3 ms·

Well good thing he didn’t leak them! Instead, he gave them to The Guardian who reviewed them and only released what was pertinent.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
The Guardian released far more than what was illegal. Again, if Snowden went to the newspaper with just the one illegal US program that he uncovered, he would have been OK. Instead, he immediately leaked to China a list of compromised Chinese systems, among thousands of other documents he leaked through Greenwald that didn't contain anything illegal.
- roenxi 7y ago
  So, say there was something in there that should be illegal. How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the public supposed to direct the government about what should or shouldn't be illegal? This is the crux of the matter. There is a bunch of stuff going on that should be illegal that can't be made illegal because nobody is quite sure what is happening. Some links related to the honesty of the intelligence head honchos: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-that-james-comey-lied-to-congress-says-mark-meadows https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-tha... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a whistleblower instead of a fugitive criminal.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being publicly available and (2) information being debated and (3) voting. And this is going to why classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment - if someone goes into the intelligence community and says 'oh my god, all this should be illegal' then they need to be able to publicly lobby to have it made illegal. > If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program... That is dodging my point - the issue is whether or not the programs should be made illegal; what the intelligence agencies are developing the look like terrible apparatus that would have a welcoming home in any authoritarian state.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? > That is dodging my point No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden's actions bad even in your very lenient view of what leaks should be protected.
        roenxi 7y ago
        > and the opinion of every lawmaker Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public. > What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt. The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.
- sbarre 7y ago
  Do you have a citation for this?
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-s... Look up a Snowden US intelligence leak at random, and unless it's the phone metadata collection, it's legal.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

The Guardian released far more than what was illegal. Again, if Snowden went to the newspaper with just the one illegal US program that he uncovered, he would have been OK. Instead, he immediately leaked to China a list of compromised Chinese systems, among thousands of other documents he leaked through Greenwald that didn't contain anything illegal.

roenxi 7y ago
So, say there was something in there that should be illegal. How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the public supposed to direct the government about what should or shouldn't be illegal? This is the crux of the matter. There is a bunch of stuff going on that should be illegal that can't be made illegal because nobody is quite sure what is happening. Some links related to the honesty of the intelligence head honchos: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-that-james-comey-lied-to-congress-says-mark-meadows https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-tha... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a whistleblower instead of a fugitive criminal.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being publicly available and (2) information being debated and (3) voting. And this is going to why classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment - if someone goes into the intelligence community and says 'oh my god, all this should be illegal' then they need to be able to publicly lobby to have it made illegal. > If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program... That is dodging my point - the issue is whether or not the programs should be made illegal; what the intelligence agencies are developing the look like terrible apparatus that would have a welcoming home in any authoritarian state.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? > That is dodging my point No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden's actions bad even in your very lenient view of what leaks should be protected.
      - roenxi 7y ago
        > and the opinion of every lawmaker Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public. > What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt. The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.
sbarre 7y ago
Do you have a citation for this?
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-s... Look up a Snowden US intelligence leak at random, and unless it's the phone metadata collection, it's legal.