I have trouble deciding whether people intentional misunderstand him, simple can't, or just prefer to be outraged.
The program is classified. Its more effective if it remains so. Since it is now public, though he wishes it wasn't, he's happy and willing to publicly debate the issue of privacy vs security. He's made it quite clear that he struggles with the issue himself.
Leaking classified information is illegal, thus it generally should be prosecuted. Though we also have whistleblower laws that protect people who are leaking evidence of criminal conduct.
The parent poster should have been more specific. The reason lawsuits have largely be stymied has been the claim of state secrets (whether or not everyone in the room knew the program existed, the executive branch argued that details would reveal things that would be detrimental to the state) and because no one who sued could prove they had standing to sue because no one knew who was actually being monitored.
So, yes, we knew section 215, FISA, etc existed, but no one has been able to (yet) successfully challenge them fully because any legal basis for challenging has been (in many cases actively) kept secret.
Curiously, the UK government made an argument to the contrary just recently when talking about when an alleged sex offender should have their name disclosed, which has been a big issue here of late after a wave of allegations about inappropriate behaviour by high profile media personalities going back many years. The argument was essentially that if you disclose the identity of a suspect before they have their day in court, you might encourage other victims to come forward with evidence that will build the case, which is presumably favourable if the suspect actually is guilty but obviously has severe potential consequences if in fact they are innocent but publicly associated with sex crimes anyway.
I'm not sure what the parallel with whistleblowing should be in a case of allegation but not yet a conclusive decision in court, but I'm pretty sure governments shouldn't be entitled to more protection against potential damage to their reputation than an alleged but not convicted sex offender.
(Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of the policy toward disclosure of suspected sex offenders, just the double standard that would arise if the UK government objected to this kind of whistleblowing using your "innocent until proven guilty" argument.)
Well the US definitely "has their cake and eats it too" on your example. We will oftentimes (incl. for alleged sex offenders) publicly mention the name of a suspect, mug shot, general details, etc. even while the case is ongoing. In fact I'm convinced that's the only reason Americans know about "innocent until proven guilty", to remind them that the suspect hasn't been convicted yet.
But here we go, perhaps the whistleblower technically broke the letter of the law. It doesn't sound like he was leaked illegal activities so he doesn't have the benefit of that particular shield. And just the other day a few on HN were arguing that a prosecutor should not be able to use prosecutorial discretion.
I think we can all definitely agree his heart is in the right place though (and all the previous elements of my ode to him still apply), so I wonder what we would think of prosecutorial discretion after this?
The program is classified. Its more effective if it remains so. Since it is now public, though he wishes it wasn't, he's happy and willing to publicly debate the issue of privacy vs security. He's made it quite clear that he struggles with the issue himself.
Leaking classified information is illegal, thus it generally should be prosecuted. Though we also have whistleblower laws that protect people who are leaking evidence of criminal conduct.