4 ms·

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices an

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices and should be held accountable for them in a court of law. If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wrong, man. Snowden was essentially in charge of doing data backup transfers from the pacific to Washington, DC. This means that the NSA trusted him like many of us are trusted every day. The world would descend into chaos pretty quickly if we all decided to start reviewing and passing judgement on the data that we're in charge of, instead of just making sure that it goes where it's supposed to go without incident. No matter how noble his intentions or how despicable the actions of others were, what he did was unethical, illegal and immoral. It's not about heroes and villains. We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. We can't make exceptions because someone is popular or because we agree with their motives. If a jury of Edward Snowden's peers are so taken by his celebrity and upstanding moral character that they find him not guilty, then so be it. But all of us should be hoping that he comes home to face that jury. Because it's the right thing to do.

rantanplan 11y ago
> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us Might want to rephrase that? Or be more specific about which "good" you're talking about and who's "all of us"?
- pekk 11y ago
  In a system of laws, it is bad (unjust and in other ways problematic) to give particular people special exceptions. Does that tell you which "good" is being talked about? The "all of us" is all the people covered by a particular system of laws.
  - rantanplan 11y ago
    Your statement diregards completely the reason we have laws in the first place. The reason we create laws is not to obey them because they are laws. That would be stupid. If the laws are unjust, unethical or problematic for all but the powerful, they should be eliminated. Also, the whole Snowden thing happened because the NSA was operating against the laws and because what they did was obviously unethical. If my employer does something unlawful or unethical should I continue to cover for him, just because an employee must obey the orders of his/her employer? That is obsurd.
jordigh 11y ago
> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. Off the top of my head, here are some ways that laws have been broken: * By refusing to sit at the back of the bus. * By refusing to pay taxes on tea. * By housing Jewish refugees. * By helping runaway slaves. * By marrying someone of a different ethnicity than your own. * By declaring a country's independence. * By telling people what their government was doing. * By writing software that could be covered by patents. Not all of these had or could have had a resolution in courts. Breaking laws is sometimes the only way to make any progress. In conclusion, laws should be broken when they are unjust. For the good of us all.
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  Exactly. A law being a law doesn't mean it's right.
- Nadya 11y ago
  I feel a bit embarrassed I used a stretched and contrived analogy instead of actual cases of progressiveness caused by breaking of laws.
Spooky23 11y ago
> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. We can't make exceptions because someone is popular or because we agree with their motives. Oh yeah, like the former General turned CIA Director who provided classified material to his mistress/biographer and was able to avoid felony charges? If the fate of US security was undermined by Snowden, we're fucked anyway. Everything revealed from a threat POV thus far has been predicted by security experts in the public domain since the 90s, and by the government itself in warnings about travel in China. I think the reaction to the Snowden documents makes it very clear that there is no bright line from a moral POV. The fact that the government hasn't really been able to discredit him is evidence in my mind that he is what he says he is. Snowden will almost certainly end up imprisoned as part of some sort of deal with the Russians someday. History may bring clarity (assuming it isn't classified forever or destroyed), but some kangaroo court or "jury of peers" certainly won't.
rndmind 11y ago
"Those who do nothing while witnessing injustice and wrong-doing do worse than those who commit acts of injustice." "When you see injustice and do nothing, you are an accomplice." This is not about Edward Snowden, anyway, this is about the violation of our constitutional rights on a massive scale.
UweSchmidt 11y ago
Saying "no matter what this is about, not following any rule/breaking trust" is automatically "unethical, illegal and immoral" is wrong. If that was true, the concepts of ethics and morals wouldn't exist much in the first place. In some situations breaking a law or disobeying an order is a must, i.e. when ordered to commit a war crime. So, why not have a look at the specifics of the situation at hand instead of dismissing it outright? What are you trusted with? Safety inspections? Overseeing any compliance issues? I could see many areas and many scenarios where I would hold you accountable to not just do as you are ordered, but speak out against wrongdoings.
rorykoehler 11y ago
>We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. This line refutes the whole premise of your argument. Clearly the rules were not being enforced so Snowden had no choice but to leak the mass and systemic breaking of those rules or be complicit. Snowden wouldn't get a fair trial so it would be reckless for him to come home.
Ao7bei3s 11y ago
> for the good of all of us Except for us who are not US americans. Whose rights the US routinely tramples. Snowden is a hero. > If a jury of Edward Snowden's peers are so taken by his celebrity and upstanding moral character that they find him not guilty Like he'd get a fair trial.
- eatbuckyballs 11y ago
  US law only applies to US Citizens, while I understand your sentiment it's written that way for a reason. EU Law loosely allows for all persons regardless of country protection with the same laws of the EU. Frustrated or not, Protecting their country and their countries assets is. If you don't think this is going on around the globe then you're not looking for answers. The fact that there were checks and balances (some that may not have worked) is still way more than the rest of the world. For example the russian SORM system flat out forces a 1:1 copy of all internet traffic to the FSB. Meta data at gateways vs full capture, where's the uproar on behalf of the Russian citizens? Not to mention russian provides internet access / connectivity for many African, middle eastern, and even eastern european companies (direct and through proxy organizations) all subject to the same SORM rulings.
sopooneo 11y ago
Theft of the King's tea?
