Hello. Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I am truly ignorant on this. What is/are the difference/s between Snowden and Assange? To me, they both revealed secrets from the US governments. But I am just wondering which one of them is the good guy. And who I should listen to. But most importantly if they are the same or different. Thanks.
Depends on who you ask. Snowden was a mole who stole government intel. Assange disseminates secrets from other hackers and leakers, never worked for the US gubt.
Shoot 'em both. Or send 'em to prison for life, although I don't like the idea of spending taxpayer money on either of 'em. Assange has been accused of rape, and the charges were eventually dropped, and his desire is to cripple the US.
Snowden obviously committed crimes, including espionage, and has defected to Russia. So if the US ever gets their hands on him, he faces trial and pretty clearly conviction of multiple felony counts. As for Assange, I'm unclear on if he has broken any US laws. His site plays more the role of a media source and would have First Amendment protections. As to whether he's a "bad guy" or not, he is an anti--American leftist, so probably yeah!
The only difference between these two, is where you should put the knot of the noose, in the back or to the side.
Why do you think Snowden broken the laws? If the government did something illegal, bad, or otherwise morally questionable, isn't it a good thing that someone exposed this to the public?
Snowden signed a non disclosure agreement and violated that. He stole highly classified information and disseminated it to foreign parties. Those are crimes, so yes, he broke laws. As to your question, if he was a whistleblower he could have handled it as a whistleblower. There are routes to do that. Stealing the information and fleeing the country to go first to China, and then Russia, is not the usual whistleblower route. Anyway, I've yet to hear that anything he released was illegal under US law.
I see. So what would be the "proper" route for a whistleblower to take, then? Also, if a would-be whistleblower has to sign a non disclosure agreement always then how can he ever expose any government wrong-doing?
You actually make a good point. I don't know how safe "proper channel's are for whistleblowers. There seem to be a lot of tragic "suicides" that have occurred around the Capital.
Snowden did what he did for moral reasons; Assange does what he does for vanity. Thats my read on it at least. Snowden leaked classified information on the extent of our government's surveillance on American citizens. Assange runs Wikileaks and largely decides what he will disseminate from hackers/leakers depending on his mood. Snowden is exiled in Moscow; because he broke laws and would face extradition in most other countries. Assange lives (or did on my last check) in the Ecuadorian embassy in London (also fearing extradition to Sweden for unrelated crimes which I believe were recently dropped, but he still fears arrest from the UK and the US for leaks). In my own view; what Snowden did was dangerous but principled. I want to know how my government surveilled me; but of course we cannot have people disseminating classified information. What he did was damaging to us, but perhaps necessary? I can't make up my mind. Assange I view more as a troll.
Well we won't really know will we since Snowden never attempted any step of this. He never even complained to his supervisor.
