this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
374 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59299 readers
4867 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's been a minute since I've refreshed myself on the Snowden story, and I don't have time to go deep into that rabbit hole again, but if memory serves I believe he released non-redacted documents that exposed the positions/identities of deployed US assets, and some who were operating undercover had their identities blown.
He gave it to specific journalists with proven track records who concluded that the published info was in the public interest while running it by the government and redacting confidential identifying data.
You can't get more responsible than that.
You remember the government claiming it, but as far as I know they never released any actual statements that his leaks killed anyone.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/438jmw/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N1BR287/
Both of these are pretty typical of all the articles I have seen, which is the government claiming he did great harm, but no actual examples of getting anyone killed.
Yeah, that sound about right. I don't remember it ever being confirmed what, if anything, was actually compromised by the leaks. But I doubt that we'd ever get specific details on something like that from the government, anyway.
Though I imagine that a lot of ongoing operations at the time probably had to be cancelled prematurely, the consequences of which might never really be known.
This is the fear that is always instilled in people whenever the government takes an L. I'm not saying it's a false statement, but it's also unsubstantiated.
That's because they were spies. Spies aren't typically talked about. SOME of the programs he detailed in those releases were within the scope of what he was trying to expose, but many were not. He dumped THOUSANDS of documents related to humint sources that absolutely got people killed, burned other active contacts / projects and cost years worth of work. There was a huge shuffle of personnel after those leaks as intelligence agencies TRIED to get their people out, but there were a great number who couldn't get out. Andrew Bustamante speaks about this, at some length, to just name the most well known talking head.
The majority of what he exposed had nothing to do with domestic surveillance programs, and the way he exposed that information was WILDLY irresponsible.
Yes, the illegal surveillance he exposed was a big deal, but again, was done in a really shitty way that compromised active investigations. He neglected to do anything through proper channels, and instead betrayed his country rather than try to fix the problems through whistle blower channels where he would have actually had legal and tangible protections. Dude was an actual shit bag and a Russian asset.
I'm not going to pretend he wasn't reckless as fuck but don't pretend for even a moment that "going through the proper channels" would have gotten him anything that even halfway resembled a fair trial.
See Thomas A Drake