Yeah, this was the same argument that happened with Snowden. The whistleblowers claim they tried to no avail, and then get punished for actually trying to do the right thing. The system is designed to punish those who question it.
I mean I m glad Snowden did what he did for my own curiosity but stealing the credentials of NSA colleagues to leak secret military (or is the NSA civilian) programs is not something I d expect any country to reward. Solving these problems is very hard and Snowden took a shortcut.
Well, speaking as an American citizen, I want unconstitutional surveillance against me to stop now, not 10 years from now.
So the idea that I should be upset that Snowden took a shortcut rather than letting my rights get trampled while he struggled impossibly with bureaucracy -- I just have a hard time figuring out why that would be good for the American people.
I understand that the government would prefer that only official channels are considered legitimate. That's the whole reason why the Espionage Act exists, that's why whistleblowers aren't allowed to bring up public interest during trial. And I get that motivation, I understand why the government wants complete control over how it can and can't be held accountable for violating my trust and violating my rights.
But I don't understand why I should be on the government's side in making it harder to hold them accountable and harder for whistleblowers to let me know when my rights are being violated. Getting mad about taking a shortcut is very strange to me, I'm not sure how to process that sentiment.
