[jigglesniggle]

Instead of attacking the content of the leaks or his claimed motives you are mainly attacking his character.

It should be obvious that he planned to take the data. Taking it without a plan would be a good way for him to fail to accomplish anything. The main detraction I can see is that he leaked without regard to content, even considering he may not have had time to look over what he had taken (e.g. there is some top level stuff about drones that probably could have been redacted with a quick scan of the documents).

He likely avoided commenting on improvements to remain apolitical; if he had not, it would be more ammunition for character assassination. Other countries may be doing roughly the same but most people's issue is not with the fact spying was occurring but that it was largely turned inward.[1] You do not know he would throw away the whole system. As previously mentioned, he likely had no time to figure out what documents were what and the impact of their release would be.

In any case, he was acting as if he expected his own government to completely ignore the protections it had built in to defend its citizens. That some of the domestic programs he exposed were since cancelled due to public outrage is telling.

---

[1]: Besides the unconstitutionality of inwards-facing spying it is also a red herring. We repeatedly see little in the way of domestic terrorism but because inward spying is so much easier to do it seems to make up a disproportionate amount of the information generated; information that is likely not representative of real threats.

[no_opinions]

Well, he defected. Please understand I'm trying to understand him better myself, because his actions don't match the high-minded platitudes he claims to espouse: he didn't file a lawsuit, write criticism of his bosses, policies, etc, run for congress or started lobbying to improve the system. He bypassed all those mechanisms and dumped programs. We can't have the public oversee every method to gather information, or it wouldn't be very effective.

And judging by the posts/comments I read on here and news sites, I'm not sure people understand the difference between information gathering, criminal investigations, and consumer / medical / etc. privacy. Don't you think it'd be better to agree on a common ground that these are different purposes before engaging in a dialectic on it?

I bring up him having workplace / life stress, because he's human. He fits a model very similar to traitors who worked for their gov that spied for other countries, except he replaced his handler was a journalist. What he says here is spooky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yK1QndJSM&t=70

Put is this way: Why should I get my safety as a US person put at risk so someone can publicize their story that someone leaked something again? In that video at 1:00. He's trying to make it so classification basically no longer has meaning, if they defect to a journalist.

> Besides the unconstitutionality of inwards-facing spying it is also a red herring.

I'd think a normal person would expect that: if you're a national, your government should be protecting you, not targeting you with those tools. Unless it's your intent to destroy it somehow.

For the sake of encouraging understanding: I think constitution is used as a way to imply subjectivity of what feels right. Unless you have court decisions to mention. The constitution hasn't been updated much and the case law is porous. Example: Unopened email after a certain time is treated as abandoned.

Don't you think the policies around the use of the data gathering tool / method is more important than the tool existing or not? Based on how Snowden evangelization goes: if we took its philosophy to its logical end, people will just leak every source / method, the system will never improve, and it wouldn't be very safe for us!

[extra88]

> Well, he defected.

No he didn’t. He was passing through Russia when the U.S. cancelled his passport and they pressured other countries to deny him asylum.

[no_opinions]

That's not what I'm saying, the leaking to a journalist is the defection.

The leaker is on the best behavior to impress their new handler. They're suckers and getting played.

An analogy to what Snowden did: How would you feel if you had a significant other that promised themselves to you, but behind your back, connected with someone else, some jester/stranger/charlatan. Hurtfully, you find they were eager to move mountains for them, and all the while criticizing your mere existence as a person. It'd be safe to say they've broke their vow, even though they haven't officially acknowledged yet.

[jigglesniggle]

People stood up to the warrant-less searches but were disposed of one way or another. A good example is the Qwest CEO: he wasn't killed, but he was jailed after acting in his own self interest after his company was ruined.

There are occurrences that are less clear cut but still suspicious and that involve long prison terms or death.

>Put is this way: Why should I get my safety as a US person put at risk so someone can publicize their story that someone leaked something again? In that video at 1:00. He's trying to make it so classification basically no longer has meaning, if they defect to a journalist.

You're wanting to trade freedom for security. I disagree that that is a good idea. You also do not know that he is trying to do that; certainly he has not stated as such.

He exposed high crimes. That is why people think he should not suffer punishment.

>For the sake of encouraging understanding: I think constitution is used as a way to imply subjectivity of what feels right.

That is true in the sense that all laws are only what "feels" right. There is a long history of the US federal government twisting laws to give the federal government more power.

It really feels like you're trolling, the last statement does not seem to follow any way I try to read it.

I can acknowledge that yes, there are people out there who want to kill you and take your stuff. Defunding the defense apparatus of the US is not a valid solution. But neither is the status quo.