Snowden Ridicules David Cameron For Defending 'Private' Matter of Panama Papers Leak 177
An anonymous reader writes: Edward Snowden, a former contractor with the NSA who worked with journalist to reveal a number of classified mass surveillance programs, has criticized the UK Prime Minister's insistence that his father's implication in the list of high-profile tax avoiders was a "private matter." Ian Cameron's firm Blairmore Holdings Inc managed tens of millions of pounds for the wealthy but has never paid taxes on the profits. Cameron responded to the news saying: "This is a private matter, I am focused on what the government is doing." In response to a Reuters story on Cameron's response, Snowden wrote: "Oh, now he's interested in privacy." Snowden followed up with a second tweet after the Prime Minister of Iceland resigned over his implication in the Panama Papers leak: "Resignation of Iceland's PM may explain why the UK PM is so insistent public has no right to know a PM's 'private' finances."
Nothing to Hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
mmmm (Score:3)
Politicians need to have a healthy diet, with plenty of vitamins and irony...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Politicians need to have a healthy diet, with plenty of vitamins and irony...
Likewise, I am a firm believer in the three term policy. For every one term in public office a politician needs to spend two terms in prison.
Little surprise. (Score:1)
Cameron is exactly the kind of smug corporate sleazebag with different morals prescribed for big and little fish who'd employ tax evasion schemes.
That's not what is putting me aghast. What's putting me aghast is how reliably the scum rises to the top and sticks there in Western democracies. Makes one almost suspect that one would have better odds with aristocracy instead. Not good odds, mind you. Just better than the processes governing the current representative systems.
Re: (Score:3)
That's cold comfort when your rule of law is effectively nonfunctional among your society's most dangerous and influential people; but it is the case.
Re: (Score:1)
Aristocracy is more optimized for corruption than democracy.
Within 2 generations every aristocrat has grown up knowing that their right to rule comes from who they are and that it's "always been that way".
With democracy they at least have to check the polls and pander to the commoners every election cycle to keep their spot. That at least mean they have to convincingly prentend not to be corrupt and limits how corrupt they can actually be (admittedly in roughly the sense that not wanting to leave bruises li
Re: (Score:1)
Expressed by a co-worker in an American steel mill: "Shit floats."
Re: (Score:2)
Cameron is quite wrong on the privacy of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike say myself or jsut about anyone else, the private finances of a Prime Minster and his family ARE a thing of public interest. The man not only has to be seen to be doing the right thing but also the transparency of investments and where income comes from. So you know, make sure he is not being unduly "influenced" in policy decisions for his and his family's financial gain, ie handing out a govt contract that will boost the shit out oa shareprice to a company he or his family has interests in.
So basically Cameron, the question is -YOU are a public official and thence the expectation of privacy is much reduced. Your position is extremely important and you should be under scrutiny and that also includes your family. You dont get to plead privacy, you gave that up the moment you stepped forward to be Prime Minister.
"Nothign to fear if nothign to hide" is a common BS meme - good squads gets a fucking warrant if you think I've done something wrong so stay the fuck out of my life. However.... THAT does not apply to Mr Cameron. So Mr Cameron, what are you hiding? There is not an expectation of privacy in regards to the financial affairs of an elected Prime Minister.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this *is* a private matter. That's a technical term: the firm is a private-sector business, and he's said he's interested in the Government--the public sector. We use these terms when discussing government.
People have taken to a fallacy of equivocation here: the PM says he's not interested in private-sector tax avoidance, but rather public-sector corruption; and everyone has taken "private" (non-government) and read it as "private" (personal).
Gotta be the botox. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, we don't know that yet. Pretty soon, we’ll know more about which of these important people were doing it for bad reasons and which were doing it for good reasons. But almost everyone is in trouble regardless [theguardian.com].
And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score:5, Insightful)
what does that matter?
sure, russia is not any great freedom-based country, but the issue at hand is cameron and how he's ALWAYS up in your shit about how encryption is BAD and how it will be the end of The Western World(tm).
THIS is the bullshit we're calling cameron on.
as an american, I don't know that much about cameron, but what I have heard, he's a slimey motherfucker and he's not helping the UK one bit. his kind are toxic to freedom. he deserves any criticism that he gets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You should wait a fucking long time. Why would he have to do all that, because he did one thing, when arseholes like you have done nothing?
Re: (Score:1)
There's a difference between being brave and being stupid. Snowden has been brave. He doesn't have to be stupid.
Re:And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Christ, hasn't he given up enough? Should he also set himself on fire in protest over world-wide corruption and privacy issues? He's a guest in Russia, and you expect him to start spitting in Putin's eye?
