snowden and the billionaire monkeys on our back

Zenaan Harkness zen at
Thu Dec 6 02:17:12 PST 2018

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 07:47:55PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
> On 12/5/18 3:20 PM, John Newman wrote:
> > 
> > Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about faux-philanthropic
> > leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;) 
> > 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Interesting part where he described Snowden talking to a bunch of
> > these people, this "clash of ideals"  - 
> > [... snip ...] 
> > It was a very interesting vision, and as he started describing, well,
> > the way I’m going to do that is I’m going to build all these tools that
> > would allow dissidents to actually operate more freely. A communication
> > tool so you can message without getting caught, a Facebook “like” tool
> > so you can socially network without losing your privacy, some kind of
> > tokenized identity so you can make clear to different websites that
> > you’re the same person without revealing which person you are–various
> > things. Snowden was describing the creation of all these things because
> > he wanted to live in a world in which dissent of the kind that he made
> > is possible, in which it’s possible to go up against power and not be
> > interrupted in that quest; that’s his motivation, his goal. 
> > And it’s like they couldn’t process him; they couldn’t process his set
> > of motivations. And so Chris Sacca says, wow, you sound like you’re
> > designing a lot of tools that, they sound like apps, or startup–do you
> > want to build a startup? I mean, there’s a lot of people here who would
> > like to be your investor. Snowden just looked at him, puzzled, like–what
> > are you talking about? I’m talking about freedom and heresy and truth,
> > and being a dissident, and how a society corrects itself from manifest
> > injustices through allowing people who have an uncomfortable truth to
> > tell it. And you’re talking about startups? And it was just this
> > wonderful collision between someone who believes in real changes, and
> > these people who kind of believe in the pseudo-change that lines their
> > own pockets."
> Um, that's not what it reads like to me.  I see Snowden saying he wants
> to accomplish all these wonderful things that enable political dissent
> and freedom via network technology.  Then he refuses to have anything to
> do with implementing that vision, going so far as to pretend that he
> does not understand that building and distributing software and
> infrastructure is HOW to achieve goals like the ones he mentioned.  It
> sounds like he chose to literally "play dumb" when presented with a room
> full of people who wanted a shot at implementing his ideas (vs.
> memorized talking points) in real life.
> The more I look at Snowden, the less sense he makes:  Both in terms of
> what he says (see above), and in terms of a biography and current public
> presentation that more or less defy explanation.
> To date, the only Snowden scenario that makes sense to me portrays him
> as a spokesmodel:  In effect a sock puppet passed from hand to hand.
> Did he have anything at all to do with "borrowing" certain documents and
> handing them off to Glen Greenwald?  I have no opinion on that.  The
> documents Greenwald released triggered a massive controversy over a
> small set of political / legal issues that all ended with decisive wins
> for the U.S. intelligence community.  In my view whether that means
> Snowden failed or succeeded remains an open question.
> Pending additional information, I would more likely trust a guy named
> "Mendax" than him.


The very first "fundamental" step (besides, supposedly, choosing to
leak/ whistleblow) was how to leak, or in his rather pathetic (from
op sec pov) case, who to leak to and choosing to "leak" to only one
person, Greenwald.

Firstly he failed to also leak through any dark network means, and
chose meat space leakee "sneaker net".

Secondly he chose to leak to ONE person only.

Thirdly, and fatally from before he even took the action of leaking,
he chose an MSM publisher in the face of YEARS of problems that the
likes of Assange had already experienced.

"Bloody idiot" springs to mind, but why attribute to stupidity when
"compromised bastard" comes to mind... and by the looks of all the
silliness around his flight to our Russkie bros, he was not only
literally "granted safe passage" (witness Putin's personal quotes on
the incoming flight) but likely had a death threat on his arse in the
first place - enough motivation to get him moving away from home base
(deep state cannot have a leaker appear to be allowed to leak and
live, or live a normal life, you see).

Stinks, stinks and oh, by the way, it all stinks.

Did I mention the Snowden saga stinks?

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list