While reading "Não", I almost heard bossa nova music in my head.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has apparently offered Brazil help in uncovering US surveillance of the South American nation – in a fresh plea for asylum. In an open letter published today by the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, it appears Snowden reckons he can assist in sniffing out NSA spying and protect peeps from …
Tuesday 17th December 2013 23:16 GMT Matt Bryant
Can't really blame him for trying.
After all, I wouldn't like to go from sunny Hawaii and a top-dollar job to working the helldesk in Moscow in mid-Winter! I'd certainly be hankering after some Rio beach time and some salsa action! Shame for Snowdope that actions have consequences....
His value expired when he admitted he had given all his docs and control of them to Miranda's sugar daddy, now Snowdope has nothing left to bargain with and offers nothing more than heat from the States for any country willing to shelter him. Silly boy!
Wednesday 18th December 2013 06:26 GMT amanfromMars 1
Re: Can't really blame him for trying.
You might like to read/research more about this .... http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/fact-sheets/tshwane-principles-national-security-and-right-information-overview-15-points ..... which might suggest that Snowden is being illegally persecuted for simply educating one and all about dodgy shenanigans which are impacting badly upon billions of lives.
And as for Moscow being in any way bleak in mid-winter, or at any time for that matter, well ..... that must be why the women are so beautiful and accommodating. But that hasn't been a secret for ages, back in the USSR :-)
Wednesday 18th December 2013 13:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Can't really blame him for trying.
Funny thing Matt, once common sense prevails, opinions change.
Looks like the tide is beginning to turn towards Snowden. At least to those who understand what he did to bring attention to the illegal NSA wiretapping of half the world was heroic if not entirely thought out.
Tuesday 17th December 2013 23:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wednesday 18th December 2013 00:10 GMT arrbee
Hmm, lets see; he has lost his job, lost his pension rights etc, he is at risk of losing his liberty, and none of the appropriate authorities are doing anything about his claims, preferring instead to "play the man".
Sounds like a bog-standard whistle-blower to me, thats exactly how we treat them in the UK (especially if deaths are involved).
Wednesday 18th December 2013 01:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
@AC - So to summarise your tirade, you're just shooting the messenger.
Sir David, Is that you?
Are you really arguing for a society that lives in blissful ignorance of the lies, manipulation, control & deceit practiced by the rulers of the so-called pillars of the free world?!?
If so, we might as well just scrap Parliament and become subservient to the will of some unelected monarch/president/emperor/fuhrer who tells us what's "best" for us. And when Cameron starts cheerleading for withdrawing from the ECHR, and replacing it with er, nothing, any dissenters will be royally screwed.
You'll be telling us next that the Stasi didn't really abuse their powers, they were just misunderstood...
Wednesday 18th December 2013 03:14 GMT Don Jefe
You're spot on about him having no defense. He really did screw himself with some of his public statements, but that's also how he'll ultimately get out of a lot of trouble. They'll say he was simply bigging himself up to increase his exposure and his level of protection. Nothing he's said is admissible in court anyway, he can position it anyway he wants.
But I disagree that he isn't a whistleblower. He really had no other option. Whistleblower laws and rules here in the States specifically exclude sensitive information as a valid whistleblowing topic. Any if it. Whistleblower laws also don't apply to contractors, they are explicitly excluded. Even if he had gone up the chain of command he would have been breaking the law as would his overseers had they told anyone else.
So he could either sit on the info or go public. Our laws simply don't allow people to report a lot if really bad things.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 08:14 GMT tom dial
Wednesday 18th December 2013 13:50 GMT Don Jefe
That's just it, he was not eligible for protected whistleblower status, ever. Besides the fact no Federal contractors can receive whistleblower protections, passing sensitive information, even up your own chain of command to somebody with a higher clearance even, is illegal even if the information you're passing on is related to illegal activities.
I wish he hadn't spouted off some of the things he did, but I'm not sure what other choices he had. He could have not told anyone about the surveillance, or he could have gone as public as possible. He wasn't ever going to get legal whistleblower status. I'm glad he chose to tell us, if for no other reason than general awareness.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 04:18 GMT cracked
The problem Eddie is facing is that the only place that would have him (because it gave Vlad a good ol' laugh) only wanted him while it was a laugh. And any joke wears thin after 12 months or so.