Re:And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's living consequence-free in Putin's Russia,
I'm pretty sure having to live in Putin's Russia would be considered a consequence by most Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score:4, Informative)
Edward Snowden does criticize Russia, people like you just willfully ignore it:
E.g.,
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/05/snowden-criticises-russia-internet-homosexuality
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden
Re:And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to permit Snowden a little self-preservation on this one. It's not as though he's going around *defending* Putin. Nor does he have any information about Putin that no one else is privy to.
Snowden did a great service and continues to be of service. Let's at least grant him the privilege of a place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
... Snowden ... Let's at least grant him the privilege of a place to live.
That is a private home, and not a jail cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Snowden risks his safety for his principles at every possible opportunity, he is a hypocrite. But, having no principles yourself, you are safe from criticism! How convenient!
Re: (Score:2)
Consequence free? You're either a moron, a hypocrite, a liar or a fool. Personally, I think "douchebag" fits you nicely.
Re:And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure we can expect him to criticize his hosts any tweet now.
Like, if he criticize[d] Russia's human rights record, [or] says online restrictions, [and] treatment of gays, [is] 'wrong' [ibtimes.com]? You're in for a long negative-eight month wait before that'll have happened.
Meh, I'll take what I can get (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, David Cameron is quite the hero.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm stopping you there, because that's already a contradiction. Snowden doesn't want to stay in Russia, and they only let him stay because his presence gives the U.S. a black eye. But his passport was pulled so the only country he can legally go to is back to the U.S, and once there the courts would just rubber-stamp his whistle-blower (I mean "treason") charges.
Re: (Score:2)
... they only let him stay because his presence gives the U.S. a black eye. ...
Actually it is not exactly like this. Russia is a very large country by territory, so they need good educated people.
If someone arrives at the Russian Federation, even without documents at all, and can demonstrate that she/he can speak Russian language fluently, this person may remain in the country legally.
And if someone speaks Russian on the level of a mother tongue, gets to Russia, and declares a wish to become a resident or a citizen, then she/he may get the Russian citizenship in a short time.
Re: (Score:2)
He's living consequence-free in Putin's Russia
I fail to see how being forced to flee his home and live in Putin's Russia is the same as "consequence-free".
Re: (Score:1)
Neither was David Cameron's name. The difference is while David Cameron was not directly involved in the papers, Putin most certain is.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax Evasion = Treason (Score:1)
Scum bags. All of them. Most of all the dirty politicians that partake in these schemes. You love your country enough to not feel you need to partake in it's financial stability...really? I can't think of any greater example of interest conflict. Tax evasion is stealing from your countrymen. For a political leader to do so of any stripe is ethically treason.
Different how? (Score:1)
So how is this different than members of parliament whining when they learned that all the surveillance laws they passed were being used on them as well as the plebs?
Did the PM actually resign? (Score:3)
sins of the father? (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
And how does that devalue his point. Considering that David Cameron has been one of the Western leaders leading the charge against privacy with the British government's "Snooper's Charter", it's the height of irony and hypocrisy to then declare that he should be afforded privacy. If the average man on the street has no expectation of privacy, then most assuredly neither should any politician.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. If the regular citizen has no privacy rights, then neither does anyone in government, or anyone else. If there are to be no secrets, then fair enough, let's have absolutely no secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If the regular citizen has no privacy rights, then neither does anyone in government, or anyone else. If there are to be no secrets, then fair enough, let's have absolutely no secrets.
But I really really don't want to know exactly what kind of flatulence Cameron has.
Re: (Score:1)
But I demand a 4K video of each and every occurrence!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Who says that nobody should have any privacy rights? I think that this is a disingenuous reading of what the government of the US and UK are pushing for. There is a world of difference between the government having the ability, for example, to unlock encrypted phones under a legitimate court order and openly publishing everyone's private financial matters. Were the latter to routinely happen, you would find even fewer capable people taking leadership roles in government, you would only find sock-puppets
Re: Who cares? (Score:1)
As opposed to what we have now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh bullshit. This is about the tit not liking the tat. The reason the PM of Iceland (and now it seems the PM of Britain) wanted to keep things secret wasn't for our liberty in good government, it's because they didn't want their electorates finding out that while these people are making the average person suffer, and suffer mind you, in most cases for events the citizens had no control over, they had nice offshore accounts safely out of the hands of the taxman. They are hypocrites, and their outing was deserved and right.
Wanting to spy on every single thing a citizen types into a computing device is not some righteous cause. It's just a government spying apparatus that believes privacy and liberty should be dispensable at the merest whim. For fucks sake, there are secret fucking courts in several countries, whose sole purpose is to make sure the electorate can never have a clear picture of how many peoples' privacy are being breached.
Well you know what. If the authorities want that level of information, then I say force them to wear cameras and microphones 24 hours a day, which are constantly streamed to multiple web sites. Not a single activity, whether involve state secrets or taking a fucking dump will be permitted to be secret. That way we can make sure they aren't cutting deals that fuck over the citizens and then trying to justify it as "privacy", even as they work to destroy the privacy of millions of people who have done nothing wrong.
