So he has no idea what foreign entity the NSA is targeting or why, yet he decides to warn them about it? This is supposed to be ethical, responsible whistleblowing?
So he has no idea what foreign entity the NSA is targeting or why, yet he decides to warn them about it? This is supposed to be ethical, responsible whistleblowing?
I know that we Americans like to see al qaeda around every corner. But, for instance, when you target a university's system in a non-Muslim country, the odds are much better that you're conducting industrial espionage than that you're targeting al qaeda.
At the least, from a public policy point of view, it shows the hypocrisy of recent articles in the USA complaining about the extent of Chinese hacking into US civilian targets.
It's completely possible that these computers (or netblocks) were used as jumping off points for attacks against the U.S. or U.S. companies. We'll probably never know, but there certainly isn't enough information in the article to determine whether or not this was legitimate counterintelligence activity or whether these computers were reasonably targeted.
So is the entire concept of espionage!
The entire purpose of espionage is to convince people in other countries to break their oaths and tell you their secrets.
If this guy doesn't like the morally gray or dark areas of intelligence, why did he spend 7 years in the industry?
"Patriotism is Bigotry"
I'm OK with whistleblowing of illegal actions performed by secret services (enough of this sh*t!). Though I don't know whether he's right regarding the illegality of NSA's actions.
This is public knowledge but never spoken about, Snowden was looking for years [0] to find something to leak. He didn't stumble across this and have an overwhelming moral urge to do "the right thing."
I'll take the very unpopular opinion: I have a very strong feeling he is almost completely wrong in what he thinks he knows. [1]
[0] If you read the timeline you will see this. I'm looking for better sources, as I read it directly, but can't find at the moment. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/timeline-edward-snowdens-life/...
[1] This tone of feeling wronged and spied upon is borne of complete ignorance. http://news.yahoo.com/edward-snowden-completely-wrong-104432...
I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint and I think the entire reporting by The Guardian/Greenwald has been shit. Greenwald does not appear technically competent in the slightest and there's no mention in the reporting I've seen of anyone with any technical knowledge being involved and so we simply have no idea what is in the 'thousands' of documents that Snowden has taken. And neither does Greenwald.
The complete lack of any standard for evidence here, so long as it confirms preconceived notions, has been stupefying. People trotting out his high pay as proof of competence, when in any other context such an argument would be considered so stupid that it's beyond need of retort. His flimsy and dubious claims about being able to expose every secret of the entire intelligence community sound so unbelievable that no competent engineer could accept them. And the slides themselves -- for fuck's sake they say, at a maximum, almost nothing actionable. Do we even know if those were created by the NSA, or by Booz contractors?
A sober, rational look at his claims would have to yield the conclusion that he's confused about what he thinks he knows. He certainly sounds like it.
This is intelligence, where misdirection and outright deception are ways of life. Why should we take anything he--or what anyone involved in this--says at face value?
An excerpt from this article (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/edward-snowden-is-co...):
> Baker says the government built in as many controls and oversights as it could think of. “Two different presidents from two different parties with very different perspectives. Two different Intelligence committees led by two different parties. A dozen judges chosen from among the life-appointed judiciary. None of them thought this was legally problematic,” Baker says. “And one guy says, ‘Yeah, I disagree, so I’m going to blow it up.’ If the insistence is, ‘It only satisfies me if it’s out in public,’ then we’re not talking about intelligence-gathering. We’re not even talking about law enforcement. We’re talking about research. And I’m not sure you can run a large country in a dangerous world just by doing open-source research.”
> Other advocates of the NSA operation say the sheer vastness of the program is what helps shield citizens. “Individuals are protected by the anonymity granted by the quantity of information,” says Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor. “It’s just too difficult to spy on such a vast number of people in a way that’s meaningful.”
It seems out of character to go from "I'm not trying to get anyone hurt/in trouble, just showing the public what's wrong." to "Here's some info about China WHAT NOW USA!?"