Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Senate Letter to James Clapper

This is only tangentially related to Snowden himself, but it seems like it should belong somewhere. A group of 26 senators, is demanding answers from Clapper. Saying that the NSA has relied on a body of secret law. Extending beyond the original interpretation Smith v Maryland, and the various iterations and amendments to Fisa and the Patriot act. Sec 215 of the latter is called out. Ron Wyden is the first signature on the letter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/28/senators-letter-james-clapper --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty germaine [germane] to me; let's see where this goes, in History, as it develops. Notice it's a UK link. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's the Guardian, they've been following everything Snowden. They just happened to be the ones with the full document posted. --71.20.55.6 (talk)

Others are picking up on the Letter, and the Senate is already acting: [1] "New legislation, introduced last week in the U.S. Senate, called the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013, aims to reform the Patriot and FISA Amendments Acts to provide greater oversight and control to the government’s surveillance programs." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck getting it through the House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

New leak - 29 Jun Der Spiegel

Spying on EU offices. This brings to four the number of papers Snowden has directly contacted.

The document outlines how the NSA bugged offices and spied on EU internal computer networks in Washington and at the United Nations, not only listening to conversations and phone calls but also gaining access to documents and emails.

The document explicitly called the EU a "target".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/29/us-usa-eu-spying-idUSBRE95S0AQ20130629

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/nsa-hat-wanzen-in-eu-gebaeuden-installiert-a-908515.html --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these! The full citations:

• "U.S. bugged EU offices, computer networks: German magazine." Reuters. June 29, 2013.
• Poitras, Laura, Marcel Rosenbach, Fidelius Schmid and Holger Stark. "Geheimdokumente: NSA horcht EU-Vertretungen mit Wanzen aus." Der Spiegel. Saturday, 29.06.2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian has posted a redacted supporting document and additional details. One of the methods called "DROPMIRE"

One document lists 38 embassies and missions, describing them as "targets". It details an extraordinary range of spying methods used against each target, from bugs implanted in electronic communications gear to taps into cables to the collection of transmissions with specialised antennae.

Along with traditional ideological adversaries and sensitive Middle Eastern countries, the list of targets includes the EU missions and the French, Italian and Greek embassies, as well as a number of other American allies, including Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey. The list in the September 2010 document does not mention the UK, Germany or other western European states.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/30/nsa-leaks-us-bugging-european-allies --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

More articles

Here are additional sources:

• Bradsher, Keith. "With Snowden Gone, Hong Kong Focuses on U.S. Surveillance." The New York Times. June 26, 2013.
• "Independent on the run after Edward Snowden photo gaffe." The Guardian. June 24, 2013.
• Steiner, Christopher. "Edward Snowden may be the last of the human spies." The Guardian. June 29, 2013.
• Kinzer, Stephen. "Latin America is ready to defy the US over Snowden and other issues." The Guardian. Tuesday June 25, 2013.
• Editorial. "Edward Snowden: in defence of whistleblowers." The Guardian. Tuesday June 25, 2013.
• "US spies targeted European Union communications, says report." (print title: "US spied on EU ministers, says report") Reuters at South China Morning Post. Sunday June 30, 2013.
• Coliver, Sandra. "US prosecution of Snowden and Manning exceeds international norms." The Guardian. Wednesday June 26, 2013.
• Staff and agencies. "Ecuador's Correa says Biden asked him to deny Edward Snowden asylum." The Guardian. Saturday June 29, 2013.
• Urquhart, Conal and agencies. "Edward Snowden has not weakened president, says Susan Rice." The Guardian. June 29, 2013.
• "Edward Snowden's plan to seek sanctuary in Ecuador is falling apart." (print title: "Tensions on route to sanctuary") The Guardian at South China Morning Post (Additional reporting by Reuters, Agence France-Presse). Sunday June 30, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So of ten important news reports, eight are UK, one South China Morning Post (English edition), and only one US (The New York Times). FYI, I got a notice when I went over to South China Morning Post that I had remaining only two more reads before I would need to sign in. Do I want to be in their database(?) Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Signing in only grants you another four freebees. After that you have to start paying. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If there are multiple computers/iPads/whatever at your house, use a different machine when you max out on one. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Content fork alert

A1candidate is at it again, creating a wholly redundant content fork this time at 2013 Public disclosures of surveillance and espionage activities. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be entirely about the Snowden case, so it's definitely redundant and should be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If it was an overall summary of all of the intelligence disclosures and didn't focus on Snowden as an individual, would it still work? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it's already covered in List of government surveillance projects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and it looks like it's just a summary of the disclosures. Perhaps you can propose a merger to List of government surveillance projects if you think it doesn't have enough unique information. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nstrauss: No, I've acted in good faith and the focus of that article is clearly not on Snowden. -A1candidate (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What new information does it present which is not in one or both of the other two articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It can be renamed and re-built as a Timeline article. Including all the Snowden, PRISM, reactions, etc, sorted by date. emijrp (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@A1candidate: I have no concern about your motives but that article is clearly about Snowden. All of the disclosures were Snowden's disclosures, and Snowden isn't known for anything else. It's 100% redundant with Edward Snowden#Media disclosures. It adds nothing new. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Expressed a speculative concern?

Can we all at least agree that the current wording is crap? "Some current and former US intelligence officials expressed a speculative concern, without offering evidence, that Chinese or Russian intelligence agents might have accessed Snowden's classified material." Expressed a speculative concern? Really? My suggestion is that we pick one source and just say what it says. I like the Washington Post, because the entire story is about this topic, and it includes the denial by WikiLeaks, thereby giving both sides of the story. Or take two sources, maybe even three, but just say what they say, don't try to interpret it in the clumsy way we do now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we pick one source and just say what it says If the source picked is typical (that is, representative of the sources as a whole) this is a perfectly sound suggestion, one I entirely agree with, but unfortunately a few editors don't like the fact the sources don't talk up the "speculative" nature of the statements (unless they are by Assange) and want Wikipedia to add that.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So maybe have each faction pick one source? I think our problem is that we're trying to summarize what multiple sources are saying, and can't agree on what the summary should be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Other WP pages of main and major interest -- relating to Edward Snowden

In a prior discussion, I made the last comment: "A challenge in the future in [possibly] splitting this article will be deciding how (and if) it should be split; length is not the best criteria, rather subject matter." May I suggest that this article on Edward Snowden is the most important article and will remain so for some time. However, to me, a close second is the Prism article. (I like to call the newly popular area of citizen privacy vs spying to protect against terrorists as "Prism" lower-case, and the tool to do so as "PRISM" upper-case. Editors here should keep an eye on PRISM which links automatically over to PRISM_(surveillance_program) which contains a lot of great information. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald's speech to the Socialism Conference in Chicago

Has nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism and everything to do with Snowden and his revelations. Among the new info is a "teaser" that the NSA is rerouting a billion cell calls a month through its servers.

Greenwald's part starts at approximately time index 10:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uulv4ve6RJ8

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights Activist

Snowden is, above anything else, a Human Rights Activist.

This should be included in the introductory lines of the article or in a new section about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.5.71 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Two of the central pillars of Wikipedia are verifiability and neutrality. If you can find reliable sources (such as newspaper articles) that call Snowden a "human rights activist" then we will add them, balanced against other reliable sources that call him other things. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP is a troll. Ignore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A case could be made citing the appropriate sources: But Putin said he suspected that Snowden would not stop leaking information, because “he feels himself to be a human rights activist.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/snowden-has-asked-for-political-asylum-in-russia-report/article12903246/

My own view is it's too early to tell and the situation is very fluid. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is. And if Putin is true to his word, he will grant asylum only if Snowden is silenced, as he's at risk of harming US-Russian relations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a huge gulf between a reliable source saying someone is a human rights activist and a reliable source saying a politician (who isn't exactly known for his honesty) said someone "feels himself to be a human rights activist." There are too many layers of unreliability to count. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

More on Snowden in Ecuador

• Weissenstein, Michael. "Ecuador flower growers in Snowden shock." Associated Press at the Houston Chronicle. June 30, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Too speculative and tangential in my view. Perhaps it belongs in Economy of Ecuador, but certainly not here. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Albert Ho

I would like to add something about Albert Ho in Passport revoked and Snowden leaves Hong Kong for Russia section about the actual identity of the middleman who persuaded Snowden to leave Hong Kong on 22/23 June. According to DWnews, Ho mistook the middleman for Chinese Governments after Snowden had departed for Russia. In fact, the middleman was a close friend of Sarah Harrison from UK. This person contacted Hong Kong Immigration Department if there was any trouble for Snowden's departure and made backup plans in case Snowden was blocked in Hong Kong Airport. This report was quoted by other Hong Kong presses to criticize Ho's political stance of opposition to attack Hong Kong and Chinese Governments whenever given the chance.[2] [3] This should meet our verifiability criteria. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Spy agency seeks criminal probe into leaks

The source says: It was not known how broad a leaks investigation was requested by the super-secret NSA, but Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Clapper's office, said a "crimes report has been filed."

Our article says: The NSA formally requested that the Department of Justice launch a criminal investigation into Snowden's actions.[35]

It seems to me as our text is not supported by the source. Is an "crimes report" an formally requests for criminal investigation? I would rephrase it, but I for the moment I can't figure out how beyond just use the short original sentence. Source is http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/09/us-usa-security-clapper-idUSBRE9570GL20130609 Belorn (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Crimes report" is a rather odd term. Maybe they were trying to avoid saying "investigation" in two consecutive sentences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect "crimes report" is similar to an "incident report", but I don't know. Wikipedia don't have an article about it (Crimes report). Belorn (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading that source, they use the term "crimes report" just like that, in quotes, and it does indeed look like an "incident report" or "request". Which I think pretty well matches the idea expressed in your initial quote from the Wikipedia article, but maybe it could be tweaked a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW "incident report" sounds like the appropriate bureaucrat-speak. The Incident Command System is a big part the government's response to "incidents" of all sorts, i have no doubt that it's been applied here as well. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Verax film

As some you have noticed, there has been a short five minute film that was made about Snowden by four people in Hong Kong. Based on the coverage in reliable sources, I was able to write an article about this film: Verax (film)

A user (User:Contextmatters) has removed the coverage about the film that I placed in this article:

• Removal #1: "A stub "legacy" entry, replacing what appears to have been blatant promotional copy for an obscure YouTube video of little-to-no relevance. This is an important aspect of a siginificant topic and deserves careful attention." - 15:11, 30 June 2013
• My revert of the removal: "rv Contextmatters - Wikipedia is a *tertiary* source, so it depends on what the reliable sources (newspapers) say, right? This is not a promotional section, and clearly not so, because the sourcing comes from Agence France-Presse, US newspapers, etc" - 19:53, 30 June 2013
  • I left a message on his talk page
• I removed large amounts of information about the film so it can go to the article about the film itself - 08:09, 1 July 2013
• I moved the link to the Verax film to the film article - 08:15, 1 July 2013
• Removal #2 - "This section should convey information about Snowden's legacy. A spammy, overlong passage about an indie movie doesn't make the cut." - 01:01, 2 July 2013
  • I left a second message on his talk page about the edit, then a notification about this discussion: User_talk:Contextmatters#.22Legacy.22_.28Discussing_films.2Fmovies_about_a_historic_event.29_and_sections_on_Wikipedia

If I have been able to create a Wikipedia article on this five minute film, and I added it to appropriate categories and Wikiprojects, and the said article survives (if you don't think there should be an article, please file an AFD), then I argue the film should be mentioned in the Edward Snowden article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: the Verax film was produced and released well before the events finished unfolding. They had barely started. At this point it rates one sentence. There will be others: films, books, etc. based on a more complete view of events. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The last revision had three sentences devoted to Verax but I can cut it down to one sentence if needed. The film was finished just as Snowden left for Moscow; its main focus was the events unfolding while Snowden was in HK. Anyhow, there will be other films, books, etc. They simply have not yet been created, which is why I had three sentences for Verax. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Open letter to Edw from Lonnie Snowden

Some key phrases: "modern day Paul Revere," "we leave it for the American people to decide whether you or Director clapper is the superior patriot"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/02/198014507/his-son-is-a-modern-day-paul-revere-snowdens-father-says

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

More sources - Kerry talks with Lavrov

• http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1274112/kerry-fails-make-progress-snowden-issue-talks-lavrov

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

International reactions: Europe?

Hello, I was wondering why there is no mention of the reactions to leaked documents from both European national governments and EU institutions (Commission and commissioners, President of the European Parliament, etc.)? I can add info myself, but I thought I'd first put the question here in case there is a particular reason why the article doesn't mention anything. Thanks! C.d.rose (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose nobody had gotten around to it yet. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe it's appropriate to include European reactions, especially reactions after the Spiegel article. But it should preferably be done in a concise way. Some of the other reaction sections appears a bit too long and may need to be shortened, particualar the China/Hong Kong section. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bolivian president's plane forced to land

Upon false rumors that Snowden was on board. Oops.

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the links discussed a day or two ago was a news story, of sorts, that predicted this. That story might be the source of the rumor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, it was Venezuela,[4] from a Russian source yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

NYT article on Snowden's job

I found this one:

• Shane, Scott and David E. Sanger. "Job Title Key to Inner Access Held by Snowden." The New York Times. July 1, 2013.

It says about Obama's "jets" comment: "Mr. Obama presumably meant the term to be dismissive, suggesting that Mr. Snowden (who turned 30 on June 21) was a young computer delinquent. But as an N.S.A. infrastructure analyst, Mr. Snowden was, in a sense, part of the United States’ biggest and most skilled team of hackers." WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of those facts, the question remains, how did he pass the background check? And how many other Snowdens are lurking out there, working for contract companies with slipshod vetting practices? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To get to the NSA, FBI, or CIA one has to pass a government investigation (government officials ask questions from family, friends, and colleagues) and then he has to take a polygraph exam (see NSA#Polygraphing) - On the internet at one time Snowden said that he hated leaks, so maybe his opposition grew in time? And people are re-investigated every five years. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't a government employee. As I had understood it, he was hired by a private contract company, which in turn used another private contract company to do an alleged background check. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Even though he was a Booz Allen employee he did have to abide by the NSA polygraph requirements (he obviously did what he needed to do to get the CIA job), but it makes sense if the background check was done by a private firm. I wonder if the polygraph was also done by a private firm. What source states what company did his background check? I want to see if the company has a Wikipedia article? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/usis-edward-snowden_n_3474454.html said that USIS did the background investigation WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the one. Meanwhile, I wonder if you know you un-did what the Bot program does? Not this edit, but a couple of edits ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize it. Found the diff WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversed it. Thanks for catching it! WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And so I started USIS (company) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: How many Snowdens are there? You could answer this question knowing the size of the Intelligence operation and Snowden's popularity rating. Your average NSA person is an average American, and as such their politics could be expected to mirror those of the people at large. 1.4 Million people hold a top security clearance , A recent shows 32% label him a "patriot" and about one-quarter label him "traitor" (the remainder were undecided/other).. Multiplying these figures together you wind up with 448,000 top security clearance holders with the "patriot" view. But if the number is even 1%, it works out to 14,000. Of those, how many are willing, and able to follow his lead? Perhaps a handful. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Another irony is, if our spying is so good, how did he manage to flee the country, with government property, undetected? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He used his knowledge of the system to escape while being monitored. Count Iblis (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

More likely, he wasn't being monitored at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to re-read things but AFAIK he is usually supposed to report his travel plans in advance. So he chose to go to HK (wasn't viewed as suspicious) and had a cover story WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no law keeping an American from leaving the country, unless of course they're incarcerated, which he wasn't. If he was contractually bound to report his travels in advance, and failed to do so, then the worst they could do is fire him for insubordination. Where he messed up is taking government property with him. They can dispute the espionage charge, but on theft of government property they've got him cold. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We're heading into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Let's focus on improving the article please. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The good news is that it did inspire me to create an article on USIS, which is quite relevant to this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Clarification on his Studies at Liverpool

The article makes it sound like he graduated with a Masters degree from taking online courses at the University of Liverpool and cites a particular article. The article cited, however, clearly states that Snowden never completed his degree, has not been actively taking courses, and simply completed some coursework there some time ago.

• I thought I had put that info in there. Maybe it got lost? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon personally condemns Snowden

• "Edward Snowden's digital 'misuse' has created problems, says Ban Ki-moon." The Guardian. July 3, 2013.

Another new source WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest sources about Ecuador and father's proposal

• "Snowden's father says whistle-blower may return if conditions met." Reuters at South China Morning Post. Friday June 28, 2013.
• Mullen, Jethro and Michael Pearson. "Fair trial impossible in U.S., Snowden tells Ecuador in asylum request." CNN. Monday June 24, 2013.
• Carroll, Rory and Amanda Holpuch. "Ecuador cools on Edward Snowden asylum as Assange frustration grows." The Guardian. Friday 28 June 2013.
• Watkins, Tom. "Father proposes deal for Snowden's voluntary return." CNN. Friday June 28, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If Assange isn't careful, he might talk himself out of his own protective custody. However - has there been any confirmed sighting of Snowden in the last week or so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've spotted nothing confirming his whereabouts directly since landing in Moscow. In theory, he might have been able to slip out of the transit zone without leaving a record with the help of a compliant staffer, or a disguise and forged papers, but that's purely speculative. Again, no confirmed sighting since landing. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That was Sunday, so 5 days ago, right? Although we don't really even have confirmation that he landed in Moscow, do we? Other than Putin's comments. But that, along with what the Guardian is reporting Ecuador's current stance on the matter, kind of leaves Snowden in limbo, doesn't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

One article I remember reading quoted a receptionist at the airport as saying that Snowden had arrived, but left within three hours. I can't seem to find the article now. I'll update if I can find it. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's one. "He has not been seen in the transit area - the zone between the departure gate and formal entry into the country - since his arrival, although a receptionist at a hotel in the transit zone said he looked at the prices there on Sunday, then left." No sign of Sarah Harrison, his Wikileaks travel companion, either.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-snowdenbre95p0vq-20130626,0,2966464.story

The Ecuadoran papers he had were invalidated. So unless he can find himself another set of credentials, he'll have difficulty leaving. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point anything's possible, including that he might already be in Ecuador. But if enough time goes by with no new confirmed information from or about him, his story will go on the back burner, and conspiracy theorists will take over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Or he might choose to live in Mexico w/Sarah_Harrison_(journalist) and later cross the border to "live in the shadows". And I am not trying to be funny here! Is the Senate bill funny to you? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

When all the journalists were on the plane to Havana, he took a plane to Vladivostok, there he boarded a cargo ship to Guayaquil. Count Iblis (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The President is now publicly downplaying the case, even as Snowden seems to have disappeared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We now have Rafael Correa confirming Marooning in Russia. Edit: Assange too.

http://news.gnom.es/news/snowden-cant-leave-moscow-says-ecuador

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/30/wikileaks-founder-snowden-marooned-in-russia/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So far, Boyce's prediction looks good:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Too soon to say. I smell a new asylum place in the works. Actually, I smell 2 new possibilities: Russia itself, or also Germany or elsewhere in the EU. A Russian MP is now saying it would be "morally wrong" to extradite Snowden. And Snowden has begun to leak to the German press, which has produced quite a public reaction "All your data is belong to us" wrote one sign, (for the in-joke see). I figure he's not doomed just yet. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Morally wrong", eh? Until they spring Pussy Riot from jail, they do not occupy any moral high ground, and are just using Snowden for propaganda purposes. Which, once he figures out that he's become a political pawn, will draw yet closer to Boyce's predictions. I don't think he meant "doomed" in the sense of doomed to be killed, but in the sense of this being a traumatic life-changing event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Snowden fear the long reach of [The Regime] and feel the USSR security will keep [The Regime] out the best? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mostly he's just stuck until somebody's burocracy grants him valid travel credentials. No one faction entirely controls the situation. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is travel security really as good as journalist seem to believe, or is it more like the USA border security? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Journalists are still stuck on him being stuck in Russia; but is he really still there? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the 64 dollar question. In fact, has any journalist seen him at all, since he supposedly landed in Russia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Whistleblower community"

I suggest the section 'whistleblower community' be renamed whistleblowers or other whistleblowers. The current section title is a bit strange as it suggests whistleblowers readily identify or are identified as a community. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Changed to "Whistleblowers" since some editors suggest Snowden was not an inside NSA 'whistleblower' but rather an outside 'leaker'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this is that Julian Assange isn't a whistleblower, but he probably belongs in this grouping. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the distinction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

By my understanding a whistleblower must come from the inside. Assange is supports whistleblowers, but I can't find any evidence that he is a whistleblower himself. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I Think he'd be part of the "whistleblower community" in the same way that lawyers who specialize in representing whistleblowers are. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have settled on "Reaction of whistleblowers" as the section title. I agree with this. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

71.20.55.6 hit the nail on the head: Assange is part of the "whistleblower community." There is such a thing, regardless of whether its members live together on a kibbutz or live on different continents and have never spoken. "Community" has many meanings, including "the condition of having certain attitudes and interests in common." --Nstrauss (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a few notable-source authors write "Edward Snowden, who blew the whistle on NSA" — avoiding the 'whistle-blower' term. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WaPo editorial by Dana Milbank: "Snowden is undermining his cause in the United States"

Here is a WaPo editorial by Dana Milbank: "Snowden is undermining his cause in the United States"

• Milbank, Dana. "Snowden is undermining his cause in the United States." Washington Post. July 2, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Within a few days of Snowden's flight to Hong Kong, an NPR political commentator basically said that Snowden had botched it. And it's clear that it's not getting better. Has any source suggested that Assange might be orchestrating this entire thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's coming. Lonnie Snowden has publicly complained that WL have been denying him access to his son. Something must be up, otherwise they wouldn't need to ringfence him. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Full cite of that source: "WikiLeaks standing between father and son, says Lonnie Snowden's lawyer." (print title: "Father assails WikiLeaks' hold over whistle-blower") The Washington Post at South China Morning Post. Thursday 4 July 2013.

