That seems strange reasoning. Many heroes break laws.

Plus the NSA broke the law worse.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

It's utterly normal. It's the common reasoning of a vast body of people who are completely divorced from conscience; and/or who have ulterior motives; and/or who are apathetic or ignorant to the ramifications of a total surveillance state because they don't personally feel its weight; and/or who suffer a deep cognitive dissonance that generally stems from nationalism and allegiance to political sports teams under a shared umbrella.

> "If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in civil disobedience..."

1. Bill Gates does not know that Martin Luther King broke the law.

2. Bill Gates does not consider Martin Luther King a hero.

3. Bill Gates means something different, when he points out that Snowden broke the law, than simply that there was a statute forbidding Snowden's actions.

1-2 seem unlikely.

Lunacy.

There are stark differences to Martin Luther King, Jr. This current era is a time when people transcend borders more easily. King was fortunate to seize upon an entire network build-up behind a cause and behind him over many years. The punishments he faced by breaking segregation laws are gentle in comparison to the brand of "justice" and punishment Snowden is likely facing in his "homeland." One might imagine the likes of King, Mandela, and so on, recognizing this new face of oppression as did King did against the industry of military and against a government that's willing and eager to invade Vietnam and obliterate the Vietnamese under the mirage of virtue. One might imagine King now standing vocally strong in support of anyone who dares to not become a disposable pawn to today's prison economy. Yet it matters not. One might not want to conjecture; for, as always, a person's words are only one person's narrow perspective.

If you are arguing that civil disobedience may no longer be an effective tool of resistance, then you're preaching to the choir. Similar to the Borg of Star Trek, it's clear to me that at some point the establishment is going to develop effective adaptations against that particular tactic; it's been disturbed too many times by it. I don’t think that we’re there quite yet, but we’re close enough that I stay up worrying about it.

True enough on that last part. These chilling effects compound rapidly.

It entails neither locality nor symmetry. Indeed, it exploits the fact that there exists a dimension where the faceless establishment cannot hope to enjoy a beneficial asymmetry: sympathy. When you kill or imprison a man for merely using a certain restroom, or sitting in a certain place on the bus, or casting a ballot, etc, you are making a gross injustice apparent to all, and you put yourself in the position of prevailing against the sympathies and sensibilities of society (including some of the oppressors). Thus, it turns an asymmetry that the establishment normally enjoys into a liability.

Upvoted because this discussion has caused me to think of some new and interesting thoughts.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

> "It also means submitting to the authorities when you break the law; MLK spent a lot of time in jail."

I interpreted that phrase as exclusive although you probably implied it as inclusive. I simply don't want anyone to be mistaken. Civil disobedience doesn't require submission to authority. Enough people as it is make irrelevant equivocations about Snowden and others having to flee the [United States | {or insert regime}] out of fearing for their lives. Civil disobedience feeds on strategy. MLK had his legions and knew some fleeting jail time would actually work in his favor. I appreciate Thoreau. :) I wish more people would take his thoughts (and the thoughts of other like-minds) to heart. Peace!

Kind of hard to do that when you're sitting in 24 hour solitary confinement in Guantanamo, Mr Gates.

He's too smart and rebellious to actually care about the law. He's not stupid enough to believe what he's saying about lawbreaking and herohood. He means he likes the system the way it is because he's on top, and he has no motivation to rock the boat or have the establishment against him

Which is a shame, because he has the money and power to defend himself and say what he really thinks and stand up for real justice.

He lost some of the respect I had for him because of his philanthropy when I read this.

The country is incredibly polarized and its a negative thing for the USA. As a world leader and he is one, the responsible thing would be for him to be (at least publicly) moderate on the topic, and he happens to be right, we need the debate to figure out several very important issues about our democracy and what are the real threats to it.

As far as tactics, civil disobedience (ala MLK or Gandhi) is definitely the way to go. As a tactic, it let's you get the moral high-ground. That is incredibly powerful. Throwing a brick through a window (or releasing state secrets), doesn't get you that, even if its justified. So I would agree with Gates, Snowden could have used a better tactic. Although, how do you get attention to the issue through the noise and lies of the media without doing something drastic. I don't know. It's a tough issue.

Which tactics would have been better?

And since it's been 10 full months since Snowden released the documents, you and Gates are in a much better position than Snowden had been to make an informed decision regarding which tactics would have been better.

So I repeat, which tactics would have been better?

What civil disobedience could Snowden have done? Nothing that would have caused a discussion of this magnitude. And even with all that he's revealed, the government is still going on with business as usual. There will be no substantive change. It's really disgusting how few people care about this - "if you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide" - if I hear this one more time I'm going to puke on someone's shoes.

To summarize: Gates is a government suckup and Snowden IS a hero.

If you consider him to be a world leader it is also his responsibility to be a leader on topics that matter to things like the future of governance.

But really, Gates isn't a philosopher, isn't a lawyer, isn't a politician, and arguably represents the very worst that the stale status quo has to offer. Why should we let him assure us that upsetting the system that gave Gates billions of dollars is bad, bad, very bad? It would be news if he said something opposite to "Snowden is no hero", if he advocated some very serious changes, and put his money where his mouth is. As it stands, this is non-news, it's predictable.

if he advocated some very serious changes, and put his money where his mouth is

You must be unfamiliar with the billions he's spending on medical research, education, and various other nonprofit causes. He's the single largest charitable donor in history (excepting Nobel, who has the advantage of a century's headstart on inflation).

Moreover, you bring up Trump, the Waltons, and the Kochs and then call Bill Gates the worst of the bunch?

But given your fondness for irrelevancy, I can see why you would ignore mockery of Arguments from Authority. Such mockery eats at the foundation of a worldview and theology that puts Very Rich People at the summit of humanity.

Good day, Sir.