And so he is left with a choice of either begging to stay in Russia (again), or begging other governments to take him in (often with the ludicrous offer, that he can help other governments - and their citizens - defend themselves from the US of A . Who is he, Superman?!)
And the issue with that is that it is governments who Eddie has exposed.
He can't claim asylum from the people (who he believes he has helped), because asylum is granted by governments, not people. And - despite the ludicrous outrage from a small set of governments, who can get away with claiming they are too poor to have security-services that spy - (almost) every government is implicated (or trying desperately - like India - to show that they will be soon).
I don't think Eddie is/was stupid. I think Eddie was naive. Naive to believe that only the US of A was bad and naive to expect the world still to care, once/when he became/becomes old news.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 04:44 GMT Persona non grata
I'm just surprised by the number of
GCHQ staff posting on the Reg.
The authoritarian lickspittles I'm used to (Hi Matt B!) but the anonymous spooks are every bit as transparent as you'd expect. They're frankly lousy at PR and spin which is why so few of us were really surprised at Snowdon's revelations.
Perhaps if you hired a really good PR firm, not just one your wife's cousin owns we'd get some half believeable disinformation out of you. Remember, your public has become better at spotting your bullshit.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 06:49 GMT amanfromMars 1
Re: I'm just surprised by the number of
Hi, Persona non grata
Here be a little something for GCHQ staff to consider ......
The resulting lack of accountability in combination with the special powers that intelligence services enjoy bears a high risk of abuse of power, illegality and a culture of impunity, especially taking into consideration the temptation to use the granted special powers for other purposes than the protection of national security (for instance for economic/industrial or diplomatic espionage or for political reasons). Given these dangers, countries are facing the challenge of creating specific oversight mechanisms to hold intelligence services to account for their policies and actions in terms of legality, propriety, effectiveness and efficiency, while ensuring confidentiality. …. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/dec/2013-12-12-ep-wd5-democratic-oversight-ms-intelligence.pdf
In both the real world and in virtual fields of absolute command and relatively remote anonymous control with cyber domain dominion, [and any distinction and perceived separation of those spaces and imaginary places disappears at the SMARTR IntelAIgent Singularity Interface] are not intelligent agents granted by any peering oversight accountable body their special powers, which would quite rightly be of genuine grave concern to all and sundry because of that which can so easily be done by such intelligent agents to power human and virtual machine control systems that be easily subjects and objects for wanton personally gratifying abuse and misuse, they [their special secret stealthy powers] be autonomously assumed and exercised …… and in the most fortunate of peerless oversight accounting bodies, freely steganographically advertised as being readily available for ……. well, one imagines experimental global beta use to combat and curtail and/or search and destroy intelligence abuse[rs] and misuse[rs]
One imagines that invents the realisation of a Special Secret Forces Global Command Head Quartered Operation which would choose to provide to suitably vetted peering personnel, in return for all that be needed and requested by servering operands, oversight and advance advice on future product promotion/intelligence information dumping for Prime Power Pumping and Pimping is the Program and APT App quite well enough described in a very few words.
Does the EU propose to/Is the EU prepared to provide such a funding facility and funded global utility or decided to have IT leading from elsewhere in a more advanced and go ahead jurisdiction, for such be the stark choices and absolutely fabulous fabless opportunities presented for uptake and NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive IT Energy ProVision here?
RSVP ….. ASAP ….. amfM
Quite just exactly where anything in the above might be sent and is going and ends up, is anyone's wild guess, but it could be easily known to them if they be SMARTR and NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActively minded and ready for AI and IT leading Global Challenges.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 00:03 GMT Don Jefe
Of course Brazil doesn't want Snowden, they're still wall to walk with sketchy ex-government types from the '70's. I respect Snowden for what he did, but he's going to be trouble for pretty much anyone who isn't Russia. South America is also the dumbest place on the planet to look for protection from the US.
Besides, Brazil, like everyone else who was so upset before, has started to cool off now that the concessions, deals and commitments are rolling in. I know for an absolute fact that two US companies have already been fast tracked through Brasilia to build and manage the infrastructure for Brazil's newly proposed privacy policies. Brazilian data stays in Brazil, but inside US owned and operated data centers. All the indignation and feelings of betrayal have been nothing more than a show.
