6 ms·
No, from the context of the post above mine, it is obvious that by "leaking indiscriminately" I meant to the general public. You are either lacking context com
by jazzyk 11y ago
No, from the context of the post above mine, it is obvious that by "leaking indiscriminately" I meant to the general public.
You are either lacking context comprehension skills or intentionally splitting hairs to make Snowden look bad...
- irishcoffee 11y agoHow are journalists not the general public? Giving classified documents to _anyone_ who isn't cleared to see them is the "general public." Journalists are no exception. Not sure why you think that.
- jazzyk 11y agoAre you serious? The only "cleared" (using your term) people were NSA higher-ups - the very same people who spied on their own citizens. Snowden sent the docs not to any/all journalists, but to a carefully selected group of the most reputable ones: NYT, WP, Guardian. He had followed Poitras/Greenwald for a long time before to make sure the docs end up in responsible hands. Also, the journalists asked the US government to cooperate/redact out some national-security sensitive details, they refused. So they had to use their own judgement.
- facetube 11y agoAre you arguing that Snowden giving all of the documents to me would have produced the same outcome as giving them to journalists to review and redact and write articles about?
- irishcoffee 11y agoYes. What qualifies you, or journalists, to know umpty-squat about national security? 99% of what snowden leaked had _nothing_ to do with the privacy of U.S. citizens. Nothing.