David Brooks has a take on him claiming how contemporary world results in 'island individual' situation and how that prompts this behavior to expose the basic trust State reposes on her employees in guarding information.
But here is the thing - expectation from the State has been to remain secret about 'how secretly State possibly snoops on her subjects'. Legally, Snowden for sure have done things wrong and State is right to bring him to the court. But morally? I am not convinced that 'morally' he has done completely a wrong thing. Would I do it if I were in his situation? Probably not, but not sure that is because I do not have balls or simply because of feeling of 'play by the rules' mentality. What I am certain about is - all the complaints and negatives Brooks pointed out in the personality of Edward Snowden; all those are irrelevant. Societies do not benefit or progress because of 'all balanced people' all the time. For Brooks to point out deficiencies in Snowden's personality is like trying to back his 'pet pseudo-scientific theories' based on some sensational news making event.
If at all Snowden missed something for sure, it is this - why go to Hong Kong to avoid the State? Why not stay in USA and face the charges? That would have been even more authentic and true to the zeitgeist he is trying to capture by this act.
What to do now? Humanity needs Snowdens of the world, how so ever faulty, to show where the universal compass is pointing. He has done his part leaving it to the posterity to decide what he did is good or bad. What we need, as President Obama said, we need to have serious conversation and debate about:
- what privacy we Americans are ready to compromise for our security?
- to what an extent this Faustian deal holds and what 'marginal security' we get in return?
- and the State in which we deposit so much faith, if it is so fragile that one 29 year old young man can expose her so naked; why do we have so much faith in this State then?