Thoreau, Snowden, and The Duty of Civil Disobedience

[Sancho]

Does Edward Snowden have chutzpah, or is he just a schmuck? Is he a hero or a villain? Do his actions rise to the standard called for by Henry David Thoreau in his essay on Civil Disobedience? (It's a quick read and a free download)

Thoreau wrote the essay in the mid-1800s. He was disgusted by the institution of slavery and was convinced that the U.S. War with Mexico was unconstitutional. He believed both were economic expedients and neither rose to a level of virtue that should be demanded by a free people. He believed it was the duty of a free man to resist the government in cases such as these and stand up for the "right."


There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

So I'm struggling with this. Do you-all think Ed Snowden's actions rise to this level?

[YesNo]

I've heard that Snowden did something with classified information, but I don't know what it is he did nor why.

[Emil Miller]

This is an interesting case that was mentioned on LBC a British radio station quite recently.
The same question was posed as to whether Snowden was to be praised or condemned for
stealing a vast amount of classified information that has compromised the security of the USA.
A former CIA agent (now retired) pointed out that Snowden couldn't be classed as a spy as he
simply acted as a medium for passing on information to the US from various sources and as an
employee of the US government. In attempting to flee the country his passport was revoked
leaving him stateless when his plane landed in Moscow on his way to South America.
According to the ex CIA man, it was possible that the Russians had been in contact with Snowden
and the intention to go to Latin America might have been a smokescreen.

It seems a prima facie case of treason until one realises (as the documents show) that US
government agencies have been spying on their own citizens and those of other countries without just cause.
There is also the fact, as anyone who has worked with classified documents will know, that virtually any
piece of paper in certain government departments will be classified and that includes a great deal of stuff that
is of no use to anyone except those immediately dealing with it.

So it seems there are two aspects to the question:

US citizens are going to have to pay for a major overhaul of their security systems.

Conversely, they now know that they are either being monitored or are potential
candidates for monitoring by their own government without their knowledge; as is
virtually anyone in countries that come within the USA's sphere of influence.

[YesNo]

Based on the idea that he was telling one group in the US that they were being spied on by a US government agency without just cause seems to put him in the hero category in my opinion.

(That statement will likely guarantee that I never get a top level security clearance.)

[Sancho]

I'm still uncertain, but I may be beginning to lean that way. Snowden is certainly an intelligent man and he knew there would be consequences for his actions and he is paying the price now. He did what he thought was right, very much in the spirit of Thoreau's essay:


It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

I think Thoreau is being a little playful there. But there's a huge difference between Henry David Thoreau acting as a private citizen and Ed Snowden acting as government agent charged with handling classified information and having sworn an oath to protect that information.

Do we really want all of the government people with access to Top Secret info to take it upon themselves, based on their own reading of the constitution, to divulge whatever they see fit?

At any rate, Yesno, I wouldn't sweat the security clearance. I've had a TS most of my adult life and I've never gotten to see anything really juicy - where's Hoffa, who killed Kennedy, the formula for Coca-Cola, nothing like that. As Emil said, most of it is about as boring as reading the phone book. Although back in the 80s we used to get some pretty cool classified photos of Soviet equipment. 9 times out of 10 there'd be a guy mugging for the camera, standing in front of a tank or an airplane or something. Obviously, his buddy had said something like, "Hey, Dimitri, come over here and get your picture took in front of this Mig." So if the photo leaked back to the CCCP, it wouldn't be too tough to figure out who took it, and that guy'd get a one-way ticket to Siberia.

[YesNo]

After discussing the Apollo moon landings with Emil in a separate thread, what I'd like to find out with a security clearance is whether those 1970s missions were manned. It is probably not something Snowden would have been interested in enough to look into when he had the chance.

[Emil Miller]

I very much doubt that the Apollo missions came within the purview of Snowden's work but, as far as Thoreau's essay is concerned it does pose a dilemma for the average citizen. Most sensible people have a revulsion of lawlessness and disorder and realise the necessity for the responsibility that must go hand in hand with civil rights. Back in Thoreau's day the issue was more clear cut but the advent of IT has changed the whole perspective of how the average citizen is to behave in a world where technology has brought an Orwellian future disturbingly into focus. The ability to control the lives of millions of people through the use of algorithms has arrived and the power and wealth it produces is falling into the hands of the few who control them.
In this situation it's not surprising that some people such as Snowden will try to warn the general populace of the danger they are facing and, seen in this light, he should be regarded as a hero.

[Lokasenna]

I make every effort to work the phrases 'bomb', 'jihad' and 'kill all humans' into every Skype conversation I have, plus a cheery greeting for the CIA bloke who's listening in. I hope it makes his day more entertaining than mine.

