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

World News

32316 readers
935 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 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] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

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

I don't think that whistleblowing is a crime.

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

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

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

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

We are a nation of laws or we are not.