Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdl | Hacker News Reader

I actually don't think charging him is inherently bad. If he in fact took 4 government property laptops with him, that's a crime, at the very least.

Ideally, pre-trial investigation and a trial would be fair way to find facts. It's entirely possible minor crimes (violating classified NDA, taking laptops, etc.) would be non-conviction based on other information, but on its face, I don't really have a problem with initial steps to investigate.

Congress would probably be a better venue for this than the courts, though.

Being charged is also pretty much necessary for asylum somewhere, too. (not essential, but it strongly helps)

View on HN

It's kind of hard to be a whistleblower without breaking some sort of secrecy law.

There actually are whistleblower protections he could have taken advantage of... but it would have meant working within the system (for example, taking his concerns to Congress or the NSA's Inspector General rather than a reporter) and it only applies if he uncovered fraud or illegal activity. AFAIK there isn't any proof that he uncovered anything illegal.

The national security establishment is more or less exempted from the whistleblower statutes.

Going to NSA IG or the PSCI's in Congress are protected (the whole point of NSA IG is internal malfeasance, it's not just for stealing cafeteria trays...). The problem is that route of reporting may be ineffective, and once you start, you'll lose all future access, come under suspicion, and may actually still be charged (the whistleblower stuff helps more with not getting convicted).

I was originally thinking "he should have gone to IG/Congress rather than the press", but seeing the Binney/Drake/Wiebe interview where they all had gone through the IG/Congress process themselves, recognized they'd accomplished fuck-all, and supported Snowden's decision to go directly to the press/public, kind of convinced me.

I personally might have considered going to someone else in government, other than IG or H/SPSCI -- like to Udall or Rand Paul or maybe even a judge or governor -- as more effective than the "official" channels, but less illegal than a journalist.

"Going to NSA IG or the PSCI's in Congress are protected"

Protected and utterly pointless. Congress already knew what was happening. The NSA's IG is not an unbiased observer.

Unfortunately, the official channels are broken here. You have members of Congress talking about how these revelations are just the tip of the iceberg. That means that they know more, that they know details that will shock people, and that they are doing nothing about it. What good would it do to go to them with this information?

Not everyone in Congress knows everything; nor do all federal judges.

I agree the NSA IG and PSCI's are essentially insiders, but "deal with this or I will go public" would give the minority members some cover.

Do we know for sure that the charges he is alleging are actually illegal? That I think is the crux of this whole situation. Many people in Congress might know about it and not be doing anything because like we've seen with 'enhanced interrogation techniques', is that the law has been interpreted such that all of this is technically lawful. That looks to be the real problem here.

> Do we know for sure that the charges he is alleging are actually illegal?

No. We don't know their legality. As far as I can tell, there have been pseudo-legal rulings on the subject. But the existence, never-mind the substance, of those rulings are classified. Some people have a problem with that.

That didn't work out very well for Thomas Drake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

Well, sort of. All the charges against him were dropped except a single misdemeanor. He got one year probation and community service. A very different set of circumstances than Snowden, though.

And loss of pension (he was 5 years away), is now working in an Apple retail store, etc. Given that he was about as morally upstanding and cautious a whistleblower as I can imagine, it was still a pretty harsh punishment.

Most of the regular statues, yes. But the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act specifically covers the national security establishment.

I will grant you that it's not the greatest law and I'm not sure I would avail myself of it if in his shoes. It does exist, though.

And all other laws, if they choose to be.

To see how working within the system went the last time an NSA employee tried to blow the whistle, go and watch these videos: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...

Binney tried to do exactly that - and they sent the FBI to raid his house.

Nothing like having a gun pointed at you while you're in the shower to say "We aren't brownshirts, we are just so excited to hear your genuine criticism; please speak your mind freely."

Binney, Drake, Radack, Edmunds, Tice, how many people have to try and fail with the silly "legit" whistleblower farce before people realize that it doesn't work, and isn't ever going to work.

AFAIK, other whistleblowers in the NSA have tried. The fact that it was all swept under the rug may have made Snowden consider a more rash course of action.

Trying to work with the system doesn't work. See the case Billy Malone and the National Park Service, etc.

You can go straight to the inspector general, they'll find that someone's life was unjustly ruined, and then sweep it under the rug after writing a report.

(http://unmpress.com/books.php?ID=12391155859919&Page=book, http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.7/a-misguided-investigation-end..., etc. for reference.)

Arguably the whole programme is illegal.

I doubt he actually intended to steal the laptops. Had he attempted to return them they would have caught on to his plan. It's unlikely that he would have taken them with him to Hong Kong as they would phone home.

They are probably sitting at his home just waiting for the NSA to pick them up.

The laptops with files on them do demonstrate provenance of the data on them somewhat more so than standalone files, so he may have retained them for that purpose.

This Achilles heel of `theft of laptops' minimally should be listed in the `Don't List' of `Whistle Blowing For Dummies' to alternatively rather fatten up a Fry's $70 terra usb drive, cloud store it, etc.

Proving provenance of the data? No. If he can list it, he can edit, `touch' re-timestamp it, etc, ie, falsify it.

However, espionage != theft.

My understanding is that he took laptops belonging to the government.

Source? I haven't heard that charge till now.

Who cares? We're talking about widespread malfeasance and lawbreaking by the gov't against every citizen, and the world, vs a few crappy laptops.

It possibly matters a great deal in regards to his defense.

I know i'll probably just be accused of being a pedant for pointing this out, but theft is still a crime, and theft of laptops containing classified material is really a crime, and at the very least (assuming the government didn't just make this charge up whole cloth), stealing laptops full of classified material and running off to China with them after spilling your guts to the Guardian might not tilt a jury in his favor.

True, but sometimes crimes against authority are necessary to counter crimes against humanity.

I agree.

Nevertheless it's the kind of concrete detail I think a case can hinge on. Public opinion, too.

The parent comment seemed to be questioning why he was charged with theft of government property.

The theft charge is just a ruse to get the HK authorities to extradite him. If they only charged him with espionage, then there's no problem for Snowden's atty's to make the case for political persecution. The HK courts will see this for the ruse that it is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/snowden-not...

But there is no legal way to show people evidence of such things. It is only made to be a crime to protect government, not people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com