[rhema]

> This is not dragnet mass surveillance of the kind more often associated with the National Security Agency. These are hacks, or “exploits,” designed for individual targets.

Mhmm. Pray tell what oversight should make me believe this is true?

> Snowden and Manning were not seeking to blow the whistle on any one particular policy, in the manner that Ellsberg was; theirs was a more generalized disaffection, and the troves of data that they exposed were indiscriminate

Both good whistleblowers who I do not care what ideological principles inspired them.

> Unlike other prominent digital leakers, Schulte did not seem like an ideological whistle-blower.

I guess you have to be a good person to be a whistleblower in the CIA. Maybe that's why they don't hire good people.

[alas_141]

On your last bit, I don't see your point. It was obvious from the article that Josh didn't have a problem breaching personal privacy/security provided he was wielding/creating the tool that did it. It didn't track that he leaked data for any ideological reason other than he could, and felt the CIA deserved to get egg on their face for how they treated him. Also, beyond the idea that the CIA knew of vulnerabilities on public companies that exposed Americans and neglected to cooperate to patch them, the data, largely made up of exploits, that was leaked can't really be ideologically driven unless you're operating under the assumption that it isn't widely known that intelligence agencies hack their adversaries.