I'm broadly in support of Mr Snowden. Whilst I would not be overly keen on having people doing what they think is right, instead of what is merely lawful, all the time - anarchy is a lovely idea, but I doubt it'd work in practice for very long - Snowden's actions, seen as a symbolic gesture towards a sinister and impersonal surveillance state, are important. Whilst we have a right to be protected from criminals to the best of the state's abilities, this must be counter-weighted by a reasonable degree of respect for the law-abiding individual's right to privacy. It is not the business of America, or anyone else, to spy on the world. If a private individual was hoarding vast amounts of net data, to be stored and accessed for personal gain and convenience, they would quickly find themselves subject to pursuit, capture, and a long stint at the Hague - and the CIA would probably be in the vanguard of agencies pursuing him. The same rules should apply to states.

I'm almost certain my country's version of the CIA, MI5, has a dossier on me due to various political things I was involved in during my undergraduate days - I know for a fact that some people who were in a similar position to me were covertly investigated and monitored. Sadly for whoever might have been watching me, I lead a very boring life. But even if I didn't have a boring life, don't I have the right to a private one?

[Emil Miller]

According to yesterday's Le Monde, Secretary of State John Kerry advised Snowden on Wednesday to return to the United States to face justice if he is a 'man' and a 'patriot'. Snowden has told NBC that he want's to return one day.
I don't see it happening soon, although one never knows how these things will pan out but, given Kerry's recent involvement in Syria and the Ukraine, it would seem imprudent to follow his advice in this particular case.

[Sancho]

It sounds almost as though Secretary Kerry is channeling Henry David Thoreau in that statement. (Man and a Patriot) Both are from Massachusetts anyway. You know John Kerry had his own moment of civil disobedience over the Vietnam War when he threw away his Army medals.

At any rate, I'd like to see Snowden come home to face the music. He certainly has plenty of supporters here - an odd group of far left liberals and far right libertarians. And he has plenty of detractors - pretty much everybody else. There's no doubt he'd do some hard time, probably at the military prison on Fort Leavenworth, but he wouldn't fry. We save the chair for the Ethel and Julius Rosenbergs of the world. The Rosenbergs were spying for the Soviets, but Snowden was acting on behalf of the American (and other) people. A trial would be fascinating if for nothing else, for what is allowed into evidence. There'd be plenty plenty of governmental agencies squirming.


I make every effort to work the phrases 'bomb', 'jihad' and 'kill all humans' into every Skype conversation I have, plus a cheery greeting for the CIA bloke who's listening in. I hope it makes his day more entertaining than mine.

Haha! Funny you say that. For a security clearance over here, you get an extensive background check and an interview every 5 years. My last one was in 2010 (I've since retired from the AF Reserve). Since it was my last one, and I didn't really give a rip anymore, I made sure to visit just about every red-flag web site I could think of before the interview (Al Qaida's social network, where to buy a truckload of ammonium nitrate, how to build a thermo-nuclear device, stuff like that) and sure enough my clearance was held up for a couple of weeks, but then they gave it to me anyway - woo-hoo!

[YesNo]

If a private individual was hoarding vast amounts of net data, to be stored and accessed for personal gain and convenience, they would quickly find themselves subject to pursuit, capture, and a long stint at the Hague - and the CIA would probably be in the vanguard of agencies pursuing him.


The way ad agencies select the kinds of ads we get on a smart phone or tablet or even on lit net implies they know a lot about each of us or rather our devices. We sort of want them to do this. I don't want to receive ads I'm not interested in. Of course, some of us don't want to receive ads at all.

We installed an app, Life360, (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.life360.android.safetymapd) on our phones to make sure we know where the kids are when they haven't called in. It also gives a history of where each of us have been. Individuals can get a lot of information about others as well.

[mortalterror]

I figure that Snowden and Manning are crackpots. Unfortunately, they are like the tea party crackpots and there is a kernel of truth to their grievances. But their actions tend to be out of all proportion, their perception of what is actually going on is wildly distorted, and their solution is more harmful than the inequity they were trying to oppose. Should the government be spying on it's citizens? No. Should Snowden have released that information? Yes. Should he have released the rest of the classified documents that harmed our national security, impaired our relationships with other nations, and helped our enemies? No. Did he expose the malfeasance responsibly, so that nobody else would get hurt and the information would wind up in the right hands? No. Did he have the courage of his convictions to stay in the country and justify his actions? No, he ran off to live in Cuba, then Russia, those bastions of freedom and havens of democracy. He's a traitor.

Think of him like you would a cop who is pursuing a criminal in an irresponsible manner that winds up getting innocent civilians harmed. We don't let cops carry on high speed pursuits through crowded residential areas, and we don't let them engage in shootouts in public markets. Restraint is necessary, by those attempting to do good, so that they don't inadvertently do wrong. In Snowden's case I see no restraint. He doesn't care who he hurts, and doesn't seem to have given a thought for the possible consequences of his actions beyond trying to personally avoid them. And isn't that exactly the behavior he was trying to expose?

[Emil Miller]

An interesting analogy: here in the UK we have had a number of innocent deaths involving police chasing suspects but it doesn't invalidate the grounds for pursuit.

[Sancho]

Indeed, mortalterror, but so we keep this to a quasi literary discussion and not fall into political sniping, do you think Snowden's actions are in line with Thoreau's philosophy, and by extension, was Thoreau a crackpot? Many of his contemporaries thought he was.