Status of White House petition

It seems that one or more editors insist on inserting the evolving status of the WH petition without this being reliably sourced, but instead relying directly on a primary source. The problems is that the figure on the WH site will change on an hourly basis without any source to verify the evolution against in the future. When we click on the WH link, we can only see the actual tally at the moment we clicked on the link; we can never refer to it to say "at June 13, it gathered more than 70,000 signatures", or that "as of June 14, it exceeded 75,000 signatures". As WP is not the news, we should not be obsessed with an accurate 'to-the-minute' tally. Instead of posting hourly updates, therefore, we should rely on news articles to record the status. Then, any link will show the tally as recorded for posterity by a journal. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Using primary sources is not prohibited completely. The site whitehouse.gov is a very reliable source. Now numbers changed more than twofold, and obsolete values are completely misleading.

Moreover, User:Ohconfucius four times deleted information without any discussion, and continue to do it. He deletes direct link to the petition, and information about the second petition. Is it vandalism? This user already has more than 4 blocking. --Fangorn-Y (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've stated my concerns as to the verifiability of the timestamping claimed in the article, which Fangorn either does not comprehend or has failed to address. It isn't WP's job to be totally up to second accurate, otherwise Fangorn can volunteer to change the article every minute to update the figures. ;-) Our job is to report on what reliable secondary sources say, and there's always a time lag; and if it's not reported it's generally assumed not to be notable information. The Avaaz source is additionally problematic: it shares the timestamping issue of the WH petition. Furthermore, I have not been able to find a 3rd party reliable source that has even mentioned the petition, let alone the number of people who have signed up. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 17:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe only newest value should be placed in the article, as proposed by User:A1candidate, and the words "more than" should be added? Because these values can't decrease, verifiability will be satisfied. To avoid too rapid change, edits may be done only after a SIGNIFICANT change. I thing the "milestones" may be 10K for the petition with 100K finish, and 100K for the petition with ~1M signatures. Fangorn-Y (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a few RS links to times and status of the petition.[6][7] — -dainomite   17:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• We can keep an eye on the press, which will surely report the milestones. Like the 100k threshold. Anything else is just recentism. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 17:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I already has posted and I am posting this again: 100K is THE FINISH for first petition, rather than a milestone. Just after 100K the current value of the petition will decrease its initial significance. Fangorn-Y (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, it is completely wrong to include into the article the obsolete value 30000 and don't include the true value 77000. Fangorn-Y (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Has CNN or any other news source commented on this internet petition? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. But whitehouse.gov is a very reliable source itself. Fangorn-Y (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that the same petitioning facility where there was a recent petition asking the government to build a "Death Star"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that one. I think this needs significant coverage in secondary sources before it is shown to be relevant enough to be included in the article, particularly since the petition website itself is quite dynamic and will make it difficult to verify. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It is very easy to verify - go to the whitehouse.gov . Values may only increase, thus it's no problem to verify the statement "more than". If the 100K will be reached, The White House is OBLIGATED to give an official response - is it "significant"? Fangorn-Y (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say. We don't do forward-looking statements, which is why we determine if a subtopic such as this is significant by reviewing the secondary sources. Then again, the death star petition was notable enough to make it into that article. In any case, there appears to be multiple editors here that agree that discussion of the petition needs secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree this needs secondary sources. There are enough that I think the petition should be included: [8] [9] [10] But I would not want to include numbers other than those given in the secondary sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A sentence (at most) about the petition in general, properly sourced, could be reasonable. Giving updates on the numbers is not. It amounts to advocacy, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It would also be worthwhile to see if there are any other related petitions - such as one supporting continued data archiving of phone-to-phone records. There might even be one recommending extraditing him, then giving a fair trial and then hanging him. These petitions are really nothing more than unscientific opinion polls. They have no legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How about using a program to check the count like at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=139992 where the article count updates to the current amount, even though the edit was in 2002? Just an idea. Surfer43 (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No advocacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Fangorn-Y think we should be using whitehouse.gov as a source when we've got plenty of other reliable secondary sources available? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's overkill. It's undue weight. It's advocacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously if we have updated information about it we should try to keep it as current as possible, because we know whitehouse.gov is a reliable source. There is no reason to keep the figures old. We could keep a date when it crossed the 100,000 threshold using a secondary source. Surfer43 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, being a reliable source is not a ticket to inclusion in an article. There's no reason to report anything about totals, because this is not an advocacy page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, its notable because many sources have reported about it. Obviously we don't want to have false information about it. That's just advocacy. Surfer43 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots. Including the status of the petition is undue weight and advocacy. It's not noteworthy. Any disgruntled anybody can make a petition; that doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. The White House Administration has the ability to make any statement about any issue any time they like with the entire world of mass media at their disposal, and all these petitions do is afford them the pretext to make yet another statement under the guise of doing so by "popular demand".Jonny Quick (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The importance of the petition depends on how much the media covers it. If it fizzles out (and therefore in likelihood receives no further media coverage), it is worthy of less to no coverage. If it reaches 100K and becomes official it will likely gain more media coverage, which means in this article it requires more coverage. While anybody can start a petition, for it to be responded to from the Obama administration it has to reach 100K signatures by July 9, 2013 (it was created on June 9, 2013) - Not everybody can get 100K signatures in 30 days. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Forget about the status of the petition, even the existence of the petition isn't sufficiently noteworthy and is a great example of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Petitions for all kinds of crazy stuff abound and aren't mentioned in Wikipedia -- why should this one be any different? --Nstrauss (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Usually the barometer of whether something can be included is whether media sources or other reliable sources cover it. While anyone can start a petition, not everyone can have that said petition covered in newspapers. If/when it breaches 100K the administration will respond to it, and the media will cover that response. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nstraus expresses my opinion better than I do, however I see WhisperToMe's point that the circumstances may warrant (but not "require") inclusion. I also think it's false to assume that the number of signatures indicates the importance of the issue to the public, as it occurs to me that the people most concerned about Snowden's revelations may also be the least interested in hearing what the White House has to say about it. The two are not necessarily hard-wired together.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I only said that if we are reporting it as current instead of "On June 17th" we should use up-to-date information. I'm fine with saying something like "On June 17th, the petition had 70,000 signatures"ref third party source /ref. Surfer43 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is notable, USA Today, NBC News, and the Washington Post all report it. Google "Pardon Edward Snowden white house". Surfer43 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that news sources have reported on it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in our article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia. We summarize the news and generally report only what we think would be worth noting in ten years' time. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is completely relevant to the article, which was created entirely for this event(whistleblowing). In ten years, we will still find that there was a petition to pardon him on whitehouse.gov that recieved tens of thousands of signatures relevant as in the "Response from press and public" section. If it doesn't reach 100,000 we can just remove it. Surfer43 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the relevance of this. What's in dispute is the insistence of some to rely directly on the link to the petition. I've already said that the toll should be updated only when there are reliable sources mentioning it. Updating the figures with mention of status "On June 17" doesn't matter, because it's going to be changed again in five minutes anyway. And it's going to keep on getting changed several times a day until the White House closes the petition. Anyway, I still object to this rather anal obsession of watching the figure evolve and then posting updates here on a 3-hourly basis. Those who want to do that should keep a browser window open on that petition and stare at it all day, but please leave off WP. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nstrauss is disputing the relevance of this. This is an argument over nothing. Surfer43 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I get. The actual status "on June 17" (or indeed on any other date) doesn't matter one bit. It only seems to matter for now. And the toll of the petition will be relevant to this article, but only in hindsight when the dust has settled, and not here and now in an undue manner. Even so, the White House can be expected to make a bland, non-committal statement when this has gone its distance like they made re the Brad Manning petition. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I dispute its relevance, but I do dispute its noteworthiness. In 10 years' time the petition may still be on whitehouse.gov, but how does that have any bearing on whether it should be mentioned here? There are all kinds of weird petitions on whitehouse.gov that will still be there in 10 years, but I'll bet very few, if any, will be mentioned in Wikipedia. Has anyone found any comparable petitions mentioned elsewhere on this website? --Nstrauss (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to predict undoubtedly what be or be not important 10 years later. The section is named "Press and public". For second part of that (Public), signatures of petitions are one of the main sources. Fangorn-Y (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, it's our duty to try. Regrading your second, can you back that up with an example? --Nstrauss (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually created a link to We the People (petitioning system), where I included this is an example of a notable petition, which was removed in the bout of edit-warring that led to some blocks. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The latest article on the big White House petition that I know of is:

• Eilperin, Juliet. "White House petition to pardon Edward Snowden gathers steam." Washington Post. June 10, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually there was one recently from the Daily Caller which I put in the article, saying 80,000 + signatures. Surfer43 (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, if there is the direct link to the issue mentioned in the article (such as the petition), it must be used instead a chain of links to other Wikipedia pages. Fangorn-Y (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Now some editors (Nstrauss, Ohconfucius) delete both information about events and links to articles in media news, government sites, and other reliable sources (which are considered as reliable on many Wikipedia pages) simply because they claim these data & links as 'unnecessary', 'too recent', 'promotion' etc., while no consensus is reached. This deleted information was previously added by at least four other editors. Is it an edit war? Fangorn-Y (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

By reinstating the point that they need a certain minimum number of signatures by a certain date, you're trying to make Wikipedia an agent of fulfilling that minimum number. That's an abuse of Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the bits about how many signatures are needed, and the promotional links. This article should not be a platform for activism in any direction, pro or con. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Even if the actual intent isn't to promote the petition that's the reasonable impression this gives (as well as the effect). --Nstrauss (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And no Fangorn-Y, it's not an edit war. The stuff I deleted wasn't the subject of this discussion (before your most recent post). You don't get to freeze your edits in place for a whole paragraph just by prolong a talk page dispute. Please respond substantively to the reasons why I deleted that material instead of just shouting "edit war." --Nstrauss (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I already answered: The section is named "Press and public". For second part of that (Public), signatures of petitions are one of the main sources. Avaaz has the Wikipedia page, and is probably the biggest petiton site. Whitehouse.gov is the most official site. Fangorn-Y (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You know you don't have consensus for the re-reversions you just made. So now you're edit-warring and engaging in disruptive behavior. STOP. WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You aren't making any friends. Instead of stonewalling why don't you respond to the multiple comments that you're engaging in advocacy/promotion/soapboxing? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, many of these deletions were made so roughly that some other information was corrupted. After Binksternet's deletion at 19:59, orphaned refs appeared. After another deletion by another editor, A1candidate's edit was reverted without any reason (it was not related to petitions). These edits deleted even information that other editors argued to be 'restricted'. Fangorn-Y (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to smooth out that roughness - as long as you don't add back anything to do with total numbers needed by a deadline, as that puts Wikipedia into an advocacy position, which is against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Fangorn-Y: You are setting yourself up for another block. At one point, I regretted being so hard on you, a newbie, but I don't beat myself up any more – you seem not to have learnt from the 31 hour block you received. Consensus is clear, and we are agreed, excepting you, that this is a policy violation to link to the petition websites; the Avaaz petition is written about in ONLY ONE SOURCE – a blog, and one must question its notability, the number of signatures notwithstanding. Consider this your warning to cease and desist in your aggressive use of the undo button and your continuing advocacy. There are others here, myself included, who supports freedom for whistleblowers, but you should leave your personal feelings at the talk page, and stop the disruption to the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the consensus is not clear - at least Surfer43 and A1candidate agree with my main proposals. Other editors differ widely by their proposals. Second, you 'forget' to say that YOU was recently blocked for the same action here: User_talk:Ohconfucius#Block, which was made immediatedly after a admin's warning: User_talk:Ohconfucius#ANEW. To faster undo my revision, you even reverted together the other revision by A1candidate, without any reason (it was not related to petitions). You has already been blocked 8 times by various admins.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOhconfucius And do you call about the edit war? Fangorn-Y (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Surfer, is making the same arguments as you, it's clear they don't understand the policy-based arguments; A1 just wants his Snowden in Hong Kong article restored. I haven't edited those bits since my block, which was overenthusiastic and was reversed. You, OTOH, had to sit out your block and have continued to doing what got you blocked in the first place, quite against policy on verifiability. I'm not playing your game, and you'll get reverted by someone other than me. I bet a few more admins are watching this page now. Paraphrasing Dirty Harry: "was that three reverts or four ... so go ahead, Punk, make my day". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The only argument I have made is that the petition is relevant in the sense of "response from public" and that the information on the petition shouldn't be outdated if there is another verifiable source with newer information. I don't think "To require a response from the White House, the petition must reach 100,000 signatures within 30 days" is relevant, and therefore it is promotion. Surfer43 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fangorn-Y, to put Ohconfucius's latest comment in concrete terms, you still haven't responded to the arguments made by multiple editors that linking to the promotion itself, as well as the language about the 100,000 goal, violates WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:UNDUE. And you haven't explained how the Avaaz sentence is properly sourced per WP:V and WP:RS. If you don't offer an explanation in short order why you think these passages comply with each of every one of these policies then your edits will be reverted per WP:NOTUNANIMITY and WP:STONEWALL. Content must comply with all Wikipedia policies, not just the ones you pick and choose. You have 24 hours, starting now. Further reversions after that will send you straight back to the noticeboards. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What answer must I give? I don't found in WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:UNDUE any word about harm of direct links to ongoing events. If these rules have such prohibitions please show where. Else these links obviously give the most precise and recent information about the events. The Avaaz is named in Wikipedia as "the globe's largest and most powerful online activist network". If is not a RS - what is? So what kind of violation do you ask about? Fangorn-Y (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Let me spell this out for you. Please answer the following questions:

1. WP:PROMOTION: How does the encyclopedic value of your additions outweigh its promotional effect, particularly in light of the fact that there are reliable secondary sources that say the same thing?

   What my additions do you means "that there are reliable secondary sources that say the same thing"? Whether these "reliable secondary sources that say the same thing" were at the moment these additions were made?

We're talking about two of your additions that you most recently edit-warred over. First, the references to the petitions themselves. There are already secondary sources that mention the petitions. What's the encyclopedic value of including references to the petitions as well? And what's the encyclopedic value of the statement that the White House has promised to comment on any petition that reaches 100,000 signatures? Whatever minor encyclopedic value these items might have, how is it not outweighed by its promotional effect? --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:ADVOCACY: How is your purpose in pressing these additions (and edit-warring, rather than seeking consensus) not to promote these petitions?

   Again. What my additions do you means here? The additions that are deleted now?

The direct references to the petitions and the statement that the White House has promised to comment on any petition that reaches 100,000 signatures. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:UNDUE: How is the weight you wish to give to these petitions proportional to their prominence and not overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens (i.e., WP:RECENTISM)?

   First, for the "Public reactions", the petitions are the most representative known source (more than a million votes). Second, every of the petitions was discussed in media.

WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with sourcing. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so just because the petitions are mentioned in the media (in this case, a blog no less) doesn't make it noteworthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We summarize the news; we don't catalog it. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:V: Where in the ref "supporting" the Avaaz statement does it say anything about Avaaz?

   Yes. 'while another that commands us to “Stand with Edward Snowden,” has close to 900,000 signatures'. And link to Avaaz.

