Casual Readers discussion

Am sat watching a discussion on Edward Snowden who has been accused of whistle blowing on the CIA and the fact that they have been monitoring all emails in order to see if there are any threats. Was interested to see what the view of this page was.

There are links between this story and the plot of Dan Brown's novel Digital Fortress I am not an expert of Dan Brown's books and would be interested to know whether others have picked up on this link.

Edward Snowden villain or hero?

That's actually the one book by Brown I haven't read.

I certainly don't see Snowden as a hero. Is he a villain? I don't know that I would say that either. But I definitely think that was a boneheaded move. Infiltrating the United States Intelligence Community is a serious, serious, seriously bad idea. I can't think of many worse ideas. And he needs to be made an example of. That just cannot be tolerated.

Chuck wrote: "That's actually the one book by Brown I haven't read.

I certainly don't see Snowden as a hero. Is he a villain? I don't know that I would say that either. But I definitely think that was a bonehea..."

I agree with you on this Chuck. If Mr. Snowden truly did this for the benefit of the nation, I think he would be here in the U.S., admitting he broke the current law, and pleading his case along with his desire to change the law he sees as bad. Instead he has asked just about every other country out there, for asylum. Doesn't seem like the actions of a hero.

Thanks for your views. I am fascinated at how the media spin different stories in the UK. Some journalists are spinning him as a courageous hero who is taking a huge organisation down. Clearly this is not what is being portrayed in the USA

Sam wrote: "Thanks for your views. I am fascinated at how the media spin different stories in the UK. Some journalists are spinning him as a courageous hero who is taking a huge organisation down. Clearly thi..."

Well, most of the people I know and things I've read have been very supportive of Snowden. That actually kind of gets the conspiracy theorist in me wondering if maybe he isn't a NSA shill, lol. But, on a more serious note, the bottom line for me is this: What has Snowden told us, that we are being spied on? I think most people probably presumed that from the outset. Of course they're going to use everything technological possible. I really wouldn't expect anything less. In reality, he's been a little idealistic for his own good and has made a horrible mistake. I look for him to either meet with an "accident" or be brought back to the USA for execution.
If it is true that society is about to become an Orwellian nightmare, so to speak, then we have to hope we elect leaders that aren't evil that lead us away from that. That's the rules that we agreed to play by, or so that's the way I see it.

Rightly or wrongly, exactly WHO is the state protecting us from? Too certain right-wing individuals and groups, 9/11 and the subsequent 'war on terror' was the best thing that could have happened, for any large military power there has to be an enemy to justify it's continued existence either real or imagined. The real war is being waged around the whole concept of information and disinformation, one only has to look at the press given to one memo about global warming being false(yeah right!) to see that, we are already in a Orwellian nightmare.

There's the rub. I can't necessarily know what they've prevented, I can only hope we elect people that aren't evil, for lack of a better term, because the technology is just about available to bring something like it to pass.

Have you not read 1984, Sean? Maybe it's just me but I'm not following your analogy. In a 1984-type scenario it wouldn't be a free press and you wouldn't have the right to doubt what you read. It doesn't matter if it's 2+2=5. They could declare a word you used your whole life nonexistent and if you beg to differ you're a thought criminal. They're never wrong. And they're able to enforce it all by monitoring your actions ceaselessly.

Chuck wrote: "There's the rub. I can't necessarily know what they've prevented, I can only hope we elect people that aren't evil, for lack of a better term, because the technology is just about available to brin..." Never read 1984(it's on the list)what I was getting at was the voices are getting weaker and weaker, we are losing my friend. The next 20 years are the most important in our species history it's really make or break in so many ways BUT always act as an agent for Social Change not Social Control.

I think we agree there. I just believe we have to go about that in a democratic process. If democracy fails us in the end we are doomed.

I have been wondering if other people felt a bit confused by this whole thing. I know that I am.

I find myself thinking of Watergate and what those reporters went through to break such an important story. I don't think Snowden is the next Woodward or Bernstein, but does he deserve punishment or praise?

I was not (and AM not) a supporter of the Patriot Act. I always remember that quote about giving up ones freedom for a little security and not deserving either one.
That being said, I do think that any illusions we may have regarding our privacy in virtually any situation is just that, an illusion.
I guess I'm on the fence about Snowden. It is the duty of the press to report freely-after all, without freedom of the press what happens to our democracy, as a whole? But when it comes to matters of national security, where is the line drawn?
Did Snowden put any of our personnel at risk? Does he deserve to be jailed for the rest of his life for what he did?
Edited to add that I haven't read that Dan Brown book.

