|
|
|
|
|
|
by saagarjha
2135 days ago
|
|
|
> instead of making his point with his own whistleblower findings, he went to journalists and handed them over all the documents This is literally part of what whistleblowers do. > instead of facing justice (and there are whistleblower protections for doing the right thing) Whistleblower protections that didn’t really exist? > causing a permanent PR disaster for US intelligence One which they got for callously breaking the law? > The reason Snowden's leaks got a lot of attention is that they "proved" (we never got confirmation that they were real) What kind of confirmation do you want? You can’t just put things in quotes and hope to weaken them. |
|
|
No, this is outsourcing your whistleblowing activities to journalists. It is leaking unvetted data in the hope that there is something of public note/damaging to your employer in there (of course there is, top secret and noforn classifications are there for a reason)
> Whistleblower protections that didn’t really exist?
They existed. Just because Snowden did not like his chances with American justice does not mean whistleblower protections do not exist. Obama even pardoned Chelsea Manning (I believe that leak was part of a suicidal life style).
> One which they got for callously breaking the law?
I am not saying the PR disaster is not warranted. I am noting the extend of the PR disaster. I am also adding the soft-ball questions from journalists, and Snowden's meticilously prepared talking points.
> What kind of confirmation do you want? You can’t just put things in quotes and hope to weaken them.
The NSA coming out and saying these documents are real. Thread OP was talking about proof, but proof requires a better standard. Of course, it is highly likely these were real documents, and the Chinese or Russians did not add false documents to muddy it, like they do with their own leaks. I actually added the quotes, not to be pedantic, but to ward against pedantic replies.