Un movimento di opinione ha tentato di convincere Barack Obama, presidente degli Stati Uniti, a perdonare Edward Snowden prima della scadenza del suo mandato. Amnesty International era tra i promotori: Edward Snowden is a hero not a traitor. Ma alla fine Obama ha detto alla stampa tedesca che non può perdonare Edward Snowden se non si presenta davanti a un tribunale americano (Spiegel). Evan Greer del gruppo Fight for the Future dice che invece Obama potrebbe (UsNews). Mike Pompeo, destinato alla Cia da Donald Trump, dice che Snowden merita la pena di morte (Intercept, Independent). Nel frattempo, Trump sviluppa un discorso favorevole a un cambio di relazioni con la Russia di Vladimir Putin che ospita Snowden. Il rischio che Snowden corre diventa sempre più drammatico. Eppure, con un “prossimo” capo della Cia che difende l’incontrollato lavoro di sorveglianza della Nsa, il whistleblowing diventerà sempre più necessario (Intercept).
Ecco Obama allo Spiegel:
“ARD/SPIEGEL: Are you going to pardon Edward Snowden?
Obama: I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point. I think that Mr. Snowden raised some legitimate concerns. How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community. If everybody took the approach that I make my own decisions about these issues, then it would be very hard to have an organized government or any kind of national security system.
At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself before the legal authorities and make his arguments or have his lawyers make his arguments, then I think those issues come into play. Until that time, what I’ve tried to suggest — both to the American people, but also to the world — is that we do have to balance this issue of privacy and security. Those who pretend that there’s no balance that has to be struck and think we can take a 100-percent absolutist approach to protecting privacy don’t recognize that governments are going to be under an enormous burden to prevent the kinds of terrorist acts that not only harm individuals, but also can distort our society and our politics in very dangerous ways.
And those who think that security is the only thing and don’t care about privacy also have it wrong.
We have to find ways in which, collectively, we agree there’s some things that government needs to do to help protect us, that in this age of non-state actors who can amass great power, I want my government — and I think the German people should want their government — to be able to find out if a terrorist organization has access to a weapon of mass destruction that might go off in the middle of Berlin.
That may mean that, as long as they do it carefully and narrowly, that they’re going to have to find ways to identify an email address or a cell phone of a network. On the other hand, it’s important to make sure that governments have some checks on what they do, that people can oversee what’s being done so the government doesn’t abuse it. But we shouldn’t assume that government is always trying to do the wrong thing.
My experience is that our intelligence officials try to do the right thing, but even with good intentions, sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they can be overzealous. Our lives are now in a telephone, all our data, all our finances, all our personal information, and so it’s proper that we have some constraints on that. But it’s not going to be 100 percent. If it is 100 percent, then we’re not going to be able to protect ourselves and our societies from some people who are trying to hurt us.”
ps. Intanto, esce il film Snowden di Oliver Stone.
Film di Stone appena visto: consigliatissimo.