Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Security United States

NSA WhistleBlower Outs Himself 860

Posted by samzenpus
from the man-behind-the-curtain dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. 'I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,' he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA WhistleBlower Outs Himself

Comments Filter:
  • Modern Jesus (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:23PM (#43954775)

    This man may well be our Jesus. The government is going to crucify him in their fury.

    • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Confusedent (1913038) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:31PM (#43954815)
      It's pretty amazing, and here's hoping the sacrifice isn't completely wasted. The fact that this stuff hasn't led to protesting in the streets really reflects just how complacent the US population is. Or how afraid of the government we really are, knowing just how well equipped and militarized the government has become thanks to 60+ years of growth in the military-industrial complex. I for one am ashamed I voted for Obama in 2008, and I hope there's a clean sweep of every Congressperson who didn't specifically oppose this type of stuff during the next elections. If that doesn't happen, I think the government will just treat it as a mandate to continue expanding their global power ever faster. Something needs to happen while people's attention is still focused on it.

      It'd be nice if the public vitriol towards the current administration also helped Manning avoid further abuse, but I'm not holding my breath.
      • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:38PM (#43954863)

        It'd be nice if the public vitriol towards the current administration also helped Manning avoid further abuse, but I'm not holding my breath.

        Yeah, my belief is that most of that vitriol is just "useful idiots" being steered by people with interests that favor a panopticon state at least as much as the current administration does. I expect to see "bi-partisan support" for excoriating Snowden and all the others.

      • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:44PM (#43954913)

        I'm not sure you should be ashamed for having voted for Obama in 2008. Try to remember the (realistic) alternatives we faced.

        • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Confusedent (1913038) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:55PM (#43955011)
          Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this. The whole "wasted vote" thing is probably the most damaging logical fallacy being used in politics right now. Don't get me wrong, it's unlikely a third party will ever win a presidential election, but that's not the point. When politicians are losing enough votes to them that they risk losing to their opponents, they're forced to change their platforms. You can see this happening already with the Republican's reconsideration of immigration reform. They know the tide is against them and they'll have to make policy changes they haven't wanted to in the past. Aside from that, only about half of the population actually votes. There are literally twice as many people who aren't even going to the polls than there are supporting Democrats or Republicans for any reason. If the left was losing 10% of their voting base to the Greens and the right was losing 10% of theirs to the Libertarians (or whatever other party you may like), you can bet they'd be picking up pieces of those platforms in order to continue out-competing third parties.

          tl;dr: Voting for the proverbial "lesser of two evils" is the mandate we give them to get away with all this crap. Neither side is less evil than the other anymore.
          • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdotNO@SPAMhackish.org> on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:58PM (#43955037)

            Sometimes people do vote for third parties, but I haven't seen major changes caused by that, either. Did Ross Perot have any lasting effects?

            • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:11PM (#43955135)

              Did Ross Perot have any lasting effects?

              Yes. Thanks to him, I now sometimes have cause to say, "You hear that giant suckin' sound???"

            • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

              by pspahn (1175617) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:36PM (#43955337)

              Yes, but in his case, it's been an unfortunate effect.

              Because of him third-party candidates are not going to be invited to debates because they don't meet some artificial and ever-changing requirement.

            • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:4, Interesting)

              by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Sunday June 09, 2013 @05:22PM (#43955761) Homepage Journal

              Did Ross Perot have any lasting effects?

              My first Presidential vote was for neither Republican nor Democrat. I think that left a lasting impression on me. I still vote for neither, though I've had lapses of judgment in between.

              • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Interesting)

                by KGIII (973947) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @07:35PM (#43956699) Journal

                It feels good to vote for somebody instead of voting against somebody, doesn't it? The difference may seem subtle but it really isn't. I've been voting pretty much third party for well over 30 years now. I admit that it hasn't changed much of anything but it does feel good to be comfortable while looking in the mirror. I can confidently, honestly, and proudly state that I've never once voted for the winning president.

