4 ms·
In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]: > A
by sradman 6y ago
In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]:
> A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities.
The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of private documents searching for a crime or misdeed. Individuals or small activist organizations now have this ability and it is not exactly the same as a whistleblower leaking documents associated with a known crime.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition
- djbebs 6y agoThe point is moot since these were documents belonging to the government.
- sradman 6y agoThese were government documents leaked to a service designed to protect whistleblowers.
- appleflaxen 6y agoThe crime is not by the journalist who reports it, but on the person who breaks classification. In this sense, Snowden is more guilty than Assange.
- chippiewill 6y agoFWIW Edward Snowden is slightly guilty of fishing in a way. He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.
- sradman 6y agoRight, Snowden and Manning sit on a similar spectrum in terms of unauthorized copying of classified documents. Snowden, seemed to have foreknowledge of an actual crime or at least the government failing to follow a reasonable person’s expectation of it following a given law.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y agoI wish Snowden didn't flee the country. I'd have a completely different opinion if he stood trial.
- jarbus 6y agoI doubt he'd receive a fair trial; No way the government would let an unbiased judge rule over him
- Miner49er 6y agoHe didn't already sacrifice enough of his life? You aren't satisfied unless he gave all of it?
- sradman 6y agoIt doesn't have to be about just deserts, it can be about ethics. This argument is the main thrust of Plato's dialogue Crito [1]: > In Crito, Socrates believes injustice may not be answered with injustice, personifies the Laws of Athens to prove this, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito
- ComputerGuru 6y agoI think he didn’t care much about your opinion of him so much as he did about what would happen to him and where he’d end up. Given what was being kept from the American people and what he knew, it’s impossible to call him paranoid or to even pass judgement on his character. He may not have been willing to give his literal life for the sake of blowing the whistle, but there really can be no question that he did give up his life to do so.