So, I am reading an article written by Chelsea Manning about trust and confidentiality. Am I reading this right? Is this where we are at now!?
It's similar to a reformed/retired safe cracker is telling us which safes are hard to crack. The safe cracker would be in a position to know about how difficult it would be to crack safes.
The major difference being that the safe cracker possibly stands to benefit from lying to us in an effort to make their job easier (convince us to get safes that are in reality easy to crack). In the situation with Chelsea Manning, I'm not sure where you think that she stands to benefit from us following any advice that she's giving.
That safe cracker from example above would be ashamed, he couldn't even dream of something like that.
Is it really that difficult to understand the subtext here?
Beyond that, I was answering a question about subtext, not discussing the article directly.
Your argument would still "apply" if Chelsea had cheated on a lover; "hey, she betrayed someone's trust so how can she talk about trust?" Basically, nothing's she's done invalidates or even weakens her points.
"Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
Which is "mishandled."
In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.
Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics.
She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.
I personally don't believe that saying one side followed all the rules when they have the power to make the rules has any weight as a moral argument
Chelsea Manning made us aware of it by leaking documents I deem to be in the public interest.
Between the US military and Chelsea Manning, guess who I trust more?
So basically, she saw the government's breach of trust and called it out, and is doing so again now.
It seems like either you don't understand what Chelsea did in the first place, or your argument is simply with Chelsea herself for any number of possible reasons.
Yes, this is where we are now. Fucking good.
It wasn't a well curated dump, much of the data wasn't whistleblowing.
If you compare how Chelsea handled it vs Snowden they are worlds apart. Chelsea wanted to be a whistleblower but IMO behaved like a leaker/dumper.
Of course intent does matter but, even though I'm very pro-Chelsea, lets not pretend Chelsea behaved admirably in how she handled the leaks.