                The state of affairs is such that I've even skipped the presidential nominee section of the ballot because the third party candidate was also unable to meet my criteria. I don't think my criteria is all that hard, say what you do and do what you say. Have a history of making good choices that benefit the people around you even if it means self sacrifice. Be open, honest, and communicative. Show compassion but be capable of making tough choices. Have an articulate plan for leading my country and minimizing the risks of harm to the citizens thereof. Demonstrate that you have an understanding of worldly affairs and articulate your plans for dealing with them.

                Seriously, that's about it. Depending on those answers I can then decide if that person is best suited, out of the pack though I'm willing to write a candidate in, to represent me and my interests while also ensuring the welfare of the citizenry as a whole is effectively looked after.

                Is it seriously so difficult to research the candidates and make reasoned choices based on your actual ideals instead of the political party from which they hail? Is it that difficult to examine your own self, find what form of governing you feel best suits your ideals and your fellow citizens, and then vote accordingly without regard to a political platform? Is it so difficult to see that the two major parties are not, in fact, diametrically opposed on many things and that the things they share most are jack-booted hunger for power, oppression of dissenters, and authoritarianism?

                *sighs* I suppose that last sentence may seem a bit much. When I say both parties, I mean both parties. When I say that I judge the left more harshly that's because I do judge them more harshly. I am a member of the left-leaning voting populace. I hold them to a higher standard because, frankly, they should be more intelligent than they often demonstrate they are. The right has plenty of smart people in it but they're cut from the common cloth in much of the country and intellectuals have typically been left leaning. I don't assert that the right is stupid as a way to slander, I assert that the left is not as intelligent as they claim to be nor as intelligent as they should be and that it is unfortunate. Both sides are being played by people who have money, power, and prestige. They have absolutely no intentions of diminishing any of that and will continue their invasive quests of authoritarianism while continually eroding our rights by redefining words and intent in the Supreme Court.

                Deny it, if you want, but the evidence is there and quite clear. Control of a nation, perhaps a planet as the US isn't unique in these regards, isn't usurped by a single act nor is it done overnight. It is a slow process implemented for your safety, your health, and because they know best. The Left has been excelling at it for quite some time now and their method is beautiful in that they constantly scream how it is the Right that is doing these things. It is the Left that demands you alter your behaviors, that you adhere to the same beliefs they do, and that works to deliberately silence the opposition. It is sad because I lean left and, frankly, I am tired of the lip service paid to freedom, liberties, and the value of either. Just come out and be honest, "We wish to control you because we want the power to decide." The right should do the same, though I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge at this point.

                I think I'll close this with a fun piece of trivia, mental bubble gum if you wish, the first use of the "Free Speech Zones" was by the Democrats.

            • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Nikkos (544004) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @06:27PM (#43956241) Homepage

              Sometimes people do vote for third parties, but I haven't seen major changes caused by that, either. Did Ross Perot have any lasting effects?

              Well, Perot's candidacy did prove that people will vote for a third-party candidate they feel is viable. Also it proved that a third-party candidate with enough financial backing can get attention. At one point Perot was polling higher than either Clinton or Bush. If he hadn't fucked up his own campaign, Perot might have done much better than the 18/19% he got.

              You ask for lasting effects however, for that I point to the increases in signature requirements for ballot access by states across the US, and the current exclusion of third-party candidates from Presidential debates. Seems that Rs and Ds don't like competition.

          • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

            by greenbird (859670) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:31PM (#43955301)

            Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.

            What third party? Do you really think that would make any difference? Under the current system anyone elected is controlled or made irrelevant. Until the money is removed from the electoral process this won't change.

            you can bet they'd be picking up pieces of those platforms in order to continue out-competing third parties

            One of Obama's primary platforms was "Open Government". That worked out well, didn't it? Kinda hard to make an informed decision when most of the important information is secret and anyone who exposes it is thrown in jail or worse (see Bradly Manning).

            • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

              by SteveFoerster (136027) <steve@ s t evefoerster.com> on Sunday June 09, 2013 @08:09PM (#43956951) Homepage

              What third party? Do you really think that would make any difference? Under the current system anyone elected is controlled or made irrelevant. Until the money is removed from the electoral process this won't change.