Ok, I see now, thank you. But see below, this is an opinion blog, therefore not reliable. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:RS: At some point you had an opinion blog post supporting the Avaaz statement. Was the blog content subject to editorial review (WP:UGC)? On what basis were you citing it without attribution? How was the blogger's opinion particularly noteworthy? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   You again made a puzzle. What opinion blog post do you speak about? Fangorn-Y (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean the "Declassifying Edward Snowden" source that's currently referenced. It's a blog. It's opinion. (Notice this sentence: "In terms of the NSA’s PRISM, I really don’t know why everyone is so surprised.") --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Declassifying Edward Snowden" is indeed a "self-published" blog, because even though it's on the page of the Washington Times the page says "This is the Communities section at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times. The opinions of Communities writers do not necessarily reflect the views of, nor are they endorsed by, The Washington Times. Contact Us with questions or comments." - So therefore it's not an RS. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It makes for interesting reading, though. It cautions us to wait-and-see what this guy's real story is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Good find, WhisperToMe. That seems as conclusive as it gets. Fangorn-Y, you'd better give a reasonable response right quick or that Avaaz sentence is going bye-bye. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that link is really a blog post - the words "Washington Times" in its title are misleading. You are right here. In fact, this link was added by another editor, but I restored it. Yes, it is not a RS. Fangorn-Y (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe somebody knows a RS about the Avaaz petition (which already exceeded 1,200,000 signatures) ? Fangorn-Y (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no small amount of irony in the spectacle of internet users going to a public website and complaining about a program that supposedly monitors internet users. As for the "petitions" themselves, they're of no use in Wikipedia until or if the President comments on them - which he won't, because there are ongoing investigations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's move on. Doesn't the inclusion of the petition (even reliably sourced) violate WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NPV? These are interrelated policies, but in a nutshell: (i) the petition will be forgotten news a few months from now, let alone ten years from now, and its inclusion at all (even without a link to the website) could be read to imply that Wikipedia supports it. Really, what's the point of its mention? It isn't an accurate reflection of public opinion, which all the polls say is decidedly mixed. I thought a majority (or at least a plurality) of Americans support Snowden's prosecution. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. However, if the president responds, we should mention his response in here. Surfer (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Let' move on; until something happens. I would say that there remains high interest with many who follow the news, but that more Americans want him not prosecuted than those that do; and more Americans than that do not care but are interested to see what happens to the person that reveals what most are very interested in learning: that Prism is far-reaching. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

I don't think we should turn a blind eye to Wikipedia policy in the name of moving on. And I don't think that's an accurate characterization of the poll results. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was agreeing with other editors to "move on" (while at the same time continuing the discussion.) I did a Google-search and found this from a poll in Canada: "The survey by Abacus Data found 60% of Canadians sided with Snowden, versus 15% who consider the 29-year-old a traitor for releasing data when he worked with the National Security Agency." [11] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Polls may be divided by political lines, like The New York Times and Washington Post leaning over backwards to support Obama/Democrats, and this poll in Christian Science Monitor showing youth and Liberals supporting Snowden actions, in the interest of US citizens. [12] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the petition to the WH is just another indication of public sentiment. Here is another from a Pew Poll a week ago: "Fifty-four percent of those polled say the government should pursue a criminal case against Snowden."[13] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably no one in that 54 percent majority signed the "petition"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the petition is an indicator of some aspect of public opinion, but that doesn't make it a good indicator of public opinion. In fact, it's downright terrible. All it says is that a relatively small number of self-selected people feel strongly enough about the issue to click a few buttons on a website. Other than that it's pretty much useless. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For example, has anyone started a "petition" requesting that Snowden be captured and then prosecuted to the full extent of the law? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There's been a lot of talk but it's not clear if there's any remaining disagreement. Does anyone feel that the We the People petition should remain in the article, and if so, please respond to the recent discussion. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There may have been a lot of discussion here on the TALK page, but the paragraph I'll cut/paste from the current article is brief and germane. I think it should remain, for now: "Hours after Snowden revealed his identity, a We the People petition was posted on the White House website, asking for "a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes [Snowden] has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs." The petition attained 100,000 signatures within two weeks. — BTW, VisualEditor cometh in July; oh, it's July! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• The petition is at over 126,000 signatures, but don't expect an Obama response, per The Limbaugh Theorem. Happy 4th of July, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There have been some petitions about the infamous Westboro Baptist "Church" which have garnered more than 300,000 "votes", and the President basically responded, "Thanks for your interest."[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• 127,000 and climbing. Snowden is not the one who needs excusing or pardoning... Yet, you cannot pardon an entire system, it needs reform. -- 70.65.181.170 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 5 July 2013‎ (UTC)
  • If the public doesn't like the Patriot act, they can demand that Congress reform it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Applied for asylum in Russia (and 14 20 26 other countries)

A request for asylum was received "Sunday Night."

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Mr Snowden was welcome to stay as long as he stopped "inflicting damage on our American partners".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23138073

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That qualifier, if accurate, could prove to be very important in the whole story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden has asked a total of 15 countries for asylum.

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-edward-snowden-asylum-15-countries-20130701,0,1183893.story

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

None of which are publicly known, of course, including apparently Russia, which has been sending mixed signals today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

They are now. Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and Venezuela. So he's been a very busy boy.

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He forgot to apply to Sealand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The CNN article indicates that at least Poland has already rejected it, and Snowden withdrew his request to Russia after they put conditions on it. Most of these countries are liable to look at the bigger picture and say, "Thanks for asking. Good luck elsewhere." But it only takes one to say "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Maduro can bring him to Venezuela. Count Iblis (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Of the countries listed, Venezuela does indeed seem like the most likely candidate, i.e. the one that cares the least about its relationship with the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Update in WashPost. Key points; Withdrew Russia asylum request, discussion of US/RU relations, India turned down request, Brazil will not respond to request, Bolivia remains supportive, Venezuala remains supportive and its president is in Moscow for unrelated meetings, Ecuador waivering under US economic pressure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/snowden-withdraws-request-for-asylum-in-russia/2013/07/02/c034c13c-e2f0-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html Veriss (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The odds of a successful asylum just shot up a lot when Evo Morales's plane was forced to divert or be shot down. Wow. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you figure? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, How would you feel if someone tried to force down Air Force One? --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody tried to force down the Bolivian plane. Rather, they refused entry to their airports, as they didn't want to become part of Ed's Extended Adventure. So why would Bolivia want to get itself embroiled in this international soap opera? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Air SPACE. And Snowden was not even on board. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a list of countries that are still open to granting asylum? It was reported that India and a few others said "No" flat out, and some of the others attached logistically difficult conditions to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As of June 2. Before the Plane Incident. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

He has applied for asylum in an additional 6 countries. This time they will not be identified. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Is article split appropriate?

I fully support Ohconfucius' creation of a separate article (2013 public disclosures of surveillance and espionage activities. This topic has long deserved a separate article apart from Snowden's biography, because the event is part of Snowden's life but deserves a much fuller account than is suitable for Snowden's biography. This is fully supported by policy and guidelines - as stated in WP:BIO, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." We are well beyond the point where separate articles are justified for the event (disclosures and their ramifications) and a biography of Snowden. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Actually, credit is due to A1Candidate for the creation. Nevertheless, I do share the reservations voiced about this article. If the story wasn't so huge, the community would probably have rejected a biography on the grounds of WP:ONEEVENT and had it moved it to an event namespace. Although not much is known about Snowden, the article should concentrate on biographical detail and a lot less on the disclosures themselves. It's continued to grow while I've been away from the article. On return I noticed that the content was getting out of hand, hence I ejected the content timeline. I believe there's still too much coatracking and trivial detail so I'm proceeding gently with the cleanup. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The man and the event are inseparable. If the man's article gets too large, maybe a spinoff article would be in order. But without Snowden there is no revelation about these NSA programs, and without these revelations there is no notability for Snowden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I do agree. Nevertheless, we now have two articles whose scope we can play around with. I've just done some pretty radical juggling of content in the biography. I basically block-copied the US reactions to the disclosures article (so all the original content at that point can be found there). I then started pruning that same section in the biography to reduce the weight of non-biographic stuff. I'm not done, but I think I ought to pause so that the assembled editors can catch up. I'm open to discussing this further. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The spinoff article is totally about Snowden's NSA revelations, last I checked. So if it's going to be kept, it should be titled accordingly, instead of that generic and misleading title it currently has. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
        • And here's the thing: If you push all the NSA stuff to the other article, then the bio article becomes nothing except his technical background and his world tour. The news event is his flight from the US. He is otherwise not notable. So maybe his bio article should instead focus on and be renamed for his flight, with incidental bio information, and a simple redirect from his name to that article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
          • It's hardly settled down, and even as I was reorganising it, I can't quite imagine how it would look. But I do admit it was beginning to look a bit strange. Maybe we should reverse the article back to the pre-pruned version, move it to 'Edward Snowden state surveillance revelations', and reorganise it accordingly around that scope. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Bugs. If we move the leaks to another page then it makes no sense at all to keep the reactions to the leaks here. Reactions to what? The thing being reacted to and the reactions themselves should both be on the same page. And if we move the reactions to the other page then we're left with basically nothing except Snowden's background and movements. The point is that Snowden is only known for his leaks so it makes logical sense to describe the leaks on his page. The article isn't overwhelmingly long, and most of the length is due to a ridiculous amount of recentism in the reactions and departure sections. Ten years from now Snowden will be known primarily for his leaks, and the first question is what information did he leak. Leaving that out of this article is nonsensical. (Ohconfucius, I love 99% of your edits but this one leaves me scratching my head.) --Nstrauss (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the article this morning, I'm now inclined to eject the remainder of the article, including the remainder of the 'Reactions' section, and the 'Itinerary' section to the other article. Once that's done, we will have a greater resemblance to a biography – it isn't at present, and it's a right-old chimera. The other alternative is to rollbak to the pre-pruned version, and retitle it. I'm open to suggestions as to what to do now... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I think you know how I feel. Splitting Snowden from his leaks is like splitting Rodney King from the Rodney King beating. (See WP:1E.) Case-in-point: When Boehner, Cheney, et al called Snowden a traitor, were they talking about Snowden or Snowden's leaks? I suppose the Snowden articles could be re-consolidated and renamed "Edward Snowden leaks" or somesuch. It seems silly to me, but it makes a lot more sense than trying to bifurcate the act from the actor. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Or spitting the advances in manned flight from the Wright brothers article. PS: Happy 4th of July, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Those sections that I ejected are now more or less back, minus a few quotefarms and roll calls. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Here's an example of a 10,000 citizen rally that belongs more properly in the PRISM article than in this article about Edward Snowden (US reaction section) in my opinion: "Crowds across America protest NSA in 'Restore the Fourth' movement" Amendment, that is. [15] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it belongs in the PRISM and NSA articles as, at least according to the source, the rallies are protesting the NSA and its programs rather than the government's pursuit of Snowden. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bolivia

The article doesn't clearly states if there is an international order of capture over Snowden.

And omits very important information about the illegal, and discriminatory, blockade of Bolivia's president Evo Morales, and the reaction of Latin America to the harsh treatment to which Morales was subject, in violation of 2004 UN convention about state immunity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/bolivian-president-morales-latin-america

-- 186.59.127.177 (talk · contribs) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for mentioning that! I'll think of how to incorporate it in WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I just added a piece about it WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• More info: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live WhisperToMe (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We now have two paragraphs about President Morales, one under Moscow and one under Asylum requests. These should be combined. Also, shouldn't Ecuador be in the Asylum requests section? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, on both counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fallout from the "Diversion" of Morales' flight. Threatening to close US embassy. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

References

The PRISM of France

This seems not to be directly related to Snowden. But he may have indirectly triggered it. In any event, it probably needs a page of it's own and maybe a "see also."

Apparently this is illegal under French law but done anyway.

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/07/04/revelations-on-the-french-big-brother_3442665_3224.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama himself inadvertently made the connection the other day when he said something like "everybody spies". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And here are full cites of the article:

• Follorou, Jacques and Franck Johannès. Translated by Meg Bortin. "In English : Revelations on the French Big Brother." Le Monde. 4 July 2013.
• Original French: Follorou, Jacques and Franck Johannès. "Révélations sur le Big Brother français." Le Monde. 4 July 2013.

Also:

• Chrisafis, Angelique. "France 'runs vast electronic spying operation using NSA-style methods'." The Guardian. Thursday 4 July 2013.
• "France 'has vast data surveillance' - Le Monde report." BBC. 4 July 2013.
• Erlanger, Steven. "France, Too, Is Sweeping Up Data, Newspaper Reveals." The New York Times. July 4, 2013.

I copied these to the Talk:Directorate-General for External Security in case they are more relevant there. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

French sources about Snowden

• Vincent, Elise. "Si Snowden entrait en France, "la police serait tenue de l'interpeller"." Le Monde. 4 July 2013.
• "Demande d'asile de M. Edward Snowden." (Archive, Archive #2) French Ministry of the Interior. 4 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

SCMP: Anna Chapman marriage proposal

I found this in the SCMP:

• Lam, Lana. "Ex-spy Anna Chapman tweets a marriage proposal to Snowden." (print title: "Snowden receives a surprise proposal") South China Morning Post. Friday 5 July 2013.

The article speculates that she may be offering a marriage to get Snowden a solution to his problem. Wait and see if anything comes of it. If not, it may not be worthy of inclusion. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Of course she's probably doing it for her own publicity, but the idea may not be as silly as it may sound for Snowden. Gain citizenship to another country through marriage or having an offspring, a bit like how Ronnie Biggs excaped extradition from Brazil. But for now, I believe the Chapman part of the storyline is just trivia, and should be removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't put the material on Wikipedia - I just listed it here so it can be discussed WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Until or if he responds, it's hardly worthy of Entertainment Tonight, let alone a Wikipedia article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Anna Chapman

Following removed from "Moscow" section:

On July 4 an ex-Russian spy, Anna Chapman, proposed marriage to Edward Snowden.

Justification: this is based on a single Twitter posting to the EJosephSnowman account which may or may not be legitimately Edward Snowden's account. Other news stories doubt the eracity of Snowden postings coming from that account. In any event, the exchange (viewed this morning on Twitter website) is clearly a joke laced with insults. DouglasHeld (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

References

What if? A Spielberg creation...Bandwidth Sucker

In need of an advertising vehicle that states boldly; "Your being watched". Akin to surveillance video in use. So, just imagine; for a moment, that Mr Snowden, an aspiring hacker over caffeinated and infused with the Matrix, takes the bait and keeps consuming...Finally seeing an exit to become the hero... The best CIA campaign ever; swallowed hook, line and sinker! So far, nothing new really has been exposed. I, as most people, already suspected and actually hoped that this security monitoring was in place.

Consuming the media and public bandwidth capacity; awesome and free! Gaining a leg-up on Assange and freeing the path forward. Wikipietime (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to watch the first movie! [16] {Five minutes, good music, very well done.!.} — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• We have an article on Verax (film) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And we have Person of Interest (TV series), whose core premise echoes what this story is about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

EU investigation of PRISM et al

The European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee has announced it will launch a "full inquiry" into the controversial NSA surveillance program's activities in the EU. [17]--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The EU is also threatening to suspend data-sharing agreements [18] --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've converted your refs into links since reflists (AFAIK, I haven't checked the policies) are not supposed to be on talk pages, and the pages are easier to access as links anyways. --RAN1 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Reflist-talk works for talk pages. Add comments above it though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Article on Europe-South America diplomatic crisis in Spanish

Somebody made a Spanish article on the Europe-South America diplomatic crisis: es:Conflicto diplomático entre Europa y América del Sur de 2013. When should the English Wikipedia have one? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of an old ongoing dispute: Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute ... England vs Argintina. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Found sources:

• Pilger, John. "Forcing down Evo Morales's plane was an act of air piracy." The Guardian. July 4, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody forced his plane down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

More information:

• "Bolivia’s Morales threatens to close US embassy." Agence France-Presse at South China Morning Post. Friday 5 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Only politically speaking did anyone (USA Joe Biden, et.al.) force the plane down—and Latin American countries are highly insulted! I even saw one call the current US administration, "The Regime" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the plane was forced down. Denial of airspace use is an implicit threat of violence (how else are you going to prevent a plane from flying over your country, if not by shooting it down?).177.193.67.242 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't either "forced down". And nations have the right to protect their air space. Maybe you've forgotten when France wouldn't let American jet fighters fly over, and they had to divert around over international waters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Ortega is willing to give asylum to Snowden

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It states: "could" accept the bid "if circumstances permit." Do we have a source with more detail? Seems far too vague as it is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nicaragua Dispatch posted more detail, here. Added to main article. spatical (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela has also offered. With a more clearly worded statement "As head of state, the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the young American Edward Snowden so that he can live (without) ... persecution from the empire" - Nicolas Maduro

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/nicaragua-edward-snowden-asylum-93765.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

new Guardian sources

• Ackerman, Spencer. "Edward Snowden is a whistleblower, not a spy – but do our leaders care?" The Guardian. Friday 5 July 2013.
• "European states were told Snowden was on Morales plane, says Spain." Associated Press at The Guardian. Friday 5 July 2013.
• Hopkins, Nick. "NSA revelations: why so many are keen to play down the debate." The Guardian. Tuesday 2 July 2013.
• Weisbrot, Mark. "The 'Edward Snowden Aviation Club' and other ways to beat US persecution." The Guardian. Monday 1 July 2013.
• Traynor, Ian. "NSA leaks: UK blocks crucial espionage talks between US and Europe." The Guardian. Friday 5 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And then there were three - (Bolivia offers asylum)

Bolivia has joined the ranks of Venezuela and Nicaragua in offering asylum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/bolivia-adds-to-venezuela-nicaragua-snowden-asylum-offers-1.1455522

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. This is the same Reuters story that is listed in the section entitled #Venezuela above. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Asylum list

Someone keeps reverting my list of the asylum requests. Only a few require any real explanation and the current format is very hard to read. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indolering (talk • contribs) -- 00:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I dislike it. The list should be one of definitive yesses or noes. I especially dislike the implicit and the technical refusals, which smacks of original research. The 'no response' ones are irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. In fact, the only two worth mentioning are already in the body of the article text, so I'd be inclined to remove all but the introductory sentence. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not saying that it belongs in there either, but I dislike it shouldn't be your first reason for reverting something -- it should be soundly based in policy. There's no original research in noting that some countries have refused asylum based on the physical presence requirement, so long as it's sourced. Additionally WP:CRYSTAL applies to unsourced speculation. If it is sourced reliably that they haven't responded, it's not "irrelevant" either. Deeming only two of them as "worth mentioning" is questionable at best. Do you have a better reason for reverting Indolering? One with a more sound basis in policy? Otherwise, I'd be inclined to reinsert it. It clearly adds value to the article, providing a breakdown by which countries and which reasons Snowden has received an answer (or didn't receive one.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess the issue Ohconfucius worries is WP:SYNTH. Nonetheless I think both prose and list can coexist in the same article/section, but the list should be compressed a bit, placed in a table and align to side. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post article (categories in text, not picture).

This isn't original research, the list format came from a Washington Post article (categories in text, not picture). The list has been updated, with citations where I thought they made sense. IF you are going to complain about "original research" you can find direct quotes for every country. But that would make it complicated than just a link to a list Indolering (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, let's try again: The section grouped responses into 4 categories – "Considering request", "No response", "Must be in-country to apply", "Implicit declines". I don't believe it should be presented in this form as it is grossly reductive of the state of affairs, and in some cases downright wrong. Neither country listed in "Considering request" had even acknowledged receiving any request; furthermore, it appears that the wrong source was cited for these two. "Implicit declines" includes China, but that is speculation as there is no firm evidence to the effect. Brazil, Poland and India seem to have explicitly declined. The section therefore needs to be more correctly nuanced. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In regards to China/Beijing, an elected representative of the Hong-Kong legislature who was acting as the official liaison for Snowden moved him out of the country based on requests made by an "unofficial" intermediary. Hong-Kong politicians, Wikileaks, and Snowden thought he would have a better chance in Moscow, going so far as to bungle some paperwork to get him on a plane the day AFTER the US revoked his passport. That's as official a response as China is going to give on the matter.

These categories do not represent some sort of falsehood in regards to the rejections. The "implicit declines" and "considering request" entries give exact quotes illustrating the relative vagueness of their actions. Pretending that these unofficial happenings don't count is to mischaracterize the situation. The reader can click on the source link if they want all of the exact details.

