Snowden has farted at the US and then run away. He's just a run-of-the-mill traitor in my view, exposing secrets to bolster his ego: "Hey look at me everyone, I worked at the NSA!".

Re:Good (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44445967)

sure they would but would they be let to? after all it's all secret shit. the evidence would be secret shit about secret shit.

hows those lawyers working out for the folks in gitmo?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44446093)

Now, now.
Those are TERRORISTS!
This is just a TRAITOR!

Right ?

Re:Good (2)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year ago | (#44446101)

Well, IANAL, so I can't comment on the various legal complexities. All I know is if he'd been a Russian agent and spilled Russian secrets like this, he'd have found Polonium [wikipedia.org] or Dioxins [bbc.co.uk] floating in his soup the next time he went to a Happy Eater. Given the publicity in this case, I very much doubt he'd have been taken to Gitmo.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about a year ago | (#44446063)

And that is why this great justice system of yours has worked out great for those in Guantanamo Bay?

As for him bein a traitor in your opinion: history books will judge different about him.

Re:Good (2)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year ago | (#44446153)

I'm not from the US. But given Obama promised to close gitmo in his first campaign for President, I'm assuming there's a very good reason why he hasn't done it. Again, I don't know what that reason is. Perhaps someone in Congress can enlighten us.

In Soviet Russia (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445705)

Snowed in no longer airport!

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445751)

Snowden gets one year asylum.
I also have a joke about a farmer. He doesn't have three lovely daughters and you need to share a bed with him.

Snowden is so screwed (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445821)

The 1 year asylum means they get to pump him for information for the next year and have an exclusive on any information he produces. What information he has is perishable and the US public will forget about this and he will be useless to the Russians by then. They will then decide not to grant permanent asylum and expel him from Russia. He will be right back where he is now but with no spotlight to protect him and a pile of useless information.

What a year accomplishes (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about a year ago | (#44445879)

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume Russia actually has some interest in abstract justice for Snowden. (Yeah, I know, they are probably more interested in being able to accuse the US of abuses so they can excuse their own - I'm sure we can paint the Russian decision in all sorts of unflattering lights - Hell, just claim it's really the third step in their nefarious plan for world domination and comes just after "build secret base in active volcano" and just before "kill Bond in elaborate but unsupervised deathtrap" if you want, but remember there are people assuming the same about ALL sides in this mess.).
          A year from now, the Russians will know what sentence Bradley Manning got. They'll know if the hunger strikes and forced feedings at Gitmo drew any congressional support for finally cleaning up Gitmo. Some of the various less touted whistleblower cases now in the courts will have resolved. There will probably be other revelations about the NSA, the US will be mostly out of Afghanistan, and so on.
            The Russians can judge whether Snowden's claims are objectively reasonable. And whether the US tries to paint the Russian's decision in as negative light as possible, or not, all those other nations will also be looking at what the US does more than just how the Russians responded. The next Asylum seeker will probably flee to some other country. The next public statement after the Manning sentencing will probably come from some other country. If the US dwells too much on Snowden, then every diplomatic action involving those other countries will be interpreted in the worst possible way by the court of world opinion, if only because the US will appear to be stuck in a rut and not learning from, or admitting to, its mistakes. These events keep starting in the US, and Russia and other countries are only reacting to what starts here - there's no way the US is going to convince much of anybody that those reactions are the big problem and not the initial actions.

ALL FUCKING RUSSIAN COMMIE BASTARDS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445895)

First Lenun !! Then Stalun !! And Putun !! Now Snowdun !! See the connections !! The similarities !! All Commie Bastards !!

Time for our fellow Slashdotters in Russia to help (0)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44445919)

The media will be hounding him. So file false reports to the press to confuse them. The more unseen he stays, the safer for him. Call your local news station, and tell them:

"I saw Snowden downtown flipping burgers next to Elvis!"

"Snowden just boarded a fishing boat in the Black Sea!"

"I just saw Snowden on the Trans-Siberia line!"

Let's all help keep Snowden out of sight.

Help me out. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445957)

What illegal activity has Snowden actually revealed? The leaked slides I've read so far indicate the NSA are:

  • Collecting metadata from telecommunications companies (which is legal, albeit retroactively, thanks to passed and signed legislation)
  • Collecting information from public sources
  • Collecting data sent in the clear across public networks
  • Training its employees how to use a database containing that information

Can someone please calmly and rationally clarify or illuminate evidence which suggests or proves the NSA are doing anything nefarious (e.g., hacking into personal computers, tapping databases containing private information, installing key loggers) with their alleged spying activities?

The excitement and emotion around this issue are running high, generating noise that drowns out sane analysis. If I go onto a crowded street and speak loudly, I can't complain if others overhear. Likewise, if I send information across a public network that's not encrypted, I can't complain if it gets intercepted. Nor can I bemoan the loss of privacy if I put private information in the hands of a third party that I don't trust.

Privacy only exists when protected. Lock it away, encrypt it, or take some measure to safeguard anything you consider sensitive. Otherwise, consider anything you put out in the open fair game for others to use.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>