Any chance for big change has already slipped by. Greed has taken precedence over any sort of ethical behavior and we've all been sailed down the river. They ought to just let Snowden come back, nobody's behavior has been changed by any of this and it's pretty clear it won't change either.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 00:12 GMT Herby
Wednesday 18th December 2013 03:21 GMT Don Jefe
Wouldn't that be nice. The problem is we've created such a climate of fear along with a couple generations of catastrophically stupid people, that if you are being private it's because you're hiding terrorists, paedos, illegal immigrants, etc... Everybody wants privacy, but they want everyone else to be wide open. It's all pretty stupid.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 00:27 GMT bigtimehustler
Realistically the reason nothing has been done about any of this is not Snowdon's fault, its the lazy public that just don't care how much they are controlled as long as they don't have to think too much, lets face it, thinking too much seems to hurt well over 50% of the populations brains. They instead prefer to just repeat what they have been told and the claim this is actually what they believe. No doubt someone or even some people will reply to this with such comments and down vote me, those people are in that percentage.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 01:29 GMT Sanctimonious Prick
Wednesday 18th December 2013 03:45 GMT Don Jefe
I downvoted you because of your weak ass attempt at crenelating your statement with an attack on people who might disagree with you. Never play your hand that early or somebody will come along and derail any valid points you had with a sideshow about defensive commentary :)
But you're correct, it is up to the voting public to fix all this, but they probably won't. Here in the US we haven't had a chance to fix it yet. We're stuck with a system that no matter what you, legally, do, it would take a minimum of four years and two Presidents to replace everyone responsible and that's assuming a 100% turnover in government, that is highly unlikely.
It is also on the public to educate themselves about the risks that create insanely intrusive security environments. Even during the absolute worst of the IRA activities your chances of being harmed were extremely remote. Uneasy you were military or government security you were more likely to be killed by a falling shark. Here in the US we have so little terrorism that being harmed by a terrorist is less likely than Jesus showing up at the a White House for Christmas tequila shots.
The thing is though, we've dumbed down the public, given them this idea that living is basically risk free and any thing that can go wrong is preventable. We've removed any sense of individuality and self reliance to the point that school bullies are actually considered a threat you need law enforcement to deal with. Look back at the Snowden stories on this very site and read the comments wholly supporting even more aggressive surveillance of the populace. It's insanity! A huge portion of the worlds English speaking population is terrified of everything. They go to tears and therapy if they get yelled at by their boss.
Until we can restore a sense of self reliance and go back to teaching risk assessment and risk management as a core part of childhood education we're all doomed to be dragged down the the voting scared.
Also, I didn't downvote you. I was just making a point.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 09:11 GMT tom dial
@Don Jefe 03:45: I don't understand the downvote here. There is a great deal of truth in what you said.
It is a fact that hardly anyone applies any thinking or calculation to personal risk. Most, I suspect, implicitly rank events based on the outcome, not any reasonable estimate of the occurrence probability. People worry much more about dying in a terrorist attack than in an auto crash, for instance. The same kind of flawed thinking leads many to think that the US needs the giant national security establishment that has been built up over the last 70+ years. It also leads others, in my opinion, to assign greater importance than warranted to the presumed dangers of that national security establishment. It is all rubbish.
No amount of surveillance can offer a promise of heading off all terrorist attacks, but many attempts can be stopped, as most of the aborted ones have been, by alert citizens and old fashioned police work. On the other hand, there is not great reason for concern about surveillance as such, for two reasons. The first is, that as basically creepy as it is, the NSA's work is being done almost entirely by US citizens who are much like the population mean in matters of political orientation and respect for the Constitution (including, quite often, that they haven't thought much about it since their high school civics class). Second, the communication surveillance is not really of any consequence. The government does not need it if they want to get you. They have plenty of ordinary police, prosecutors, and judges, and shady charges can be brought, with proper wiretap and search warrants if necessary without any help from the NSA. That was proved with the Socialists and Communists after WW I, with the McCarthy abomination after WW II, and the harrying of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. The Nazis, and the Russian, East German, and Chinese Communists might have loved to have such capabilities, but they did not and they operated perfectly adequate totalitarian dictatorships without them.