• Stop reverting the list out of existence based on formatting.
• If you don't like the category a country is listed under, move it.
• If you think it a country needs a better citation, mark it as needing a citation or find one.

Indolering (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I see you put it back. I think it's excessive as it doesn't warrant an entire section. As it stands, its a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENT. The categories have to go. Bolivia is posturing, because they claim there's no request. Russia has not refused, but has imposed conditions that Snowden considered a deal-breaker. China's "implicit" decline is still original research. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you changed your reasoning, again : (

• Claiming that categorizing these responses makes them WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:UNDUE is bizarre as the "categories" merely extracted lists of countries embedded in summaries of the rational for each string.
• This section is meant to summarize. If you feel that Wikipedia needs to include alternate accounts of each countries diplomatic actions, wouldn't another page devoted to detailing each countries response be more appropriate?
• WP:RECENT is an essay, not a policy, enumerating the pros and cons of updating events as they happen. From my reading it would appear that the pros in WP:RECENT applicable to this section outweigh the negatives.
• My discussion of China (above) is a summary from the source originally cited to back up my claims as this NOT being original research.
• Given the number of reverts, your shifting analysis, and how the other editors don't seem to share your concerns, I'm going to just ask for a dispute resolution. ←Indolering (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Indolering: The entire section is overdone. Much of it is bordering on the trivia, and hardly a WP:SUMMARY that is encyclopaedic. In a few months, it will be pared back down to two paragraphs as nobody will be interested in the evolving state of play. All that will matter is who who accepted the application; who declined will be only be noteworthy in passing. Just because an article is documenting a current event doesn't justify plastering it with things that have no enduring notability. Also remembering this is a biography, we should make sure it's clean now instead. I already made discrete edits to explain the problem I had with each from a technical/policy perspective. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• As to OR, the implication is that the now attributed view is necessarily representative of official sentiment. But Albert Ho is a maverick that the Chinese government distrusts to the extreme. He is merely speculating, and using his view as "implicit refusal" is wholly misleading. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: WHY they declined IS very important information. The procedural "must be in country" reasoning is very different from the outright refusals. You are right, this will be paired down in the coming months and I think it should be moved to it's own page. MOST of this biography should be moved to a new page.

Is he speculating that the intermediary was unofficially representing Beijing? Even if Ho made it up, it's a verifiable source and one that (as of now) certainly isn't false. I think an "unofficial" representative is as implicit as one can be while still not constituting a direct response ; ) ←Indolering (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The reasons aren't all that important, and will become insignificant as time passes. Many of those who might want to accept for domestic reasons are hiding behind technical responses – need to find an excuse not to anger the Bald Eagle. It won't be moved to its own page because WP is not the news.

  And yes. Albert Ho was speculating, and on a mistaken premise. It would be foolish to take his word as representing an official position. Ho doesn't represent Hong Kong, let alone China. It seems that what he may have learnt was in his professional capacity and he should have no business disclosing it. Even if as he says the govt says, it's heresay and thus inadmissible. The official PRC position is that there is no official position. But the HK govt don't want him back – a fact that's already in the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Will a columnist post an article making the argument that almost no/absolutely no country is willing to take him in? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A number of columnists already have, but "almost none" is not the same as "none". When or if he actually leaves Russia (and it's publicly known), then we'll know who did accept him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Even though such a list would be interesting to me as a reader, I'm concerned that it will come across looking like a scoreboard, and that has an implicit POV tone, as in, "Ha-ha! Nobody's willing to take him!" A simple link to a story that discusses the current state of the matter might be the better approach, although it could require updating from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to add some current interesting info (did you ever see the children's book, "Where's Waldo?") without adding another discussion section. But, this is very interesting from the UK Guardian: A Guardian guide to Extradition—The official surrender of an alleged criminal by one state or nation to another. [19] and it seems to me that Edward Snowden should take a boat to the islands, there are thousands and thousands of them. The map referenced looks to me like half of New Zealand would be an option. A Pacific Island would be better. Don't take this as an original thought or 'research' but take a look at the map. This would be for 'editors' not 'readers in the article.' — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Keep a sharp eye out.

Actually, a "scoreboard" here on the talk page (though not in the article if it's OR) could be a useful guide to editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's news today: "Icelandic lawmakers have introduced a proposal in Parliament that would grant immediate citizenship to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden." (FoxNews) [20] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Iceland parliment decided to not hold a debate and vote since they go on vacation tomorrow; back in September. [21] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Many democratic countries have similar mechanisms, like the British early day motion, for their parliamentarians to express independent views or air certain grievances. They often get lost in the parliamentary process or fall by the wayside and don't necessarily amount to much. The Icelandic vote is a case in point. It's not all that notable. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's Resume and Skillset.

Apparently Obama's characterization as "hacker" is accurate. It also explains how he was able to steal so much, and cover his tracks. It was even his JOB to trigger alarm bells. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Although I remembered reading a source saying that the "hacker" description from Obama was supposed to be condescending and make him out to be a "computer delinquent" when he was so much more than that. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • From: Shane, Scott and David E. Sanger. "Job Title Key to Inner Access Held by Snowden." (print title: "Job Title Key To Inner Access Held by Leaker.") The New York Times. Online date: June 30, 2013. Print date: July 1, 2013. p. A1 -- "Mr. Obama presumably meant the term to be dismissive, suggesting that Mr. Snowden (who turned 30 on June 21) was a young computer delinquent. But as an N.S.A. infrastructure analyst, Mr. Snowden was, in a sense, part of the United States’ biggest and most skilled team of hackers. " WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • All readings of these statements has much between the lines. Snowden must have been extremely gifted to get where he did – only the best get there and get hired with some questions unanswered. Remember that the USA is in crisis management mode. The American commander-in-chief is communicating to downplay the threat and limit the damage. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Obama's pejorative directed at Snowden is on-target. A hacker lacks ethics. A hacker is a narcissist. Some of them write computer viruses. Others steal government information. They're nobodies who decide to become somebody by harming as many others as they can. They're high-tech versions of the Unabomber. It's not that he's so smart. It's that he took advantage of the gross incompetence of others, especially the ones who allegedly background-checked him and those who hired him and gave him a security clearance right off the street, and then paid no attention to what he was doing. You or I could have done the same thing Snowden did, if we had nefarious intentions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Your POV is showing again, stick to the facts. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC) My POV primarily is that they should never have hired this guy in the first place. It speaks volumes about how "secure" we actually are not. And there has been insufficient news coverage of this angle, as it's degenerated into an Inside Edition-level soap opera. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Why then did he not simply stay put and leak information to the FSB? Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC) That would require a degree of "street smarts" that he appears to lack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Booz Allen Hamilton

Why and when did this go missing from the lead? Although covered by the infobox, a crucial aspect of the lead went missing between 23rd and the end of June. Don't expect people to look at an infobox for this. Widefox; talk 20:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed it with the comment: "remove Booz Allen from first sentence. It's important but not THAT central. Perhaps someone can work Booz Allen into the second paragraph?" I stand by that. Snowden is notable for his leaks and not for the identity of his last employer. See WP:BEGIN. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If not for the possibly slipshod hiring practices of that company, this story might not exist. However, you're probably right that it doesn't need to be a big thing in the article, until or if someone launches an investigation of that firm - in which case, it will probably require a separate article anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, fixed now. Well kind of crucial to detail who he was working for when this happened. It's not up to us to judge how important, obviously his leaks happened on their watch (if I've understood the timing correctly). No judgement, just facts. It was a glaring omission saying he was a contractor but not who for. Widefox; talk 02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved Booz Allen to the second paragraph as proposed by me and supported by Bugs. (Side note: Of course it's up to use to judge how important something is. We decide whether any particular fact is important enough for inclusion in the article and whether it's important enough for inclusion in the lead. That's true for any article.) --Nstrauss (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside first sentence is OK, but should be in the lead. Agree with Bugs this the contractor angle has been covered by sources but is secondary. Widefox; talk 11:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass spying on Brazillians

Glenn Greenwald co-wrote a piece with two reporters from O Globo, a Portuguese paper. He describes the use of the FAIRVIEW program.

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/eua-espionaram-milhoes-de-mails-ligacoes-de-brasileiros-8940934

In a separate piece, Greenwald states that the NSA has been spying on the citizens of the world en-masse. Not selectively, in looking for malefactors, but broadly, taking in as much information as it is able to capture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/nsa-brazilians-globo-spying

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

It's not possible to literally "spy on everyone". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC) That is no longer true. With algorithms and supercomputers doing much of the presorting. It is actually possible. To elaborate a bit, I now believe that the NSA is capturing all foreign traffic that passes through the United States and Britain. And as much as it has been able to obtain by secret deals or outright theft overseas. It will soon have the capability to actually process and store all of it, indiscriminately, if it does not already have. The Utah Data Center is not the only massive datacenter under construction, it is one of four. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC) That's not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Could you elaborate a bit as how not? --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Collecting a gigantic database of phone calls is not spying, any more than it's spying when the phone company itself does it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC) It's much more extensive than that. It's not just call logs, but the contents of all electronic communication in any form, on as many citizens as possible, in as many countries as possible. Regardless of suspicion. I know this is not-forum territory, but this relates to Snowden and the larger issues. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not convinced. In any case, we have Osama bin Laden to thank for all this. The US is constantly under threat of attack. A country has the right to defend itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Or even better, both of you stop using this talk page as a forum... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Or even better, stop being a nanny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

X-Keyscore and FAIRVIEW

"O Globo" has reproduced low-resolution PowerPoint slides concerning X-Keyscore and FAIRVIEW.

Apparently the data can be integrated into Google Maps.

http://oglobo.globo.com/infograficos/volume-rastreamento-governo-americano/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Letters from Snowden 1 Jul

Talks about his views and politics. In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised — and it should be.

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html?snow

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Letter to Rafael Correa

As I face this persecution, there has been silence from governments afraid of the United States Government and their threats. Ecuador, however, rose to stand and defend the human right to seek asylum. The decisive action of your Consul in London, Fidel Narvaez, guaranteed my rights would be protected upon departing Hong Kong - I could never have risked travel without that. Now, as a result, and through the continued support of your government, I remain free and able to publish information that serves the public interest.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20130701&id=16658727

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

If Russia does give him asylum, those continual shots against the USA will come to a screeching halt. And Christopher Boyce's predictions look more on-the-mark every day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC) He seems unwilling to halt, and not even death stops him. I think he won't accept that condition. We will see what happens.--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Well, death would stop him for sure. But forgetting that, if Russia decides not to give him asylum, how is he going to leave the airport? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Death triggers his insurance policy. Greenwald, Poitras and a few others already have his whole stash. What he would need in order to travel are documents from another country, similar to the ones provided by Fidel Narvaez, but officially approved. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I fail to see how an insurance policy would resuscitate him. Anyway, with the EU now mad at us, might the number of potential asylum targets increase? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC) More like posthumous vengeance and speaking from beyond the grave. He's asked 15 countries: So perhaps somewhere in the EU would let him in. His main difficulty seems to be "Must be present to win." He needs to obtain documents that allow him to at least physically get to an embassy. Either that or turn secret-agent and sneak past the Security somehow. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Past Russian security? Good luck with that. Unless they're slipping in their old age. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Of dubious authenticity. How often does a contemporary American refer to the United States in the plural? or date something 1st July 2013? The statement expresses sympathy for Bradley Manning yet Manning did a data dump while Snowden, at least previously, was thought to be more selective, suggesting that the real author here is a non-American affiliated with Wikileaks as opposed to Snowden. It is possible for an American to write "1st July" instead of "July 1" but put all of these various stylistic idiosyncrasies together and the authorship is dubious. If Wikileaks is absolutely reliable as a source why haven't Wikileaks' spokespeople been more forthcoming in response to media questions about where Snowden and his laptops are? Note how gingerly the New York Times deals with the question of authorship, repeatedly saying that the statement is attributed to Snowden as opposed to by Snowden.-Brian Dell (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Hard to tell, but CNN seems to give it credence.[22] It also says that he withdrew his asylum request for Russia once he learned they would put conditions on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Aha, CNN does say "WikiLeaks released a statement attributed to Snowden..." So the article, if using this info, must state likewise. And the dead-giveaways that you're talking about, like "1st July", lend support to Ecuador's opinion that Assange is "running the show"... by implication, that it was he who wrote that stuff. Which does not rule out that Snowden might have given Assange some input on it at some point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Assange is working this entirely to his own benefit. I never saw why Ecuador would want two hot political potatoes instead of just one. The lion roared and the hyena backed off. The second potato is simply too scorchingly hot that only China and Russia would be powerful enough to handle. The fact that he got pushed out of Hong Kong strongly implies it's too hot for China too. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Yes. I wonder at what point Snowden will realize that he's being played, by everyone. As Boyce indicated, he will eventually discover that he can't trust anyone, and it's liable to make him very depressed. I think I read someplace that he was disappointed that he, rather than his revelations, had become the focal point of the story. That suggests an incredible naivete about how the world works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald confirms Jul 6 that the letter was exclusively Snowden's. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/353620139805130752 --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela

Venezuela's Maduro on July 5 offers asylum:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/06/us-usa-security-venezuela-idUSBRE96500420130706

Sca (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't tell us anything more about the supposed offer than we know already. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 7: "MOSCOW (AP) — An influential Russian parliament member who often speaks for the Kremlin encouraged NSA leaker Edward Snowden on Sunday to accept Venezuela's offer of asylum."

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-official-venezuela-last-chance-snowden-110851353.html

Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A Maduro quote "We told this young man, 'you are being persecuted by the empire, come here,"'

http://www.smh.com.au/world/venezuela-receives-snowden-asylum-application-20130709-2pnbf.html#ixzz2YVWvJRaC

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden’s nightmare comes true

Isn't it proper to start the American responses section with Snowden's fears that his "great work" will be met with a collective yawn and a note that it has? Hcobb (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Who is saying that it came true? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/edward-snowden-nsa-93742.html

Title of article. Hcobb (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That is the opinion of Philip Ewing of Politico.com - or rather, it would be, if the article itself didn't go on to state that "Edward Snowden’s nightmare may be coming true". "May be". A vague assertion, and a prediction about the future anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Other nations didn't yawn; just saying, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not the ones who already hate the USA and see this as a propaganda opportunity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The article points out several sources that align with Snowden's reported fears, so it's evidence based and not just op-ed. Hcobb (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hcobb that the article is a reliable non-opinion source -- except for the first sentence ("Edward Snowden’s nightmare may be coming true."), which is pure editorial. There are some good opinions in there that are worthy of citation (with attribution). That said, they don't deserve their own special section. Probably a paragraph. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also weasel-wording. "His nightmare may be coming true. Then again, it may not be coming true." It's really too early to tell. Now, if he's still in the Moscow airport a year from now, that could be fairly nightmarish. But it appears some Latin American countries are willing to take him in. That could be a problem for him too, but that's a nightmare of a different color. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it's weasely. These headers are typically written by some sub-editor whose job is just to write catchy titles. They don't necessarily have proper regard for the underlying story. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's fear isn't for his own fate:

http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-2013-6 "The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change," Snowden said. "People will see in the media all of these disclosures, they'll know the lengths the government is going to grant themselves power unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society, but they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."

And is the nightmare that is coming true. Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of staying here and taking the risk, standing up and fighting like a true hero would, as he gives lip service to, he instead put himself on a world tour and drew almost all the media attention to himself and away from what is allegedly the real issue. Any nightmare he's experiencing is of his own making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please quit criticizing the subject of the article. You've already plastered your feelings across the talk page enough. At some point it stops sounding like friendly discussion and starts sounding like you're using this page as your personal WP:SOAPBOX. Go start a blog or something. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Then tell the others to stop heaping praise on this guy. I assure you, I've said much less than I could have. Also, I'm trying to raise issues that others here seem not to be considering - blinded as they are by hero worship, and overlooking the irony of it, which some columnists have pointed out. (To be clear, I do not detect that you yourself are in that category). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what your motivation is. This talk page is neither a forum nor a battleground, and you've been the biggest offender lately. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

According to CNN,[23] Venezuela made an offer but he has not responded yet. Does anyone know, from reliable sources, when he was last heard from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald recently confirmed that Snowden did indeed issue the wikileaks statement exclusively. So that would be Jul 6. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/353620139805130752 --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess this could flow into the "where is he" question below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

New Interview with Der Spiegel and related articles - Jul 7

This interview with Snowden was conducted by Poitras when Snowden was still in Hawaii. NSA "in bed with" Germans and most others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/07/edward-snowden-spiegel-nsa-germans

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/edward-snowden-accuses-germany-of-aiding-nsa-in-spying-efforts-a-909847.html

https://magazin.spiegel.de/reader/index_SP.html#j=2013&h=28&a=102241618

http://cryptome.org/2013/07/snowden-spiegel-13-0707.pdf

Translation of interview. http://cryptome.org/2013/07/snowden-spiegel-13-0707-en.htm --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Der Spiegel's translation of their article. The interview is reproduced in it's original English.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-whistleblower-edward-snowden-on-global-spying-a-910006.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Further reactions of Daniel Ellsberg

In a piece written to the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on Hong Kong asylum

Found this http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1277373/why-edward-snowden-would-be-better-back-hong-kong 99.119.80.209 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Video interview part 2

Has just been published today.

For the Image Debate, the copyright notice reads © 2013 Praxis Films /Laura Poitras http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he looks any different in part 2 so a newer image isn't needed. Laura has been kind enough to send ORTS on two screen shots from part 1 for us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald interview on Democracy Now

Describes contacts with Snowden on Jul 6 as an extensive conversation, and more details.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/7/8/glenn_greenwald_edward_snowden_satisfied_by_global_outrage_over_us_surveillance_operations

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More Guardian sources

• Roberts, Dan. "US privacy group challenging NSA and FBI collection of phone records." The Guardian. Monday 8 July 2013.
• Hopkins, Nick. "NSA and GCHQ spy programmes face legal challenge." The Guardian. Monday 8 July 2013.
• Greenwald, Glenn, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill. "Edward Snowden: US surveillance 'not something I'm willing to live under'." The Guardian. Monday 8 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden Guardian Interview, part two

Saving Strauss the trouble, we already have a link to part 2 a few sections above

Released today. The level of spying by NSA revealed here by Snowden is enormous. Snowdens reasons are also compelling viewing IMHO http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview This article backs up the utter enormity of the spying on the entire world. http://rt.com/usa/nsa-fiber-optic-cable-790/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC) If I can't editorialize, you can't either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) This is the talk page, you are entitled to your opinion. I hold that a figure of 99% interception is entitled to the descriptor 'utter enormity' Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I got rung up yesterday by an editor griping about my stating my opinion. I assume he, being a fair-minded individual, will likewise ring you up for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Lol. They wont get these secrets back in the bottle. Lots of spooks on these sorts of pages. Their controllers are scared. E. Snowdens leaks are a game changer. They now it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Germany

Germany rejects Snowden's request for asylum. The German Foreign Ministry and Interior Ministry issue a statement on July 2 saying the requisite conditions for a valid asylum appeal are not present in Snowden's situation.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesregierung-lehnt-aufnahme-von-edward-snowden-in-deutschland-ab-a-909090.html

Sca (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the German source, It was throwing the page off. petrarchan47tc 07:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Better photo for the article

Hi, dear NSA-spyed-americans-people,

I think you should use this picture for the article presentation : [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Edward_Joseph_Snowden.jpg], instead of the current, wich is ugly and not clearly noticeable, as used in the french wikipedia and other ones.