Charlene wrote: "I have been wondering if other people felt a bit confused by this whole thing. I know that I am.

I find myself thinking of Watergate and what those reporters went through to break such an importan..."

I hear what you're saying Charlene. It's hard to tell what's right and what's wrong. There's a couple things that bother me with this. I believe we need a free press, but free press with responsibility. Woodward and Bernstein did some very good investigative reporting and were able to bring down a bad administration. They never broke any laws. From what I understand, there's a chance Mr. Snowden may have broken laws getting his information. If that's the case, he needs to appear in court. If he broke the law, that's a separate issue to whether the law is bad.
I think it also says a lot, that so many legitimate reporters have risked careers and prison, in an effort to protect sources or get a story to the public. Mr. Snowden has put every effort into not facing his accusers, and having his opportunity in court. This just doesn't seem to be the actions of a man who is strong in his convictions.

Good points, all.
I argue with my own self saying that W & B had to cite numerous sources for this information,then go to their editor who would say go or no go.

I can't think of the other man that we have jailed waiting on a trial for much the same thing. I recently read an article about his treatment while in jail, and was shocked to learn that it was worse than most death-row inmates, as far as conditions go.

If I were Snowden, I might take off before submitting to such conditions myself. Not that that is an excuse, but it may be part of his reasoning.

Charlene wrote: "I have been wondering if other people felt a bit confused by this whole thing. I know that I am.

I find myself thinking of Watergate and what those reporters went through to break such an importan..."

I think the thing is that nobody has turned around and said 'OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SPYING ON US! I DO NOT BELIEVE IT' I think the American Government have handled it completely out of all proportion, they could have come up with some political BS, in National interest blah, blah, instead of creating a political minefield that WILL never go away, the really scary thing is just how STUPID they actually are!!!! George Smiley would have managed things a lot better.

Chuck wrote: "I think we agree there. I just believe we have to go about that in a democratic process. If democracy fails us in the end we are doomed." If we live in such a DEMOCRATIC WORLD why havn'nt they used technology to give everybody the vote INSTANTANEOUSLY by the push of a button!!!!!!!

Rick wrote: "Charlene wrote: "I have been wondering if other people felt a bit confused by this whole thing. I know that I am.

I find myself thinking of Watergate and what those reporters went through to break..."

Surely, the biggest law breakers on the planet are legitimate nation states, who break or alter laws to suit themselves or disguise it under the catch all 'national security'

By the way DIGITAL FORTRESS is a truly awful book! Sorry!

Sean in all honesty I think most Dan Brown books are awful. Sorry if that offends some

The problem with the Snowden story in the UK seems to be the fact it was the American government spying on us all. In all honestly from listening to all the debates on TV it appears that it would have been OK for our government to be spying on us but another government is not allowed. I personally find this a hard fact to accept as in the UK we seem to accept the USA help when we want it and then complain about it later. I also find it double standards to say on one hand yes please monitor my email and then to say but no this country can't. I would like to have a clearer idea of what Snowden's motives were to reveal this information.

Bottom line however has to be that if this monitoring saves even one person from a terrorist attack then it is worth it. Innocent people don't normally have anything to hide.

Sam wrote: "Sean in all honesty I think most Dan Brown books are awful. Sorry if that offends some

The problem with the Snowden story in the UK seems to be the fact it was the American government spying on us..."
I myself am a fellow Brit Sam, 'Innocent people have nothing to hide' is used far to often, so obviously if your post was suddenly intercepted, copied and then passed on you would not mind as you are a law abiding person. You only have to look at the Lawrence family and how the Police were trying to find out negative things about them, to be concerned. You also seem to think it's perfectly OK for a foreign Government to monitor British citizens, that is the really scary thing about the whole concept of Homeland Security, I really do think the Americans have really opened up Pandora's Box with that short sighted brain wave!

Sean wrote: "f we live in such a DEMOCRATIC WORLD why havn'nt they used technology to give everybody the vote INSTANTANEOUSLY by the push of a button!!!!!!! "

What does that have to do with anything? Make no mistake, I'm talking of the USA. If the people of the US decide that's what we want that's what will have.