We all need to cool off a bit, cut back what is really objectionable, and get on with life, probably with a few billion dollars a year (in the US) to spend on more useful things.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 11:33 GMT TopOnePercent
"Even during the absolute worst of the IRA activities your chances of being harmed were extremely remote. Uneasy you were military or government security you were more likely to be killed by a falling shark."
Typical 'merkin. No, no, its ok to support THOSE guys - they're y'know, freedom fighters.
"Here in the US we have so little terrorism that being harmed by a terrorist is less likely than Jesus showing up at the a White House for Christmas tequila shots."
From this we can deduce you're A) Not from New York, and B) Not from Oklahoma.
American support for the IRA, who killed thousands of civilians (google the disappeared for your citation), only ended when thousands of your own citizens were killed by terrorism.
Nobody was physically harmed by the NSA spying. Even Snowden is alive and well. That doesn't make it right, not at all, but it does bring into question your whining about others voting when you demonstrate a startling lack of comprehension and critical thinking in the same post.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 13:36 GMT Don Jefe
See, people like you are ruining it for everybody else. Its got nothing to do with American support for the IRA, the facts are the chances of being harmed by them were quite nearly non-existent. The British responded with what appears to have become their standard, they responded with fear. Then they still settled everything through negotiation. It sure wasn't dealt with by surveillance and armed response.
In the US the total victims of terrorism are fewer than the number of our own troops who have died in accidents and friendly fire incidents in our response to terrorism. We've killed more of our own people in the last 10 years than every single terrorist act (foreign or domestic) combined, ever. The quickest way to get killed in a terrorism related incident is to join the military and be killed by your fellow soldiers.
We're policing the world and known unstable people still bomb us and now they've got WMD's (pressure cookers). Our 'proactive approach' to terrorism hasn't worked, just like it didn't work in the UK or Spain or China. As long as people like you live in fear nothing is going to stop terrorism.
Until you realize that you're extremely safe, safer than at any point in Human history, even without all the non-functioning anti-terror crap, then you can only expect to see more of your freedoms eroded and your economies destroyed chasing a boogeyman who only has power because you give it to him. More people will be seriously electrocuted in the UK this year than all the people who have been killed by terrorism, ever, throughout history, worldwide. Your electric tea kettle is nearly 3000x more likely to kill you today than a terrorist. Until you gain perspective on the world I'm not convinced you should have Internet access, you're just causing a mess.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 14:19 GMT TopOnePercent
Re: Don Jefe
The only scary thing is that you're allowed to vote.
I lived in south Manhattan during 911, so am rather more familiar with matters of terrorism on american soil than you would appeear to be. Fear was about the only emotion I didn't experience that day.
"Its got nothing to do with American support for the IRA, the facts are the chances of being harmed by them were quite nearly non-existent."
The IRA killed 644 civilians, 656 British soliders, 272 RUC, and 1 Irish soldier. Hardly non-existant then. Rather more, in fact, than are suggested to have died at the hands of the NSA.
"More people will be seriously electrocuted in the UK this year than all the people who have been killed by terrorism, ever, throughout history, worldwide."
The last year for which statistics are available is 2010, during which 32 people died of electrocution in the UK. You can get the numbers from Hansard.
"Your electric tea kettle is nearly 3000x more likely to kill you today than a terrorist."
Except that it isn't, and stamping your feet won't make it so.
"Until you gain perspective on the world I'm not convinced you should have Internet access, you're just causing a mess."
Until you learn to seperate facts from fiction I think you should STFU and keep your ranting to yourself, no?
I've never been afraid of terrorists, but silly little boys like you will one day be old enough to vote, and for the President of the USA no less. That is a truly terrifying thought.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 18:47 GMT Maharg
>>>(on the IRA) the facts are the chances of being harmed by them were quite nearly non-existent. The British responded with what appears to have become their standard, they responded with fear.<<<
Well, you sir have never been to Belfast.
As someone who is from Belfast and grew up there in the 70s and 80s I can tell you first hand that I did not know a single person who did not have a friend or family member “harmed” by the IRA, Real IRA, PIRA, or any of the other groups, and I am sure if I had been born on the other side of the wall the same could be said for people harmed by the UVF, UDA or any of the Loyalist groups also supported by the US, for your information there has been two bombings just in Belfast city center, THIS WEEK.
