5 ms·

And neither is Snowden. After you grab a million files constituting nearly half a terabyte of top secret data and abscond with it to China (and then Russia), d

And neither is Snowden. After you grab a million files constituting nearly half a terabyte of top secret data and abscond with it to China (and then Russia), despite what your very best intentions may be, I don't think the title "whisteblower" is still applicable.

venomsnake 11y ago
First - no one has quantified what exactly Snowden has. Second so far only the western media have had access to the files. Third there was not any proof that he had copy of the information while he was in Hong Kong.
- NullCharacter 11y ago
  If you think the Chinese/Russian intelligence services haven't managed to get their hands on the entirety of what Snowden took I think you underestimate their prowess. A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    If Snowden took out data with such ease, I am strongly convinced that other services already had a copy of the relevant info (and much more) before he even thought about leaking it.
    - caskance 11y ago
      Whether they had the information or not, giving them a plausible excuse to know that information is still a significant security breach. There are countless examples in the past where one party had secret information they were forced not to act on for fear of revealing to enemies that they did in fact know it.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Given the apparent security practices where Snowden worked, I expect the Chinese/Russian intelligence services already had the entirety of what Snowden took. "A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make." They might have done better if the NSA had not been deliberately undermining our ability to secure ourselves.
    - caskance 11y ago
      Whether they had the information or not, giving them a plausible excuse to know that information is still a security breach. There are countless examples in the past where one party had secret information they were forced not to act on for fear of revealing to enemies that they did in fact know it.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        It is a breach, but only a severe one if there were things (of import) for which another plausible excuse could not have been trivially constructed. And again, this is an issue because individuals cannot credibly be secure, which is quite specifically something the NSA has worked to ensure.

venomsnake 11y ago

First - no one has quantified what exactly Snowden has. Second so far only the western media have had access to the files. Third there was not any proof that he had copy of the information while he was in Hong Kong.

NullCharacter 11y ago
If you think the Chinese/Russian intelligence services haven't managed to get their hands on the entirety of what Snowden took I think you underestimate their prowess. A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  If Snowden took out data with such ease, I am strongly convinced that other services already had a copy of the relevant info (and much more) before he even thought about leaking it.
  - caskance 11y ago
    Whether they had the information or not, giving them a plausible excuse to know that information is still a significant security breach. There are countless examples in the past where one party had secret information they were forced not to act on for fear of revealing to enemies that they did in fact know it.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Given the apparent security practices where Snowden worked, I expect the Chinese/Russian intelligence services already had the entirety of what Snowden took. "A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make." They might have done better if the NSA had not been deliberately undermining our ability to secure ourselves.
  - caskance 11y ago
    Whether they had the information or not, giving them a plausible excuse to know that information is still a security breach. There are countless examples in the past where one party had secret information they were forced not to act on for fear of revealing to enemies that they did in fact know it.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      It is a breach, but only a severe one if there were things (of import) for which another plausible excuse could not have been trivially constructed. And again, this is an issue because individuals cannot credibly be secure, which is quite specifically something the NSA has worked to ensure.