And you know the fuck what. If I write my private fucking thoughts down in a code that the FBI can't crack, then too fucking bad. Governments, even the judicial branch, are supposed to be limited, and not stroking each others' genitals in some big privacy destroying circle jerk. The politicians, cops and judges are merely human beings, not one tiny bit more important than anyone else. They are not gods, but if they choose to act like it, then strip them of every once of privacy. If they have a mole on their left testicle, everyone should be able to see it, and if they have a few million bucks in a tax shelter, at any moment every fucking citizen should be able to see the balance of that account. Their every intimate moment should be broadcast on hundred foot high screens.
Why is David Cameron's privacy even the tiniest bit more important than mine? Is he a god? Should we worship him?
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
government spying is extremely lucrative, so these things are not separate. If you're spying on business deals you're going to profit immediately.
Re: (Score:1)
On the other hand, the PM of Iceland resigned. As he should.
Now Putin should resign and the president of China too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh bullshit. This is about the tit not liking the tat. The reason the PM of Iceland (and now it seems the PM of Britain) wanted to keep things secret wasn't for our liberty in good government, it's because they didn't want their electorates finding out that while these people are making the average person suffer, and suffer mind you,
I don't even think you have to argue whether his policies are good, bad or otherwise. A national leader should present a image of respect and integrity, this is now gone so he should resign for the sake of the country. Better men have fallen for less, he deserves no special treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
I can sense that this is something you care about - that's good. I'm not sure I agree with you, but it is a lot better that people care enough to have an opinion instead of just oozing along in whatever direction the flow goes.
In my view, privacy isn't a black and white issue; there are things that should not be private and things that definitely should be, but many - most even - are in the grey zone where it depends on circumstances. Should the tax affairs of an unimportant person like me be made public? P
Re: (Score:3)
There is a general culture for employees to not discuss salary for a particular role, and when it is discussed it tends to be a fuzzy number rather than an exact one.
That lack of transparency in pay deals is what allows employers to pay women less for doing the same role, it allows executives to be paid orders of magnitude more than the average employee be
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the issue. The issue is that the most powerful man in the UK believes British citizens should not have any meaningful expectation of privacy from the state. If that is the case, then why precisely should he be afforded any privacy at all. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If there needs to be a "snooper's charter" that can haul all the electronic data of damned near everyone, then why is it precisely is he feels his family's offshore financial activities, designed speci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many of these tax avoidance schemes were done on a computer. I wonder that if the level of spying that the government wants would have found this without the leak... I wonder if a different standard of spying would be applied to regular people as opposed to the rich and those in government.
Re: (Score:2)
So do I. When a cop utters the words "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide", the public should expect that someone in a position of authority over them like that cop would also be expected to have nothing to hide and would willingly submit to scrutiny in the event that anything untoward would appear to have occurred. Instead it's quite the opposite with cops doing their damndest to keep their affairs from ever seeing the public light.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's ask the prime minister of Iceland how all that "power" is working out for him.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your point can be reasonably extended to any and all pubic servants...
Leave the prostitutes out of this. They are earning their money the hard way.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
PUBLIC servants should definitely have fewer privacy rights than PRIVATE citizens.
Particularly when their decisions can affect the lives of millions.
Example:
In Australia, members of parliament are required to maintain details of financial investments in a public register. Private citizens are not so required.
Now I didn't say public servants should have no privacy rights, but they should certainly have fewer.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
In Australia, members of parliament are required to maintain details of financial investments in a public register. Private citizens are not so required.
The same is true in the UK, and if it turns out that anyone hasn't been disclosing relevant interests properly then there can be substantial negative consequences for them. Given all the scandals around parliamentary expenses and the general them-and-us culture at the moment, if any top Tory MPs (or MPs from any other party, for that matter) turn up on the list or have close connections to anyone who does, they're probably in real trouble.
Re: (Score:1)
In Australia, members of parliament are required to maintain details of financial investments in a public register. Private citizens are not so required.
Now I didn't say public servants should have no privacy rights, but they should certainly have fewer.
I did a spell in the Australian Government. Most agencies with any real power will require security clearance for all staff, and mine required disclosing my financial interests, every job I had in the last 10 years, every country I'd visited, what I spend on my groceries each week, even the history of my immediate family etc etc. And if anything changed during my time I was required to report it. So yeah, this already happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm advocating any special permissions, but that a blanket "no privacy" policy would probably not work out well.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
The problem is not your silly feelings. Its that cops who are not nice have a tendency to leave a trail of corpses in their wake. You cant get a fair trial if you do not survive the unjust arrest.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bitter irony is that the regime in the UK - via the government mouthpiece, the BBC - is constantly assuring the British public that they live in a largely corruption-free society.
