4 ms·

Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up. Once all legal means have been exhausted, going illegal is gene

Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up. Once all legal means have been exhausted, going illegal is generally acceptable, IMO

click170 10y ago
Completely agree. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up Not really and a bit hyperbolic. According to Snowden he went to 10 "district officials" of which none of them took action. The NSA as well as other DoD agencies have a channel for complaints like this to go through where they're seen by a group of people, not a district official. Snowden never made reference to filing one of those as far as I can find. All we have is his word he told someone relevant but completely skipped the appropriate channel for such reporting. So I'm not sure he actually exhausted his legal means. I just don't have the data to say either way. But I'm still not sure I'd go with the "going illegal is generally acceptable" even after that; that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual. Thats why I said "generally"
- themartorana 10y ago
  When that chain is complicit all the way up, there's no longer a legitimate path to raise the red flag. We know the chain was complicit all the way up to Clapper, and so did Snowden, which then makes "proper paths" illegitimate.
  - nickff 10y ago
    The chain is still complicit all the way to the president, who took no action against the NSA after their actions were publicly revealed, or against Clapper after he lied to Congress. Taking action in those instances is the least the President could have done; he should have been a vigilant defender of the people, who eliminated the programs before they are even disclosed.
- colordrops 10y ago
  Even if he didn't report to anyone, what he did would still be ethical. There is a big risk that your report will be ignored or even punished, considering that the illegal programs were explicitly and purposely approved and implemented by upper management. That's like reporting to your school principle that your school principle is embezzling school funds.
- pyre 10y ago
  There were other NSA whistleblowers before Snowden, but they tried to go the legal route and were punished for it. It was only Snowden's illegal sharing of information that made sure the real story got out.

Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up. Once all legal means have been exhausted, going illegal is generally acceptable, IMO

click170 10y ago

Completely agree. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up Not really and a bit hyperbolic. According to Snowden he went to 10 "district officials" of which none of them took action. The NSA as well as other DoD agencies have a channel for complaints like this to go through where they're seen by a group of people, not a district official. Snowden never made reference to filing one of those as far as I can find. All we have is his word he told someone relevant but completely skipped the appropriate channel for such reporting. So I'm not sure he actually exhausted his legal means. I just don't have the data to say either way. But I'm still not sure I'd go with the "going illegal is generally acceptable" even after that; that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual.

CaptSpify 10y ago
> that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual. Thats why I said "generally"
themartorana 10y ago
When that chain is complicit all the way up, there's no longer a legitimate path to raise the red flag. We know the chain was complicit all the way up to Clapper, and so did Snowden, which then makes "proper paths" illegitimate.
- nickff 10y ago
  The chain is still complicit all the way to the president, who took no action against the NSA after their actions were publicly revealed, or against Clapper after he lied to Congress. Taking action in those instances is the least the President could have done; he should have been a vigilant defender of the people, who eliminated the programs before they are even disclosed.
colordrops 10y ago
Even if he didn't report to anyone, what he did would still be ethical. There is a big risk that your report will be ignored or even punished, considering that the illegal programs were explicitly and purposely approved and implemented by upper management. That's like reporting to your school principle that your school principle is embezzling school funds.
pyre 10y ago
There were other NSA whistleblowers before Snowden, but they tried to go the legal route and were punished for it. It was only Snowden's illegal sharing of information that made sure the real story got out.