In simple terms Northern Ireland has a population of around 1.8 million, more than 3,600 people were killed during the worst of the troubles and many more since then.
In other words, in todays figures that would be 1 out of every 500 people killed by terrorists, and that’s just killed, not to mention all the knee capping’s, burns from petrol bombs, and other injuries both physical and mentally as a result of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If I remember the US lost less 3,000 people on 9/11, that’s less than 0.001% of your population, and you invaded another country over that.
Now, I don’t often get angry at idiots on the internet, but I expect more for people on this site so In being polite I would ask you to kindly piss off with your pathetic attempt at judgment from your safe little life. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 22:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Well, you sir have never been to Belfast."
Neither have I, but let's say I've known a few people who spent time there, in and out of various uniforms, over the years.
"In simple terms Northern Ireland has a population of around 1.8 million, more than 3,600 people were killed during the worst of the troubles "
True. However. "Operation Banner," the British Army's deployment in NI, last 38 years (69-07). That's about 95 deaths a year.
I've got a body count in the UK due to terrorism of 59 in over a decade period after the end of Banner, of which 58 were 7/7/05 (53 bomb victims, 4 bombers and one electrician, who you'd list as "Being in the wrong place at the wrong time (in the wrong jacket)"
In fact it was when the IRA were shutting down that Tony Blair started spouting the "Identity Card" bullshit.
That's last decade is about the same number that die as a result of either botched DIY in UK houses or far accidents per year. And for this the govt wants to piss away £500m/year on the Snoopers Charter?
I'd hop on a plane to Hollywood (the one near Belfast) in a heartbeat, without weapons or body armor. The bunch of die hard nut jobs calling themselves the Real/Continuity/Whatever-the-fuck IRA have very limited support and AFAIK piss poor skillz. One guy nearly sets himself alight with an incendiary and a 120lb car bomb "partially" explodes. WTF?
The locals are pissing themselves laughing at such piss poor antics.
They remember when the Provos set off 1000lb truck bombs in Canary Wharf. When nail bombs killed or maimed 10s or 100s at a time several times a week.
They know what a real terrorist movement looks like, not a few embittered mad dogs and the young fules who follow them.
They know what a Sectarian police force looks like (how you gonna bribe an RUC Constable when with allowances and overtime he was making £60 000/year ?) and how it operates.
And they don't want that back again.
Thursday 19th December 2013 00:14 GMT Maharg
Re: @Maharg @AC
I think you need to read my comment again, and the point I was making, unless you were trying to agree with me in a very confrontational way, I was taking about Northern Ireland, not the UK where most people have as little knowledge of what happened as the yanks, and I was talking about the troubles, not post 98, hell I'm not even including Omagh in the count.
But you also forgot the two soldiers shot dead getting a pizza, the Catholic PSNI man killed by a car bomb, the prison officer killed in a drive by on the motorway, as well as a few others, and you spelt Holywood wrong.
But what you did get right is we dont want to go back down that road again, but that doesn't mean some ignorant dick can just dismiss what happened and effected so many people with such a crass attitude and lack of respect
Wednesday 18th December 2013 13:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Don Jefe @TopOnePercent
Looks like you bought the "Terrorist Theater" hook, like and sinker. Being from Boston, NYC or Oklahoma does have anything to do with ones ability to recognise media/government bullshit when you see it.
There is NO WAY TO PREVENT TERRORISM! If you change your routine and live in fear because of terrorism, then the terrorists have already won.
All "authorities" want you to believe that by throwing billions of dollars/euros/pounds at "Security Improvements" that people will be safer. This is all "Security Theater", "Never mind the man behind the curtain, move on, be about your business, nothing to see here, everything is just fine, no worries". All the while they pocket the profits from systems that can do nothing to prevent future acts of terror (but as long as they make money off it it's okay). In the meantime, the governement rides roughshod over the Bill of Rights and the Constitution "To protect the public".
If you give up liberty in hopes of greater security, you soon have neither!
I don't even agree with Jefe but in this case he's right about the statistical probabilities of being directly affected by terrorists. You have a better chance of winning the MegaMillion lottery.