Just 1 leak reveals that the British PM's circle is involved with the stashing of massive wealth offshore.
Re: Who cares? (Score:3)
You havent been paying attention. The means of avoiding taxes is the means of hiding transactions. As a simple matter of course most of the money involved in these leaks are dirty money because slave traders, gun runners, warlords and cartel bosses have more need for this than anybody else. There have aready been some heads of state linked to transactions with such people through this leak but even where that isnt shown these wealthy and powerful elites knew this. In the case of politicians instead of follo
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see the flaw in forgetting that most of the fortune 500 companies are multinational ? They may have been founded in the US but they are decidedly not American companies - they haven't been for decades.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I value his opinion more than 99% of modern journalists who are neither journalistic nor have integrity. Yet I don't hear you complaining about them writing their spew day in and day out.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Brittany Spears is exiled from the US and all other allied countries due to her principles regarding government spying on its citizenry, then I'll listen to what she has to say regarding these sorts of topics as well.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And how does that devalue his point....
Snowden's point is devalued when from the protection of the Russian state he criticizes the UK Prime Minister for his dead father's activities, but says nothing about Putin's close personal connections to several living Russian oligarchs who clearly stole and laundered money from Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Outsiders pushing for change is rarely useful or productive.
It's up to the Ruskies to cleanup their own mess. Until they are willing to hang Putin and cronies, they can stew in it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Snowden's point is devalued when from the protection of the Russian state he criticizes the UK Prime Minister for his dead father's activities, but says nothing about Putin's close personal connections to several living Russian oligarchs who clearly stole and laundered money from Russia.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but Russia isn't the US. Everyone and their dog knows Putin and crew are into shady shit, and most people with two brain cells to rub together also know that if Snowden started flingi
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... and my posts got modded down as "Troll." Mods here are a riot with anything involving Snowden.
Re: (Score:3)
And how does that devalue his point. Considering that David Cameron has been one of the Western leaders leading the chargst privacy with the British government's "Snooper's Charter", it's the height of irony and hypocrisy to then declare that he should be afforded privacy. If the average man on the street has no expectation of privacy, then most assuredly neither should any politician.
The 1%er / Corporatist mantra
Do as we say, not as we do!
Privacy for us, none for you!
Privatized profits when we succeed, public bailouts when we fail!
We strive for the good ol' past where only male landed gentry (or even better titled nobles) could vote!
Money is speech! (duh, because we have most of it)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Unless I'm missing something in the snoopers charter it isn't about the government disclosing information to the public unless it is part of a criminal prosecution.
Furthermore I don't think Cameron was saying private as in you cannot know but private as in not part of the public sector in which he then says was his job. It's somewhat like asking your it guy about plumbing and he says he has to do computers and walks away. It sounds to me like he just didn't want to get drug into something not di
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the average man on the street has no expectation of privacy, then most assuredly neither should any politician.
I've argued (admittedly somewhat rhetorically) that lawmakers that vote for government spying on private citizens should be required to have all of their phone calls, text messages, IM logs, and emails published immediately on public websites and licensed to the public domain. If the argument is, "Your privacy should be sacrificed for the benefit of the public welfare," and "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear," then it should work both ways.
They'll argue that the can't have their c
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden is referring to Cameron's plea for privacy, as mentioned in the summary and linked tweet. He's merely pointing out the irony since the UK government has been invading ordinary citizens' privacy for possibly decades now. Why would the political elite be allowed special privilege privacy?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly. Now let's see Snowden turn that amusement and scorn of the irony onto Putin and his circle, who have been shown to have been a damn sight more rotten than Cameron's family (who, incidentally, acted unethircally but broke no laws; I say this as someone vehemently against the Tories for decades).
Oh, he seems really fucking quiet on that front! Maybe he doesn't care about this whole "special privilege privacy" quite so much as you think!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think much of the world already thinks pretty poorly of Putin.
I could see Putin declaring he'd find those responsible for the leak and incarcerate them or what have you, maybe threatening any news outlets in his country not to run this story, but I hadn't heard him bemoaning the loss of privacy this represents.
Yeah, Snowden used Russia as a shield when he released the documents.
I don't think that this means he believes Russia is a bastion of human rights, just that it was a bastion of not turning him over
Re: (Score:1)
Why would you expect him to do that - aren't there other people in the world who can do their bit? Snowden is an individual who did some stuff. He is hardly large enough to tackle all governments, all the time, without consequences.
I suppose if I were to help you financially, I should help everyone financially until I have nothing left?
Well if we didn't afford them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
However, Edward Snowden could not be reached for comment.
More like: "Someone got a papercut today. Mead G.P. Hammermill, the first person to have all four limbs severed by a cardboard guillotine developed and tested illegally under auspices of the U.S. Department of Paper Products, could not be reached for comment.