              Money is a symptom, not the disease. There's so much money precisely because there's so much federal power available to buy. Until political power is radically decentralized, this will not change.

          • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:4, Interesting)

            by interkin3tic (1469267) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @10:31PM (#43957777)

            Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.

            It's a commonly held theory that the two party system is to blame for something such as erosion of our privacy and rights in America. However, it seems to me that the evidence utterly shreds this notion: countries like the UK have more than two parties, yet they have the same problems.

            I've never heard a good explanation as to why a third party in the US would solve problems that we see in countries WITH third or more parties.

            I'd suggest it's the voters are stupid and paranoid and get the government they deserve, independent of party structure or number.

        • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DarkOx (621550) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:46PM (#43955463) Journal

          I can't honestly say any of the realistic alternatives were better; by that I mean people who might have survived the GOP primary process.

          What I think we can say is that Obama isn't a good man or a good leader. Take everything else away and he is hypocrite at best a strait out liar at worst. I err on the side of the liar. Why? Well all the apologists, including the president himself, are running around saying how you have all these grand ideas like 'transparency' and then you confront the realities of the office. They usually go on to say anyone disagreeing with that is just a pol as all of our Senators and Representatives are supposedly aware of these programs. Well guess what Obama was a Senator when the initial authorizations for these programs were made.

          So its pretty impossible to excuse him on that grounds of 'realities of the office', either he knowingly told the public he was going to push for transparency when he never had any intention of doing that and continues to lie about that today or he is a naive boob. Either way the man brings shame to the Presidency.

          The fact is transparency is needed. National security is NOT an excuse for secrecy out side of a very very short and narrowly defined list. That might be designs for weapons systems, capabilities and deployments of weapons systems, deployments of troops, personally identifying information about government employees and citizens, and probably nothing else.

          The whole point of national security is to protect the nation. Part of the nation is our republican system of government. Well you can't have a representative government that is in any way democratic if people can't use the ballot box to judge the actions of the incumbents. People can't make good judgements when so much of what government actually does is classified and kept secret. Frankly I don't think its unfair or out of line to call what the folks at NSA, CIA, DOJ, 1600 Penn. are doing "un-American activities".

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Why are you not out there protesting? Why are you waiting for others to do it? Right there in the article is your call to arms: " I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act."

        Grab your supplies, head out, start protesting. Don't wait for others to do it first. If our forefather's had, we'd not be here now.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Confusedent (1913038)
          I lack confidence in my ability to start an actual protest by just going out and sticking up signs on a street corner. Also, I'm more of the mind to develop technology and acquire wealth and resources so that I can one day actually have influence in the world, which does honestly seem more effectual than protesting. I made the comment because, as someone else noted about this stuff already, there are violent protests going on in Turkey (and other parts of the world) right now over far less egregious abuses
        • by ArcherB (796902) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @05:49PM (#43955981) Journal

          Why are you not out there protesting? Why are you waiting for others to do it? Right there in the article is your call to arms: " I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act."

          Grab your supplies, head out, start protesting. Don't wait for others to do it first. If our forefather's had, we'd not be here now.

          Back when I was 25, I had nothing to lose. Now, I can't really afford to lose the house that my family depends on trying to fight off an IRS audit. Even though I've done nothing wrong, I can't afford what it would cost to prove that against a government agency with unlimited funds, time, and ruthlessness.

      • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:04PM (#43955085)

        It may lead to protesting in the streets. From the Snowden interview:

        "It is not like Occupy Wall Street but there is a grassroots movement to take to the streets on July 4 in defence of the Fourth Amendment called Restore The Fourth Amendment and it grew out of Reddit. The response over the internet has been huge and supportive."

      • by houghi (78078)

        You do not have to be ashamed of voting for Obama. Perhaps you can be ashamed of voting. Who you vote for is irrelevant as long as you have a two party system. All they do is share the power you hand over.

