> Kiriakou was sentenced to 30 months not 30 years. My bad, but still egregious nonetheless. > As far as harm goes Manning's leaks exposed the identities of a

> Kiriakou was sentenced to 30 months not 30 years. My bad, but still egregious nonetheless. > As far as harm goes Manning's leaks exposed the identities of a lot of people You're after different people. It's Luke Harding and David Leigh from the Guardian that published the password to the unredacted files. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/09/unredacted_us_d.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/09/unredacted_us... > We probably will never know how many, if any, people got killed from being exposed in the leaks This is exactly what I meant by "unspecified and theoretical." The government had over 2 decades to point to any instances of harm. Where are they? Also again, Chelsea Manning didn't publish the unredacted files. It's rich to blame her for Afghanistan deaths while ignoring the actions of Bush and every president after him, where the ultimate responsibility lies. > A crucial difference is that when the teen sent someone to your house they were not there to kill you. No, the crucial difference is intent. Swatting kills people, swatters know that, but they do it anyways for their own pleasure. Obviously, swatters aren't sending trigger-happy cops so that their victims can survive. Meanwhile, Chelsea Manning exposed war crimes. This is whistleblowing, not some selfish "leak." The intent here is to save lives, the exact opposite of swatting. I don't know how anyone can demonize whistleblowing while trivializing swatting.