This line of thinking is the problem. When you have the head of the NSA perjuring himself in front of Congress, talking to a judge is not going to do anything. These documents went public because they were proof of illegal activities by the NSA and because Snowden already use all internal recourses he knew of. Three years later nobody has been indicted for these crimes which proves once again that official channels were not an option.

> This line of thinking is the problem.

I think that your government getting naked in front of allies is a problem, too.

Sometimes I find it useful to step back and remember that alliances, enemies, governments and countries are just human constructed actors in an unnecessary drama constructed and played out entirely by humans on an insignificant rock in space. From that perspective, it's hard to judge foils and vigilantes appearing in the grand plot.

My friend, America has made its own bed and we should not shoot the messenger.

Getting mad at someone for releasing information that should not be hidden from the people who allow their government to exist, because now other bad guys know the info too, is like getting mad because your girlfriend's friend told her you were cheating on her. It's a shifting of blame, and part of a propaganda campaign for damage control. Your opinion has successfully been bucketed into one of few.

"the head of the NSA perjuring himself in front of Congress"

Citation needed.

Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

Clapper: "No, sir.

Wyden: "It does /not/?"

Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps but not wittingly."

https://youtu.be/AGYn7ER5U_0

You could've googled exactly what you quoted and included the first result in your post: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/

James Clapper wasn't "the head of the NSA" any more than Obama was.

IIRC Clapper (NSA) was asked a question by Wyden (D-OR) about a classified program in an open hearing. Wyden knew the real answer from a previous classified briefing, and forced Clapper to either lie or violate secrecy in public. So Clapper lied.

> Why talk to a journalist instead of a judge?

Because that is very dangerous and will usually not work.

Forgive me, but to ask this question seems to me a kind of frightening naivety.

> Again, secrecy is a very important weapon in international relations.

You seem to think it is more important that the US has power than that it wields that power justly. That's fine, but if you believe that, don't cloak your beliefs in the language of 'heroism' or 'responsibility'. When you align yourself with the ends of power at any cost, you will have lost that cause already.

But negotiating protection with the Russian government is a simple, safe, known-to-work strategy? Snowdon clearly isn't a neophyte who shies away from things because they are dangerous and difficult.

So what's your explanation? That Snowden could have found a way to raise issues through legal channels, could have found a way to overcome internal traction against his whistleblowing, but instead chose to undertake a dangerous and clandestine international chase for the sake of excitement?

Presumably, the scope of the scandal would have been much smaller. His immunity would almost certainly have been conditional on him abiding by this confidentiality agreement, then, probably, some investigators (the senate oversight committee perhaps?) would review his evidence and shut down the illegal bits, and that would be that.

> some investigators (the senate oversight committee perhaps?) would review his evidence and shut down the illegal bits, and that would be that.

I think you are very optimistic about the way the United States and its various instruments handle complaints, respect the law and police themselves.

I am not an optimist. I think most nations are more interested in their material goals than ideological integrity. I also think that model is more consistent with history than the other.

After all - how would a government with such transparency and integrity let its armed forces fire on civilians to begin with?

I think this is why government agencies like the NSA need to have actual, real ways to whistle-blow. Methods that actually work, where impartial third parties are the ones assessing whether laws were broken, and not have the assessors be the very people being called out.

Did Snowden go to far? Very much worth debate, and I see both sides of the arguments. But did he have a better alternative than leaking? Not one that I can see.

> But did he have a better alternative than leaking?

Well, shutting up was an option :-)

Now, exactly, who got better after his revelations? This is a sincere question.

> who got better.

Many of us are now much more skeptical of the honesty of officials, even when they are under oath.

This is overwhelmingly a good thing for democracy.

The distrust of all government officials also elected Trump and promotes an anti-science culture.

> distrust of all government officials also elected Trump

I think that if HRC had immediately addressed the potential corruption revealed in those emails and stood behind her past actions boldly she'd be president now. She tried to ignore it and blame Russia/Wikileaks for her own words and deeds.

So I think the blame for Trump being elected is HRC's flawed strategy in dealing with the leaked info. It made her seem arrogant and above-the-law.

