My memory is fuzzy. Didn’t he originally try to give the full, un-redacted docs to just newspapers, but got frustrated with the slowness/unresponsiveness or something and then everything went public? Or am I thinking of the earlier guy who worked on writing illegal software for the government, tried to blow the whistle and then got in trouble? Or am I thinking of a subsequent whistleblower who tried to use a secure dropbox for media, but it turned out to be insecure? There’s just been so many people trying to show proof of shady government stuff that I can’t keep track of which of the folks are supposed to be ‘bad’ for doing so.
What parts are objectively bad? see a lot that’s subjectively bad for the US, but plenty of other people are glad to know that they had been spied on and plenty of other countries are happy to have the US lose some significant pr points.
Yep. Every time I bring up the objectively bad parts of the leaks, people just flip out.
My memory is fuzzy. Didn’t he originally try to give the full, un-redacted docs to just newspapers, but got frustrated with the slowness/unresponsiveness or something and then everything went public? Or am I thinking of the earlier guy who worked on writing illegal software for the government, tried to blow the whistle and then got in trouble? Or am I thinking of a subsequent whistleblower who tried to use a secure dropbox for media, but it turned out to be insecure? There’s just been so many people trying to show proof of shady government stuff that I can’t keep track of which of the folks are supposed to be ‘bad’ for doing so.
What parts are objectively bad? see a lot that’s subjectively bad for the US, but plenty of other people are glad to know that they had been spied on and plenty of other countries are happy to have the US lose some significant pr points.
deleted by creator