Regards,

2A01:E35:8AD1:8140:9C26:6D60:1120:51C3 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The image you link is currently proposed for deletion - it is clearly a copyright violation. (Incidentally, not everyone who edits the English-language Wikipedia is from the US) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• According to Chinese copyright law the video itself has a CC-by license. See Chapter I, Section 4 Limitations on Rights, article 22 "In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon: , (4): reprinting by newspapers or periodicals or other media, or rebroadcasting by radio stations or television stations or other media, of the current event article s on the issues of politics, economy and religion, which have been published by other newspapers, periodicals, radio stations or television stations or other media, except where the author has declared that publication or broadcasting is not permitted;" Since the video was filmed in Hong Kong this law applies as country of origin.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We can't pick and choose what law we apply. For copyright purposes, WP abides by US law. The interview may have been filmed in Hong Kong, but HK has a common law legal system quite distinct from the PRC. Also, the film wasn't published in HK, but on the Guardian website, which is presumably in the UK. So the film seems to fail Chapter I, Section 4 article 22. I don't know why we're going around the houses on this image. I think we might just get away with claiming Fair Use provisions. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use is usually a no-no with living people. If we can justify that the image of him in the interview is necessary for reader comprehension then that may succeed. I will see if I can find HK law on derivative works. Someone from commons has emailed the mural artist for a license.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course we can argue Fair Use if he is expected to lose his liberty of go into hiding forever. But in view of the fact that there are already two passport photos of him now as PD images (which I wasn't aware of when I wrote the above post), and the five year statute of limitations on Snowden's crimes [sic], Fair Use claim isn't likely to succeed. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Statute of limitations wouldn't apply. He's already been charged, and the charges will stay active until or if he's taken into custody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of a "statue of limitations" ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I can upload the PD passport images to commons if we can show them as PD. I assume you mean the photographers were feds. Do you have any links to them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• No need to worry. Someone has already done that. And the images are already in use in our article. I don't think the Feds too the photos. They look like standard passport photos taken 5 years apart. I'm no expert, but I think the submission for passport purposes is sufficient to transfer them into US govt for copyright purposes. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the copyrights do transfer but remain with the photographer. I heard back from Laura Poitras' people and they may have a single frame from the video licensed for us by Monday at the earliest.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• That would be good. But then the whole world, not just us, would be able to use it royalty free. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably copyvio see:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government where is says "...many publications of the U.S. government contain protectable works authored by others..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The original screenshot has received OTRS from Laura.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

• Is it just me, or does the infobox image look like it's been squashed or stretched? It was fine when OTRS ticket was obtained, but now it looks weird. I've refreshed the browser cache but to no avail. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I can only get the "cropped" image to display properly. The original fucks up, so I swapped it out. Can we leave it at the "cropped" version? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There was an edit war of versions at commons. Try refresh on your browsers. If that doesn't fix then the server will correct in in a bit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lord knows how many times I've refreshed browser the cache. Space at Commons isn't an issue. There ought now to be two versions at commons – a "clean" original version that obtained OTRS ticket, and a second one, cropped that is clearly labelled as derivative work of a GFDL-compliant image. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The images are from two different video frames. We only have OTRS for the one version. The wider angle versions will probably be deleted. The problem was that the OTRS agent applied a license assuming one was a crop of the other. Details are on the talk page of the cropped version over there. File:Edward Snowden.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ireland denies Arrest warrant

Interesting, though may not be relevant unless he actually lands there.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/dublin-rejects-snowden-arrest-plea-29404105.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is interesting and important to know that the US has been pre-emptively spraying arrest warrants all over the western hemisphere (at least) to cover all its bases in trying to corner Snowden. If Ireland has been served one, chances are the whole of Europe has also been dealt one. Such warrants may also be tests of the political support of these countries for the US. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Shows Its Bias Again

Rant

Once again, the would-be arbiter of all things arbitration-worthy screws up royally. It was really bad enough that Wikipedia made this article read-only—which, I imagine, is the only practicable approach for such an emotionally charged issue. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has abused its "power" by presenting just about the most biased picture conceivable. For, not only do they demonstrate their total disrespect for the government that protects three hundred million of their readers and Lord only knows what significant percentage of their authors and sysops, but they go out of their way to mischaracterize the response of the defense community by calling undue attention to a handful of named wackos and saying, "See, here, this is how people at NSA think." Utterly beyond reprehensible, gentlemen. Now, go ahead and edit this out in your standard cowardly fashion before too many others read it. That's another popular Wikipedia tactic: they cry poverty, yet they can afford to have sysops devoting undue attention to tracking edits effected by those who are known to harbor (Heavens!) an anti-Wikipedia stance. It's funny how power works, and it's even funnier how these sysops interpret "power." I used to think I was powerful when I was a sixteen-year-old system administrator (back then, we were UNIX kernel programmers who condescended to do some system admin on the side)—but I had outgrown it by my seventeenth birthday. Pressing buttons is not power. Knowing the root password when Joe Schmuck only knows the j.schmuck password is not power: it's pathetic. -- 98.249.207.46 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 8 July 2013 (UCT) Whats your point? You ramble. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC) It may be over the whistleblower vs leaker image of Mr. Snowden. We could try a Googlefight and see which gets more hits that may fall into wp:common name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) It's not read-only. You just need to sign up for an account with a username. It was semi-protected due to vandalism. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Troll. If the IP were acting in good faith he/she would (1) actually make a suggestion to improve the article and (2) know a little more about how Wikipedia actually works. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How did the part saying Snowden was originally a Catholic disappear from the article?

I remember seeing this on day one of this story. But that information is now gone, and all the article says is that he switched to Buddhism. Switched from what? What's really weird though is that there's no electronic trace of the article ever mentioning his previous religion (as Catholicism or any other for that matter.) I can't locate it in history! Weird. Anyone? Aminidi (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be a needle in a haystack. But you might find reference to it in some of the discussions here, and that could pinpoint the date better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia had a better way of "searching" all revisions so stuff in old revisions could easily be found. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Try WP:BLAME. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know that existed! I searched BLAME from June 9, but I couldn't find "Catholic" WhisperToMe (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Someone's hiding something here at Wikipedia. Look below, they deleted my entire section in Talk (Is Snowden still alive? Is he real, or even a made-up character perhaps?) saying it was trolling. Which is rather bizarre to say, I mean where should we raise suspicions about an article or its subject being genuine if not in Talk pages? I rephrased it now, let's see if the secret keepers stick their head out of the hole again. Aminidi (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Those comments are still in the history.[24] They're just not appropriate for the talk page, unless you can find a valid source that makes your case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If a revision is deleted, you'll see a strikethrough through a gray space that is normally clickable. Usually this happens due to copyright infringement or inappropriate personal information. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Silverzephyr - More spying in Latin America

More from O Globo. Spying in Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Paraguay, Chile, Peru and El Salvador. Also references PRISM, Fairview, Boundless Informant and X-Keyscore.

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/espionagem-dos-eua-se-espalhou-pela-america-latina-8966619

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fallout from the operation. Peru calling for an Investigation in its Congress. Ecuadoran VP says it's unacceptable. Argentinian President Kirchner asking for an explanation. Colombian senators are asking that the government formally protest. Carvalho of Brazil is calling for a joint response from Latin American countries.

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/kirchner-pede-explicacoes-aos-eua-sobre-denuncia-de-espionagem-8973129

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Greewald speaking in Portuguese. http://oglobo.globo.com/videos/t/todos-os-videos/v/webchamada/2680502

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fallout from the Brazilian Spying Scandal

Senators asking Brazil to Grant Asylum

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/senadores-defendem-que-brasil-conceda-asilo-edward-snowden-8962251

Although Patriota still says no.

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/patriota-elogia-disposicao-dos-eua-para-dialogo-8959441

A police investigation ensues

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/anatel-abre-investigacao-sobre-espionagem-dos-eua-no-brasil-8962092

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuits over Tempora

Privacy International, a charity in London that works in the area of privacy, has charged in a statement Monday that "the expansive spying regime is seemingly operated outside of the rule of law, lacks any accountability, and is neither necessary nor proportionate."

http://www.techworld.com.au/article/507991/privacy_group_sues_uk_government_over_surveillance_programs/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The courts will decide the answer to those claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Snowden real? I think this whole story is so bizarre we need to question authenticity of the entire article and its subject. Simply put, Snowden is either not alive, or he never existed. Media talk about this guy every day and every time they do it as if they have just gotten his exclusive statement or interview. But officially, no one has seen him since he departed from Hong Kong 22 June. I mean, how hard would it be to go to the Hong Kong airport before that date, or the Moscow airport now, and make an actual interview with the guy? Or, why not do it via phone, txt, or Twitter? Wouldn't this be every journalist's dream? How come we don't see any CNN cameras at the Moscow airport, with a taped interview if not broadcasting live? You'd expect Richards Quest would buy a ticket as a passenger in order to get inside the closed-customs zone and get the hold of Snowden. It wouldn't be the first time, he's done crazier stuff. Weird. I call intelligence community's performance. Anyone? Aminidi (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC) The guy is an ex-CIA operative. I don't think it'd be that hard for him to avoid the media, who have no idea where he'll be. I did read somewhere that a bunch of journalists got seats on a plane that he had a ticket for, but he never got on the plane. Howicus (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) CIA doesn't turn its agents into spider-men. How much hiding room is there inside an airport's no-customs zone? Try the WCs, and chances are you'll find him in there at least for an hour or more each day! Haven't you ever been abroad? No-customs zones are very (very) tiny compared to the whole airport. Aminidi (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Here we go [25]. Howicus (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Can you find a valid source that makes your case for you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I don't make any claims. My point is that there are no reliable sources (like on-camera interviews) that the guy is real or alive, and you're asking me to provide sources? Sources that say there are no sources? Wow. Don't twist it, please. Aminidi (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Please don't add the Conspiracy theory collapsible box. I didn't postulate a theory or made any claims. I simply questioned authenticity of the article and its subject since there is no evidence he is real or alive. Given the caliber of the case and the fact we're in high-tech 2013, here by evidence I (as should everyone else) consider interviews on camera, with him or his family. Isn't what I'm asking precisely the opposite from a conspiracy theory? Aminidi (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fisa Judge Robertson

He states that the FISA court needs an adversary. And suggests that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), should perhaps become one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela?

Maybe just another red herring, but worth keeping an eye on, especially if Venezuelan leaders make a statement today.[26] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Assange seems to have quashed that one. Saying he has not "formally applied" yet. But here's another interesting snippet. "Tomorrow the first phase of Edward Snowden's 'Flight of Liberty 'campaign will be launched. Follow for further details." https://twitter.com/wikileaks --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that in the updated CNN article. This is like waiting for the next episode of The Kardashians or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a plausible route, though it requires a private plane. Olafur Sigvirinsson of Iceland, a huge Wilileaks supporter does have one capable of phase one. Avoids everybody's airspace. Svalbard isn't really a waypoint in terms of landing, just a convenient landmark for the map.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=moscow++to+svalbard+to+reykjavik+to+Caracas

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think that all he really needs to do is get to the Venezuelan embassy somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is He Or Isn't He? Much Confusion Over Snowden And Venezuela. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/09/200382725/is-he-or-isnt-he-much-confusion-over-snowden-venezuela

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the first time, either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Snowden

It's pretty ridiculous that there's always an issue adding an image to some current event.

What was so wrong with the image from The Guardian? Does fair use rationale not exist anymore? Everytime I tried uploading it it got deleted. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You may want to weigh in here: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_14#File:The_Guardian_front_page_10_June_2013.jpg Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is getting annoying how we still don't have an image up. WHAT HAPPENED TO FAIR USE RATIONALE? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a picture farther down the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

RocketLauncher2, "fair use" is a surprisingly narrow rule. If you'd like to see it broadened (and you're an American citizen) you should consider contacting your congressman/woman, as the House of Representatives is currently considering an the first overall of copyright law in 30 years. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia's "fair use" rules are much stricter than what the law requires. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently, there are two pictures, both well-placed. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The still from the video interview conducted by The Guardian may be deleted. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a picture of Edward Snowden at the top. The first picture that we (and WP readers) see is of Snowden's Hong Kong lawyer; the second is a picture of the Ecuador embassy car in front of Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow; the third picture is of Snowden and the PRISM logo on the front page of The Guardian. These three pictures are excellent choices for their sections, but a picture at the top is needed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Silly Question, but has anybody asked the Guardian for written permission? --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The image we have at commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Edward_Snowden.jpg ,is in deletion review now. It wasn't created by The Guardian we don't think. We think it may have been created by Praxis films. The image is marked as a creation by VOA and whether they put their mark on it in error or financed/owned the camera is the major issue. I have emailed The Guardian, Praxis, and the VOA. I put links in the emails to the deletion review as well as the OTRS licensing permission page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to someone who put an Edward Snowden picture back at the top of the article. It's the best picture, capturing what we remember. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Happy 4th of July, Independence Day, USA. FYI, still no face-photo at the article top! What's up, Doc? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are only a couple of pictures of Snowden that we've seen floating around, and they seem to be copyrighted, so the current situation might be the best that can be done. I wonder if he ever had a US Government ID photo, which could be considered public domain if it's available. Kind of like that one picture of Monica Lewinsky that circulated for months before someone finally got some new pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Today, there is a picture back, not too suitable: "Edward Snowden graffiti by Thierry Ehrmann in the Abode of Chaos museum, France" with a totally red face. Although I don't like this, it is better than nothing. — TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • No, it's not suitable at all. In addition to freedom-of-panorama concerns, it's painting him like a Communist. It's not appropriate for the lead picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
        • ...can we use a fair use rationale and just upload a real picture? Considering this is one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia right now, I think we need to do something. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
          • It would likely be shot down, because they will argue that a freebie should be available somewhere, or at least "possible". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
          • As of today, there is a picture back at the top (replacing the Red-Paris-art-work) from the NSA it says when he is a smiling 19-yr-old. He is now 29, as in the next picture. It's OK, but selection could be better. Thanks to editors working on this. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Just a couple of brief comments: (1) In case you didn't notice, a picture at the top was missing for days, and then someone put in a screen-shot of what everyone who sees any news saw from Day One: "Screen capture from the interview with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras on June 6, 2013" which is brilliant, why didn't we think of this in the first place? (2) I will be on a brief hiatus for an indefinite short time but will probably not see the one seeking asylum, nor be on his decoy plane to Venezuela nor the boat to Pacific islands :-) Till later, signed electronically for the database, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• PS: To me, the article is looking great. There is another section here on TALK about the appropriateness of picture. They are greatly improved, looking good. The article does not end well -- we are all waiting to add another section or two on resolution. I'll be watching from afar and be back to assisting in August. Till then, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ambox

Do we need an ambox to say that this documents a current event? George8211 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• The pace of edits seems to have slowed down a lot – there have been about 20 edits today. I'm not ruling something else happening to trigger a massive increase in the rate, but such a tag doesn't seem necessary at present. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • His name is in the news every day, so it's certainly an "ongoing" event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, the template can be removed now, as it exists to warn users of rapid editing, not of the existence of an "ongoing event". That's what the article itself should do. --Conti|✉ 16:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • On reflection, sure, it can go. The reality is that there isn't much "new news" for this guy at present. That could change, but for now he's taking a back seat to Egypt and the plane crash in San Francisco. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Just to check, it has been removed now hasn't it? Sorry, not thinking straight. Please ignore this comment. George8211 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Updated 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Jester

Hacktivist "The Jester" has been rather active in the Snowden issue, apparently going so far as to hack sites of countries considering granting him asylum, including a major Venezuelan newspaper. (Sorry it's only a primary source.) Is this too trivial to include in the article? Machdelu (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are newspapers reporting on the issue? If not, I would not include it. Check to see if newspapers are discussing the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Got one: Liebelson, Dana. ""The Jester" Hacks Top Venezuelan Newspaper Over Snowden." Mother Jones. Tuesday July 9, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fox news. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/02/pro-us-hacker-jester-takes-aim-at-nations-helping-snowden/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Pitts column

Leonard Pitts states opposition to Snowden's fleeing from the US:

• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "Snowden’s only principled choice: Come home." Miami Herald. July 9, 2013.

Alternate copies:

• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "By refusing to stand by his actions, NSA leaker Snowden is no hero." The News Tribune. July 10, 2013.
• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "Leonard Pitts Jr.: Why Edward Snowden is not a hero." San Jose Mercury News. July 10, 2013.
• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "Leonard Pitts: Snowden should come home." Anchorage Daily News. July 10, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Netherlands Also Not Treating Asylum Application

Addition to the Edward Snowden#Others section: "the Netherlands", because, like Finland and the other countries mentioned there, the Netherlands mentioned the same technical grounds for not treating the asylum application. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Done BryanG (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Asylum requests

WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden has seeked asylum based on information that was to be found out sooner or later. This was beneficial for Europe. It could be neutral to protect him in Europe. Could European Union act as partner and give him freedom of residence in country he selects? Many Europeans would accept this: [27] Watti Renew (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) That would depend on how much the EU wants to harm their trade relationship with America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk subject deserves to be shown as in fact stated by the MEPs on July 4th 2013 the whistleblower persons need international protection. (ref Helsingin Sanomat 5.7.2013: "Mepit korostivat, että ilmiantajien on saatava tarvittaessa kansainvälisen tason suojelua." (in Finnish) Statement needs action. Protection could take response e.g. in Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Luxemburg, Vatican, Monaco. Watti Renew (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This should be addressed in the article more clearly: Jürgen Trittin The Guardian Europe (2.7.2013) [28] wrote “The man who revealed that our US and UK allies are spying on us ought to be given refuge by an EU country”. " Edward Snowden has done us all a great service. In the past two weeks Europeans have been made aware of massive data collection from their private and business communications by American and British security services. The commission must act when it comes to such grave attacks on our shared values. Snowden blew the whistle on activities that threaten the very freedom our democracies are built on. If ever a case demonstrated why we need the protection of whistleblowers, this is it." Watti Renew (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo! wishes to show that it "objected strenuously"

By releasing its arguments in a 2008 FISA case.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23635466/yahoo-asks-secret-surveillance-court-unseal-files

--71.20.55.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All this Snowden fanboy page needs are cheerleaders with pompoms

I read this bio several times in the early days when Snowden was just coming into the media. It was well balanced, presenting both sides of the issue. Now it's been locked and turned into a gigantic fanboy page.

References to some of Snowden's prominent critics have been sandpapered right out of the article. The highly respected writer Jeffrey Toobin, who early on criticized Snowden[29], was disappeared straight out of the article. I see on an earlier talk page that somebody disagreed with what Toobin said, so in rampant partiality, Toobin's name vanished. Josef Stalin would be so proud.

