• snooggums
    link
    fedilink
    3610 months ago

    You remember the government claiming it, but as far as I know they never released any actual statements that his leaks killed anyone.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/438jmw/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted

    https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N1BR287/

    Both of these are pretty typical of all the articles I have seen, which is the government claiming he did great harm, but no actual examples of getting anyone killed.

    • Chozo
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      Yeah, that sound about right. I don’t remember it ever being confirmed what, if anything, was actually compromised by the leaks. But I doubt that we’d ever get specific details on something like that from the government, anyway.

      Though I imagine that a lot of ongoing operations at the time probably had to be cancelled prematurely, the consequences of which might never really be known.

      • circuitfarmer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1310 months ago

        Though I imagine that a lot of ongoing operations at the time probably had to be cancelled prematurely, the consequences of which might never really be known.

        This is the fear that is always instilled in people whenever the government takes an L. I’m not saying it’s a false statement, but it’s also unsubstantiated.

    • Guido Mancipioni
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1210 months ago

      That’s because they were spies. Spies aren’t typically talked about. SOME of the programs he detailed in those releases were within the scope of what he was trying to expose, but many were not. He dumped THOUSANDS of documents related to humint sources that absolutely got people killed, burned other active contacts / projects and cost years worth of work. There was a huge shuffle of personnel after those leaks as intelligence agencies TRIED to get their people out, but there were a great number who couldn’t get out. Andrew Bustamante speaks about this, at some length, to just name the most well known talking head.

      The majority of what he exposed had nothing to do with domestic surveillance programs, and the way he exposed that information was WILDLY irresponsible.

      Yes, the illegal surveillance he exposed was a big deal, but again, was done in a really shitty way that compromised active investigations. He neglected to do anything through proper channels, and instead betrayed his country rather than try to fix the problems through whistle blower channels where he would have actually had legal and tangible protections. Dude was an actual shit bag and a Russian asset.

      • Alto
        link
        fedilink
        610 months ago

        He neglected to do anything through proper channels, and instead betrayed his country rather than try to fix the problems through whistle blower channels where he would have actually had legal and tangible protections.

        I’m not going to pretend he wasn’t reckless as fuck but don’t pretend for even a moment that “going through the proper channels” would have gotten him anything that even halfway resembled a fair trial.

      • @n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        210 months ago

        He neglected to do anything through proper channels, and instead betrayed his country rather than try to fix the problems through whistle blower channels where he would have actually had legal and tangible protections.

        See Thomas A Drake