[Nadya]

>Fact is he left with thousands of legitimate documents that had no business being a part of his collection.

Going through all the files by himself would be a daunting task that would take years. There are literally 1,000's of documents. Raising the alarm now rather than 8 years from now is important.

Given the circumstances, grabbing everything and handing it over to a team of respectable journalists (who have a team of lawyers) to find out what is against the Constitution/not in favor of the people (seeing as journalists represent the people to an extent) to allow them to only leak the relevant ones that were crossing boundaries seems like a best decision act.

The journalists can leak documents over the course of years and slowly investigate each one to determine if it crosses boundaries and the alarms should be rung for the public.

Snowden would have had a single release of a handful of documents and gone on a very long vacation in a place nobody has ever heard of had he released a few documents himself. It's expensive to pay for a vacation for an entire group of journalists and lawyers.

[canistr]

I disagree.

Grabbing everything because you don't have time to sift through the data and passing them to so-called "respectable journalists" doesn't make it right. In the same way that people claim dragnet surveillance is wrong to catch terrorists if it's violating the privacy of everyone else.

[Nadya]

How would you have done it? Gone through 16,000 documents that are all 100's of pages long as an individual? You'd be lucky to finish in your lifetime. Not to mention he's not a lawyer. Should he consult a lawyer to know what is going against the Constitution or just use his best guess? Is consulting a single lawyer better than a team of lawyers? Should have had consulted a team of lawyers? What makes Snowden more trustworthy than journalists?

Would he be able to find lawyers to consult while remaining in a country that wouldn't put his life at risk? Should the lawyers relocate to Snowden's location of asylum? Or should they be consult over the constantly monitored internet? Is releasing the information 10 years from now more beneficial than releasing it now?

It opens a big can of worms when you question the logistics of doing it differently. Not that I disagree with your statement - it's a lot like dragnet (catch it all to watch a few) but the logistics in this scenario, unlike a dragnet, the resources simply aren't there to do it any other way. Snowden is not a multi-billion dollar government with near unlimited resources.

[bonobo]

Are you claiming that he could handle all of this by himself? Because unless you're claiming it, you'll have to agree with me that he would have to trust someone at some point. And calling Greenwald a so-called respectable journalist doesn't make justice to the reputation he built. I'm curious to know how would you select a better fitted person to this job.

I also don't think that comparing this to privacy violation is a valid comparison. The government is not a person, you're not violating any civil rights by getting these documents.

[caskance]

If he didn't have the time to do it responsibly, he didn't have the time to do it at all.

[Nadya]

The point of whistleblowing is to blow the whistle and tell people. Not blowing it at all is the exact opposite of whistleblowing - it's being complicit with the crimes committed by the government. Your suggestion is because he does not have the resources, alone, to deal with a corrupt part of government he shouldn't even try? That's a great way to maintain the status quo and have nothing change.

As far as I'm concerned - he could not have handled his scenario in a more responsible manner given his resources and scenario.

What makes Snowden more trustworthy than Greenwald, et al? Some no-name contractor nobody had ever heard of is not more trustworthy than a team of internationally respected journalists with a team of lawyers capable of citing the laws where the government is overstepping their bounds.

I wouldn't trust Snowden to determine what should and shouldn't be leaked to the general public. I don't think many people would. I do, however, trust Greenwald, et al. They have a reputation that they've spent years building up trust with the public. Snowden lacks that trust.

[caskance]

We're not talking about asking him to sift through data on hundreds of programs. He had the resources to leak information about the one or two programs that actually went so far over the line that it made him worried rather than everything he could get his hands on. Talk to the same journalists and everything. That would have been easier, not harder. Sure, maybe less gets fixed in the one go-round, but if the NSA doesn't take that as a hint to clean up their act, more whistleblowers would follow, especially if Snowden had actually earned trust for the idea by acting responsibly.

Thinking that people wouldn't believe the data he provided because there wasn't enough of it makes no sense.

[Nadya]

>He had the resources to leak information about the one or two programs that actually went so far over the line that it made him worried rather than everything he could get his hands on.

I can agree with you to a majority extent on this. The only reason I disagree is only because of circumchance. How things happened to play out - which is more and more incriminating documents being read/discovered within the files.

>Sure, maybe less gets fixed in the one go-round, but if the NSA doesn't take that as a hint to clean up their act, more whistleblowers would follow, especially if Snowden had actually earned trust for the idea by acting responsibly.

I disagree entirely that more whistleblowers would follow - especially with how government shills and a good chunk (although seemingly a minority chunk) of people condemn Snowden as a traitor full-through rather than a whistleblower. They don't even partially agree that anything should have been leaked. Full-stop they have no understanding of what a whistleblower is or how it benefits them, nor do they care. He did something the government thinks is bad, therefore he is bad.

Those sorts of people actively discourage future whistleblowers. Receiving death threats from "hardcore patriots" chugging from the jingoism juice is the last thing potential whistleblowers would willingly opt into.