The fact that Toobin wrote an early critique of Snowden is what matters; that a Wikipedia user has a different opinion is no reason to completely disappear something. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Leonard Pitts, Jr. has also criticized Snowden[30], but don't expect to see his name mentioned, either, since that doesn't fit with the fanboy meme of this page, where a laundry list of Snowden supporters is lovingly maintained, while those critical are only given the short shrift of the unnamed "other commentators were more critical."

When prominent media persons like Toobin and Pitts are critical of Snowden, they should be named, just like those who praise him.

Academics and publishing professionals often criticize Wikipedia for its inherent bias, and this lovingly crafted Snowden mush piece trying to pass itself off as "objective" is a great example of that fatal deficiency.92.48.194.154 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful of citing random, uninvolved news commentators. That's probably why that stuff was removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's an absurdly weak rationalization for bias because the article includes mentions of many pro-Snowden people who are uninvolved. Most of the people cited and quoted in the article are uninvolved, yet their point of view is included because it's pro-Snowden. How is Glenn Beck involved? Oliver Stone? Michael Moore? Toobin is arguably far more involved as a prominent commentator and columnist than Oliver Stone, who's primarily a Hollywood moviemaker. Also, the award-winning journalist Jennifer Rubin should be added to the list of people who have criticized Snowden; she's called him "a criminal" and excoriated those who support him. 84.244.183.116 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

People who dont sign on and rant need to be rant labelled Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, great job proving my point. You do nothing to address the valid criticisms I've raised and, instead, censor what I wrote by hiding it. So I've un-hid it because it wasn't a rant. A rant would be blathering away a personal opinion about the subject. It was an on-point criticism of the article's pro-Snowden bias. And, FYI, there's nothing wrong about editing Wikipedia without an account. It's allowed and has happened for years. The fact that you feel my doing so is a valid reason to censor me and dismiss my criticism only underscores your bias and subjectivity. And, hey, since you feel a need to criticize my Wikipedia use, how about you learn to indent your comment properly? I've been Miss Helpful and done it for you. 84.244.183.116 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Toobin's essay was written June 10th, before much of the story had developed, and also resorted to baseless rhetoric such as "narcissist". Since that time, other essays and opinions, with a much broader view of the events, have surfaced. Former President Carter has a more nuanced view, in which he states that "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible" ... "If the United States can acquire custody of him, I'm sure he will be brought to trial, and that's the way the law should be implemented." But also that "I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial."

The Pitts essay is rather better, I can see no objection to its inclusion. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Less essay and more fact is better still. Jonathunder (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not a fan of this character, and haven't the energy at the moment to read the whole bloody thing. But I did read the lead paragraph, and it looks very good. It provides a succinct and fair summary of what's going on with this guy. One thing that needs to be added to the lead is where he settles. That's still not public knowledge, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Majority of Americans think Snowden did the right thing

Fifty-five percent of registered American voters consider former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to be a whistleblower, and only 34 percent call him a traitor - despite US lawmakers labeling him as such.

http://rt.com/usa/snowden-americans-majority-poll-906/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This columnist points out the biased nature of the poll's question:[31] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats a biased view imo Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. They gave no middle-ground choices. I ran across an earlier poll that said around 55 percent of Americans thought he was right (rendering the current poll as old news), and at the same time 55 percent of Americans thought he should face prosecution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There was an "undecided" option, which it appears about 11% took. The earlier Reuters poll had 46% undecided. The latest poll used the term "whistleblower", and the Reuters version used "hero." In either event, it demonstrates a shift in the public perception as they become more familiar with the issues at hand. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, poll results don't belong in the article, as they can shift like sand in the wind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can support that. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can support the right to debate points by people who bother to open an account, and sign off. Those who dont are just puerile time wasters. One key point of such polls is that as the enormity of the privacy breaches is revealed piece by piece people are disgusted. People are turning against the nefarious agencies who conduct such outrages, and support for Snowden is subsequently increasing. As indeed are legal actions against complicit organizations.Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All of those cases (including Snowden's hoped-for asylum) have one thing in common: Nothing has actually happened yet. It's pretty hard to report on non-action. That doesn't stop TV and radio from commenting on it, of course. But while the various yakkety-yak may be interesting to we the citizens, it doesn't necessarily qualify for an encyclopedia article. This story is only just beginning, with a long way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft - Jul 11

Microsoft allowed the NSA to

• Read Encrypted email
• Access SkyDrive via Prism
• Collect video and audio of Skype calls (Skype was purchased by Microsoft) via Prism
• Material collected via Prism is routinely shared with FBI and CIA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower vs leaker

The article's introduction defines Snowden as a leaker. Practically all European media (eg the Guardian image linked in the article and the few non European ones I found) define him as a whistleblower.

I'm aware that American mainstream media strictly avoid the term whistleblower when talking about him, but this just clearly shows how US specific the description leaker is. Limiting the introduction to the term leaker is clearly US-POV. Since Wikipedia is a international project we should either use none of these terms or both. --Nemissimo (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaker is factual. Whistleblower is a political viewpoint. Just as "traitor" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that both terms carry certain connotations and should be avoided. As the article currently stands it doesn't use either term so I think we're OK. The lead does say that Snowden "leaked" details but in my view the verb "leak" doesn't carry the same pejorative connotations as the noun "leaker." News leak has its own page and doesn't say anything positive or negative about those who leak. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that "leaker" is a more descriptive term than "whistleblower" because leaking means disclosing to the news media, whereas whistleblowing can mean reporting the wrongdoing internally, filing a lawsuit, etc. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides which, no American legal body has yet ruled on the legality of what Snowden considers to be "wrongdoing". In fact, it's curious that no one has started a process to get this question before the US Supreme Court. Or have they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure they have. The leading case is Jewel v. NSA. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There are also FISC and FISCR rulings. But those are totally secret. ACLU has filed a lawsuit that will likely wind up in SCOTUS. There are multiple other Suits in progress.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/aclu-lawsuit-nsa-prism-surveillance-92840.html

http://pryordailytimes.com/editorials/x493355525/NSA-slapped-with-20-billion-class-action-suit

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/06/21/why-eff-is-suing-the-nsa-and-doj-attorne

http://www.ktvb.com/news/Idaho-woman-sues-NSA-over-seizure-of-phone-records-211475531.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think that is the ACLU's goal. As I understand it, the core problem is that these phone companies destroy all their records after 6 months, so the government's program fills in that gap. The court battle should be interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

From a German and from most European nations' perspective it is absolutely clear that the NSA SIGINT operations are illegal under our national laws. It is critical for the NPOV to not limit this article to a US-only perspective.Nemissimo (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What German court has issued that determination? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post which did an interview with Snowden also calls him a "whistleblower"

Agencies in Moscow. "Whistle-blower Snowden seeks asylum in China, among other nations, says Wikileaks." (print title: "SNOWDEN ASKS FOR ASYLUM IN RUSSIA") South China Morning Post. Tuesday July 2, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Saw on a Russia Today interview that the reporter noted this difference in calling Snowden Leaker in U.S. but whistleblower elsewhere, and some notes on why. Since the reporter described the terminology discussion, the discussion itself looks to be verifiable enough to be mentioned in the article if we want. This gives the option to not pick a specific side, but rather just report what is reported. Belorn (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The usage of those terms could be discussed, sure. Those who think they aren't affected by these revelations are using the term "whistleblower". It's a political term, like "traitor". "Leaker" is factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I must have been unclear. We don't need to discuss or bring up argument in favor or against anything, because the news reporters are doing that for us. We can simply write in the article what has been said in reliable sources. If some sources include arguments such as "whistleblower is a political term", we include that using such source as source. Simply put, we don't need to discuss what is or is not a political term. We simply let the sources do the talking and simply describe the discussion. Belorn (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't do things blindly either. A source with a political slant one way or another needs to be identified as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower, Leaker or Traitor depends on whether you want an American Spring or a Police State..... Snowden is one of the most courageous American's alive, and he is in exile. How about American Hero!!! -- 70.65.181.170 (talk · contribs) 02:28, 5 July 2013‎ (UTC)

It's too early to tell yet. We wouldn't even have this phone number list situation if the phone companies would keep their data instead of deleting it after 6 months. As regards "exile", he left voluntarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

From the Associated Press style guide: "A whistle-blower is a person who exposes wrongdoing. It’s not a person who simply asserts that what he has uncovered is illegal or immoral. Whether the actions exposed by Snowden … constitute wrongdoing is hotly contested, so we should not call them whistle-blowers on our own at this point."--Brian Dell (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald says Venezuela is best bet, and Snowden says Russia and China didn't get contents of his laptop

• Greenwald, Glenn. "Venezuela is Edward Snowden's best option, says Guardian's Glenn Greenwald - video." The Guardian. Wednesday 10 July 2013.
• Greenwald, Glenn. "Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments." The Guardian. Wednesday 10 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Is there any independent evidence of that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What would be independent evidence? --Conti|✉ 17:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Confirmation by the CIA, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Um... the CIA is hardly "independent" in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Lol, the CIA is part of the problem Bugs. I cant believe you said that, you sound like a true believer in the CIA. Cmon. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I think y'all are missing the point. If the CIA were to confirm he did not pass along any info to Russia, we could be pretty certain it's true. Snowden is facing various criminal charges at this point, so of course he's not going to say anything to worsen his situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
        • How on earth would the CIA be able to confirm this? The only way for them would be to ask Russia, in which case you might say (reasonably so) that Russia simply lied to them. That, or the CIA would have to admit that they indeed spy on Russia, and that their spying confirmed what Russia did or did not do. Silliness aside, we'll have to take Snowden's (and Greenwald's) word for it. There is no neutral party to independently verify these claims. --Conti|✉ 12:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Obama has already said that "everybody spies on everybody". Meanwhile, there is no reason to take Snowden's word on anything. But you can say "Snowden claimed, via Greenwald..." and that keeps it factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
            • The entirety of the leaks are on a basis of "Snowden said via Greenwald". This is no different. --Conti|✉ 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's statement should be included (along with a brief note of the stories, founded or not, that the Russians or Chinese have profited from his presence in their territory, which Snowden's statement is a response to) but coupled with a note that it is via Greenwald, since Snowden is not making himself available to less sympathetic (i.e. independent) media who could suggest various different scenarios to Snowden and ask if he would then rule all of those specific scenarios out. In other words, we don't have context or independent sourcing.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's public appearance today would suggest he's on board with all of this (assuming he's not actually a captive). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Complaints filed by Human Rights organizations in France

This seems worth mentioning:

After rather low key reactions from the French executives in the wake Edward Snowden's revelations on the global espionage system set up by the American Security Agency (NSA), the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the League of human Rights (LDH) jointly filed a complaint, Thursday, July 11, 2013, with the public prosecutor of Paris. This points to several offenses: unauthorized access in an automated data processing system, illegal collection of personal data, invasion of privacy, or interference with the secrecy of electronic correspondence. A wide range of charges, in the extent of the allegations by NSA former technician, relayed by the Guardian, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel.

Original article in Le Monde: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/07/11/la-fidh-et-la-ldh-portent-plainte-dans-l-affaire-snowden_3445855_651865.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.250.62 (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Has that organization ever filed a complaint against al-Qaeda? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For the full-witted readers, I do second the proposal to include these complaints in the article as they may be the beginning of a long series and will have a worldwide impact on the developments of this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semantia (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 July 2013

How long have you had the ability to see into the future? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doc, whats up? Are you playing the role of the local spook. Quietly trying to slow the Snowden express. Its pointless, nothing can get these stupendously huge incredibly game changing leaks back in the bottle. I agree with Semantia, at some point these complaints should be in the article. Why? The full witted reader will see these issues will be a long dominating theme tied in with the USA's impotent illegal attempts to silence him. Here is the proof of this statement.

http://rt.com/news/snowden-meets-rights-activists-013/

Whats the US going to do? Invade Russia to get him. lol. No the USA is now almost helpless and powerless. Score to date. US zero Russia 10. Lol. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. I am on the verge of reporting 'contributors' to this talk page for soapboxing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been dragged to ANI more times than I can count, and blocked more recently than I have. I guess you're hoping to score some points the other direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What Edward Snowden reveals and exposes are challenging topics that have the potential to upset many people, deeply, especially Americans. User talk:AndyTheGrump this is not a light weight subject. It deals with the highest levels of our society and mires them implicitly in illegal dubious and unconstitutional activities. If it upsets you, maybe you need to reappraise your involvement. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion here has all actually been fairly mild and civil compared to the all-out edit war that was going on with the Sarah Palin article in the fall of 2008. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

True, but Bugs, its the conflict in peoples heads and hearts that causes them angst. Snowdens leaks have called the USA leadership / intel out in a big way. Many of us knew what they were like already, but the sheeple didnt, some still dont get it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I stand by what I said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Keep standing by, and you won't cause any trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks reliability

I believe material like "On June 20 and 21, a representative of WikiLeaks said that a chartered jet had been prepared to transport Snowden to Iceland," may be excluded in an already lengthy article. Aside from the fact that this article talks up Iceland a lot more than the mainstream media sources do (presumably because of wishful thinking on the part of editors about a free democracy serving as asylum) the reliability of Wikileaks itself is not firmly established. Today this statement said "Seated to the left of Mr. Snowden was Sarah Harrison, a legal advisor in this matter from WikiLeaks and to Mr. Snowden’s right, a translator." This is just flat out backwards. The translator is to Snowden's left, a fact that becomes apparent from looking at the video of Snowden making his July 12 statement. A trivial point, you might say, but the point that Wikileaks' does not "fact check" like the mainstream media is not a trivial.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All sources make mistakes occasionally - that isn't in itself a reason to stop using them entirely. The article cites the South China Morning Post for the quote, and unless there is evidence that the statement is wrong, it seems questionable to second-guess them regarding their judgement as to the reliability of the statement. As to whether this material needs to be included at all, it could be argued that as nothing came of it, removal might be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(Incidentally, "Seated to the left of Mr. Snowden was Sarah Harrison" is arguably ambiguous. Who's left? Mr Snowden's, or someone facing him from the front?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, "to the left of Snowden" could mean either (a) next to Snowden's left hand OR (b) on the left side of Snowden in a photo/video intended to accompany the press release. But that's a minor point. Wikileaks has claimed to be a legit news organization but they have an obvious bias and they haven't proven to have a robust editorial process. In light of this its reliability is questionable. Nonetheless in many cases it's the most reliable source out there. I see nothing wrong with citing it -- with attribution -- for its opinions, and for relatively uncontroversial fact statements when more reliable sources are unavailable. This appears to be what's been done in other articles (such as Cablegate).

P.S. A discussion on the reliability of Wikileaks can be found in this RSN archive. The reliability of a leaked document may be completely different than the reliability of a statement in a press release, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Typically "to the left" or "to the right", without qualification, refers to the viewer's point of view, and as Grumpy suggests, "to the left" and "on his right" would actually be the same body. I don't know about the accuracy of wikileaks in general, but is it possible the caption was translated from some other language? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

She appears to be a translator. There are a few videos already up on youtube. Ive found none have given her a positive ID so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bf2SniptRc

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think typos and careless proofreading necessarily reflect badly on a medium's reportage. I've seen gaffes of that kind on almost any news source from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Consequences of Possible Snowden Plane Intercept

S. American states to recall ambassadors from Europe over Bolivian plane incident

http://rt.com/news/mercosur-countries-ambassadors-europe-030/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Raul Castro

Has issued a statement supporting other countries' rights to grant asylum. But not whether Snowden would be allowed to transit Cuba.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/2013/07/07/raul-castro-backs-asylum-offers-nsa-leaker/u2Paj4t1fdHB22NPmQv64I/story.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Broadcast

Extracts from Snowden’s statement have been broadcasted on main Russian TV channels for millions people. http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/630318/ --Psychiatrick (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Evo Morales plane FAB001 departed from Moscow Vnukovo

It should be noted that the plane with Evo Morales departed from Moscow Vnukovo Airport, while Edward Snowden was in Moscow Sheremetyewo Airport; s. http://www.opednews.com/articles/U-S-Bully-Tactics-Behind-by-Dave-Lefcourt-130703-421.html and http://m.ria.ru/moscow/20130703/947379545.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.147.244.83 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If Snowden dies its the USA's Worst Nightmare

“The US government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare. Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States,” Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist responsible for publishing some of Snowden’s first leaks, told Argentina-based newspaper La Nación.

http://rt.com/news/snowden-us-nightmare-greenwald-064/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

<redacted per BLP>

http://rt.com/news/snowden-us-nightmare-greenwald-064/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

More from Greenwald about the dead man's switch. Some points:

• Greenwald has no access to his iBomb
• Snowden doesn't believe his murder is the most likely scenario but is planning for the contingency
• The Dead Man's switch is only activated upon Snowden's untimely death, and that he doesn't plan harm under any other circumstance
• This article links to a summary of revelations (update II). These should be checked, for inclusion in the Mass Surveilance scandal article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/reuters-article-dead-man-s-switch

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The perfect opportunity for someone who hates the US to murder this guy and try to make it look like the US did it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thos Drake is Speaking About the Snowden Files.

These should be sources for the related articles on PRISM, Fairview, Blarney and Upstream.

• "BLARNEY is to the international Internet space as PRISM is to the domestic."
• “Upstream means you get inside the system before it’s in the Internet. In its pure form,”
• Fairview: “It’s just a name, that at the highest level means to own the Internet.”
• Fairview involves tapping international fiber-optic cables, to access the data. And that it may involve an agreement with telecom companies such as Global Crossing. (reference the Brazilian spying scandal)

http://www.dailydot.com/news/fairview-prism-blarney-nsa-internet-spying-projects/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's statement to human rights activists.

It speaks to his politics and motivation. Of note: "I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: 'Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.'"

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly his comments today are a lot more relevant to this article than all the recent tabloid-level guesswork. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He speaks well here at that meeting, open and plain about securing asylum in Russia until secure passage to Latin america is arranged. http://rt.com/news/snowden-meets-rights-activists-013/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There are at least three unique videos present covering that meeting. His speech matches very close to the Wikileaks statement already referenced. Apparently he had requested no pictures or video. I've found no video from the q/a portion of the meeting, so far.

http://www.modbee.com/2013/07/12/2803900/amnesty-official-in-russia-plans.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zybdTqgz9Z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwInSdrji2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqRSXm9GEIY

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

CBS Evening News was just saying that, as per a Russian government official who attended that meeting, until otherwise notified, Russia's stance is the same as it was last week: That he won't get asylum in Russia unless he shuts up. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

From top link. “I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted,” he told the meeting, attended by some 13 representatives of rights organizations. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Full Audio from the meeting. (42 minutes)

https://soundcloud.com/frank-forrester-1/full-edward-snowdens-statement

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hacking the Emails of Bolivian Officials

Snowden seems NOT to be the source of this information. But it still seems to be fallout from the case. Bolivian president Morales states that he learned at the Mercosur summit that the US has hacked into the emails of high Bolivian officials, and that he (Morales) has shut down his own account as a result.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/13/morales-says-us-hacked-bolivian-leaders-emails/ --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's unrelated and irrelevant and doesn't warrant any mention in the article. It's not that national leaders personally need email accounts anyway. Is he going to stop using the phone, because that's probably bugged too? ... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Moscow-Cuba plane detour sparks speculation Snowden may be on board

An Aeroflot plane en route from Moscow to Havana has deviated from its course, FlightAware live flight tracking indicates. http://rt.com/news/snowden-plane-route-cuba-965/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would check that out except the NSA is probably monitoring it. Or worse yet, an internet carpet-bomber. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Several other trans-Atlantic flights have taken a different route today because of turbulence over Greenland. [32] Jonathunder (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he'll fool everybody and sail to Venezuela on a raft, Kon-Tiki style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

and maybe he'll end up on an island talking to a volleyball. One could speculate all day, but not here, please. Jonathunder (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So he is allegedly not on board. But did anything check the cargo hold? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden was not aboard. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

71.20.55.6. Get an account, sign in, back up statements with references otherwise its POV, and a waste of space. You're becoming tiresome Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Check the article YOU posted again. It's been updated.