      • by Luckyo (1726890)

        You make it sound like your vote would have mattered. You have a one party system with two separate arms with different names. The "other guy" would have done exactly the same things.

        And population that is too busy trying to pay for the life style it's been told from birth it needs to maintain to be "a decent human being" can't afford to protest. Debts would crush their lives if they tried.

      • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gallondr00nk (868673) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @05:03PM (#43955609)

        The fact that this stuff hasn't led to protesting in the streets really reflects just how complacent the US population is. Or how afraid of the government we really are.

        I personally think this whole scenario instead proves just how afraid governments are of us.

        It somehow reminds me of the Soviet Union, which was so out of touch and terrified of its populace that it used to jail poets and painters. Now the US government is so afraid of its populace that its mining people's fucking Facebook logs and mobile phone conversations.

    • Re:Modern Jesus (Score:5, Informative)

      by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:43PM (#43954905)

      This man may well be our Jesus. The government is going to crucify him in their fury.

      Except, of course, he's unlikely to come back from the dead, or for his death to provide a means of eternal life.

      But if you mean he's inspirational, no argument.

    • I bet the NSA is scrambling the drones...gonna make it "look like an accident."
  • by spiritplumber (1944222) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:24PM (#43954779) Homepage
    I guess this will put the whole "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" thing to rest, if there's any sense in the world. Mr. Snowden, thank you.
  • Definitions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by InfinityWpi (175421) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:25PM (#43954789)

    Wrong? No.

    Illegal, Yes.

    Be careful, Mr. Snowden, they're going to be after you...

  • Pulling an Assange? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:32PM (#43954825)
    Sooner or later, the NSA would have found this guy. I wonder if outing himself first gives him "media immunity." It's harder to take someone out quietly, if they're in the limelight.
    • by xs650 (741277) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:46PM (#43954929)
      Right, instead of just disappearing after being tortured, now he will just die in some random traffic accident. Not a pleasant ending, but not the worst either.
  • by scottbomb (1290580) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:34PM (#43954841) Journal

    This dude has balls of steel and I think deserves our help. If a fund is established, I'll gladly chip in a few bucks.

    • by ThePeices (635180) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:49PM (#43954961)

      This dude has balls of steel and I think deserves our help. If a fund is established, I'll gladly chip in a few bucks.

      Do you really want to be seen as aiding and abetting the enemy?

      Look what happened to Bradley Manning.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Don't compare Manning and Snowden they are very different situations. Snowden didn't indiscriminately leak 10's (or was it 100's) of thousands of classified documents and message traffic, most of which weren't event remotely related to the primary issue(s) he was so upset about, he is\was no whistle blower.

        In contrast Snowden leaked a few specific docs\ppt slides, just enough to show the existence of something, just enough to allow those in congress who already knew about it to be able to now be able to deb

      • by Trepidity (597)

        The Supreme Court even ruled [wikipedia.org] that you can constitutionally be found guilty of aiding terrorism if you provide assistance to a group that is considered terrorist, even if it's assistance unrelated to terrorism. For example, in that case, the Humanitarian Law Project wanted to advise groups like the Kurdistan Worker's Party about how they should renounce terrorism and turn towards a peaceful path... but that would still be considered "assisting" them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:42PM (#43954893)

    Dude thanks, what you've done requires real courage and people like you change the world for the better. You will probably be dragged through the mud. That inteligence aparatus which you helped build and outed is working right now very hard to get dirt on you, and will probably succeed. If there is no dirt to be gotten it will be manufactured.

    I think coming out into the public was the smartest thing you could of done, i doubt you will be rendered because the damage is already done. Discrediting you is about the most they can do in damage control ATM.

    They've learned (i hope) from the Manning case that locking you up into the loney bin and psychologically torturing you just make it worst. You've just surendered your remaining expectation of privacy to save ours, and for that i thank you sir.

  • Human chain (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @03:47PM (#43954939)

    I have a fantasy in which 1 million well-armed patriots surround this guy and tell the NSA / CIA / FBI / federal marshals that they're on the wrong side of the Constitution and can't have him.