A small group of people (can I safely include you in this group?) might consider him in a better light had he only leaked the programs/files that personally bothered him. That's a really, really, really small group, from what I've read/seen online. And yes, without the circumchance I mentioned above (how things "happened to turn out") I would agree that would have been a more responsible take on it. I also personally think it would have had less of an impact, received 2 weeks of media coverage and then completely died out. More responsible? Yes. Change anything? No.

Eventually he would have to sift through more documents to renew public interest (why the articles were published every-so-often rather than all-at-once). Eventually, he would need to find help to sift through more documents. Relying on the small possibility of more whistleblowers coming forward is naïve at best or unrealistically optimistic at worst. I do not agree with the reality you imagine had he only taken what he had problems with that other whistleblowers would have stepped forward. Nothing is stopping from additional whistleblowers from stepping forward now with programs they are uncomfortable with in a "more responsible manner" than Snowden. I do not agree that had he done anything differently that more people would be more willing to step forward.

Remember that this has been going on for at least a decade. Nobody, until Snowden, had stepped forward and gotten public discourse about it through constant media exposure. There may have been whistleblowers about the NSA in the times before him. I've never heard of them. And I'm pretty sure there have been others that have now stepped forward after him, not withstanding his irresponsibility.

>Thinking that people wouldn't believe the data he provided because there wasn't enough of it makes no sense.

It happens with media on a near daily basis. Why would this be any different?

[caskance]

And now I think you've come a lot closer to the problem most privacy advocates don't seem willing to accept. That maybe, if nobody cares and nothing happens, that's because most people believe that what the NSA is doing is really not that bad. That maybe people are tired of seeing the same few articles with a few countries and codenames slightly tweaked because they stopped giving a shit 2 weeks after XKEYSCORE, just like they would have if the leaks had ended there.

We've pretty much been through this before with Binney. He did things the right way. Nobody cared. Nothing changed. Snowden probably saw that and didn't want to end up the same way. He wanted to start a fire because he thought he knew better than everyone else. Fuck General Alexander, fuck the DHS, fuck the public - privacy matters because I say so. And so he did something (a lot of things) dumb. So fuck him. That's my group. That intersect "no such thing as privacy in our digital-everything future".

[Nadya]

I'm willing to accept that that is your viewpoint, and the viewpoints of others. We'll also have to disagree with each other due to different viewpoints, obviously.

I think that people being complacent or uncaring about what is going on without them is usually (but not always, its also possible I can be wrong too :) ) due to either being ignorant, misinformed, or not understanding the implications of an act.

If you do a highly dangerous activity in a town that hasn't killed anyone yet but didn't warn or tell the town that if something goes wrong - the entire town would be blown to smithereens. Of course, nobody would care. They either don't know about the dangers (ignorance) - and the people doing the dangerous activity are actively giving misinformation about the actual dangers (misinformed), so anyone telling others about the dangers is just a "paranoid tinfoil hat" (not understanding the implications of the act).

Even if the town hasn't blown up in 5 years - should they keep testing their luck until they blow up? Ignoring that it might be a calculated risk, people will only ever care when it all comes tumbling down and blows up in their faces. History has shown this time and time again. That's an unfortunate aspect about society-at-large, but a lot of educated decisions and fail-safes can be put in place ahead of time. It merely relies on the public being educated. An ignorant public is an easily manipulated public.

As is oft-mentioned/quoted. Few people care about their online privacy... until you tell them their nudes can be seen by people other than their intended recipient. Then they suddenly care a lot [0]. Of course, that's a little bit of a stretch in most cases. But as they educate themselves more and more about how important their privacy is (and how much they actually value it, by using examples) the more agreeable they become. It's not an overnight process - it's one that has to be won through many battles. Few wars have ever ended in a single battle.

There's been larger and larger amounts of the public looking for and asking for more secure forms of communication. Or how to keep their communications private. That tells me that as more people are becoming educated, more people are giving a damn. That's a sign to keep trying - not to give up because people don't care.

People didn't care that black people were slaves or that women couldn't vote. There were even women who argued against women's suffrage. It took many years - but eventually the general public was informed enough to change their minds about the importance of these things. Should they have given up when people told them they were wrong or weren't making any public influence? I personally think it's a good thing they argued for years on end instead of stopping 5 years in because of little to no progress. If it takes 10 more years to convince people their privacy matters, so be it.

I'm sorry for the length of my replies. I like to tread carefully with my viewpoints and make sure I mention exceptions as well as my willingness to entertain other viewpoints or at least show I understanding where they are arguing from, even if it comes down to "I disagree with your reasoning".

TL;DR

I don't think that the public-at-large not caring for their privacy now means they don't care for their privacy. It means they're ignorant or don't understand the importance of their privacy. Education has shown that the public is changing and becoming more aware of the importance of their privacy. Adoption is slow, but even if it takes 10 more years to convince people privacy matters - that isn't a reason to give up now.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Udb8SYeS0