3 ms·

Not a free speech case at all. He said all he wanted. The book is out and anyone can buy, just the person that broke the legal agreement (not to share the class

Not a free speech case at all. He said all he wanted. The book is out and anyone can buy, just the person that broke the legal agreement (not to share the classified stuff he learned in books without prior clearance) will not make money of that info. Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc. Why do you think that the only two alternatives is to allow people to sell secrets to foreign governments and sell revelations about illegal actions of the state or to punish both in the same way? Why do you think it is impossible to distinguish those two cases?
- disintegore 7y ago
  I think his point is that the law is being applied consistently. If Snowden received a pardon (and he absolutely unarguably should) this would not be problem.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    For one, the law is not being applied consistently. The abusers are still not in jail. Rather, the abuse is still going on, still breaking the law. But also, actually, it would be a problem, because the law would still be broken, because the law still systematically protects the abusers. What is needed is a change to the unjust law, not some exception for someone who highlighted that that is what it is.
soulofmischief 7y ago
Cases like these should be protected with whistleblower laws. Legislation encouraging whistleblowing is a good thing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- irq11 7y ago
  Cases like these are protected by whistleblower laws. But you can’t just leak stuff, call yourself a whistleblower and claim immunity from prosecution. Factually, objectively, Snowden didn’t even try to use the law. (HN voters will immediately censor via downvote any comment that points this out, of course.)
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    > Factually, objectively, Snowden didn’t even try to use the law. Are you sure? Cause I’m pretty sure he did try using the internal methods. > (HN voters will immediately censor via downvote any comment that points this out, of course.) No, we’re not censoring you because you’re right. We’re downvoting you because you’re wrong.
    - irq11 7y ago
      I’m not wrong. He didn’t file a whistleblower complaint [1]. It’s interesting that you confidently assert that I’m wrong when you admit that you don’t even know what you’re saying is true. [1]https://www.lawfareblog.com/edward-snowden-national-security-whistleblowing-and-civil-disobedience https://www.lawfareblog.com/edward-snowden-national-security... ” There is some dispute about the facts of Snowden’s case, but according to the National Security Agency (NSA), he did not appeal to his superiors, follow the normal whistleblower protocols or otherwise attempt to change the surveillance system from within before divulging its details to the outside world. He did not satisfy Rawls’s condition of fair notice.”
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        OFC the NSA asserts he didn't, but why would you trust the government to tell the truth? James Clapper flat out lied to Congress and got away with it. Why wouldn't they (the NSA) claim he didn't? They have an incentive to lie; They're not accountable to anyone. Snowden has no incentive to lie. And I assert it confidently because he did: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/edward-snowden-whistleblower-did-complain-to-nsa-before-leaking-classified-us-government-documents-9247021.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/edward-snowde... https://time.com/53666/snowden-nsa-vanity-fair/ https://time.com/53666/snowden-nsa-vanity-fair/ https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-his-concerns https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden-... You can find many more articles stating that he did.
stale2002 7y ago
> Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc. That sounds wonderful. I wish this were possible.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc. Why do you think that the only two alternatives is to allow people to sell secrets to foreign governments and sell revelations about illegal actions of the state or to punish both in the same way? Why do you think it is impossible to distinguish those two cases?

disintegore 7y ago
I think his point is that the law is being applied consistently. If Snowden received a pardon (and he absolutely unarguably should) this would not be problem.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  For one, the law is not being applied consistently. The abusers are still not in jail. Rather, the abuse is still going on, still breaking the law. But also, actually, it would be a problem, because the law would still be broken, because the law still systematically protects the abusers. What is needed is a change to the unjust law, not some exception for someone who highlighted that that is what it is.

soulofmischief 7y ago

Cases like these should be protected with whistleblower laws. Legislation encouraging whistleblowing is a good thing.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
irq11 7y ago
Cases like these are protected by whistleblower laws. But you can’t just leak stuff, call yourself a whistleblower and claim immunity from prosecution. Factually, objectively, Snowden didn’t even try to use the law. (HN voters will immediately censor via downvote any comment that points this out, of course.)
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  > Factually, objectively, Snowden didn’t even try to use the law. Are you sure? Cause I’m pretty sure he did try using the internal methods. > (HN voters will immediately censor via downvote any comment that points this out, of course.) No, we’re not censoring you because you’re right. We’re downvoting you because you’re wrong.
  - irq11 7y ago
    I’m not wrong. He didn’t file a whistleblower complaint [1]. It’s interesting that you confidently assert that I’m wrong when you admit that you don’t even know what you’re saying is true. [1]https://www.lawfareblog.com/edward-snowden-national-security-whistleblowing-and-civil-disobedience https://www.lawfareblog.com/edward-snowden-national-security... ” There is some dispute about the facts of Snowden’s case, but according to the National Security Agency (NSA), he did not appeal to his superiors, follow the normal whistleblower protocols or otherwise attempt to change the surveillance system from within before divulging its details to the outside world. He did not satisfy Rawls’s condition of fair notice.”
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      OFC the NSA asserts he didn't, but why would you trust the government to tell the truth? James Clapper flat out lied to Congress and got away with it. Why wouldn't they (the NSA) claim he didn't? They have an incentive to lie; They're not accountable to anyone. Snowden has no incentive to lie. And I assert it confidently because he did: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/edward-snowden-whistleblower-did-complain-to-nsa-before-leaking-classified-us-government-documents-9247021.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/edward-snowde... https://time.com/53666/snowden-nsa-vanity-fair/ https://time.com/53666/snowden-nsa-vanity-fair/ https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-his-concerns https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden-... You can find many more articles stating that he did.

stale2002 7y ago

> Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc. That sounds wonderful. I wish this were possible.