Talk:Edward Snowden

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Okay, seriously, you guys...[edit]

The line He also believed that "whistleblowers should be shot in the balls" just prior to president Bush leaving office in 2009 suggests we think he leaked the information that he did because the president happened to be a Democrat and Snowden is a Republican. Snowden may indeed be a Republican, but you've got to provide legitimate evidence (incidentally, you will probably never find any) that Snowden had partisan motivation for the leaks before you imply something so deeply unlikely on a wiki obsessed with the truth. The significance of the fact that Snowden's opinion about whistleblowers changed so dramatically changed is that the information he released was so damn terrifying that it forced him to rethink his entire adult life's work. Rand0 (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Though we also need to stress this sentiment: "In fairness to Snowden, it's possible to effect US policy for the better and still be a myopic megalomaniac asshole." Osaka Sun (talk) 7:17, 4 May 2014‎ (UTC)
Oh shut the hell up. Snowden is hardly in a position where he can criticize the Russian government without impunity. Perhaps he's a little once bit, twice shy? Hopefully you at least concur with what's on the main page. Namely, that the idea he is a secret Russian agent is pure Russophobic hokum. And as it says on Mr. W's twitter page, the accusation of him being an asshole is baseless. Unless you claim that him saying some BS thing back when he was a young pug in the Bush administration (before he saw the error of what he was involved in) is proof of something. Or who he voted for in the last election. Burkean (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You do realize you are replying to a comment that is two years old by users who don't edit here anymore, right?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So um...[edit]

We already knew about the government spying on us long before Snowden; I know of no one who didn't assume it was going on. And hell, I don't know anyone who didn't believe the CIA was running blacksites for, like, ever (virtually everyone knew about the "secret" Polish CIA flights; dunno where else but every so often Khazakstan is in the news...), and making people disappear is far more sinister than spying. Our government is notoriously bad at keeping secrets (or that's what THEY want you to think!). So what makes the Snowden story such a big deal?

I mean, it's great that dirty laundry is getting aired and all, and we can identify which programs and people should get the chopping block, but these are just the crusty panties from when you snuck out of last month's party with Chlamydia Chloe. We all know about it, Gary, we all know. CorruptUser (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please cite with specificity each Snowden revelation that "we already knew," and where it was documented before Snowden. (Just FYI, I know as much about this topic as I do about Zionism, which is to say, a very great deal.)---Mona- (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
All but five of these 610 documents are from the Snowden files. Which ones did "we" already know?---Mona- (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I remember this tale making rounds years before Snowden that texting something on your phone with a combination of terrorist phrases would get you in trouble with the CIA. It might have just been an urban myth at that point, but talk of American intelligence agencies watching people's electronic messages certainly predated the Snowden leaks. (talk) 03:06, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Much about the NSA was making rounds, and primarily due to one of Snowden's biggest fans, James Bamford. ---Mona- (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure was alot of outrage for something we all knew. Tielec01 (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
NSA keeping database of your phone calls, from 5 years before Snowden. "Urban Legend" my anus. Snowden didn't confirm the NSA was doing this, only that they never stopped. CorruptUser (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Right, some anonymous sources said NSA was doing this on "millions." So, then James Clapper lied to the Senate and denied it. That pushed Snowden over the edge. He revealed, among MANY others, documents showing that virtually all Americans' telephony metadata is collected. What had been anonymous, unsupported claims, became a fact. Along with a great many other documents demonstrating the facts of skullduggery and a Global Surveillance Apparatus.---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"Sure was a lot of outrage for something we all knew." Exactly. There's a difference between intelligent speculation and some reports from anonymous sources on the one hand, and knowing it's a fact because the documents conclusively demonstrate it on the other. The government didn't track down those anonymous sources, or James Bamford, for prosecution, but they've thrown the book at Snowden.---Mona- (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, please. Bamford was targeted for prosecution, too. William Binney, another NSA whistleblower who predates Snowden and was an actual NSA employee and not a contractor, was arguably persecuted for his concerns and had his business shut down by government lawyers. The US "threw the book" at Snowden because there no reason not to, Snowden had already decided to run off and play From Russia With Love before he could be jailed. Snowden complained he wouldn't get a fair trial, but that's mere hypothesizing, too, since he burned all his bridges when he ran overseas. Bamford's material "making he rounds" and mere speculation is amusing to be dismissed by Snowden's cheerleaders. They've only making those rounds since the late '70s, early '80s, with the one service Snowden provided was concrete proof of Bamford's "speculation".
The question comes up "Snowden, traitor or hero?", implying he had but just two choices to make when becoming a whistleblower he had a whole plethora of options. However therein lies another false assumption he couldn't have identified some sympathetic persons in Congress/Senate to blow his load to. It's great entertainment to see the tale of the lone American patriot defying all odds to release secret information, but come on, he brought that on himself.
If he'd blown his load to a democrat, they would've sat on it to protect the administration. If he'd gone to a republican, it would've invalidated what he was doing in the eyes of many. Heck, a lot of liberals still act like he's some sort of cipher who tried to undermine their king of hope and change and that was without blowing his load on a republican. Even if he chose what happened to him, that doesn't make it less relevant or legitimate, unless you claim the government had no choice but to treat him like a traitor and a fugitive. In that case, what Nixon did to Daniel Ellsberg was a-okay. Burkean (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Bamford may have been targeted, but he was not prosecuted. Bamford, by the way, is a huge Edward Snowden fan. Nor did Snowden have other options, which is why Bill Binney and Tom Drake are also big Snowden fans -- what happened to them (gross persecution and even prosecution for trying the "proper channels") -- taught Snowden it was futile to use those channels. Finally, please sign your talk page edits---Mona- (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Snowden's support for Ron Paul have anything to do with anything other than to try and imply that people who oppose the national security policies of the Obama administration must be unhinged? He likely supported him for his isolationist foreign policy. What does that have to do with goldbuggery, as is the rationalwiki parlance. Burkean (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

He was/is a Trump supporter[edit]

2016 is a choice between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs.

—Deleted Tweet[1]

Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's an archive if anyone is in doubt. CowHouse (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Well my respect for Snowden just went down a couple hundred notches. Comrade GC (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Tone of article[edit]

It is very different to majority of articles here. I guess everyone has biases, even if it is beyond me why anyone would like or support this morally bankrupt hypocrite. What it is with all of those "whistleblowers" running away to countries with authoritarian governments and with way, way worse human right record than USA anyway? It is almost like they care about damaging USA for whatever reason, not about those pesky human rights. — Unsigned, by: / talk

I think it might have something to do with the US government not playing by its own rules which it had set and then expects other governments to follow, like giving political dissidents fair trials and stuff like that. Accusing him of hypocrisy is farcical here. There's pretty long and storied history of US government whistleblowers having their concerns dismissed, being silenced, or imprisoned. That's why they have no alternative but to seek refuge in countries that are geopolitical rivals/enemies of the US and who won't succumb to US pressure to turn them over. No serious, even a country like Sweden is not off limits from American coercion. — Unsigned, by: / talk

"Unrecorded, Unanalyzed Thought..."[edit]

Could Snowden be referring brain-computer interface (BCI) with this statement? According to this article, the technology to read a person's mind already exists. As the technology improves, it's not hard to imagine corporations and governments taking advantage of it. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Your source,, is full of hype and not reliable. Bongolian (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)