Game Theory Behind Edward Snowden
At this point in time, almost everyone knows about the infamous (or famous) Edward Snowden. People have taken stances on whether this whistleblower should be brought to justice or hailed as a hero. This doesn’t change the fact that he has chosen to become a fugitive from the American government, and has taken asylum in various countries, including (allegedly) Russia last year. Snowden’s actions from the beginning have been a matter of game theory, as his choices had very polarized outcomes. Thus, this ability to be a whistleblower causes Edward Snowden to be playing a game with USA. The USA brings its credibility to the people to the table, whilst Snowden brings his freedom to the table.
The game is actually a set of games in which the outcomes of one game affects weights and outcomes in subsequent games. The first game is set up such that a positive outcome for Snowden would be one in which he released all of the documents about the American Government, stayed in the US, and remained out of prison. The negative outcome would be when Snowden goes to prison or had to go to another country. His choice of course, would be to either release, or hide the documents he had procured. The US, as a much more powerful and ambiguous entity, has very different possible outcomes from this game. Further, it isn’t necessarily limited to two options on how to handle the situation. During the time of the release of the documents, the US didn’t really have many options, or rather publicly known options. On pure speculation (for the purpose of this game), one can presume the US had some clue on Snowden’s leaking of documents and they had the choice to immediately apprehend him, or let him leak the documents. The outcome is the fluctuation of the US’s credibility. The US (again going on the presumption that it knew about Snowden and his documents) would have lost credibility in arresting a man without reason. If his arrest did in fact go to court, and the documents were publicly shown as proof as to why the US unjustly arrested him, the US would lose DOUBLE the credibility compared to the case in which they let Snowden be. Thus, the US was forced into a position in which Snowden was given the freedom to chose what he would do with his documents. Snowden, chose to sacrifice his ability to live freely in the US to leak documents (whether to be a whistleblower or an attention drawer). Thus, more games were allowed to continue (such as where Snowden chooses whether or not to take refuge at a certain country, and the US can choose whether to make better relations with that country) with different players (countries), outcomes, and more. Various decisions could be simplified to binary ones, such that multiple weights could be considered to see whether or not a country’s or Snowden’s choice is correct.
The article by Daniel Altman (below) talks a lot about Snowden’s options, and country’s options. It notes that many country’s had the option to offer refuge for Snowden, and many countries did take this option as they didn’t have to offer transportation. They showed how the games Snowden created by leaking the documents allowed for various “showy” political moves to be made by governments across the world, while creating very little change to Snowden’s immediate situation. Altman talks about how airlines are major players in defining Snowden’s fate. He also talks about how Game Theory was a useful tool for countries to evaluate their fates during the Cold War, where countries were “trying to figure out how to avoid everything from small conflicts to nuclear annihilation.” According to the article, there are plenty of other players (separate factions) that will impede or help Snowden’s process, making his situation even more complicated. Thus, a state of constant games can model the situation of Snowden and his relations between him and his allies, sudo-allies, and enemies. In the end, it’s all just a game.
The article: http://bigthink.com/econ201/snowdens-endgame