"Once again, #Snowden was not on board of the AFL150 flight - confirmed by the pilot.::— RT_Cuba (@RT_Cuba) July 11, 2013 "

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said he was on board, I merely provided a link that showed what is reported. It is clearly a ruse, a distraction tactic which may mean he is about to use another tactic in this high stakes game. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He (or whoever is starting these rumors) might just be enjoying the media running around like ants every time. Didn't Assange say something was going to happen Wednesday? So one might suspect he has already stealthily headed on to his next port of call, to be announced after he gets there - as has become his tradition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but think on it. If your going to have to cross the Atlantic in a plane with rabid NSA types baying for your head who have an air force to employ as you near Cuba or wherever, wouldn't you test out how they might respond by buying a ticket, not boarding and watching? Certainly. BTW the flight deviation fits in with Russian complicity. Im sure there is more going on that will come out Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As Johnathunder pointed out, a number of flights across the Atlantic were diverted due to air turbulence. This is starting to look like conspiracy-theory stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As I predicted this is expanding. “Edward Snowden wishes to express his thoughts on the US campaign for his capture that has put other passengers heading to Latin America at risk as a result,” the source told Interfax" http://rt.com/news/snowden-meet-human-rights-000/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is he himself that has put them at risk, as he is a fugitive from justice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm raising fair points, so I assume you are talking to the so-called "fanboy" editors here. He's accused of taking government property. There is no arguing around that. Unless he actually did not take those computers and stuff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Today's news indicates he's still in Russia and is asking for temporary asylum there.[33] Whether Russia has revised its official stance that he has to keep silent, it doesn't say. The article also contains the first known photo of Snowden taken since he left the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That was three days ago, and unless something has happened in the last hour (since I heard the radio news report), he has still not formally asked Russia for asylum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Humans rights organizations" section typos/grammar

The paragraph beginning with "Widney Brown, Senior Director.." needs editing for readability. "Snowden seems to be charged.." Could say: "He states that Snowden seems to be charged.." perhaps? Or is this supposed to be WP saying that Snowden seems to be charged..? The phrase "Amnesty fair that there is a serious risk" is particularly confusing."Amnesty criticize the US attempts" may have grammar/tense issues. Again, is the whole paragraph a quote, or a synopsis of one person's position, or an organization's position, or WP's statement?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.111.114 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2013‎ (UTC)

A claim Snowden has released all data now

And thus wont release more, clearing the way for Russian asylum.In last video on this link, entitled 'Watch RT's special coverage of the event' at 7.50 plus. http://rt.com/news/snowden-meets-rights-activists-013/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification. Snowden has given out all data. Journalists still have data to release. Asylum for Snowden won't stop Greenwald from publishing more leaks. http://rt.com/news/asylum-nsa-leaks-greenwald-037/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that, Russia could still refuse to grant asylum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Claim. Greenwald: Snowden has enough information to cause US govt ‘worst damage in history’ :::http://rt.com/news/snowden-us-nightmare-greenwald-064/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Russia has yet to receive an actual request for asylum (as per a news broadcast I heard an hour ago). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed accusations

Wikipedia is not a forum, and talk pages should be used to discuss article improvement, not make assertions that the article subject is guilty of a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a forum, sometimes. One should never condone censorship, in any medium — particularly a global one. IMHO. Sca (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I should have said, sometimes a WP talk page can function as a forum on an unclear or complex issue.

But I agree it's not a place for speculation about alleged criminality, and certainly not for character assassination. Sca (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It cuts both ways. There seem to be no qualms about assertions that the US is committing crimes, despite no court of law having made such a determiation. And as the article subject is a champion of transparency and opennness, I'm sure he would welcome these discussions here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned in this forum here on the talk page to discuss the article and developments is inappropriate to date IMHO Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Asserting that the article subject is guilty of "treason and blackmail", as was done on this page, is completely prohibited, per WP:BLPCRIME among an infinite number of other policies. This page isn't the place to discuss what we think of the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Any assertion that the US government is guilty of any crime is likewise prohibited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Snowden has enough information to cause US govt ‘worst damage in history’" as mentioned in a section above. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been nothing like Snowdens whistleblowing. It will take top level lawyers a long time to decide the issues. This is a living mobile situation. Certainly USA administrators are being challenged and lawsuits have begun. What is clear is that peoples perceptions on guilt and culpability are moving favourably toward Snowden concurently as credibility falls for agencies like the NSA and those who enable them. Why? People dont like having their privacy invaded. Who does? The law is likely to uphold this right. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The law was passed in 2006, and what it will come down to is unreasonable search and seizure. The courts will have to decide that issue. And are you just fine with the rampant theft of personal information by private companies who are not accountable to anyone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep WP:BLP and WP:TPO in mind. Snowden is a living person (as far as we know). "The US government" is not. Sorry Bugs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Dr. MeatMan, the US government is us, the citizens, and if someone tries to destroy the US government they are trying to destroy us, just as surely as al-Qaeda would like to. And Blade's comment about "don't like having their privacy invaded" is highly debatable. With the growth of social media, any number of commentators have been saying that "privacy is obsolete". So the anti-American rhetoric needs to stop here, and the hero-worship needs to stop. P.S. He is also accused of stealing government property. Supposedly he took one or more government PC's with him. If true, he had no right to do that, and does not occupy any moral high ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, I really don't give a flip about the views of you or any other editor here, so can you please turn down the vitriol? Stick to what you perceive as bias in the article itself. And, per WP:TPO, talk page deletions of WP:BLP violations are allowed but deletions of "anti-American rhetoric" and "hero-worship" generally are not. If you start deleting such language merely because you find it objectionable (the threat of which might be inferred from your above comments) then that is clearly disruptive behavior that will not be viewed favorably by admins. That's on top of your wearying, near-constant violations of WP:NOTFORUM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I generally like a little friendly off-topic discussion on the talk page but I am in full agreement with DrFleischman re Bugs. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I too generally like a little friendly off-topic discussion, but there has been some rather uncivil, patronising and sanctimonious claptrap which should cease henceforth. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you agree that it's just fine to threaten to severely damage a nation, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Side note, not sure which section it belongs in: Russia has yet to receive an actual request for asylum (as per a news broadcast I heard n hour ago). So nothing has happened yet, as far as we know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

CNN reports that Putin thinks Snowden is reconsidering the conditions Russia had set for asylum.[34] By inference, the ball is in Snowden's court, to decided whether to request asylum in Russia, which he clearly has not done yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden polls

These polls account for gender, age, and race:

• Mali, Meghashyam. "Poll: Majority say Snowden a whistle-blower, not a traitor." The Hill. July 10, 2013.
• Muller, Sarah. "Poll: Americans say Snowden isn’t a traitor." MSNBC. July 10, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, polls don't belong in the article. Polls are notoriously fleeting, if not inaccurate. Google [george zimmerman poll] and it seems a majority thought he was guilty. Guess what: He walked. And the only "poll" that will ultimately matter in the NSA cases is what 9 guys on the Supreme Court think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, only you stated polls dont belong in the article in an above discussion. There was no straw poll. In fact Bugs your roll here seems to be one of limiting the content of the article so it is not neutral POV. Why? That is the question. Do you have motive or bias? The Snowden friendly polls are certainly an important factor, whether you believe so or not. Yes thy are. Its called democracy. That in a nutshell it what all this is about after all. The lack of it in fact. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My role here, if any, is to try to keep the article neutral by minimizing the hero-worship factor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Blade, poll results belong in this article as long as (a) they're reported by reliable secondary sources (such as The Hill or MSNBC) or (b) the polls are performed by reputable pollsters (such as Quinnipiac, which happens to be one of the most well-respected pollsters in the country). Special care must be taken so as not to overstate the results. By the way, the "two" polls referenced by WhisperToMe are actually two stories about the same single poll. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments about the Zimmerman poll/trial have nothing to do with this article. I agree that reputable polls are appropriate here. Gandydancer (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• There cannot be any blanket "polls are good" nor "polls are bad". They are but a snapshot of a sample taken at a given time, The true test must be whether the given polls were notable, per reliable sources. Of course they can be wrong, but that is rather besides the point. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

These two articles are the same poll. That said, we are writing for the long term, and while they reflect perception, they don't necessarily reflect the actual facts of the case.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/search-releases/search-results/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919&What=&strArea=;&strTime=3

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, Its good you conceded you were wrong before by saying this above 'As has been discussed before, polls don't belong in the article.' Your new considered stance in line with majority views is indeed non POV. The consensus being summed up best by User talk:Ohconfucius, if Im not mistaken, being, 'There cannot be any blanket "polls are good" nor "polls are bad". They are but a snapshot of a sample taken at a given time, The true test must be whether the given polls were notable, per reliable sources'. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

An ex-Senator Breaks ranks

And is actively supporting and corresponding with Snowden. He has also begun to lobby his colleagues.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-senator-praises-snowden-email-19683450#.UeXrDG0pgmg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/16/gordon-humphrey-email-edward-snowden

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Editorial in the SCMP

• Chowdhury, Debasish Roy. "China missed chance for asylum payback by spurning Edward Snowden." (Print title: "Payback chance missed in Snowden exit") South China Morning Post. Wednesday 17 July 2013.

In 2012 the US granted 9,541 Chinese asylum

It states: "According to the Asylum Trends 2012 report, the US was the world's biggest provider and the Chinese were among the top five seekers of asylum - right up there with the Afghans, Syrians, Serbians and the Pakistanis. At some point China will have to ponder the incongruity of its rising global status and the number of asylum seekers it sends and receives (zero, it doesn't entertain any) and how this mismatch reflects on the country's image." WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is he?

There's so much media noise about the asylum seeking and official government announcements from governments that I no longer know where Edward Snowden actually is, at this point in time. I can't ascertain with any umm certainty from the news media, or more importantly, from our WP article ;o) Is Edward Snowden STILL in that airport in Moscow?

I would suggest considering the addition of an info box to the article, with a very brief time line. Item 1 could be May 1, Snowden leaves house in Hong Kong, Item 2 could be whenever he arrived in Hong Kong if we know the date. Item 3 is the date of his arrival at that airport in Moscow. Item 4 is or will be whenever we know that he has departed Moscow. I am happy to add this, but want to know what y'all think about it.

Second issue

One may not study for a Master's degree without completion of a Bachelor's degree. Snowden didn't even have a high school diploma, but he did have a GED. That qualified him for study at a community college or four year degree program. He never came close to receiving either designation. He possibly completed a class in "MS Windows 2000 Systems Engineer w/ Exchange", but there seems to be no evidence that he completed it. This is from the Washington Post:

"... Snowden also said he attended classes at Johns Hopkins on a campus in Columbia, Maryland. A spokeswoman for Johns Hopkins University said they have "no record" of Edward Snowden taking classes there. Instead, the Maryland Higher Education Commission said that someone named Ed Snowden actually took "MS Windows 2000 Systems Engineer w/ Exchange" at a for-profit entity known as Advanced Career Technologies from February 2002 to May 2002. The school offered career training in Columbia, Maryland, under the name "Computer Career Institute at Johns Hopkins University." Hopkins ended its relationship with the company in 2009 and it shut down in 2012."

As for the Master's degree, I realize that a number of sources say the following:

"In addition, Snowden did work towards a Master's Degree at the University of Liverpool, taking an online Computer Security class in 2011. Kate Mizen, head of public relations for the University of Liverpool, said he studied there, but "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the program.""

He took one online computer security class in 2011 at the University of Liverpool, which he didn't necessarily complete (after being employed by the CIA et al. as an information technology expert for four, five (?) years prior). That hardly counts as doing work toward a Master's degree. It is misleading to state that he studied for a Master's degree, while omitting the fact that he never obtained a Bachelor's degree. (This entire thing is just blowing my mind, as I know so many people who actually went to school, have credentials and experience, and could never in their wildest dreams get a job like Edward Snowden had, but that is beside the point. For that matter, I would like to have Edward Snowden's job! I'm better qualified than he was. I would hazard a guess that at least 25% of the contributors to WP articles are more qualified than Ed was for his $122,000 per year job...)

In fact, the quote as cited should be: 'A spokesperson for the university said that in 2011 Snowden registered for an online master's degree program in computer security and that "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the programme."[46]

(British spelling is in the original, in the article this is incorrectly spelt as 'program'. 2.96.96.198 (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Third issue

Finally, it would be a good idea to mention something about Edward Snowden's girlfriend. Maybe you did, I couldn't find anything. The BBC said that her name is Lindsey Wells, and that they moved out of the house together on May 1, and that Ed had photos of her pole-dancing (which surprised me, that BBC mentioned that, without further follow-up).

What happened to the girlfriend? Did she travel to Hong Kong with Ed? Is she with him now? Are both the girlfriend AND the female Wikileaks handler with Ed now, at the airport in Russia? I am not being sarcastic. I don't see this covered, and as a woman, I would really like to know. These sort of details are important and of interest to me. If there isn't any information available, that's fine. But if there is, or becomes available in time, please include it. It is topical while he is a fugitive. Later, maybe not so much, I'll concede.

Thank you for considering my requests. I would be happy to insert that info box, if you want me to. --FeralOink (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• First issue – Timeline: not so hot on that idea. He hasn't been to many places and so it seems unwarranted to dwell on such recentist and "newsy" information.

  Second issue – Liverpool Uni: We've only written about what the news outlets have said about his education history. We're not allowed to comment or speculate on stuff that hasn't been reported. Nowhere does it say or imply he obtained a Bachelors or Masters degree. The only distinction I would perhaps examine is whether he simply enrolled or whether he did submit some work for assessment, but considering his background checkers missed out on a whole lot more, it's kinda trivial in the whole scheme of things.

  Third issue – girlfriend: It may be "interesting" information, but this is the sort of unencyclopaedic gossip that I feel has no place in a WP biography. She wiped her entire online profile, so it's safe to assume that she would not want further attention on her. Her whereabouts would be a coatrack of no relevance to the storyline. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills (thank you, Matthew for the name correction!) has wiped her entire online profile, that changes things considerably. I didn't realize that, and I will trust your word on that, Ohconfucius. While you may consider it "unencyclopaedic gossip", there is far worse than that in other Wikipedia articles! But that is no justification for THIS Wikipedia article to cause shame or embarrassment. The young woman has gone to great effort to separate herself from her online persona, and is not relevant to this emotionally and politically charged event. Agreed, she should not be exposed further through Wikipedia, not unless there is information to the contrary, at some time in the future. Thank you. --FeralOink (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• • According to user 76... a few sections above, he was heard from as recently as the 6th, and the TV news programs I've seen continue to say that he's at the Russian airport. As to the abandoned girlfriend, she was discussed on muckraking TV shows like Inside Edition for a couple of days after he fled to Hong Kong, and nothing since then, so the subject doesn't warrant more than a single sentence, or maybe just part of a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure his departure from Moscow airport is not something that can take place in a clandestine manner, nor will it be an event that Russia will want to hide. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • However, it would not be surprising if it's not announced until after he arrives safely at wherever he eventually goes. Also, with the media having been burned by false rumors, they might exercise some caution, which might aid his next step. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Very true, Baseball Bugs, about the media being burned, repeatedly, on this. In today's news radio, I heard that he had officially applied for asylum in Russia. His status remains uncertain. At whatever point in time that this is resolved, I would continue to recommend an infobox, as it is confusing. Thank you to all for your responses! --FeralOink (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • • her name is Lindsay Mills, not Lindsey Wells, if I'm not wrong Matthew 13:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Key public figures: Dick Cheney and Jimmy Carter

The Public reaction has too much polling information and too much from political commentators and is missing key public figures positions.

Dick Cheney calling Snowden "a traitor" should be placed back in this article under the Public reaction section. His statement is notable, was properly referenced and was inappropriately removed from this article:

Former US Vice President Dick Cheney called Snowden "a traitor".

The above reference also includes Snowden's response.

Also, Jimmy Carter's position should be under the Public reaction section, not under the Congress reaction section:

Former US President Jimmy Carter said: "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible, but I think the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far ... I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial."

The Public reaction section should include key public figures positions such as Dick Cheney and Jimmy Carter, both of which are notable.

References

Since Cheney was highly involved in the post-9/11 situation, his view is important; and the view of any former president carries a lot of weight. Carter's comment, in fact, is well-measured. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Cheney and Carter will be perceived as too biased by dint of past office to be in the Public reaction section. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Where are you seeing bias in Carter's statement? And show me a quote in the article that's not biased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Biased or opinionated sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they're attributed. In this case, Cheney and Carter's comments are absolutely, absolutely notable and should be reinserted forthwith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No no put em in sure, but in the public section? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. Personally I'm not set on this but I think all retired officials (including members of Congress) should be in the Executive branch / Congress sections. It seems to make more sense as their views have presumably been shaped by their time in office. To lump Cheney in with the public seems especially weird. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You sum up my views exactly Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The only responses included in the sections for branches of the US government should be those that have been made by currently-serving members of the government. Individuals who are no longer serving in office do not speak for the government, cannot act on behalf of the government, cannot directly shape government policy, and in many cases may not have access to critical relevant information that active officers of the government have access to. In many cases, individuals who are no longer serving in government may also be subject to various conflicts of interest (which may or may not be hidden from the public) that are at odds with the interests of the government. Dezastru (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Another from Carter reported in Der Spiegel "America has no functioning democracy at this time." I'm leery of this quote, however, since I've not been able to find a recording, or an independent source. All others are simply quoting Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/nsa-affaere-jimmy-carter-kritisiert-usa-a-911589.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

twitter @GP Schmitz is to be followed; however, the article refers to the "Atlantic Bridge" meeting in Atlanta on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, as where Carter made that quote.

Other articles include the same quote from Der Spiegel signed by twitter @GP Schmitz

References

House Judiciary committee meeting

The exchange with Cohen is worth studying for information about logistics. One thing I picked up on, that generally seems to have been missed is sworn testimony concerning Snowden's social networks as a potential means to gain information, if not necessarily access. One other item to note: according to the testimony of Inglis to Cohen, that Snowden had a rarefied set of permissions. That the means by which his documents left the control of the NSA's facilities still isn't precisely understood.

Cohen ..... Now let me ask you this, sir: Mr Snowden, what security status did he have? He could see anything there that he wanted to? Was he limited in what he had access to?

Cole: Let me put that over to Mr Inglis.