I think the Bradley Manning comparison is unfair. Manning, it seems to me, was simply a disturbed young man, who probably never should have had a security clearance in the first place. Snowden knew exactly what he was doing, and I think he knew roughly what the consequences would be.

[mortalterror]

Thoreau was a brilliant man and a philosopher. But his civil resistance amounted to little more than refusing to pay his taxes, for which he was then placed in jail. You see, he stood on principle and went to jail to make his statement. Snowden fled his home country to avoid having to face the music. That's just one way that they are different. For civil resisters like Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Nelson Mandela, getting arrested and forcing the establishment into a public trial was part of the resistance, and part of highlighting the inequity they wished to expose. They wanted their day in court when all the dirty laundry would be aired. Of course, in the end Thoreau was released when his friends paid his taxes for him, and the whole thing didn't amount to much, so maybe he should have taken a different stand than the one he took.

[Lokasenna]

The way ad agencies select the kinds of ads we get on a smart phone or tablet or even on lit net implies they know a lot about each of us or rather our devices. We sort of want them to do this. I don't want to receive ads I'm not interested in. Of course, some of us don't want to receive ads at all.

We installed an app, Life360, (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.life360.android.safetymapd) on our phones to make sure we know where the kids are when they haven't called in. It also gives a history of where each of us have been. Individuals can get a lot of information about others as well.

I use AdBlock, so I'm not deluged in adverts - but I'm not particularly keen on my devices keeping tabs on my purchasing habits/browsing history in order to target their adverts at me. I've very much in the camp of not wanting to get any adverts at all.

Monitoring your children is part of your parental responsibility - if they're young, it's your duty to keep tabs on them. But if they're capable adults, then they have a right not to be monitored, by their parents or anyone else. The idea of a government, say, monitoring children is deeply sinister. I assume your kids aren't in their thirties or anything?


Haha! Funny you say that. For a security clearance over here, you get an extensive background check and an interview every 5 years. My last one was in 2010 (I've since retired from the AF Reserve). Since it was my last one, and I didn't really give a rip anymore, I made sure to visit just about every red-flag web site I could think of before the interview (Al Qaida's social network, where to buy a truckload of ammonium nitrate, how to build a thermo-nuclear device, stuff like that) and sure enough my clearance was held up for a couple of weeks, but then they gave it to me anyway - woo-hoo!

Goodness - I think you were lucky to get cleared!

[Sancho]

^I just wanted to know if they were tracking my online habits - pretty sure they were. I'll bet it was that degenerate website The Litnet that really had them scratching their heads.

mortalterror, I agree, Thoreau's jail time wasn't much and he probably knew in advance it wouldn't be much. I heard that Ralf Waldo Emerson visited him while he was in. Evidently, Emerson said something like, "Dave, what the hell are you doing in here?" Thoreau replied with something like, "Ralfy, why the hell aren't you in here?"

Whatever the case, there were many abolitionists voices being heard back then. Twenty or so years later, the U.S. would fight its bloodiest war ever over it. John Brown, a true crackpot, and his raid on Harper's Ferry seems to have been a tipping point.

I totally agree with your other examples. Nelson Mandela had conviction and did serious jail time. MLK not only did jail time in Birmingham, but paid for his convictions with his life. Gandhi worked his entire life for equality from without as well as within.

Socrates had the conviction to drink the hemlock tea when he didn't really have to. He thought his convictions would be a sham if he didn't drink the potion. But then, years later Aristotle fled Athens, with the statement that he could not allow Athens to commit a second crime against philosophy.

At any rate, I think jail time is a means, not an end. Snowden still has a voice in exile. Just last week Brian Williams secretly traveled to Moscow to get an interview with him. I watched it. He didn't seem unhinged or crazy. Rather he seemed thoughtful and reflective. This is pure speculation, but I'll bet he eventually comes back to face the music. As for now, hope he's enjoying the borscht.

[YesNo]

Monitoring your children is part of your parental responsibility - if they're young, it's your duty to keep tabs on them. But if they're capable adults, then they have a right not to be monitored, by their parents or anyone else. The idea of a government, say, monitoring children is deeply sinister. I assume your kids aren't in their thirties or anything?


My children are still in school, but there is no need to cyber stalk them anymore. Once they are finally on their own, paying their own phone bills, insurance, gas, and so on, they may find there is no need to have that app on their phone except to stalk us.

[AuntShecky]

I saw Brian Williams interview Ed Snowden on TV and thought that he (Snowden) seemed earnest. I was waiting for him to say that if he hadn't spilled the beans he wouldn't have been able to sleep at night. And he did!

Now that the above seems like I'm defending him, I wonder if that intensifies the redness of flags the NSA has supposedly already put on my emails and text messages.

I have a feeling, though that "doubleclick" and other Internet entitities out there spy on us more than the government does. That's not counting all the folks who willingly submit personal info -- and photos of their kids, yet! -- on Facebook, Twitter, etc.


hope he's enjoying the borscht. Now that's asking for the impossible!