3 ms·

> he was quite literally dealing with matters of national security Do you think that Al-Qaeda is a greater threat to national security than a spy agency run am

by woodman 10y ago

> he was quite literally dealing with matters of national security Do you think that Al-Qaeda is a greater threat to national security than a spy agency run amok? Justifying prosecution with such logic... it reminds me of the story about the burglar suing the home owner because he injured himself while illegally on the property.

lewisl9029 10y ago
> Do you think that Al-Qaeda is a greater threat to national security than a spy agency run amok? Most definitely not. And I'm not sure how you could have gotten that impression if you actually read my posts instead of taking that single statement out of context. For the record, I applaud Snowden for his revelation of the NSA's overreach. I just happen to also believe that he could have handled the leak in a much more responsible and defensible manner by carefully reviewing each document that he leaked to ensure they were relevant to the case he was making, and redact any non-relevant sensitive information that could be damaging to national security, instead of just dumping thousands of documents that he never read and delegating to the media what should have been his own responsibility as a whistleblower. He definitely deserves much praise for his bravery and for sparking the resulting conversation about privacy and government overreach, but we shouldn't let that blind us from the potential dangers of the approach he took.
- woodman 10y ago
  I did read your entire post - several actually. So if you were not referring to the slide with Al-Qaeda related operational details (referenced in your John Oliver link), what did he neglect to redact? If that is not the thing you want to see him prosecuted for, can you state it more clearly? I assume you aren't wanting him prosecuted for "the potential dangers of the approach he took", such hypotheticals would be an even more dangerous precedent. We aren't going to agree though, as I believe that he should have dumped it all - unrestricted public access. Whatever potential good end a kindly king can apply state secrets is far outweighed by the potential abuses (a great imagination isn't required, lots of historical examples exist).
  - lewisl9029 10y ago
    > So if you were not referring to the slide with Al-Qaeda related operational details (referenced in your John Oliver link), what did he neglect to redact? The thousands of documents that he didn't even read (or even try to redact) before he handed them off. > We aren't going to agree though, as I believe that he should have dumped it all - unrestricted public access. You're right. We'll have to agree to disagree.

by woodman 10y ago

lewisl9029 10y ago

> Do you think that Al-Qaeda is a greater threat to national security than a spy agency run amok? Most definitely not. And I'm not sure how you could have gotten that impression if you actually read my posts instead of taking that single statement out of context. For the record, I applaud Snowden for his revelation of the NSA's overreach. I just happen to also believe that he could have handled the leak in a much more responsible and defensible manner by carefully reviewing each document that he leaked to ensure they were relevant to the case he was making, and redact any non-relevant sensitive information that could be damaging to national security, instead of just dumping thousands of documents that he never read and delegating to the media what should have been his own responsibility as a whistleblower. He definitely deserves much praise for his bravery and for sparking the resulting conversation about privacy and government overreach, but we shouldn't let that blind us from the potential dangers of the approach he took.

woodman 10y ago
I did read your entire post - several actually. So if you were not referring to the slide with Al-Qaeda related operational details (referenced in your John Oliver link), what did he neglect to redact? If that is not the thing you want to see him prosecuted for, can you state it more clearly? I assume you aren't wanting him prosecuted for "the potential dangers of the approach he took", such hypotheticals would be an even more dangerous precedent. We aren't going to agree though, as I believe that he should have dumped it all - unrestricted public access. Whatever potential good end a kindly king can apply state secrets is far outweighed by the potential abuses (a great imagination isn't required, lots of historical examples exist).
- lewisl9029 10y ago
  > So if you were not referring to the slide with Al-Qaeda related operational details (referenced in your John Oliver link), what did he neglect to redact? The thousands of documents that he didn't even read (or even try to redact) before he handed them off. > We aren't going to agree though, as I believe that he should have dumped it all - unrestricted public access. You're right. We'll have to agree to disagree.