10 ms·

Well, it is less expensive to build data-centers and tap fiber-optic lines than to send rockets to orbit and probes to Mars... (especially the way NASA does it

Well, it is less expensive to build data-centers and tap fiber-optic lines than to send rockets to orbit and probes to Mars... (especially the way NASA does it compared to, say, SpaceX.. but that's another discussion) But in any case, I think it's fine to get these numbers public because it's still taxpayer money. I think it would've been worse of Snowden NOT to release numbers just because they aren't as shocking as they could've been. Transparency should be about showing you what's there, not about cherry-picking things to form a narrative that distorts what is there.

rgbrenner 13y ago
"A whistleblower is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization." [0] I support Snowden, but this document is none of those things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
- socillion 13y ago
  None of what he has released qualifies him as a whistleblower, because it is classified information (which has strictly regulated ways to handle impropriety) and the activities are not illegal (ignoring tenuous Constitution arguments).
  - ajays 13y ago
    I am sorry, but even if you absolutely ignore everything else, Clapper's lying to Congress was illegal. He has also exposed the fact that NSA has violated the constitution many times. What is "classified" anyways? Some guy sitting somewhere decides that it is "classified". So why can't some other guy decide that it is in the public interest to not classify it?
  - speeder 13y ago
    So, a court already declared it illegal, and one of the things he leaked was information about illegal things NSA admitted it has done... How it is not illegal?
  - primitur 13y ago
    Perhaps there is more to be understood here: Snowden didn't blow the whistle on the US Government, he blew the whistle on the US People, and what they have allowed their government to become. Big difference.
- MikeCapone 13y ago
  If it was the only thing he ever released, I would agree with you. But in the context of what has been shown before, I think it fits for reasons I stated up-thread.
- legutierr 13y ago
  Is your argument that because the wikipedia definition of whistleblower seems to exclude this type of disclosure, it doesn't qualify as whistleblowing? If someone amended the wikipedia definition to include "disclosures of information which is of a compelling nature and of significant interest to the voting public", would you change your opinion? Shouldn't the question of the value of this disclosure be determined on its merits (does its value in furthering democracy outweigh any potential harm), not whether or not it qualifies under some dictionary definition?
  - rgbrenner 13y ago
    You have an issue with the wikipedia definition? http://www.whistleblower.org/about/what-is-a-whistleblower http://www.whistleblower.org/about/what-is-a-whistleblower http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introduction/whistleblowing.html http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_e... https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/overview https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/overview https://www.internationalwhistleblowers.com/contact-iwb/800-definitions- https://www.internationalwhistleblowers.com/contact-iwb/800-... http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/whistleblowers-law/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/whistleblowers-law/ http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=63 http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&t... http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/10/190380255/what-we-mean-when-we-say-whistleblower http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/10/190380255/wha... Pick whatever definition you want. This document doesn't fit it.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I think it is quite clear that he is not saying his quarrel is with dictionary definitions. You should [re]read what he wrote, particularly the second paragraph of it.

rgbrenner 13y ago

"A whistleblower is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization." [0] I support Snowden, but this document is none of those things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

socillion 13y ago
None of what he has released qualifies him as a whistleblower, because it is classified information (which has strictly regulated ways to handle impropriety) and the activities are not illegal (ignoring tenuous Constitution arguments).
- ajays 13y ago
  I am sorry, but even if you absolutely ignore everything else, Clapper's lying to Congress was illegal. He has also exposed the fact that NSA has violated the constitution many times. What is "classified" anyways? Some guy sitting somewhere decides that it is "classified". So why can't some other guy decide that it is in the public interest to not classify it?
- speeder 13y ago
  So, a court already declared it illegal, and one of the things he leaked was information about illegal things NSA admitted it has done... How it is not illegal?
- primitur 13y ago
  Perhaps there is more to be understood here: Snowden didn't blow the whistle on the US Government, he blew the whistle on the US People, and what they have allowed their government to become. Big difference.
MikeCapone 13y ago
If it was the only thing he ever released, I would agree with you. But in the context of what has been shown before, I think it fits for reasons I stated up-thread.
legutierr 13y ago
Is your argument that because the wikipedia definition of whistleblower seems to exclude this type of disclosure, it doesn't qualify as whistleblowing? If someone amended the wikipedia definition to include "disclosures of information which is of a compelling nature and of significant interest to the voting public", would you change your opinion? Shouldn't the question of the value of this disclosure be determined on its merits (does its value in furthering democracy outweigh any potential harm), not whether or not it qualifies under some dictionary definition?
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  You have an issue with the wikipedia definition? http://www.whistleblower.org/about/what-is-a-whistleblower http://www.whistleblower.org/about/what-is-a-whistleblower http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introduction/whistleblowing.html http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_e... https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/overview https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/overview https://www.internationalwhistleblowers.com/contact-iwb/800-definitions- https://www.internationalwhistleblowers.com/contact-iwb/800-... http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/whistleblowers-law/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/whistleblowers-law/ http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=63 http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&t... http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/10/190380255/what-we-mean-when-we-say-whistleblower http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/10/190380255/wha... Pick whatever definition you want. This document doesn't fit it.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I think it is quite clear that he is not saying his quarrel is with dictionary definitions. You should [re]read what he wrote, particularly the second paragraph of it.