I can understand there's an argument that the scope of the documents leaked is too broad and how someone could think trusting the selective publishing to journa

I can understand there's an argument that the scope of the documents leaked is too broad and how someone could think trusting the selective publishing to journalists isn't good enough. I think Binney was arguing that it was the journalists responsibility not to publish materials out of scope. That said, I suspect it's broad because it's hard to be selective internally without arousing suspicion and part of the leak was the scale of the operation itself - but that's not a great defense. >If the problem was that he disagreed with the law, in the US, the way to change laws you disagree with is through the political process. Not by breaking them then demanding a pardon. I think the core problem is actually deeper than this. When you have secret courts and secret interpretations of secret laws you don't have a process to change them. Part of leak was to bring this into the public view - given the incentives, politics and the existing laws surrounding the sharing of classified information I don't see another way this could have been done. Mass surveillance should minimally be a public decision - the secrecy surrounding it is dangerous.