Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblower

[Bekah]

I was wondering why,  if Snowden doesn't like the government spying on it's own,  he went to Hong Kong?   Um… well… perhaps they made him an offer he couldn't refuse?  (I doubt it - he doesn't seem like the type that money would drive.)   So that leaves him as a plant?  He's been snooping and it's better at this point to snitch on those he can snitch on and run than to stick around and get caught. 

??
Too many questions. 

Bekah 



On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Henry M <scuffling at gmail.com> wrote:

> Um, this would all be SO much more useful if it wasn't turning out that Snowden is a plant, fake, and stooge.  According to libertarian nutjob Snowden and his employer, The Guardian, isn't according to Hoyle IMO , but YMMV.
>  
> http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/ 
> Yours truly,
> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
> Henry Musikar, CISSP
> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
> 
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> Um, according to Snowden, he repeatedly brought up his reservations to superiors and had his concerns dismissed. Whether or not it is "legal" according to laws passed without the consent of the people, spying on the general public is certainly in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment. I'd rather be nervous about threats from abroad than about threats from my own government.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Collinson <jamie at bigdada.com> wrote:
> extremely well said
> 
> 
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Henry M wrote:
> 
>> Whether or not you like the results of Snowden's revelation, he's certainly is closer to being a whistle-blower than Manning.  Many people who have never handled sensitive information miss an important element of what employees, government or otherwise, are told vis-a-vis whistle-blowing, which is the requirement to bring the problem to one's superiors or to some office specially designated for receiving such information. 
>>  
>> If Snowden had done so, he probably would have been informed that while he, and many other people, may have philosophical (and perhaps moral) concerns about the NSA surveilance progam, it wasn't illegal and it wasn't against government or program policy, direction, or charter, things that Manning is too apparently too young and mixed-up to understand, but which someone in Snowden's former positon should. 
>>  
>> However much you may like them and the results of what they've done, Snowden and Manning broke the law and were aware of the consequence of doing so. That there are bankers who broke the law (many just did very wrong things) and who should be prosecuted in what would be very complicated cases does not, in a nation of laws, give other people such as Snowden and Manning, a free pass.
>> 
>> Yours truly,
>> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>> Henry Musikar, CISSP
>> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> i can accept the release of what the NSA has been up to with wiretapping and the like  but if this guy also gave out secrets about US plans regarding cyberattack strategies/defense I think that's something he should be prosecuted for
> 
> 
>