On October 24, 2014, the documentary "The Fourth Citizen", starring Edward Snowden, was released in the United States.
The documentary completely restored the whole process of the "Prism Gate" incident, and also won the best documentary feature film at the 87th Academy Awards for its controversial story content and superb shooting techniques, and triggered a heated conversation in the international community.
From the exposure of the "Prism Gate" incident in 2013 to Russia's permanent residency granted to Snowden in 2020, the first half of the "treason" fighter's ups and downs seems to have been settled, but there are still many stories to tell around the secret behind the "Prism Gate" and the power struggle around Snowden's trip to Russia.
As the biggest promoter of Snowden's trip to Russia, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was not so lucky. Before being stripped of ecuadorian citizenship in July, the U.S. government filed an extradition application against Assange to the United Kingdom, but was rejected by the British government on the grounds that as he was mentally ill.
During his eleven years in exile, the anarchist may have experienced the cruelty of power.
In 2010, WikiLeaks exposed many of the U.S. government's secret documents in the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that detailed the brutality of U.S. troops in harming civilians on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, prompting the U.S. government to be condemned by the U.S. government in the international community.
As the initiator, Assange also entered the surveillance of the US intelligence system for violating US security laws, and what awaited him would be the crazy retaliation of the United States.
In August of the same year, Assange was arrested by the Swedish police in Sweden on suspicion of a sexual assault case and arrested by Interpol in London. After being released on bail, Assange hid in ecuador's embassy and found Ecuadorian asylum.
In the seven years of protection by Ecuador, although Assange did not go to prison, he could not say that he was free to live, and in the gap between Ecuador, Britain, and the United States, Assange actually had difficulty finding a way out.
After being arrested by British police, the British Home Office spokesman confirmed that Assange's arrest was related to an extradition request made by the United States, and that once Assange was convicted of hacking into a classified U.S. government computer, what awaited him would be a five-year prison sentence.
Then British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a statement on the incident, declaring: "In Britain, no one is above the law!" But Snowden, who is far away in Russia, bluntly said that this is a "dark moment of press freedom."
Against the backdrop of solidarity with Assange by people around the world, the pursuit and interception of Assange by governments not only shows the authenticity of the documents exposed by WikiLeaks, but also implies the confrontation between free speech and the state apparatus.
In the years when Assange held high the banner of free speech and unveiled the true face of government hypocrisy to the world, he had offended not just the U.S. government, but the system of power called the "state apparatus."
The originally personable Assange transformed into a big-bellied "Santa Claus", although the "captivity" life destroyed his face, but it did not erase the crazy pursuit of freedom in his bones.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between Assange and Snowden, who were destined to be extraordinary from birth, is their different understanding of freedom.
Assange's exposure is more of an indiscriminate attack on the government in terms of meaning and impact, and his exposure of secret government documents is not limited to the documents themselves, but also to the extreme pursuit of freedom of expression.
Assange argues, his advocacy of free speech seeks to shake the influence of capital, so he shakes not only the image of the United States as a country, but also the ugly face of capital.
From the perspective of Ecuador, which provides assange's refuge, the protection or non-protection of Assange is also related to his domestic political struggles.
After Assange was formally arrested by the British government, former Ecuadorian President Correa, who had provided assange with political asylum, publicly stated that Ecuador had stopped providing asylum to Assange in order to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in loans from the International Monetary Fund. The implication is that Ecuador, in order to curry favor with the United States, chose to hand over Assange for greater benefits.
Correa called the current president Moreno "the greatest traitor in the history of Ecuador and Latin America," but neither Moreno nor Ecuador can compete with the United States in the context of U.S. global domination.
The only thing that can be achieved to protect Assange is the solidarity and support of the people of the world, but beyond that, Assange will not give Ecuador any benefits.
In a way, Assange, as an anti-war activist, as a liberal, has shown the world true freedom, but sadly he has blocked all his own retreat as he peddles government scandals to the world.
Snowden can still flee to Russia, but the Western capitalist countries that clamor for "freedom" and "democracy" all day long are the same as the United States, and Assange's exile in Europe is only from the tiger's den to the wolf's den, and in the dark, the big brother of the United States is always watching him.
Unlike Assange's free hacker identity, Snowden joined the CIA and worked for the U.S. government. Thus, compared to Assange's "bravery and fearlessness", Snowden is both politically sensitive.
The "Prism Gate" also reveals more of the government's invasion of individual privacy than the hypocrisy and sophistication of politicians and governments in political matters.
In this sense, it is precisely because Snowden, as a U.S. citizen, revealed the eavesdropping of information from U.S. citizens and dignitaries of the U.S. government that Snowden received assistance from other governments when he was wanted by the U.S. government.
Judging from the whole process of the outbreak of the "Prism Gate" incident, Snowden had a careful arrangement for his future path before breaking the "Prism Project" to the Guardian and the Washington Post.
With his superb Internet technology, Snowden was highly valued during his time with the CIA.
But according to current data, as early as the 2008 US election, Snowden voted for the "third party" instead of the popular candidate At the time, Obama. And a year after Mr. Obama's election, Mr. Snowden left the CIA and began to fend for higher pay from private network providers.
From these events, we can infer that perhaps as early as this time, Snowden's "exposure plan" had already begun to emerge, and all the subsequent work was both to accumulate living expenses for the subsequent exile and to continue to monitor the movements of the US government.