> anti-science culture

I'm curious what areas you'd point to where you think this is most prevalent. There's been a general decline in enlightenment values in our culture over the past 20 years, replaced by a preference for communities of shared belief. For all issues where science meets policy, holders of power have an incentive to simply create armies of believers rather than rational beings who can weigh the issues for themselves.

Shutting up was an option, but was it a moral, ethical one? He felt complicit in criminal activity. He could ignore his morals, quit and stay quiet while laws were being broken, or do something a bit more dramatic.

I hope I'm never in the same situation. I'd hate to have to live in Russia.

> Manning and Snowden irresponsibly put their government in an embarrassing position

In my opinion, the leaders who lied to the American people are the ones who put us in an embarrassing position. Manning and Snowden just helped us realize what is going on.

I think the biggest problem I have with this is more from a realpolitik angle. In theory, it's great that people like Snowden expose the invasive, over-reaching data collection American spy agencies are doing.

In practice, you can't disclose a country's national secrets without getting involved in realpolitik. Snowden ended up having to seek protection from the Russians. From my perspective, I have absolutely every reason to believe Russian spy agencies (along with many, many other countries) also engage in invasive data collecting. Which means the protection he needed sort of amounts to a "necessary hypocrisy". This protection also IMHO diminishes Snowden's goals -- politicians can now say he is "on the Russian side" and yell "traitor!", and (as the polls show) a large percentage of people will believe them, and will ignore any argument Snowden is making.

Personally, I agree with Snowden's goals, but unfortunately I think he was somewhat naive in his disclosure approach. In a way, I think the Manning / Wikileaks story is playing out the same way -- less regarding Manning, and more how Assange / Wikileaks is increasingly becoming politicized, too.

> I agree with Snowden's goals, but unfortunately I think he was somewhat naive in his disclosure approach.

My understanding is that Snowden intended to flee to South America but was forced to end up in Russia by the Obama administration, likely due to a rapid analysis of the options and the clear PR benefits of the "Russian side" stuff you describe.

The information leaked by Snowden revealed a lot of illegal activity being done by the US government as well as a lot of dishonesty about it. It revealed that Obama is at least as far to the right on surveillance as George W. Bush was, and that a system had been built that put all data collection systems used by the most notorious and corrupt regimes of history to shame.

That is the story. Focusing on Snowden's personality, his motivations, etc., is a distraction from the newsworthy content that should inspire corrective action (and likely criminal prosecution of many officials) via the democratic process.

> You can't disclose a country's national secrets without getting involved in realpolitik

I think this is true, but what we're seeing is that when you mess with the US Government you end up with a big-budget PR team driving the public perception of your actions and defaming your character.

In a sense, it's realpolitik, but in a sinister, preservation of power at all costs sort of way.

The US briefly had an adversarial moment in democracy during the social upheaval of the 1970s, but at present the asymmetry between entrenched power and the average person is larger than ever before.

The biggest cultural accomplishments the entrenched interests have achieved are (in my opinion) the idea that a major party can use the hashtag #resist with a straight face, and the utter demolition of the American left and culture of actual dissent.

I think the way Snowden went about things was extremely professional and honorable. While we can certainly debate Manning's approach, what issue is there with snowdens leaks? He didn't just dump a ton of stuff on WikiLeaks but instead did his best to involve a well respected journalist and have them work with the authorities to ensure no one was harmed in the process. Of course the government weren't exactly cooperative at every step and the journalists certainly had their part to play as well. That said, I find it hard to fault Snowden for anything. He saw a lot of concerning things going on, did his best to provide those details to an unbiased party accustom to dealing with such matters, and he generally did his best to stay out of things.

One of the first things he did was release information about the NSA's Chinese targets to the SCMP in an attempt to receive asylum from the Chinese government. https://www.google.com/amp/m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article...

>irresponsibly put their government in an embarrassing position wrt every other country, friend or enemy

Did they put them in that position, or did they simply reveal the reprehensible position that the government had assumed?

The real problem is people are polarized: these folks are either total hero's or total traitors. They're usually a mixed bag. Here's a short write-up I did on Snowden as an example showing he's both a whistleblower and a traitor simultaneously:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/nsa_has_under...

Just depends on which leaks and motivations we're talking about.