Espionage or Journalism? After the Snowden NSA Leaks (2020) (opens in new tab)

Shouldn't the title be "Espionage or Whistleblowing?" Journalism would just be reporting on the events.

For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage.

So Edward Snowden... proved the likes of James Clapper were lying through their teeth to Congress about mass warrantless collection of the private communications of American citizens. Hmmm... is it whistleblowing or espionage? Gosh what a tough question.

The "Snowden Associate" in the title is Bart Gellman, a long time Washington Post reporter who's covered national security issues in some detail for years and years. Just looking at his Wikipedia entry, he's been a thorn in the side of the DoD and other authorities forever.

This is not to make light or, or poo-poo his concerns or the counter-measures he takes, but rather to note that he should be watching his back after a career like that. Like Ben Franklin once said, "Never charge someone more money than it costs to kill you."

I had never heard the bin Laden satellite phone claim, but it stinks so much of intelligence agency bullshit. It blames the press for what is unquestionably their failure in the run up to 9/11, and it's central claim isn't even true. Yet it's become a staple of their rhetoric.

I wonder what Snowden thinks of having to live in Russia now with the war in Ukraine. It must be a little awkward.

This paragraph is quite interesting:

Years later Richard Ledgett, who oversaw the NSA’s media-leaks task force and went on to become the agency’s deputy director, told me matter-of-factly to assume that my defenses had been breached. “My take is, whatever you guys had was pretty immediately in the hands of any foreign intelligence service that wanted it,” he said, “whether it was Russians, Chinese, French, the Israelis, the Brits. Between you, Poitras, and Greenwald, pretty sure you guys can’t stand up to a full-fledged nation-state attempt to exploit your IT. To include not just remote stuff, but hands-on, sneak-into-your-house-at-night kind of stuff. That’s my guess.” Because I’d been one of Snowden’s principal interlocutors, Ledgett told me he was sure there was “a nice dossier” on me in both Russia and China.

It comes off to me as fear mongering and an attempt to dissuade any future involvement with such sensitive materials. An understandable approach from someone with the specified role. However, it just sounds so defeatist given how much of the article up to that point had detailed the layers of effort that had gone into avoiding exactly that.

It also means that the NSA is capable of that as well: they've got it before you even realise what it is that you've got.

Any of James Clapper's words must be filtered through his laser-focused tunnel vision; black and white, good and bad, scorched earth for middle ground. ie. discard it, but be aware that's how those people view the world, and therefore that's what you'll be up against if you step into the ring. Zealots. Cattle to be protected by the Dogs from the Wolves, and into those three categories fit all.

I don't like it much, and find it difficult to relate to, but they couldn't do the important stuff that they do if they didn't have that attitude. But that's exactly why "congress", or whoever the appropriate leash-holders are, need to yoink on the leash every now and then, rather than letting it out for two straight decades.

He divulged some stuff that was of little consequence except giving Greenwald a career. The government simply responded by changing things up. So now you have a bunch of leaked stuff that is dated. Whistleblowers never seem that effective. either they are too late, or the stuff revealed is not that important, or nothing happens/changes. IF a whistleblower reveals a corporate fraud, for example, the revelation of the fraud will hurt shareholders. The ideal solution is to tell the shareholders before the info is public without impacting the stock price, so investors do not lose money, which is not possible. Someone has to lose. Justice may be served but shareholders still lose.

Related:

My Summer of Snowden - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221517 - May 2020 (18 comments)

"SINCE I MET EDWARD SNOWDEN, I’VE NEVER STOPPED WATCHING MY BACK"

That is the title of the article when I click the link. (Caps and all came through in copy-paste). Where is this "Espionage or Journalism" coming from? Are there different titles shown to different viewers?

Any country sooner or later needs some black ops, reveling them in such cases is more espionage than journalism BUT when those ops are against country principles AND Citizens interests for the sake of a small élite than it's not espionage, it's journalism and those who try cover and crush such activities are guilty of high treason, embezzlement, in the Snowden cases also crimes against humanity, torture, massacres etc.

That happen tough only if the government is from an establish Democracy, if the democracy is just formal, not substantial, if citizens accept that instead of impose their sovereignty, that it does not happen.

If Snowden's and Greenwald's twitter accounts during the lead up (and since) to Russia's invasion of Ukraine hasn't answered that question for you, what proof could possibly exist that would convince you that they're puppets for Putin?