After gathering enough evidence, Mr. Snowden chose to expose the U.S. "Prism Project" in Hong Kong because of the city's commitment to protect free speech and political dissidents.
At this moment, the US government also reacted immediately and issued an extradition application to Hong Kong.
As a U.S. citizen at the time, Snowden's behavior undoubtedly violated U.S. law, but during the handover between the two parties, Hong Kong did not restrict Snowden's departure from the country, and Snowden also took the opportunity to submit an application for political asylum to Russia and boarded a plane bound for Russia.
Snowden was granted asylum by Russia by legal means, and thus settled in Russia until he obtained the status of a Russian citizen. It can be said that in this battle between Snowden and the US government, the US government lost everything, losing both face and money.
After Snowden changed his name and became a "real" Russian, the United States was no longer able to arrest Snowden, and the "Prism Gate" incident was destined to nail the US government to the column of shame and become a page in the history of the United States.
But conversely, why did Snowden's escape go so smoothly? Why did Russia provide Snowden with firm political asylum?
This is also closely related to the game between the great powers. Judging from the surveillance incident itself, Snowden's revelations damage the interests and image of the United States, and for the country being monitored, Snowden is undoubtedly a "hero".
Although the Western European countries, which have close ties with the United States, are equally dissatisfied with the United States, they will not turn their faces to the United States, and for Russia, which is tit-for-tat with the United States, this is nothing more than an excellent opportunity to attack the United States.
According to Putin's hardline style, Russia will not be stingy about providing political asylum to Snowden, because as long as Snowden can speak publicly, the ugly side of the US government will never be forgotten.
So, choosing Russia is arguably the best choice Snowden has made. With Assange's previous experience, Snowden has been completely disappointed in the hypocrisy of the West, and at this time, perhaps only by choosing the "enemy" of the United States can we have a chance to live.
Fortunately, in light of the current international developments, Snowden's life in Russia is expected to be getting smoother and smoother.
For a long time to come, the relationship between the United States and Russia will be difficult to ease, and this will provide Snowden with sufficient living space to live freely.
It can be said that Snowden's careful layout of his own plan has won him a chance to survive, but unlike the extremes and madness in the bones of the "idealist" Assange, the "negative freedom" that Snowden pursues may be the real freedom we can get at this stage.
As noted above, Assange and Snowden's choice of political asylum determines their different circumstances today.
Russia can resist U.S. sanctions and threats, but Ecuador can do nothing about U.S. coercion.
For Assange, who exposed Classified Russian documents, Moscow can no longer afford any shelter. As russian intelligence officials put it: "If the WikiLeaks website discloses Russian secrets, it will disappear forever."
Therefore, with the United States holding the majority of the world's discourse power, if you want to rebel against American rule, you must stand against the United States to a certain extent.
Assange and Snowden stand against the United States for the sake of citizens' freedom of speech and inviolability of personal privacy, then they must choose a country that is opposed to the United States in terms of political views and so on.
America's allies also do not speak out for public power, and even if they are as strong as Russia, they are only using Snowden to blackmail the United States, not for the people's pursuit of true freedom.
From this point of view, Assange and Snowden are also victims of power struggles, but their sacrifices are not fruitless, on the contrary, their struggles can be exchanged for more awakening. Because, when the truth is truly revealed to others, the pattern of checks and balances between all parties will also be in a delicate balance in a short period of time.
From another point of view, such as Assange and Snowden, Snowden, as an exposer, can still be said to be a "decryptor", but many of Assange's actions can be called "stealers".
We oppose the abuse of public power and the theft of personal privacy, but that doesn't mean we have to reciprocate it in the same way.
Assange's indiscriminate attack can be said to be a disappointment in the "state apparatus" and a disappointment in world politics, but to be honest, the "positive freedom" he pursues is indeed out of reach at the moment. Assange represents the interests of the weak, he stands up for the weak, but if everyone is like this anarchic carnival, the abused public power is bound to go to the other extreme, causing the whole society to fall into a state of disorder.
For Snowden, although the U.S. government labeled him a "traitor," he could even be called a "patriot" from what he did.
What he has insisted on from beginning to end is nothing more than the reasonable privacy rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution, and the real purpose of his exposure of the wiretapping incident is only to urge the US Congress to improve relevant laws to limit government rights and protect the privacy of individuals.
The pursuit of freedom in a highly orderly and stylized way of law may already be the highest level we can achieve at this stage.
However, if Assange and Snowden are only defined as Leakers in the United States, this is to some extent a disparagement of the merits of the two. On a grander scale, Assange and Snowden can even be regarded as the forerunners of humanity since entering the world of information.
They are keenly aware that the government is eroding people's living space through the Internet and information, and that there is always a pair of eyes watching our every move in the invisible place. Therefore, our solidarity with Assange and Snowden should perhaps not be limited to the dimension of state to state, but should go deep into the confrontation between citizens and governments, between the individual and the state apparatus.
Of course, both have chosen to leak U.S. secrets to some extent, which can also explain many problems. The United States, the beacon of "liberal democracy" at the end of the last century, has been stripped away layer by layer.
Under the prosperity, the abscesses and tumors of American society have never been cured. Does this mean that American-style freedom and democracy are just tools for their struggle for power and profit? In the future, we may still have a long way to go to truly guarantee human rights and guarantee freedoms.