The SidToday Files
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
Sorry, but since when is "offering a window into... culture and operations" whistleblowing? These articles are going to be crazy interesting, but I have a hard time believing they are things that deserve to be exposed. This is my problem with Snowden. If he stuck to the unconstitutional domestic spying stories, I would be his biggest fan. Instead he seems to have a problem with the idea of spying in general and is willing to release anything that puts it in a bad light.
EDIT: After clicking through a few pages I came to this [1] which admits that this release is a big departure from the previous Snowden releases. It still doesn't really explain why this is being done, how this is in the public interests, or why this should qualify as whistleblowing.
[1] - https://theintercept.com/2016/05/16/the-intercept-is-broaden...
How would you know what was significant and what was not? Think about how many man-hours it has taken to analyze the various documents released so far.
Is Snowden responsible for all the documents he gave to the press? Sure.
Should he have carefully filtered them all one-by-one before downloading them from the NSA? No way - it's far too much and too subjective work to be done by just one person.
Should The Intercept have published these? That's open for debate but I don't for a second question Snowden's gathering of them in the first place.
Do you realize the irony in this statement? This is the exact problem with mass surveillance. Neither Snowden nor the NSA should be able to ignore the law, grab everything they have access to, and justify it by saying the good outweighs the bad. That isn't how the law is supposed to work. These restrictions apply to both good and bad guys.
The people who are defending Snowden's actions with this logic are using the exact same line of thinking that inspired these programs in the first place.
When NSA grabbed everything they could, they did not conceive of any limits, literally everyone was a target. Snowden restricted himself to documents about NSA.
A more circumspect whistleblower who worked within the system could have exposed wrongdoing without risking legitimate secrets, yes. But whistleblowers aren't allowed to work within the system. Snowden tried and was rebuffed. The tactic he eventually chose was less harmful than allowing the NSA to continue running wild with no effective oversight.
It could have been something as simple as telling the journalists "You only have the documents because I leaked them to you therefore everything you publish is my responsibility both legally and ethically. In turn, as long as I am alive I request editorial approval of everything you publish on the subject."
>The tactic he eventually chose was less harmful than allowing the NSA to continue running wild with no effective oversight.
Like mass surveillance is less harmful than potential allowing the next 9/11? Don't you see the flaw in this logic? You can't just ignore the law because you personally think the ends justify the means. This applies equally to both sides of the debate.
Also as far as I'm aware, there has not been a single instance in which Snowden has criticized Greenwald or anyone else for releasing a detail that he believes should have remained private. That seems like a tacit endorsement of everything that has been released.
Greenwald, et al, have complete discretion in this regard. I'm not sure that a lack of criticism counts as a tacit endorsement and I'm not sure what it would accomplish anyways. I would find it surprising if he even knows what is going to be released before the general public does -- that is, he probably finds out at the same time we do (when it's posted).
Tried to upload to imgur but I think you need an account. Any IMG hosts that don't? Imageshack has long since turned to the dark side.