Sean wrote: "I think the thing is that nobody has turned around and said 'OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SPYING ON US! I DO NOT BELIEVE IT' I think the American Government have handled it completely out of all proportion, they could have come up with some political BS, in National interest blah, blah, instead of creating a political minefield that WILL never go away, the really scary thing is just how STUPID they actually are!!!! George Smiley would have managed things a lot better.

I find myself thinking of Watergate and what those reporters went through to break..."

It's not surprising to anyone that we're being monitored. When they start using that information to oppress the citizens then we'll have a problem.

I think we've handled it pretty well actually. People like to point fingers at the "evil empire" but we're not like other countries. I mean, we're not going to kill his family or knock his momma's house down or something. I think in the end he'll be executed and I support that 110%.

I don't agree with the I'm innocent I've got nothing to hide argument. Look what happened to Richard Jewell.
I am upset when anyone's rights are not respected, because mine might be disrespected next.

Sean wrote: "Surely, the biggest law breakers on the planet are legitimate nation states, who break or alter laws to suit themselves or disguise it under the catch all 'national security'"

Probably so. But my primary concern is the USA. She's a great a nation and I'd like to keep it that away. Ultimately it's up to the American people, because we are the government. The USA's power to govern comes from the people.

Sam wrote: "Bottom line however has to be that if this monitoring saves even one person from a terrorist attack then it is worth it. Innocent people don't normally have anything to hide. "

This is the crux of that matter.

Ask yourself if you have curtains/blinds over your windows. I think the answer is going to be yes for most of us. And it's not because we're doing anything illegal. We just value our privacy.

Chuck wrote: "Sean wrote: "Surely, the biggest law breakers on the planet are legitimate nation states, who break or alter laws to suit themselves or disguise it under the catch all 'national security'"

Probabl..."

I was actually referring to both the US and Britain. I am seriously really beginning to question the whole concept of democracy, I'm not saying replace it with an authoritan state or a dictatorship, but take a look at the people around you, ask yourself which is the best literary prize The Booker or Oprah's read of the year, are the best films to be found by the readers of TV Guide or The Film Academy of America.

Chuck wrote: "Sean wrote: "I think the thing is that nobody has turned around and said 'OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SPYING ON US! I DO NOT BELIEVE IT' I think the American Government have handled it completely out of all..."

Don't kid yourself, executing your own citizens is a really great way of endorsing the American way.

For 40 years Irish Terrorists committed countless atrocities on the British mainland against mostly 'soft' targets, most of these weapons were funded and supplied by US citizens and groups, change was only made possible by all parties recognising that serious mistakes had been made on ALL sides and then a way forward was eventually reached, the brave people who stepped up to the plate, like the disclosure of the shoot to kill policy on Sunday Bloody Sunday, would now today find themselves in jail in Britain or executed in the US, that is not progress!

But the fundamental point is exactly who is the enemy? There will always be people, groups, nations who disagree with the West, and will commit acts of terrorism, but that is no reason to cower in fear, see bogie men around every corner, if a bomb goes off find the bastards and do what has to be done, instead of using the 'war on terrorism' as the excuse not the reason for a gradual reduction of ALL our rights and freedoms.

Sean wrote: "Chuck wrote: "Sean wrote: "Surely, the biggest law breakers on the planet are legitimate nation states, who break or alter laws to suit themselves or disguise it under the catch all 'national secur..."

You lost me there, man. I just don't see what that has to do with the government. Nevertheless, it seems like the Pulitzer would be the more apt comparison.

I also don't believe you can compare the USA to Britain. But this is where you can teach me something, if you don't mind. I thought you lived in a monarchy? Is not the Queen the ultimate authority there?

Sean, I've never been able to grasp what role the Queen actually has in Britain. I just read a few wiki pages about it and I just do not get it. But I see that our governments are a lot more like than I had supposed. I just don't understand why you guys have a Queen and what that means.

Sean wrote: "Don't kid yourself, executing your own citizens is a really great way of endorsing the American way."

Dude, it's like this for me. I was born an American and I would love for America to continue to hold the place in the world it does. We just cannot put up with people infiltrating our Intelligence Community and running off to Russian and China and the rest of the world. That just cannot be tolerated. Some things you just don't do and expect to live. There is a way to a/effect change if that's needed. But the way Snowden tried to do it is not it.

I know that may sound harsh but I'm very, very liberal in my views.