  • by X.25 (255792) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:03PM (#43955073)

    ...it has to be stated:

    This man is a hero.

  • by decora (1710862) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:16PM (#43955165) Journal

    look, the last thing we need is yet another whistleblower rotting in prison or blackballed from their profession.

    People are all "oh, this is so noble". Uhm, yeah. Its noble, and thousands of other people have already done it, and they suffered immensly for it. Go read some books by actual whistleblowers. Imagine making $50,000 a year and then going down to minimum wage because its the only job you can get after you get blackballed. Imagine you lose your health insurance, your house, and you have to go into debt to pay lawyers to keep you out of prison.

    Imagine your wife, family, friends, being raided by the FBI with guns. Imagine getting stopped at every airport checkpoint, train station, etc for the rest of your life.

    Imagine never working in your field again.

    Imagine a large number of your friends just drop you. No contact. No calls. No meetings. Nothing.

    Thats what a lot of whistleblowers face.

    Oh, how noble. But if this guy was makign your french fries or bagging your groceries, would you say "oh how noble" to him? or would you continue your day to day condescending attitude towards those who have to live outside the system for whatever reason?

    This guy should have hid under a fucking rock and let the NSA and FBI go fuck itself for 10 years trying to track down the leak source. Just laugh at them from the shadows.

    It reminds me of the story in Mandela's autobiography. There were a lot of anti-apartheid activitists who operated purely out of some messianic belief they were right. Well, the enemy used this, and decimated them. They went to prison. They disappeared. They got murdered. Most of all, they didnt contribute to the continuing battle. They are like Petya Rostov in War And Peace, all heart and no brains. They might have done something admirable, but they didnt actually help win the battle or the war because they were no longer around to fight anymore.

    Now, the enemy, the NSA, or FBI, can just take this guy and swallow him into some prison.

    Oh well.

    • by PeeAitchPee (712652) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:35PM (#43955321)
      Bull fucking shit. I own a technology company and I'd hire this guy in a second, and there are thousands of other business owners like me across the country who would do exactly the same. He's got more integrity and courage than just about anyone I've ever met.
  • by sshir (623215) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @04:40PM (#43955393)
    So, on the balance we have individual privacy (with huge implications) and FBI's investigating ability (let's face it – that's very important for our society too).

    What about this scheme: NSA collects everything they can put their paws on, but people's records get encrypted right away (separate public key for each individual); keys for decryption go to escrow of some kind. So when FBI wants the data on a particular individual, they present the case to a judge who unseals the data if he sees it fit.

    So, no fishing expeditions, no witch hunts (everything court related is on the record), and safe against leaks.
  • by sirwired (27582) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @05:06PM (#43955635)

    He is a far better (and more effective) patriot than Bradley Manning; definitely more like Daniel Ellsberg.

    Manning (and Wikileaks) dumped a huge pile of classified information on the internet with little regard to the consequences of their actions. Material that any thinking observer would regard as quite sensibly classified, and discussing no sort of malfeasance or wrongdoing, was revealed. This gave the government ample cover to prosecute Manning with little fear of popular outrage. Real (and innocent) people had their lives hurt (and probably ended) by Manning's leaks. He's essentially getting tried for treason, and the government has ample reason to do so. The fact that he was motivated by moral outrage isn't really relevant, as much of the information he revealed had nothing whatsoever to do with the things he was unhappy about. (And Assange going on an ego trip didn't help.)

    This man, on the other hand, copied a very specific and small set of documents revealing something that every thinking citizen does indeed have a right to be angry about. He put nobody in danger (unless you subscribe to the "If the all-seeing-eye doesn't know everything, the terrorists win." school of thought.) The documents he revealed are all directly associated with what he's unhappy with. No actual investigation details (current or past) have been revealed, no names are mentioned, and he's neither hiding nor chasing the spotlight.

