4 ms·

There are two things wrong with your statement. Firstly, you're implying that Snowden revealed info about current military operations. If you read his comments

by amirmc 13y ago

There are two things wrong with your statement. Firstly, you're implying that Snowden revealed info about current military operations. If you read his comments (eg Guardian Q&A), he makes it clear that his issue is with the suspicionless surveillance and that he took steps to avoid revealing more. If he's shared info of the kind you're describing, please point to it. Otherwise there is no precedent set here. Secondly, your approach basically boils down to "Don't get in the way of the Military or Governement. Ever." There are plenty of other countries in the world with similar doctrines, which I find ironic. Also, What d'you think about previous whistle-blower actions in US history, like the Pentagon Papers [1]? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

keefe 13y ago
He took unilateral action in determining what he thought was safe. Neither of us really knows the impact of the leak or its actual scope (as far as other lesser security breaches likely concomitant with the major leak). The approach doesn't boil down to that hyperbole at all. There's a place for opposition, but I don't see it as among those people who choose to work on classified projects for the NSA and CIA. Compartmentalized security relies on trusted individuals not choosing to make unilateral security decisions. If he wants to resign and then generally oppose governmental surveillance, then he is welcome to do that. I see the pentagon papers as along the same lines as this. The remnants of my teenage agents sympathize with the whistle blower spirit, but I see this as effectively the same as vigilante justice and blatant disregard of the importance of trust in security and while it may have had positive societal benefits, that doesn't mean there should be no consequences.

by amirmc 13y ago

keefe 13y ago

He took unilateral action in determining what he thought was safe. Neither of us really knows the impact of the leak or its actual scope (as far as other lesser security breaches likely concomitant with the major leak). The approach doesn't boil down to that hyperbole at all. There's a place for opposition, but I don't see it as among those people who choose to work on classified projects for the NSA and CIA. Compartmentalized security relies on trusted individuals not choosing to make unilateral security decisions. If he wants to resign and then generally oppose governmental surveillance, then he is welcome to do that. I see the pentagon papers as along the same lines as this. The remnants of my teenage agents sympathize with the whistle blower spirit, but I see this as effectively the same as vigilante justice and blatant disregard of the importance of trust in security and while it may have had positive societal benefits, that doesn't mean there should be no consequences.