Modern field guide to security and privacy

Hollywood and Washington battle to define Snowden's image

With Hollywood and rights groups stepping up efforts to portray the ex-National Security Agency contractor as a hero, Snowden's detractors in Congress struck back by questioning his motives and ethics. 

Mathias Loevgreen Bojesen/Reuters
American whistleblower Edward Snowden is seen on a screen as he delivers a speech during the Roskilde Festival in Roskilde, Denmark, June 28 2016.

The battle to define Edward Snowden's public image is on.

A day after rights groups announced a petition campaign supporting a presidential pardon for the ex-National Security Agency contractor, and on the eve of the "Snowden" biopic, Washington lawmakers fired off a report aiming to derail the public relations blitz supporting Mr. Snowden's cause.

On Thursday, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence unanimously approved a report on Snowden, who is facing a 30-year prison sentence on espionage charges for leaking secret documents on US surveillance programs, that labels him as a "serial exaggerator" and aims to create a sharp contrast with the digital privacy community's portrayal of the exiled former contractor as a celebrity whistleblower.

"Edward Snowden is no hero – he's a traitor who willfully betrayed his colleagues and his country," Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R) of California said in a statement. "In light of his long list of exaggerations and outright fabrications detailed in this report, no one should take him at his word."

The report alleges that Snowden had little concern for privacy safeguards while working in government, saying he failed to raise his concerns about civil liberties to superiors or to pass NSA-mandated training on US laws that regulate foreign intelligence collection.

The inquiry also raises questions about Snowden's candor, claiming the NSA leaker exaggerated injuries sustained in Army basic training, lied about his position title at the CIA, and falsified his resume to win promotions at the NSA.

"These findings demonstrate that the public narrative popularized by Snowden and his allies is rife with falsehoods, exaggerations, and crucial omissions, a pattern that began before he stole 1.5 million sensitive documents," the report says.

It's unclear where the public stands in the debate over Snowden. In 2015, a similar pardon campaign gathered more than 160,000 signatures but a poll the same year from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is backing the new campaign, found that nearly two-thirds of Americans viewed him negatively.

Snowden himself has also joined the war of words over his legacy.

Soon after the congressional report surfaced, Snowden took to Twitter to refute claims that he falsified his records and regarding the number of documents that he leaked, stating that many of those documents were downloaded for intelligence uses.

The debate over Snowden’s image has resurfaced with President Obama finalizing the list of people to pardon for federal crimes before he leaves office in January.

Hollywood has also entered the debate in a big way. On Friday, Oliver Stone's "Snowden" biopic, which portrays the whistleblower in a sympathetic light, is set to open in theaters across the US.

"Americans don’t know anything about it because the government lies about it all the time,” Mr. Stone said at a press conference at the Toronto Film Festival last week in reference to US government surveillance programs. "This story not only deals with eavesdropping but mass eavesdropping, drones and cyberwarfare."

And with public relations efforts swirling, supporters, including former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald – who received confidential NSA files from Snowden in Hong Kong in 2013 – also took to Twitter to defend Snowden.  

"BREAKING: Government officials dislike those who expose their illegal surveillance and trigger global debate about their behavior," Mr. Greenwald tweeted. "If you don't want leaks, don't build a secret, illegal system of mass surveillance and then hide it and lie about it to the public."

So far, efforts to lionize Snowden don't appear to be changing Washington's attitude toward the leaker – who's living in Russian under temporary asylum.

The Intelligence Committee's report follows an array of Obama administration calls for Snowden to return to the US to face trial for blowing the whistle on classified US surveillance programs, including the PRISM program the NSA  to search global internet data. In 2015, the Obama administration shot down a public White House petition with more than 160,000 signatures calling for a federal pardon.

Cybersecurity experts say the report could be an effort to debunk Snowden's mystique by playing up his workplace troubles.

"When people leak, the primary reason is almost always that they're disgruntled," said Robert Graham, president of the cybersecurity firm Errata Security. "This report documents that Edward Snowden had typical sort of geek problems at work and had a bad way of handling internal office politics."

What the debate over Snowden's image has changed, Mr. Graham says, is who the NSA and other intelligence agencies hire. "After Snowden, the NSA has cracked down on new hires, to stop hiring people that were like Snowden."


You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Hollywood and Washington battle to define Snowden's image
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today