Let’s Side with Snowden
Published in Krytyka Polityczna
(Poland) on 8 October 2013
by Katarzyna Szymielewicz (link to
original)
In a few days the European Parliament will grant the prestigious Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. One of the nominees is Edward Snowden — the man who sparked the global debate on the limits of what is acceptable surveillance. Just like Andrei Sakharov, Snowden defected and risked everything to shed some light on abuse of government power. However, he chose a much tougher opponent: Not totalitarianism, but the global, quasi-democratic control system, which is also legitimized by EU institutions. Therefore, his chances of winning the prize from the hands of politicians are close to zero.
Looks like we haven’t discovered anything new. Spies spy. Private companies have to cooperate with them because this is what the valid law orders them to do. The European Union has to give in, as the business it carries out with the U.S. is more important than human laws. The world is rotten and Snowden himself isn’t any better since he ducked responsibility by fleeing to a place where controllers are doing well. He must be a spy. With such a way of thinking we gain double comfort: moral superiority and a feeling of impotence, which absolves us from responsibility. If nothing can be done about it, we don’t even have to try. The game is over.
However, Edward Snowden has kicked over the table. Thanks to him, we have a chance to start the next round with new rules. Thanks to his intransigence, we have gained evidence that the emperor is naked.
Up till now we have just been whispering or guessing. We obviously don't know why he did what he did. Therefore, the choice we have is the following: We can judge him by his intentions, which are unknown, or by what he actually did. If we really have to speculate, it makes more sense to wonder where Snowden would be today if Poland or any other country considering itself democratic had offered him a safe haven. Unfortunately, none of them did.
Long before Snowden, there were other whistle-blowers. They also talked about the global control system ruled by American intelligence services. William Binney, the man who himself built programs similar to PRISM, has revealed the most. He defected for the same reasons Snowden did. However, he didn't go as far: He didn't steal away and publish confidential documents. Such an act of courage — or as some would say, stupidity — was needed so that all those who so far have just heard something about the surveillance could now see it with their own eyes and believe.
Before Snowden, we only guessed that the biggest Internet companies have been cooperating with secret services, and services of different countries, including European ones, exchanging the “trophies” amongst each one another; that these services have access to our data without any court’s control; that even encrypted information is not safe enough, as all software can have its “back door;” that data kept in the cloud is not secure. Now we have the evidence. What we are going to do with that is a different matter. Will it be the beginning of a global affair, which — just as the Watergate scandal once did — will lead in a few years to a political breakthrough? All in all, that depends on us. We do not have to use the opportunity, but we cannot stay indifferent to the man who risked a great deal to give us this choice.
There is one more reason why we should take his side. It’s a reason for those who feel no need to change the world because they still believe in the good intentions of those in power. In order to work effectively, authorities need secrets. A monopoly on secrets, just like a monopoly on violence, is granted by a social agreement, which relies on trust and belief in good intentions. Whistle-blowers are our only chance to negotiate such an agreement. We need a thousand Snowdens — people in the know, who will be loyally serving the government only up to the moment when it loses logic. It is their conscience that allows us to control the controllers.
On Oct. 10, 2013 political party leaders in the European Parliament will decide whom to award the Sakharov Prize, set up in 1988 to honor individuals fighting for human rights, including the freedom of speech. The prize has never been given to anyone who stood against a regime considered democratic. Past prizewinners fought for freedom in the context of black and white division into totalitarian authorities and oppressed citizens. Edward Snowden doesn’t fit into this pattern: He acted against U.S. politics and questioned the global control system, approved, to a great extent, by EU countries. He could become a model example of an activist fighting for universal values that go beyond national borders and a conventional division into ''the democratic world'' and the rest. He could, if we had enough courage to acknowledge his rights. Will the European Parliament be this brave? Doubtful.
Nevertheless, we still have the choice. Even if we cannot change the world, we can help Snowden.
Looks like we haven’t discovered anything new. Spies spy. Private companies have to cooperate with them because this is what the valid law orders them to do. The European Union has to give in, as the business it carries out with the U.S. is more important than human laws. The world is rotten and Snowden himself isn’t any better since he ducked responsibility by fleeing to a place where controllers are doing well. He must be a spy. With such a way of thinking we gain double comfort: moral superiority and a feeling of impotence, which absolves us from responsibility. If nothing can be done about it, we don’t even have to try. The game is over.
However, Edward Snowden has kicked over the table. Thanks to him, we have a chance to start the next round with new rules. Thanks to his intransigence, we have gained evidence that the emperor is naked.
Up till now we have just been whispering or guessing. We obviously don't know why he did what he did. Therefore, the choice we have is the following: We can judge him by his intentions, which are unknown, or by what he actually did. If we really have to speculate, it makes more sense to wonder where Snowden would be today if Poland or any other country considering itself democratic had offered him a safe haven. Unfortunately, none of them did.
Long before Snowden, there were other whistle-blowers. They also talked about the global control system ruled by American intelligence services. William Binney, the man who himself built programs similar to PRISM, has revealed the most. He defected for the same reasons Snowden did. However, he didn't go as far: He didn't steal away and publish confidential documents. Such an act of courage — or as some would say, stupidity — was needed so that all those who so far have just heard something about the surveillance could now see it with their own eyes and believe.
Before Snowden, we only guessed that the biggest Internet companies have been cooperating with secret services, and services of different countries, including European ones, exchanging the “trophies” amongst each one another; that these services have access to our data without any court’s control; that even encrypted information is not safe enough, as all software can have its “back door;” that data kept in the cloud is not secure. Now we have the evidence. What we are going to do with that is a different matter. Will it be the beginning of a global affair, which — just as the Watergate scandal once did — will lead in a few years to a political breakthrough? All in all, that depends on us. We do not have to use the opportunity, but we cannot stay indifferent to the man who risked a great deal to give us this choice.
There is one more reason why we should take his side. It’s a reason for those who feel no need to change the world because they still believe in the good intentions of those in power. In order to work effectively, authorities need secrets. A monopoly on secrets, just like a monopoly on violence, is granted by a social agreement, which relies on trust and belief in good intentions. Whistle-blowers are our only chance to negotiate such an agreement. We need a thousand Snowdens — people in the know, who will be loyally serving the government only up to the moment when it loses logic. It is their conscience that allows us to control the controllers.
On Oct. 10, 2013 political party leaders in the European Parliament will decide whom to award the Sakharov Prize, set up in 1988 to honor individuals fighting for human rights, including the freedom of speech. The prize has never been given to anyone who stood against a regime considered democratic. Past prizewinners fought for freedom in the context of black and white division into totalitarian authorities and oppressed citizens. Edward Snowden doesn’t fit into this pattern: He acted against U.S. politics and questioned the global control system, approved, to a great extent, by EU countries. He could become a model example of an activist fighting for universal values that go beyond national borders and a conventional division into ''the democratic world'' and the rest. He could, if we had enough courage to acknowledge his rights. Will the European Parliament be this brave? Doubtful.
Nevertheless, we still have the choice. Even if we cannot change the world, we can help Snowden.
Previous article![]( "A Likely End to Obama's Political Dreams")
Next article![]( "The American Crisis and Its Implications for the Jordanian Economy")