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>but what he did was wrong. It was illegal. Illegal and wrong are often at ends. >Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. Theft to survive? A child betraying an adult's trust by reporting abuse?
pdkl95 11y ago
This isn't about who the NSA (or anybody else) chose to place their trust, and it certainly isn't about some right-wing-authoritarian[1] desire for social order (the world isn't going to descend into chaos if critical thinking starts taking over from blindly following orders. This is about our duties to the great ideals of freedom that this country was founded upon... and the oath Snowden took[2] to defend the same. The question you should be asking is why isn't everybody else that took this oath doing something similar? The oath in question: (emphasis added) I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will *support and defend the Constitution* of the United States against all enemies, foreign *and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and *allegiance to the same*; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the *duties of the office* on which I am about to enter. Note that it does include a reference to the duties of the office. The problem is when those duties are in conflict with the first part of the oath, to "support and defend the Constitution". This oath is very clear about what you're supposed to prioritize ("I will bear... allegiance to the [Constitution]"). So no, Snowden's actions were not unethical, illegal, or immoral. In fact, it may be one of the few things anybody could do that is by definition patriotic. Any law he may have been in conflict - and certainly any duties he had to the NSA - are lower priorities than his defense of the constitution. I do not envy anybody who is placed by his superiors into a situation that forces a choice between following those same superiors or following an oath to a greater ideal. That has to be one of the hardest decisions to make. [1] meaning Bob Altemeyer's term, not the usual political meaning [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-honored-his-oath-better-than-anyone-in-the-nsa/375031/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-e...
jugad 11y ago
Our laws should be based on our sense of morals and justice - not the other way around. You currently seem to have them reversed. An important line from stage 6 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development - "Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws." Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of... The linked page describes a theory of moral reasoning and ethical behavior ( and their various developmental stages ). Your view corresponds very closely with level 4 (copied below) - you believe that laws should be absolute, inviolable and should be applied equally and blindly. Some of the replies to your comment are speaking at level 5 or 6. They do not believe that the police, justice system or the government are absolute moral authorities and can make no mistakes. Copy paste from wikipedia follows: In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would — thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force. Post-Conventional The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles — principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms — ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning. In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people." This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning. In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level. An example of a stage 6 behaviour... a colleague at the office was offered a place in the list of authors of a patent that was being filed. This colleague had joined the team almost immediately after the 'invention' had been invented, but he helped a lot with the implementation and solving a lot of critical problems around the main invention. Thus, at the time of filing for the patent, it was obvious to the team that his name should be included in the 'inventors'. The team members didn't even ask for the colleague's permission... they put his name as one of the inventors and approached the colleague for his signature on the patent application. However, the colleague refused to be included, giving the reason that "I cannot justify my name being included in the inventors list to myself. I didn't invent that. I am sorry but I must refuse". Young people in the team thought that he was nuts. Edward Snowden has acted at stage 6... but it "can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level" by people who themselves do not understand the stages 5/6. There is no doubt that he is a hero... and if the press releases the documents idiotically (who were given the documents by Snowden with the utmost faith), its their mistake. But it will not change the fact that Snowden acted morally and rightfully.
Nadya 11y ago
A chef of a wealthy businessman helped steal leftover scraps and give them to me. I used the food to feed a starving child on the streets. The food was going to be tossed into the trash, so there is no negative impact towards the wealthy businessman by my stealing of it. It is a victim-less crime. The chef and I are breaking the law. Should we go to jail for what we are doing? Is what we are doing 'wrong'? In your world of absolutes - yes. The chef and I would go to jail or be fined for theft and the child may starve to death. All over food that otherwise would have been trash. That doesn't seem logical or moral on any level. To allow for my lazy analogy, let's pretend we asked the wealthy businessman if we could donate any scraps to an orphanage and he was a Scrooge and said no. >If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wrong, man. That sounds like something the mafia might say of a rat. "Dude, I trusted you. WTF? Why would you tell about our drug smuggling to the police?" The important thing about Snowden's whistleblowing is that they were violating the law. >The world would descend into chaos pretty quickly if we all decided to start reviewing and passing judgement on the data that we're in charge of, instead of just making sure that it goes where it's supposed to go without incident. "Absolutely no questions asked" is a dangerous policy and once again smells of a criminal ring. "Don't ask what's in the package. Just get it to where it needs to be." What if someone is paid to transfer a trojan to your computer. Should they simply move the payload without questioning what it is or why or the legality of it? >We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. The system is constantly revised, outdated laws are thrown out. Some laws are reworded. Laws are a reflection of the values of a society. These values can and do change. If it is the popular opinion that Snowden did the right thing then he did the right thing. That's that.

