He didn’t use Linux until after the leaks. He was a Windows power user for most of his NSA career and switched to Qubes/Tails only after deciding to leak. So, Edward was in the honeymoon phase or when LiGNUts are the most vocal and irrational.
His operational security mistakes (e.g., contacting journalists over regular channels early on) contradict the “perfect infosec wizard” myth. This undercuts the Linux‑fanboy narrative that he’s proof of Linux superiority.
He leaked far more than what was necessary to expose wrongdoing. Multiple independent reviews (including from The Washington Post, The Guardian, and oversight committees) found that a large portion of the documents he took had no direct connection to domestic surveillance. Some leaks exposed foreign intelligence operations, not civil‑liberties violations. Even journalists involved admitted they withheld huge portions because they were too sensitive.
He fled to Hong Kong, then Russia -both surveillance states. Hong Kong was under increasing Chinese influence in 2013. Russia is one of the world’s most aggressive surveillance regimes. He accepted Russian residency, then Russian citizenship (2022). (what a traitor would do, and this is interesting because Linux advocates tend to fear Yandex for being Russian and Opera for Chinese affiliation)
He publicly supported questionable foreign policies. Snowden has made statements that align with Russian geopolitical narratives. He criticized Western intelligence far more than non‑Western intelligence agencies. LiGNUts tend to ignore this because it clashes with their “neutral freedom fighter” framing.
He was not a high‑level analyst: He was a contractor sysadmin. He wasn’t a senior intelligence officer, policy architect, or cryptographic researcher, but a contractor with elevated access who used sysadmin privileges to exfiltrate documents. (He’s not the ‘genius that saw everything’.)
Snowden has said, “I should have been more careful.” He regrets certain aspects of how he handled the leaks and admits he underestimated geopolitical consequences. Linux users rarely acknowledge this because it breaks the “flawless infosec demigod” image.
His leaks harmed some legitimate intelligence operations. Some exposed programs were targeted at foreign adversaries, not Americans. Some disclosures forced intelligence agencies to abandon effective counterterrorism tools. Several intelligence officials (including non‑political career staff) testified that lives may have been put at risk.
He’s not universally respected by other whistleblowers. Some notable whistleblowers (including those who exposed corporate wrongdoing or environmental crimes) have criticized the scale of his leaks, the geopolitical fallout, and his choice of refuge.
I disagree with all of this.
So he switched to Linux when personal security became important to him and has been using it since. Why is this an argument against it being a good choice for privacy and security especially since it offers special made distros, that go above and beyond any alternative in those aspects.
His opsec mistakes are acknowledged even by him, but were not the fault of the tools he used.
The extend of his leaks are vast, but his approach is understandable. He knew, if he did this, the life he had lived thus far (which was pretty comfortable) would be over. So rather than leaking selectively he took what he could. Also it was important to him to not be the person to make the choice what would be published, that is why he approached journalists straight away. He gave them the intel and they chose what to publish. Them withholding info is not a sign of a mistake, but of the plan working out. Again, given the size and extend of the whole endeavour there were mistakes. Journalists made mistakes when publishing or redacting information, but I would argue from snowens side this is a good approach. You hand it to the authority you trust, not the government but the journalists, who work in the public’s interests. They frequently handle information they cannot publish.
His place of exile was barely his choice. He applied for asylum in many countries before landing on (effectively) China and finally Russia. He did not want to go there, but the pattern he describes is believable in my opinion: He was in negotiations for asylum in a country and it looked promising. The country got a call from the US. The country declined. Repeat. When your enemy is the states, the circle of potential friends is very small and usually autocratic.
To me this also explains his political statements going forward. He sacrificed his life in freedom to inform the public. Now that his freedom is gone, he must be careful. The fact that he criticised Russia at all to me shows at least some courage. He know Russia can just kick him out and he’ll be up for grabs by the states. If he sang Russia’s praises, I would not believe him, but I would understand him.
Talking about his skills I believe is a silly thing. This even annoyed me in the movie about him where he aces his aptitude test by restoring the backup before creating it (?what?). This is heroic Hollywood nonsense. He is not special because he is smart and he said that himself “Whistleblowers are normal people”. But that narrative is harder to sell. A normal person could embarrass the United states? A normal person could tear the veil of a surveillance apparatus? Unimaginable! He must be special.
Still he did have skills. He got the job and held it. He held certificates and earned good money and he understood enough to see, what went wrong. He was not leet ultra hacker, breaking NSA Firewalls, but he never claimed it. He is special due to his morals, not his technical skills. Many people before him saw what he saw and stayed quiet. That is the deciding factor.
There is no handbook on how to be a perfect Whistleblower. And the concept was not as common back then. If he could go back he absolutely would do things different, but he said, that he would do it again and the thing he regrets more than his other mistakes is, that he didn’t do it sooner. Ultimately he wanted to show what happened and offer a choice, do we accept and continue or do we change and push back and while change is “very hard” on the political and legal level, it is only “hard” on a technical level, by owning your data and your systems. So it is no surprise, that people who use privacy focused systems point to Snowden as an argument. And that I can understand. Some people take a little far and idealize him as the big cyber jesus, who died for our data. And maybe some of what I wrote sounds like this too due to how the story went, but that’s of course silly. But discrediting him outright because of mistakes, he acknowledges himself is equally silly.
So he switched to Linux when personal security became important to him and has been using it since. Why is this an argument against it being a good choice for privacy and security especially since it offers special made distros, that go above and beyond any alternative in those aspects.
Uhm… The mention of Tails is a hyperlink that you ‘could’ use for that.
which was pretty comfortable
Some quack doctors found that they could make easier money by resorting to propagating conspiracy theories.
-Well that’s enough of that. I don’t really devalue my time enough for silly ‘but ****’ s
Bruh.
Obvs he’s not a hero. But saying shit like “what a traitor would do?” Who says stuff like that?
Is this satirical?
Removed by mod
