Snow Way Out?

Hello there,

Like many people, I have been held captivated by the ever unfolding saga of Edward Snowden. Actually, that is perhaps putting it somewhat mildy... I think it's safe to say I have become slightly obsessed. Every twist and turn, every article and blog I can find, I devour like a starved man.

We live in the dawn of a new era, and as this strange, new, technological landscape unfurls before our eyes it is paramount we try to get it right from the get go.

It is naive to think the political powers of the world don't have the technological know-how to check up on our every virtual move. However, the fact is, just because they have this power, doesn't mean they should feel it is their right to wield it. I have the power to rob a person, or kill someone but I choose not to, instead I choose to respect the rights of people; their right to life, their right to property etc, and I do not use power in a negative way because it is, quite simply, wrong and unjust.

Respecting and adhering to human rights is the very cornerstone of ethics.

So why do the 'ethical' American government feel, that under the thin veil of 'protection in the name of preventing terror', that they can use their power in whichever way they want? Terrorists existed before the advent of the internet and mobile phones when we had infinitely more privacy and terrorists will continue to exist when we don't, they will find ways to avoid technological detection.
Snooping on us indiscriminately in the name of our safety?  I feel patronised. Okay I will concede that in the right circumstance, surveillance can be beneficial.. However, if such an instance does occur, shouldn't the NSA consult judges in the suspect's country instead of simply their own and shouldn't the government of the suspect be privvy to such information?

Snowden has done the right thing. The whole affair has gone from strength to strength, showing the secrets of American surveillance and exposing just how little power America yields over China and Russia, Ecuador, Venezuela... exposing to the public their own waning power.

As Snowden languishes in limbo, stuck in the no man's land of Shermetyevo airport and waiting on the ever unlikely acceptance of his Ecuadorian asylum request, I find myself getting a little suspicious. Considering that Venezuela has publicly backed the NSA whistleblower and has extended an offer of asylum, I'm not entirely sure why Snowden is still holding out on Ecuador? Perhaps I am missing something, I am but a humble accounts assistant, however I cannot quite comprehend why, with at least two Latin American countries considering asylum, did Snowden feel the need to travel to a country that has an extradition treaty in place with America?

Whilst I wholeheartedly support Edward Snowden, I can't shake the niggling suspicion that at least part of the whole saga may be somewhat staged. If Snowden was already in a safe country when he spoke to The Guardian, would the world have stayed as enthralled as long as we have with Snowden's revelations? I am inclined to think not, the danger and thrill of an impossible situation, escaping from America's clutches at the last minute as an administrative error prevents extradition to his home country, liaising with the anti-secrecy powerhouse Wikileaks, stuck in an airport with no way out... throw in a love story and it sounds more like next summer's blockbuster. Which it probably will be.

Regardless of this, if Snowden's actions were to generate as much publicity for as long as possible, is that really a bad thing? Drawing as much attention as possible to the leak that gave us definitive proof that the American government can and are keeping tabs on people world wide (although not in their own country of course, they do have principles after all) is a good thing in my opinion.

We need more people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, people who are willing to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of the truth. People who place naked government secrets on the worldwise stage and give us, the plain old common people, the opportunity to decide if their actions are good, just and moral. After all, governments should be accountable to their people. With that in mind, should we really allow the prosecution of those who brings such dark secrets to light? If immoral actions are perhaps the only course of action shouldn't we at least be granted opportunity to have an input into such decisions, particularly if heinous and hideous crimes are frequently being committed in our name?

Who knows how this will all pan out, I guess we'll just have to wait with baited breath and hope for the best outcome. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the future of our privacy depends on it.

Lora.