this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
269 points (98.2% liked)

World News

31895 readers
464 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A decade after Snowden exposed NSA’s mass surveillance in cooperation with the British GCHQ, only about 1 percent of the documents have been published, but three major facts can finally be revealed thanks to a doctoral thesis in applied cryptography by Jacob Appelbaum.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Come on. Snowden coughed up every thing he had in the first 48 hours. It was his rent.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So what? Once it went to a few news organizations, the Russians probably already had it by the time he arrived.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But then they couldn't ask him questions about it before he arrived...but maybe they did and his sell out happened way up the line. In any case, if you think what Trump did was wrong this was the same crime.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that whistleblowing is a crime.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are rules to being designated a whistle-blower and he didn't follow them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He did actually try to go through those channels, unsuccessfully, so he was left with no other choice.

That's a far cry from storming the capitol after losing the election to build an even further right state.

What matters to me is the morality of a rule (unreasonable searches, accepting loss), not the fact that a rule was broken.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He didn't get what he wanted so decided to brake the law. Does sound like Trump.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What matters to me is the morality of a rule (unreasonable searches, accepting loss), not the fact that a rule was broken.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are not in charge of deciding the morality of law. We have courts that decide such matters. What you're really saying is that your feelings about a law is more important than the law itself.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all

This guy: "Psshhhhh whatever, if it's not a Robocop-like fanaticism for the law, then it's feelings. I am very rational."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

@explodicle yeah, @Rapidcreek's argument here hasn't really flown since before Nuremburg.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

We are a nation of laws or we are not.