Pardon Snowden

You can not vet encrypted documents. These documents were unencrypted and handled by journalists who could never stand the full attention of the world's intelligence agencies.

Laura Poitras was very qualified. Greenwald... not so much. He had to receive a crash-course on computer safety. He left unidentified USB-sticks in the laptop with the documents. He gave the documents to his non-journalist partner in an attempt to smuggle them through customs. Greenwald is a professional. He just did not get the gravity or technicalities of most of the documents he saw.

> those [standard-operating-procedure] documents aren't the ones being leaked by the journalists

They are not being leaked to the general public (with a few exceptions). But one has to assume they made it to the competitors of the US. And it points to indiscriminate leaking -- maybe Snowden did not even fully realize what he all had, as he took everything he could get his hands on: mailing lists, internal collaborative wiki's, technical details on ongoing missions.

> Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels.

I do not think Snowden went through the official internal channels. He may have tried to ring the alarm bell with some people internally. If you have anything to challenge this, I'd be interested.

> Lol wut. He was just a contractor, not a secret agent.

He was a former CIA operative. He took his job at BAH with the full intention of leaking everything he could get his hands on. His flight, undercover operation, and handling of the documents, was all very deliberate and possible due to his trade craft.

> [Snowden fled to Russia] So? You can't blame Snowden for that

Why not? Proponents almost make it sound he was chased to Russia, or that Wikileaks kidnapped him and released him there. He ended up in Russia. I think both destinations were chosen very deliberately, to avoid rendition, prosecution (or worse: assassination or torture).

> Doesn't matter how he got the documents in Britain

I think it does. From journalists we can expect them to maybe handle very sensitive documents. The partners of these journalists? Not so much... That is as close to civilian as you can get.

> He tried that and nobody took him seriously.

So he downloaded everything else, filled 4 laptops, and now we do take him seriously? Maybe I have missed something here? Did Snowden try to leak these important documents before he went to Poitras and Greenwald?

> Considering he only ever entered Russia after he had distributed the documents and none of them ever entered Russia this opinion is based on nothing other than emotion and isn't substantiated by any facts.

Sure, Russia and China won't come out and say that:

- we have the documents

- Snowden was one of our own

But to think these documents are not in the possession of every competent intelligence agency in the world may be a bit naive. I'd reckon these intelligence agencies knew of these documents the moment news agencies around the world starting working on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Ulfkotte#The_book_.22Bough...

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

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

I think you laid bare my mental split on this issue and for that I thank you. I will concede the point on Snowden being competent.

I said it because it felt (and still slightly feels) wrong to me: Like a kung-fu student hitting his master with a punch he was taught by that same master. Snowden used the trade craft he picked up at the NSA and CIA against these same organizations.

But he would have been foolish to ignore his own skills and I can't expect him to forget these and put his life in danger (more than he already has).

I also think that my request for views opposing my current view shows my flexibility on this matter. If someone can show convincing arguments against my view, I am perfectly willing to adapt and concede.

You did not. You told me to go research the "facts", while you took your "facts" the same as I did mine: By researching sources on the internet. It is weak to say that someone with an opposing view must have this view because he/she is ill-informed.

The so-called 'ad hominem attacks' are likely the result of my poor mastery of the english language, combined with an assumption of bad faith on your part.

You are now concerned about getting on the no-fly list.

Think about being concerned doing a Google Search, Buying this item, Putting much money into this and this.

What is freedom anyway? Any attachment to external systems threatens it in my opinion. You work through the systems you're attached to and they limit you - for example - me posting my thoughts on HN or reddit is nearly pointless yet a lot of us a spend significant amounts of time chatting back and forth, thinking we're accomplishing something significant - so we're content with that and less likely to spread our message in ways that might have more impact.

I start to laugh at myself when I blame big corporations and shady nations for the mess we're in - but this is a system we ALL buy into. Blaming a corporation is like yelling at an inanimate object when you stub your toe on it. I gave up my smartphone - that's a tiny first step towards taking your privacy back - yet who here would actually do that?

just a thought though.