3 ms·

Yes, let's best put it into the hand of the agency/government that tried to hide the information from the public in the first place... "Please defendent, have

Yes, let's best put it into the hand of the agency/government that tried to hide the information from the public in the first place... "Please defendent, have look at the evidence we gathered about your murder case. It's best if you decide which of the evidence we should use in court against you." lmao (on a sad note, this is how day to day business at goverments looks like and precisely WHY we need whistleblowers)

jknoepfler 7y ago
An obvious example of properly concealed information, however, would be the current address of an abusee testifying against an abuser. More pertinently to the Snowden case, information that might disclose the identity of people who risk their life to collaborate with the USA. There is legitimate cause to conceal information known to the government from the public. That said, I believe Snowden acted correctly. The federal government in its current form has lost its legitimacy as an arbiter of sensitive information, and citizens of the USA have every reason to believe that federal intelligence agencies are abusing the priveledges vested in them by the people. Laws can be formulated in good faith by a legitimate government to protect and conceal information, but in this particular case they needed to seriously overhauled, and Snowden's act of civil disobedience was justified. I think he should be prosecuted, and the laws changed. Personally I'm rooting for Snowden, but effective civil disobedience requires a willingness to go down with the ship that Snowden clearly lacked.
- dorgo 7y ago
  > requires a willingness to go down with the ship IMO, it would have lessened the impact if he went down with the ship. Otherwise I agree.