rantanplan 11y ago

> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us Might want to rephrase that? Or be more specific about which "good" you're talking about and who's "all of us"?

pekk 11y ago
In a system of laws, it is bad (unjust and in other ways problematic) to give particular people special exceptions. Does that tell you which "good" is being talked about? The "all of us" is all the people covered by a particular system of laws.
- rantanplan 11y ago
  Your statement diregards completely the reason we have laws in the first place. The reason we create laws is not to obey them because they are laws. That would be stupid. If the laws are unjust, unethical or problematic for all but the powerful, they should be eliminated. Also, the whole Snowden thing happened because the NSA was operating against the laws and because what they did was obviously unethical. If my employer does something unlawful or unethical should I continue to cover for him, just because an employee must obey the orders of his/her employer? That is obsurd.

jordigh 11y ago

> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. Off the top of my head, here are some ways that laws have been broken: * By refusing to sit at the back of the bus. * By refusing to pay taxes on tea. * By housing Jewish refugees. * By helping runaway slaves. * By marrying someone of a different ethnicity than your own. * By declaring a country's independence. * By telling people what their government was doing. * By writing software that could be covered by patents. Not all of these had or could have had a resolution in courts. Breaking laws is sometimes the only way to make any progress. In conclusion, laws should be broken when they are unjust. For the good of us all.

atom-morgan 11y ago
Exactly. A law being a law doesn't mean it's right.
Nadya 11y ago
I feel a bit embarrassed I used a stretched and contrived analogy instead of actual cases of progressiveness caused by breaking of laws.

Spooky23 11y ago

> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. We can't make exceptions because someone is popular or because we agree with their motives. Oh yeah, like the former General turned CIA Director who provided classified material to his mistress/biographer and was able to avoid felony charges? If the fate of US security was undermined by Snowden, we're fucked anyway. Everything revealed from a threat POV thus far has been predicted by security experts in the public domain since the 90s, and by the government itself in warnings about travel in China. I think the reaction to the Snowden documents makes it very clear that there is no bright line from a moral POV. The fact that the government hasn't really been able to discredit him is evidence in my mind that he is what he says he is. Snowden will almost certainly end up imprisoned as part of some sort of deal with the Russians someday. History may bring clarity (assuming it isn't classified forever or destroyed), but some kangaroo court or "jury of peers" certainly won't.

rndmind 11y ago

"Those who do nothing while witnessing injustice and wrong-doing do worse than those who commit acts of injustice." "When you see injustice and do nothing, you are an accomplice." This is not about Edward Snowden, anyway, this is about the violation of our constitutional rights on a massive scale.

UweSchmidt 11y ago

Saying "no matter what this is about, not following any rule/breaking trust" is automatically "unethical, illegal and immoral" is wrong. If that was true, the concepts of ethics and morals wouldn't exist much in the first place. In some situations breaking a law or disobeying an order is a must, i.e. when ordered to commit a war crime. So, why not have a look at the specifics of the situation at hand instead of dismissing it outright? What are you trusted with? Safety inspections? Overseeing any compliance issues? I could see many areas and many scenarios where I would hold you accountable to not just do as you are ordered, but speak out against wrongdoings.

rorykoehler 11y ago

>We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. This line refutes the whole premise of your argument. Clearly the rules were not being enforced so Snowden had no choice but to leak the mass and systemic breaking of those rules or be complicit. Snowden wouldn't get a fair trial so it would be reckless for him to come home.

Ao7bei3s 11y ago

> for the good of all of us Except for us who are not US americans. Whose rights the US routinely tramples. Snowden is a hero. > If a jury of Edward Snowden's peers are so taken by his celebrity and upstanding moral character that they find him not guilty Like he'd get a fair trial.

eatbuckyballs 11y ago
US law only applies to US Citizens, while I understand your sentiment it's written that way for a reason. EU Law loosely allows for all persons regardless of country protection with the same laws of the EU. Frustrated or not, Protecting their country and their countries assets is. If you don't think this is going on around the globe then you're not looking for answers. The fact that there were checks and balances (some that may not have worked) is still way more than the rest of the world. For example the russian SORM system flat out forces a 1:1 copy of all internet traffic to the FSB. Meta data at gateways vs full capture, where's the uproar on behalf of the Russian citizens? Not to mention russian provides internet access / connectivity for many African, middle eastern, and even eastern european companies (direct and through proxy organizations) all subject to the same SORM rulings.