    He appears to be a principled and thoughtful patriot, and I think despite their best efforts, they'll have a tough time demonizing him for the public, although it won't be for lack of trying. If they do capture him and put on trial, and he will almost certainly lose. Despite him doing the right thing for the right reasons, this is not a strange or ambiguous application of the Espionage Act. His only hope would be for a successful court challenge to the programs he has disclosed, but given the current proclivities of the Supreme Court, that is unlikely, to say the least.

    While it will be little comfort, I believe history will vindicate him.

    • As a side note... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sirwired (27582) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @06:36PM (#43956301)

      As a side-note, here's the tactic I suspect they'll use to publicly disgrace him and distract the public from the documents: They'll argue that he was not, in fact, motivated out of a noble desire to advance our civil liberties, but rather tried, and failed, to sell secrets to the PRC. (No sense in claiming the PRC actually bought them... that'd pointlessly shame them for something they didn't actually do. (for once.)) They'll claim he has a lot more secrets in his possession than the ones he's revealed, and that those other secrets contained stuff that should have stayed secret. (Of course you can't know what those are, because it's too dangerous to tell you...)

      This will be effective, because they don't actually have to reveal their evidence (or lack thereof) for such a tale during trial. His confession is already more than enough to convict him under the Espionage Act.

      (All this said, the PRC was an odd choice... I'm not sure he had any good choices, as the program he revealed would have been legal in most of the countries he otherwise could have fled to, but he's going to be called on to elaborate a little further beyond waxing poetic about the peace-and-freedom loving people of Hong Kong. Personally, I would have picked Sweden or Finland; they're neither an enemies of the US nor members of NATO or reliant on the US for anything in particular. They are, however, harder to hide in.)

    • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Sunday June 09, 2013 @10:07PM (#43957651)

      COMPLETELY agree. The difference is light and day.

      I was a teaching assistant for a university-level ethics class for several semesters while in grad school, and by any definition of whistle-blowing we ever covered in class, Manning failed to meet the criteria. He certainly leaked information, but leaking information does not make one a whistleblower. In most ethical definitions, a whistleblower is someone who releases the information necessary to avert a specific threat to the general public, by providing evidence that would convince a reasonable person that the threat is both credible and that the release of the information is necessary to avert the threat.

      Manning merely dumped a load of data with no regard for (or even an awareness of!) what was contained in his dump, then bragged about what he had done afterwards, which led to his identity being revealed. He cited no specific threat that was to be averted through his actions, took no steps to ensure that no one would be harmed through his actions, and failed to assemble a compelling body of specific evidence to convince most reasonable people that there was a credible threat or that he was acting in the best interests of the public at large. He leaked, but he didn't whistle-blow.

      In contrast, Snowden revealed nothing that can directly endanger anyone, released the minimum amount of information necessary, and was responding to a specific and ongoing threat to the rights of the public at large. The only other aspect of ethical whistle-blowing that is usually required is that the whistleblower seek to address the problem via the chain of command before taking anything public, and I'm doubting he did that, since we've heard nothing of it so far. Even so, given the nature of the groups involved, I can't blame him for disclosing first, since we've all seen movies where "accidents" occur. With the information already public, killing him now would yield no benefit and would only raise a lot of questions.

      The efforts to discredit him have already begun, but I hope that his actions will lead to a groundswell of support that will eventually displace the folks doing this sort of thing.

    • *cough*bullshit*cough*

      Manning, Wikileaks and the papers involved (including the Guardian, the same paper as in this case) didn't dump a whole load of material. They went through it, and attempted to remove information that might have been damaging to actual people. They asked the DoD to help. The DoD refused.

      Wikileaks and the various papers published selected material, little by little. They didn't just dump it all on the Internet. (The fact that at a later date it was all dumped wasn't anything to do with Manning.)

      So, give me a cite for "Real (and innocent) people had their lives hurt (and probably ended) by Manning's leaks." Because I don't believe it.

      And the rest of your post is as bullshit. Manning is a humanitarian, a true hero. That this man is also a hero doesn't detract from Manning's heroism.

Building translators is good clean fun. -- T. Cheatham

Working...