However it is strange how we Americans support the IRA. Hmmm, could it have something to do with overbearing British Protestant Army and bluenose Political types working out their agressions on Irish, Catholic, "ungrateful" poor wage slaves/serfs who'd been screwed enough that they had nothing left to lose and gave back what they were given in spades? You should expect to get what you give boy'o!
That sounds like a story that has been told way too many times under British Rule to disregard.
Frankly, if we spent half the money spent on arms, soldiers, anti-terror programs directly on "The People"; there would not be much reason for people to so unhappy that they felt the need to create terroristic acts.
What the NSA harmed was our countries self worth and they created further degradation of world opinion.
We have always strived, whether we were right or wrong to be a force for what we believe to be good and honest in this world. The NSA pretty much negated anything good we have done.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 14:34 GMT TopOnePercent
Take it easy Captain America, nobody is suggesting that the current security theatre is cheap or that it is effective. It's neither.
"If you change your routine and live in fear because of terrorism, then the terrorists have already won."
Agreed. But nobody appears to either be living in fear nor have they changed their routine because of terrorism.
"I don't even agree with Jefe but in this case he's right about the statistical probabilities of being directly affected by terrorists."
Except, he isn't. He's making up numbers to suit his argument, and they don't stack up to a cursory 2 minutes with Google. His rambling undermines legitimate debate rgarding what level of surveillance is appropriate or desirable, if any.
"You have a better chance of winning the MegaMillion lottery."
Thanks to London Fashion Week, you've a statistically better chance of sleeping with a super model than you have of being killed by a terrorist in the UK. That, however, doesn't detract from the murders commited by the IRA and nor does it ameliorate the passing of the hat I witnessed in bars in NYC right up until September the 10th 2001.
"What the NSA harmed was our countries self worth and they created further degradation of world opinion."
I quite agree. Nobody is suggesting that the NSA were justified or behaved in a morally correct manner. Its not suprising to me that they did what they did, and nor is it suprising that nothing is likely to change as a result of being busted.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 13:25 GMT bigtimehustler
And i upvoted you because what you said is totally true and yea, my post was defensive, because i was having a negative day and knew what was coming ha. The fact that people think all risk can be removed is evident throughout society all the way from the most basic of health and safety law to the road safety measures increasingly hindering any type of getting about. It has to end, life has risk and some people will be unlucky, but without that risk life is pretty boring.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 02:23 GMT Tommy Pock
Wednesday 18th December 2013 03:50 GMT Don Jefe
Verifying the intended meaning of a statement is an important thing in journalism. If you're OK with leaving something open to interpretation then you've crossed into 'news entertainment', where you're using the same shady tactics as politicians in order to elicit a response in your readership. You're deliberately leaving something open so that you can blame any misinterpretations on the reader.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 18:39 GMT Tommy Pock
I disagree completely. It's quite a recent phenomenon in journalism, and it signifies a disdain for the intelligence of the reader. A clarification would be more acceptable - if not actually acceptable - if it was placed alongside the original body of text.
It's not a huge issue but it's a personal bugbear of mine. I don't like it so I'm going to do my best to stop it.
On a positive note, I'm a fan of the Oxford comma.
Wednesday 18th December 2013 03:49 GMT dssf
How can he expect legal protection from lawlessness in Brazil?
How can he expect legal protection from lawlessness in Brazil?
IIUC, it can be as cheap in Brazil as it is in the Philippines to hire a contract killer. Several layers of them, too, to get rid of at least 2-4 layers of hits. One layer to kill the primary target, another layer to kill the PT's killers, and a third layer to scrub the previous two layers of killers. IIUC, a contract killer in the Fils may be around USD$50-$200 per person. I suppose the complexity of security arrangements and notoriety of the target make a big diff, too, but how can Snowden expect to NOT be found and hounded and in less than 6 months be "factory recalled" if he ever goes out of doors?
His move (blowing secrets he exposed, rightly or wrongly) is not a move I'd be envy of... None one I'd make, since I want to live to at least 100-110. A lot of interesting shit (not talking about fatal fall pushes, lead or radioactive bullets and pellet, cement barrel dunkings, and the like; I'm interested in mil/aero/astro/medical/architectural advances, among many other things) will be happening over the next 50-70 years, and I want to see or read about at least 80% of that timeframe.