4 ms·

If you're knowledgable enough to censor the documents yourself before release, that's the way to go. Not everyone has perfect knowledge. Releasing only to journ

If you're knowledgable enough to censor the documents yourself before release, that's the way to go. Not everyone has perfect knowledge. Releasing only to journalists and stuff is a fairly good method too, but maybe create unnecessary exposure. Manning also went for a bulk dump strategy rather than being selective. Ultimately when you're dealing with a lot of data, that might be the only reasonable way to get it, but leaking unnecessary data where no incriminating evidence is present certainly detracts from the legitimacy of whistleblowing claims. If you can afford the time to be selective in your dumping or at least in your releasing, take it. Unfortunately some of Manning's stuff got leaked in full, I believe not due to anything of Manning or Wikileaks' fault, but because an uninformed or careless journalist published an insurance key he shouldn't have.

tomp 10y ago
Snowden was very selective, and look where that got him...
- problems 10y ago
  Oh yeah, for sure. You aren't getting around the nasty governmental environment towards whistleblowsers. Just improving your image in the eye of some people and your odds if it does come down to a legal matter, really. Running, like Snowden did is really your best bet there I think. He's pretty much the textbook example of how to do this in the most correct way possible and still keep some degree of freedom for yourself. If you're willing to be a martyr, then you can stand up for that. Some people insist you must. But I'm more than willing to accept both that someone finds something egregiously offensive that needs to be publicized, but also wants to keep their freedom.
  - hectorr 10y ago
    The press was selective in what Snowden released. As far as we know, Snowden wasn't selective in what he obtained, or in what he then provided to adversary intelligence services in China and Russia. I don't like what Snowden did, but I would respect the hell out of him if he had decided to stand up for his convictions and face the music. He'd have had a far better case, and would have had incredible EFF and ACLU lawyers on his side, and a ton of public sympathy. Instead, he turned an act of patriotism into an act of espionage and treason.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  He wasn't very selective. If he were being selective he would only have released information that had constitutional issues. Most of his documents were regarding foreign spying.
  - teddyh 10y ago
    Just because something is constitutional does not make it ethical.
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      Irrelevant when it comes to whistleblowing and legality. The government could not function if people were justified in releasing all information they disagreed with. Surely the set of information related to actions that no one disagrees with is empty or nearly so.
      - NamTaf 10y ago
        I don't think it's as black and white as that. Maybe the NSA spying on some overseas entities isn't strictly illegal. But to understand the bigger picture of their all-encompassing reach and sheer pervasiveness better emphasises their wrongdoings on US soil because it helps explain why the NSA's general mentalities of 'we have the right to collect ALL of the information' and 'we are above the law' exist. Am I saying I think it's outright justified? No, because I'm honestly not sure. I am however sure that it's not as black and white as 'legal' vs 'illegal' when it comes to whistleblowing because the extra infromation helps us establish a context and understand a sense of scale of the wrongdoing, for example. edit: Here's an example: It's probably not illegal that the 'official' estimates of civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely far lower than the reality. Assume for the sake of discussion that this was intentional. Having a better understanding the more realistic magnitude of civilian deaths helps the public understand the realities of such wars and helps them make more informed decisions on whether they're comfortable with the actions of their government. It changes the context of the Iraq war and may go from 'we were justified in doing it' to 'it wasn't worth it' for some of the voting public.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I think reasonable people can disagree about how selective Snowden was.
- hendersoon 10y ago
  Snowden wasn't selective, the journalists he chose were. As to where it got him-- he actually accomplished his goal, to start a conversation about privacy, government outreach, and secret courts. Also he's living in Moscow with his girlfriend while Manning rotted in solitary for seven years and attempted suicide several times.
  - hnbro 10y ago
    i guess it's always good to have an exit strategy.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Snowden was very selective, and look where that got him... Snowden leaked to people who were more selective than Manning, at least. And we don't actually know where it would have gotten him with the legal syste, since as well as learning "how to leak" from Manning's negative example, he also seems to have learned "where to be when the leaks become public" by the same method.

tomp 10y ago

Snowden was very selective, and look where that got him...

problems 10y ago
Oh yeah, for sure. You aren't getting around the nasty governmental environment towards whistleblowsers. Just improving your image in the eye of some people and your odds if it does come down to a legal matter, really. Running, like Snowden did is really your best bet there I think. He's pretty much the textbook example of how to do this in the most correct way possible and still keep some degree of freedom for yourself. If you're willing to be a martyr, then you can stand up for that. Some people insist you must. But I'm more than willing to accept both that someone finds something egregiously offensive that needs to be publicized, but also wants to keep their freedom.
- hectorr 10y ago
  The press was selective in what Snowden released. As far as we know, Snowden wasn't selective in what he obtained, or in what he then provided to adversary intelligence services in China and Russia. I don't like what Snowden did, but I would respect the hell out of him if he had decided to stand up for his convictions and face the music. He'd have had a far better case, and would have had incredible EFF and ACLU lawyers on his side, and a ton of public sympathy. Instead, he turned an act of patriotism into an act of espionage and treason.
hackinthebochs 10y ago
He wasn't very selective. If he were being selective he would only have released information that had constitutional issues. Most of his documents were regarding foreign spying.
- teddyh 10y ago
  Just because something is constitutional does not make it ethical.
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    Irrelevant when it comes to whistleblowing and legality. The government could not function if people were justified in releasing all information they disagreed with. Surely the set of information related to actions that no one disagrees with is empty or nearly so.
    - NamTaf 10y ago
      I don't think it's as black and white as that. Maybe the NSA spying on some overseas entities isn't strictly illegal. But to understand the bigger picture of their all-encompassing reach and sheer pervasiveness better emphasises their wrongdoings on US soil because it helps explain why the NSA's general mentalities of 'we have the right to collect ALL of the information' and 'we are above the law' exist. Am I saying I think it's outright justified? No, because I'm honestly not sure. I am however sure that it's not as black and white as 'legal' vs 'illegal' when it comes to whistleblowing because the extra infromation helps us establish a context and understand a sense of scale of the wrongdoing, for example. edit: Here's an example: It's probably not illegal that the 'official' estimates of civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely far lower than the reality. Assume for the sake of discussion that this was intentional. Having a better understanding the more realistic magnitude of civilian deaths helps the public understand the realities of such wars and helps them make more informed decisions on whether they're comfortable with the actions of their government. It changes the context of the Iraq war and may go from 'we were justified in doing it' to 'it wasn't worth it' for some of the voting public.
tptacek 10y ago
I think reasonable people can disagree about how selective Snowden was.
hendersoon 10y ago
Snowden wasn't selective, the journalists he chose were. As to where it got him-- he actually accomplished his goal, to start a conversation about privacy, government outreach, and secret courts. Also he's living in Moscow with his girlfriend while Manning rotted in solitary for seven years and attempted suicide several times.
- hnbro 10y ago
  i guess it's always good to have an exit strategy.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Snowden was very selective, and look where that got him... Snowden leaked to people who were more selective than Manning, at least. And we don't actually know where it would have gotten him with the legal syste, since as well as learning "how to leak" from Manning's negative example, he also seems to have learned "where to be when the leaks become public" by the same method.