# In what way is Edward Snowden a "human rights defender"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-way-is-edward-snowden-a-human-rights-defender/663370 "2013-07-12T23:33:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Psychopants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Psychopants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psychopants)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-way-is-edward-snowden-a-human-rights-defender/663370/21 "2013-07-13T02:55:51Z")
I suspect snowden’s real mother was a kardashian. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-way-is-edward-snowden-a-human-rights-defender/663370/22 "2013-07-13T03:09:30Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > ETA: The best I can do re: a cite for “real world” rights is to point to the idea of [positive versus negative rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights) (and I think the negative rights are more “traditional” and less controversial). The right to NOT have your privacy invaded is a negative right. It takes definite action from government agencies to record and monitor your calls. Again I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is controversial. It was signed by the US in 1948 and according to wiki “the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.” > **[Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Adoption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Adoption)** > > The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly as UN Resolution A/RES/217(III)\[A\] on 10 December 1948 in the Palais de Chaillot, Paris.\[b\] Of the 58 United Nations members at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and Honduras and Yemen failed to vote or abstain. > Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with having been instrumental in mustering support for the Declaration's adoption, both in her native U.S. and across the world, owing to her ability to appeal to differ... ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-way-is-edward-snowden-a-human-rights-defender/663370/23 "2013-07-13T22:01:07Z")
The UN Charter for Human Rights and quite a few constitutions mention economic rights. KarlGauss appropriately linked to the wiki article delineating positive and negative rights (which I have not looked at). My point is that the (20th century, AFAIK) phrase “Human rights” has always been pretty elastic. That said, privacy rights are negative rights, so they are closer to the core than some. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Leaving aside the privacy issue, I think there’s also a basic human right to have the rule of law in effect. And that applies to the government as well as to individuals. The government should not merely enforce the law; it should also be subject to the law. I’m not sure why Little Nemo, but I’ve read quite a few penetrating and insightful posts of yours over the last few months. Kudos: seriously. I didn’t realize this, but this may strike to the core of my sympathies for Snowden. Methinks we have a security state that has sprung up in a somewhat haphazard fashion and that it’s past time to bolt on a framework of appropriate procedures. Put another way, a lot of people may be having their privacy violated in small ways without sufficient due process. Karl might be reasonably pointing out that putting these privacy insults or annoyances (I don’t know what to call them) under a framework of human rights is a little much. But shift the focus to due process and… well maybe we should think of it as a good government concern. Separately, I suspect that the NSA’s multi-billion dollar monstrosity is susceptible to rampant abuse. At any rate, methinks a top down review by a privacy advocate and the establishment of a privacy ombudsman might be appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-way-is-edward-snowden-a-human-rights-defender/663370/24 "2013-07-14T00:42:38Z")
It’s an assault on privacy to the extent that people thought what they did on the internet was private. It will take a bit for people to adjust to the idea that big brother can look at their e-mail or browsing history if they want, no different than if they tailed you walking around in public. Or like before, no one will think anything of it. There’s always carrier pigeon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-way-is-edward-snowden-a-human-rights-defender/663370.md?page=1)