[bonobo]

I'm confused about what kind of straight answer you're expecting. Why isn't this considered a straight answer?

> Snowden didn't decide which document's to publish - journalists did. He handed over a trove of information, among which was damning evidence that our government was/is doing something they shouldn't, and gave journalists the responsibility to publish relevant documents appropriately.

Had he pre-selected which documents to hand over to the journalists, how would this be any different than if he just published them by his own? Snowden knew that he was not supposed to handle this task alone by passing his judgement on these documents by himself, and that he needed someone to help him judge what to disclose and what not to disclose, so he delegated this responsibility to journalists with a reputation he could trust. IMO he was as responsible as one could be: he didn't handle this trouble all by himself, he didn't let any biases he might've had affect the decisions, and he delegated the task at hand properly to american citizens (this is important, he was dealing with national security after all) he judged to be trustworthy. It just boils down to teamwork.

Selecting only the documents he thought described wrongdoings would put too much of his perspective and his biases on the end result. Too much for a single man to decide.

[caskance]

He didn't have any right to make the decision to trust those journalists. Giving them access to all his documents was the problem.

There was enough the NSA did that was OBVIOUSLY wrong that he could have stayed well clear of the things too close to the line.

[bonobo]

He didn't have the right not to make a decision. As a responsible citizen he had the obligation take action and decide how to approach the issue, and he did the best he could as a single individual. Deciding who to trust is doable; filtering all the information on those docs by himself is not.

Yes, he could have disclosed the obvious things, but how would that work out on the long term? Would he be able to address by himself all the questions that would follow up? How much information would he be able to disclose? Too much information and he'd risk disclosing legitimate operations, too little information and he'd soon get discredited.

[caskance]

In the long term, it would have meant that people like me who think there is a legitimate reason for nation states to have intelligence agencies could support him with clear consciences.

[mzs]

He did not disclose all the documents. He made a pass through first to protect people primarily. The vast majority of what he passed on were power points and lists of devices.