sopooneo 11y ago

Theft of the King's tea?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>but what he did was wrong. It was illegal. Illegal and wrong are often at ends. >Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. Theft to survive? A child betraying an adult's trust by reporting abuse?

pdkl95 11y ago

This isn't about who the NSA (or anybody else) chose to place their trust, and it certainly isn't about some right-wing-authoritarian[1] desire for social order (the world isn't going to descend into chaos if critical thinking starts taking over from blindly following orders. This is about our duties to the great ideals of freedom that this country was founded upon... and the oath Snowden took[2] to defend the same. The question you should be asking is why isn't everybody else that took this oath doing something similar? The oath in question: (emphasis added) I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will *support and defend the Constitution* of the United States against all enemies, foreign *and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and *allegiance to the same*; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the *duties of the office* on which I am about to enter. Note that it does include a reference to the duties of the office. The problem is when those duties are in conflict with the first part of the oath, to "support and defend the Constitution". This oath is very clear about what you're supposed to prioritize ("I will bear... allegiance to the [Constitution]"). So no, Snowden's actions were not unethical, illegal, or immoral. In fact, it may be one of the few things anybody could do that is by definition patriotic. Any law he may have been in conflict - and certainly any duties he had to the NSA - are lower priorities than his defense of the constitution. I do not envy anybody who is placed by his superiors into a situation that forces a choice between following those same superiors or following an oath to a greater ideal. That has to be one of the hardest decisions to make. [1] meaning Bob Altemeyer's term, not the usual political meaning [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-honored-his-oath-better-than-anyone-in-the-nsa/375031/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-e...

jugad 11y ago

Our laws should be based on our sense of morals and justice - not the other way around. You currently seem to have them reversed. An important line from stage 6 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development - "Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws." Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of... The linked page describes a theory of moral reasoning and ethical behavior ( and their various developmental stages ). Your view corresponds very closely with level 4 (copied below) - you believe that laws should be absolute, inviolable and should be applied equally and blindly. Some of the replies to your comment are speaking at level 5 or 6. They do not believe that the police, justice system or the government are absolute moral authorities and can make no mistakes. Copy paste from wikipedia follows: In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would — thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force. Post-Conventional The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles — principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms — ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning. In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people." This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning. In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level. An example of a stage 6 behaviour... a colleague at the office was offered a place in the list of authors of a patent that was being filed. This colleague had joined the team almost immediately after the 'invention' had been invented, but he helped a lot with the implementation and solving a lot of critical problems around the main invention. Thus, at the time of filing for the patent, it was obvious to the team that his name should be included in the 'inventors'. The team members didn't even ask for the colleague's permission... they put his name as one of the inventors and approached the colleague for his signature on the patent application. However, the colleague refused to be included, giving the reason that "I cannot justify my name being included in the inventors list to myself. I didn't invent that. I am sorry but I must refuse". Young people in the team thought that he was nuts. Edward Snowden has acted at stage 6... but it "can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level" by people who themselves do not understand the stages 5/6. There is no doubt that he is a hero... and if the press releases the documents idiotically (who were given the documents by Snowden with the utmost faith), its their mistake. But it will not change the fact that Snowden acted morally and rightfully.

Nadya 11y ago

A chef of a wealthy businessman helped steal leftover scraps and give them to me. I used the food to feed a starving child on the streets. The food was going to be tossed into the trash, so there is no negative impact towards the wealthy businessman by my stealing of it. It is a victim-less crime. The chef and I are breaking the law. Should we go to jail for what we are doing? Is what we are doing 'wrong'? In your world of absolutes - yes. The chef and I would go to jail or be fined for theft and the child may starve to death. All over food that otherwise would have been trash. That doesn't seem logical or moral on any level. To allow for my lazy analogy, let's pretend we asked the wealthy businessman if we could donate any scraps to an orphanage and he was a Scrooge and said no. >If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wrong, man. That sounds like something the mafia might say of a rat. "Dude, I trusted you. WTF? Why would you tell about our drug smuggling to the police?" The important thing about Snowden's whistleblowing is that they were violating the law. >The world would descend into chaos pretty quickly if we all decided to start reviewing and passing judgement on the data that we're in charge of, instead of just making sure that it goes where it's supposed to go without incident. "Absolutely no questions asked" is a dangerous policy and once again smells of a criminal ring. "Don't ask what's in the package. Just get it to where it needs to be." What if someone is paid to transfer a trojan to your computer. Should they simply move the payload without questioning what it is or why or the legality of it? >We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. The system is constantly revised, outdated laws are thrown out. Some laws are reworded. Laws are a reflection of the values of a society. These values can and do change. If it is the popular opinion that Snowden did the right thing then he did the right thing. That's that.