Cohen: Sure

Inglis: Mr Snowden had a top secret special compartmented intelligence clearance, that's a standard for someone in the US intelligence community. Given access to top-secret information. He as a system administrator had additional privileges that he could set the permissions on various devices within the information systems, who could access things and how you could move data round.

Cohen: Generally how many people -- how many people generally are in the same level as he was, to access this information? Inglis: Across the population -- and again in this forum I'll be general in my description, but across the population numbering in tens of thousands you would expect hundreds of people with with -- that have those sorts of extraordinary permissions -- in a System administrator position ----

Cohen: so tens of thousands of people could have done what Snowden did?

Inglis: No sir, I'd say that perhaps hundreds. And could I make a further distinction between his privileges in terms of what he could control? Like any organization, NSA has a side of its information architecture that is intended to make information available to people so that they might discover capabilities, they might find each other, they might pass email to each other. It's intended to be a free exchange of information. But then there's a production side, that's much more rigorously controlled, and there's a need to know rule -- philosophy on that side. Now Mr. Snowden took ruthless advantage of the former and did not have access to the latter, except in some limited circumstances, in the training he undertook. In the last few months of his ----[interrupted by next question]

...

Cohen: And how did Mr Snowden take his information with him? He's got certain information in Moscow with him now. Did he -- how did he do that?

Inglis: Sir, we don't actually know precisely how he took the information and it's a matter of investigation and in due course we will know, and we would be happy to provide ----

Cohen: But he would probably taken it on some type of a disk? or some type of a little -- with him? -- at at

Inglis: I just a...

Cohen: ...from a secure facility I presume

Inglis: ...just be speculating, but that's possible

(Abridged Transcript and emphasis mine, any errors in the transcript are mine)

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/221726

Time index 1:52:00 --71.20.55.6 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'll bet the press will be picking up on this shortly as they review the transcript in detail. There's also the "2 or 3 jumps" language that people are blogging and tweeting about. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Caught that, but I haven't found a media source that really illustrates the problem as graphically as it really should be. Incidentally 3 hops allows those 300 phone queries to obtain nearly everybody in the US. if you pick 300 random people, a three hop query can easily return a million unique individuals per person, multiply those out, you can get 300 million presuming no overlap. If you pick 300 terrorists, you might have a higher degree of overlap than choosing random people, nonetheless, those queries can return an astonishing number of phone records on totally innocent individuals. The Oracle of Bacon is one example of a social graph. Below is an example on how many people a three-hop query could return on Osama Bin Ladin using the Oracle of Bacon (which is only querying the IMDB (movie/film database, and yes OBL really is in the IMDB). But if you listen to Bill Binney, he describes how these can be overlaid to form three dimensional social graphs.

Osama bin 
Laden      Number 
Number   of People
0 	1
1 	55
2 	5429
3 	536114
4 	1659852
5 	304412
6 	21074
7 	1995
8 	265
9 	23
10 	7

Total number of linkable actors: 2529227
Weighted total of linkable actors: 9923529
Average Osama bin Laden number: 3.924 

http://oracleofbacon.org/onecenter.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5ilIMeRlQ

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

PS. For fun, and illustration, you can Connect OBL and Kevin Bacon in 3 hops. Osama bin Laden (Knowledge is for Acting Upon: The Manhattan Raid (2006)) -> Rahimullah Yusufzai ("Frontline" (1983) {Return of the Taliban (#24.9)) -> Will Lyman (Mystic River (2003)) -> Kevin Bacon

http://oracleofbacon.org/movielinks.php?a=Kevin+Bacon&b=Osama+bin+Laden&use_using=1&u0=on&u1=on&use_genres=1&g0=on&g4=on&g8=on&g12=on&g16=on&g20=on&g24=on&g1=on&g5=on&g9=on&g13=on&g17=on&g21=on&g25=on&g2=on&g6=on&g10=on&g14=on&g18=on&g22=on&g26=on&g3=on&g7=on&g11=on&g15=on&g19=on&g23=on&g27=on&g28=on

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

THREE degrees of separation now.

Friends of friends, of friends.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-it-analyzes-more-peoples-data-previously-revealed/67287/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

An article explaining the mathematics, and how three hops can mean millions of people.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/you-may-already-be-a-winner-in-nsas-three-degrees-surveillance-sweepstakes/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden invited to a hearing of the European Parliament in September

The list also includes Bill Binney, Mark Klein, Glenn Greenwald, and many others.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/18/european_parliament_wants_snowden_nsa_chief_to_testify_on_u_s_spying.html

http://www.janalbrecht.eu/themen/datenschutz-und-netzpolitik/vorgeschlagene-zeugen-fuer-die-nsa-untersuchung-im-innenausschuss.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Hayden, ex-NSA chief, ex-CIA chief, is against Snowden

The title of the article doesn't say it but Hayden is also an ex-NSA chief.

• Hayden, Michael. "Ex-CIA chief: What Edward Snowden did." CNN. Friday July 19, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Legislation

Government Surveillance Transparancy Act, if passed, would allow companies to publish aggregate statistics on FISA orders, and the number of user accounts affected.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2013/07/new-bill-lets-us-companies-talk-about.html

http://larsen.house.gov/sites/larsen.house.gov/files/2013.07.Government%20Surveillance%20Transparency%20Act%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the NSA was given yet another extension by that one court.[35] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

More lawsuits against the NSA

From gun groups, religious organizations, and drug legalization advocates.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-faces-new-threat-religious-gun-and-pot-groups/67232/

Yahoo! granted the right for declassification proceedings.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-prism-yahoo-court-idUSBRE96F1A120130716

From Microsoft. A motion similar to Yahoo!'s.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-usa-security-microsoft-20130716,0,6106528.story

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama administration drowning in lawsuits filed over NSA surveillance.

http://rt.com/usa/snowden-leaks-surveillance-suits-174/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

By the time the Supreme Court hears these cases, we'll probably be in the next presidency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft's was filed in the FISC, they move quick, as they already ruled on Yahoo! --71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul Recruits for Class Action LAWSUIT against the NSA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFSgDPmsoMo.

Lots of class actions now. Here's one for $20 billion. http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/nsa-slapped-with-20-billion-class-action-suit/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Three observations for Blade-of-the-South: First, WND is World News Daily, and as Bugs Bunny trenchantly observed, unleashes a fire-storm of spam pop-up's from adshuffle and engine.4dsply, which left me feeling non-plussed and would be best not to have actual readers of WP articles be subject to. Second, that WND class action suit for $20 billion had a post date of 15 June 2013, and is iff-y. Finally, WND also has posts such as [http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/new-law-allows-obama-to-take-over-all-media/ New Law Allows Obama to Take Over All Media] (that is recent, 19 July), which isn't especially plausible. Please don't think I'm being intentionally obnoxious or critical of you, Blade-of-the-South, as you seem sincere and helpful. --FeralOink (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A whole slew of spam popups on that last site. I note that at least some of these suits are not about the NSA's activity directly, but rather about the secrecy of the court that approved it. Rand Paul, of course, is beginning a presidential campaign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes it all the more notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul is on a very short list of true libertarians in the GOP. If he does run in 2016, things could get interesting, to say the least. The question those suits seek to have answered are what was the decision process of the courts that led them to believe these activities are constitutional, along with whether the Patriot Act's authority was exceeded, and ultimately whether the Patriot Act is constitutional. That will take a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

FeralOink It was spammy wasnt it. A sloppy business model. Of course its not WP. Its a pointer, this is the talk page. Heres an even bigger suit, this time its clean in the washington post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/13/former-justice-prosecutor-seeks-23-billion-in-damages-for-nsa-surveillance-programs/

This looks damaging to the NSA also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/nsa-court-challenges-tech-firms Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Post story is more than a month old. Is there any update? Where did they get that dollar amount from? Can they prove tangible damages? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian story is from Wednesday. Today it was announced that the federal government had gotten a renewal from the secret court. Looks like it will continue until or if the high court stops it and/or Congress amends the Patriot Act. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

France government reaction

France denied on July 02 2013 the entry in french airspace to a plane because of supposition (transmitted by USA agency to french DCRI) that Edward Snowden was aboard. In reality that was the Falcon Jet of Bolivia's president Evo Morales. On July 4th, Manuel Valls, french minister of interior, said that this issue is complex and france could not legally admit asile to Edward Snowden. According to to french layer Maître Eolas, France can legally accept this kind of case with article 1 of the CRSR (Convention on Refugee status) and OFPRA (french office on refugees). Sources : "Le Canard Enchainé" - 10 Juillet 2013 - Page3 & Page8 - http://wikileaks-press.org/edward-snowden-and-france/ --78.251.14.118 (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden Has Received a Formal Nomination for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize

Excerpt from Letter written by Stefan Svallfors, Professor of Sociology at Umeå University

Through his personal efforts, he has also shown that individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms. This example is important because since the Nuremberg trials in 1945 has been clear that the slogan "I was just following orders" is never claimed as an excuse for acts contrary to human rights and freedoms. Despite this, it is very rare that individual citizens having the insight of their personal responsibility and courage Edward Snowden shown in his revelation of the American surveillance program. For this reason, he is a highly affordable candidate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2363191/Edward-Snowden-nominated-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Swedish-Professor.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, countless people can nominate someone for a nobel peace prize, and therefore, countless people are nominated every year. So a nomination alone isn't noteworthy at all. --Conti|✉ 22:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I have argued elsewhere here on WP, nomination criteria for the NPP are notoriously loose, that even one person holding an academic chair is enough to nominate. Thus, this non-discrimination nature renders the nomination near-worthless. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'd agree that the nomination itself is of debatable notability, but might be worth a line in the article. If he wins, obviously, that's another matter. Jusdafax 23:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't the list of names being given serious consideration each year supposed to be confidential? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's some interesting commentary by a writer who is sympathetic to Snowden but is also practical:[36] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't really that notable. Maybe add this to the bio of the person who nominated him.--Malerooster (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Has anything changed with this? --Malerooster (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• A Swedish sociology professor nominated. Not. If one or more of the Michal Gorbachevs or Desmond Tutus of this world had made that nomination, then maybe it would be worth a mention. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The consensus appears to me that the nomination is not sufficiently notable at this time for inclusion in the main article. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Snowden met with representatives of human rights organizations"

With regard to this claim appearing in Wikipedia without qualification, Der Spiegel has criticized a headline that is almost identical as "misleading": "Snowden Meets with Human Rights Advocates at Moscow Airport" -- made it sound as if the former intelligence contractor for America's National Security Agency (NSA) and current crusader against Internet surveillance had formed an alliance with Kremlin opponents. But, in reality, they were only meant to serve as props aimed at concealing the Kremlin's involvement.... Nikonov would have never crossed Snowden's mind without the prompting of Russian officials." See also this comment by Masha Gessen posted to nytimes.com: "Factual accuracy was another casualty of the media frenzy. All the reports I saw, in both Russian and English, stated that the fugitive intelligence contractor Edward Snowden had met with human rights activists and a Russian M.P. In fact, representatives of bona fide human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch were far outnumbered by representatives of Kremlin-affiliated agencies that exist to wage propaganda attacks — including attacks on actual human rights groups." Finally, a Russia-based writer for the New Yorker also noted that "the panel at Sheremetyevo included pro-Kremlin figures in the guise of civic activists. Such figures and organizations are common in Russia, and are used to marginalize genuine non-government watchdogs or to side with the Kremlin against its enemies." Bottom line is that this was a staged event that involved the Kremlin.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The media has started to acknowledge the Kremlin's role to a greater degree. The Washington Post quotes a human rights advocate as saying that re July 12 meeting "she went reluctantly and that the whole episode appeared to be stage-managed.... After the Friday meeting, a parade of Russian politicians urged the government to grant the asylum request, in what appeared to be a Kremlin-scripted attempt to make such a move inevitable."--Brian Dell (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Imagine that. Today the news is saying Snowden could be freed from the airport in a few days. Supposedly he has promised to reveal no more info. But what if Greenwald releases info that Snowden had given him but was not publicly known yet? Then the pressure might run the other direction: Russia could threaten to jail Snowden unless Greenwald keeps a lid on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For an indication of how modern Russia honors "human rights", check out Pussy Riot and Alexei Navalny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As an aside; there has been a development in the Navalny case. It would seem he's free while appeal is pending, and is allowed to resume his bid for mayor of Moscow. On condition that he not travel outside of Moscow.. And now back you your regularly scheduled article. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Germany uses XKeyscore

Der Spiegel reports that Germany is a prolific user of the NSA's program XKeyscore. Snowden revealed the existence of XKeysore, in relation to the NSA's operations in Latin America. But it is not stated whether he is the source of the information regarding Germany's use of it.

The article reveals some new details about XKeyscore itself.

According to an internal NSA presentation from 2008, the program is a productive espionage tool. Starting with the metadata -- or information about which data connections were made and when -- it is able, for instance, to retroactively reveal any terms the target person has typed into a search engine, the documents show. In addition, the system is able to receive a "full take" of all unfiltered data over a period of several days -- including, at least in part, the content of communications.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence-agencies-used-nsa-spying-program-a-912173.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Smells like WP:COATRACK#The_Flea. The source you give is only tangentially related to snowden and you give no suggestion for improving the article.TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I am not directly giving explicit suggestions is to avoid bias. I am merely pointing out sources, and new information. If editors find that these sources are worth including, independent of a direct suggestion. They may. Or if they find that these sources are valuable fodder for the related articles on PRISM, The 2013 mass spying scandal, or in this case XKeyscore (which didn't have it's own article last I checked), They may do so. this is also the reason that the are going on the talk page, instead of the main page. The other reason I am using the Snowden page is that is a place editors of the related articles have also been checking. It is also worth noting that this talk page is being cleaned by an archiving bot on a routine basis. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Media contradictions

Today's (online) London Times story, "Trapped Snowden accepts Putin’s offer of asylum," claims on the basis of Friday's airport news conference that he's opted for (gag order-conditioned) Russian asylum, but other reports quote officials as saying Russia "has not received an asylum bid" from him (BBC) and indeed "had had no contact with him" (NYT). Meanwhile, Reuters quotes La Nación (Rio) quoting Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald regarding a supposed "dead man's switch" whereby even weightier disclosures would automatically be made if Snowden were eliminated — a sort of classified-information Doomsday Machine. Ganz merkwürdig, as Dr. Strangelove might say.

Sca (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds like blackmail. Regardless, does the Times really know anything, or are they just trying to connect dots? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait before including any of this in the main article. Give the Bureaucracies some time to catch up and process requests. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And posturing, on the part of all involved parties. Nothing has actually happened yet, as far as we know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I found a good article via The Wall Street Journal (12 July 2013, updated 16 July 2013). WSJ journalists were actually present at the Moscow press conference. They got direct quotes from Russian officials, for example

'Mr. Snowden didn't elaborate on where he was living at the airport and declined requests for pictures, citing safety concerns, but said he felt safe and comfortable. "I asked him how he likes Russia, and he said, 'It's safe here,' " Vyacheslav Nikonov, a senior member of Russia's Parliament, said. Mr. Snowden was "well-coiffed," Mr. Nikonov said, adding that he seemed upbeat, though thin and pale. On state television late last month, Mr. Nikonov, who is a grandson of the Stalin-era foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, told viewers it would be a double standard to expel Mr. Snowden. "There's never been a single case where people who betrayed Russia were handed over by the United States or any other Western country," he said.'

For as long as WSJ doesn't have a pay wall for the good content (which I worry about, as I'm not a subscriber, wish I could be), and covers Snowden news, I belive that they are good third or second party source. --FeralOink (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PAYWALL, if the WSJ does start a paywall it doesn't change the equation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Germaneness

Rather than engage in an edit war with tippygoomba I am asserting the relevance of Private search engines to Prism, and to Snowden, and am seeking formal dispute resolution.

Here's why: Edward Snowden revealed the existence of PRISM, and other pervasive domestic and international spying programs. This information has led to the increased popularity of means by which ordinary citizens may evade such. Here is a graph showing the in of usage in DuckDuckGo immediately following his revelations.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/techchron/2013/06/24/huge-traffic-spike-hits-private-search-engines-after-nsa-leaks/

Similarly, below is an article showing the increase in traffic in ixquick and startpage, again directly related to PRISM and other revelations made by Snowden.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-prism-leaks-boost-private-search-engines-startpage-ixquick-pass-4-million-daily-searches-1346457

This trend is a direct result of the actions of Mr Snowden, and is relevant to the discussion about him.

If this user would care to assert a stronger case for non-germaneness than my case for relevance, rather than act as sole arbitrator, he or she is welcome to do so.

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The section I removed, is not related to the improvement of the article. It's promotion. One of the sources you now give is a blog, useless. But the other source looks fine. Would you like to suggest an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I prefer to stay away from editing this article directly. I have a horse in the race. A line mentioning a rise in the use of private or non-logging search engines is fine, I don't even see a need to name any particular one. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC) (AKA Paul)

I agree with 71.20.55.6 and find TippyGoomba's deletion of talk page content to be well over the line. WP:TPO doesn't provide for the removal of comments that some may see as promotional. If 71.20.55.6 can't raise these issues on the talk page then we don't even have a place to discuss whether they're promotional. And in this case I don't see 71.20.55.6's comments as promotional. He/she has made lots of valuable contributions to this article that have nothing to do with the websites allegedly being promoted. Some I have agreed with, some I have not. But to delete these types of suggestions from the talk page is totally inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's better to leave such comments in talk and then call them out as spam (or whatever) if necessary. Leaving it visible should pre-empt someone else restating the same stuff and starting the cycle again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Omission of religion?

OP editorializing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I couldn't see any reference to his religion or more importantly religious upbringing - if that had happened. Psychologically I think it is of interest to know if he had to go to Sunday school and church often as a young child. Sometimes children really take these teachings about honesty, morality, and ethics to heart but when they've grown up they discover the real world does not operate like that. They become disenchanted and so deeply disappointed that they do unusual things. Could Snowden have been one of those who couldn't handle the contradictions? 144.136.192.37 (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC) The "Childhood, family and education" section lists his religion as Buddhism. Beyond this datum, I haven't seen any non-editorial sources indicating that religion played a role in his decision process. None of Snowden's statements have mentioned it to date. We have the Poitras Interview, a q/a with the Guardian's readers, two statements released via wikileaks, a meeting with human rights activists, and a one paragraph asylum request, and a reply to Gordon Humphrey's letter. He does maintain a contact with Greenwald, but none of his articles, nor any of his numerous interviews mentions religion. I've not even spotted anyone else who had contact with Snowden mentioning it either. Which is a long-winded way to say that there's nothing to go on. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I don't recall religion ever having come up other that earlier questions raised on this page. Meanwhile, his seeking of asylum in repressive nations like China and Russia indicates he has no problem with moral and ethical contradictions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Please stop adding your personal opinion of the subject. This isn't a forum for that. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I assume you're talking to the OP, as his question is dripping with editorial comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) No, I think Jonathunder was talking to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Regardless, he needs to direct that criticism to the OP, who asked a seriously loaded question that made many unwarranted assumptions about the guy. If he had simply asked, "Does anyone know what the guy's religion was?" that would have been fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC) It sounds like you see this talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Am I correct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) No, I see a need to stand up to the nauseating hero-worship and anti-Americanism on this page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)