So Snowden isn’t a whistleblower because he gave them to the Guardian?
Technical (legal): No, clearly not. There's a reason he's hiding from the US justice system in Russia. He didn't follow the legal process for whistleblowing (and he probably should not have).
Moral: The major difference between Manning and Snowden's leaks is that Snowden read the documents he forwarded and only collected and forwarded enough to blow the whistle. Manning never read all the cables she extracted; she had no idea what the blast-radius of that declassification would be.
In July 2014, The Washington Post reported on a cache previously provided by Snowden from domestic NSA operations consisting of "roughly 160,000 intercepted e-mail and instant-message conversations, some of them hundreds of pages long, and 7,900 documents taken from more than 11,000 online accounts."
He did not read the 160k emails he provided to the Washington Post.
Imagine being a contractor and having no established procedures to go to, and when you blow the whistle, they just bring the hammer on you. Have you read about what Katherine Gun went through for blowing the whistle on a completely illegitimate war where an ally - the US (not her own country) - was pressuring countries in the UN to join the war?
You speak in black and white for Snowden and Manning's morality, but refuse to acknowledge the downright terrible greys of the govts involved.
The State Department keeps secrets, and keeps more secrets than it needs to. The NSA's full-time job is generating and keeping secrets. The fact secrets exist (and some secrets should be publicized) doesn't imply unbridled leaking of those secrets is objectively good, and it doesn't imply the world would be a better place if the State Department or NSA operated in the open in general.
On the other end of the spectrum, would you draw the line with Scooter Libby? Would you draw the line with Trump revealing state secrets to Russians behind closed doors?
The double standard between those in power and whistle blowers is out for everyone to see, and there is little that can be done by whistle-blowers to be "careful".
A democracy also can't function with blinding light shining into absolutely every corner. Otherwise, we wouldn't see nearly as many people concerned about privacy in the democracies of the world. In practice, a grey balance appears to be successful.
> What restraint would you advocate in not leaking all secrets?
Some awareness of the possible impact of leaks, and awareness of the contents of leaked documents. Both Snowden and Manning appear to have failed to read all the content they leaked, which is dangerous. In practice, we have gotten fortunate in that there were no obvious immediate lethal consequences to the leaks. But hope is not a strategy.
> On the other end of the spectrum, would you draw the line with Scooter Libby? Would you draw the line with Trump revealing state secrets to Russians behind closed doors?
I'm not sure what lines you're looking for me to draw. So far, all the leaks you've named were dangerous and had significant potential for negative consequences exceeding their benefit. I'm in favor of impeachment of President Trump for the way he has chosen to handle the state secrets he has been entrusted with (along with a host of other, more pressing reasons).
> The double standard between those in power and whistle blowers is out for everyone to see, and there is little that can be done by whistle-blowers to be "careful".
They can always flee to Russia, it seems. ;)
You are suggesting they make judgements, but they are not independent authorities on making such judgements. People who are, are making judgements arbitrarily too, hence why being a legit whistle-blower in any organization is a problem. If you read or listen to Snowden, he worked with journalists to proof the leaks. Yes, he handed them to journalists, because if he went through official channels, nothing would have worked out.
Snowden also took a lot and leaked a massive dump, it was Greenwald, et al. that parred it down.
Snowden: I've evaluated all of the documents that are in the archive.
Oliver: You've read every single one?
Snowden: Well, I do understand what I turned over.
Oliver: But there's a difference between understanding what's in the documents and reading what's in the documents.
Snowden: I recognize the concern.
Oliver: Right, because when you're handing over thousands of NSA documents, the last thing you want to do is read them.
So, what better method should she have used? Remember she was on active duty, and already under a lot of stress from personally being aware of the atrocities being hidden.
Scraping the secret-classified documents of the State Department, handing them over to a foreign organization, and saying "You'll make the best use of this, I trust you" isn't whistleblowing. At best, it's irresponsible; at worst, it's irresponsibility that walks right up to the edge of malicious treason. I'm very glad Manning wasn't convicted of treason, because she got dangerously close to it (apparently, her crimes are treason-equivalent in Canada).