Could you please share with us your idea of one of these potentially damaging downsides?
I personally am of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets. I fail to see any downsides that the release of any of this data might cause.
There are lots that could damage US intelligence gathering, but I don't see that as a downside at all. Spying should be hard, as every human is entitled to private communications, even the ones born outside of our imaginary invisible lines we call USA NUMBER ONE.
A direct democracy is not entitled to secrets. But a democratic republic can agree to delegate secrets to a capable representative. The representative would then be responsible for determining whether the public would be better served by keeping a secret or disclosing it.
Of course, if the public cannot have effective oversight over its representatives, it's not a democratic republic any more, but an oligarchic or aristocratic republic, and the representatives are acting on behalf of the elites rather than the general public.
Just as a quick disclosure of my personal opinion: I'm of the belief that Snowden's disclosures were reasonably well managed, and a net good for society. I wouldn't advocate for a pardon of Snowden, but I do think the current charges against him should be dropped.
> "I personally am of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets"
While I think the government absolutely has abused its privilege to hold secrets from the public, I think it's pretty clear that the government is entitled to some secrets.
Information that — if disclosed — would lead to a clear and present dangers to specific individuals seems like a clear-cut case of reasonable government secrets. Some examples of this:
* The names of police officers working undercover-cases and the names of their targets
* Specific troop position and movements in a time-frame that would allow a reasonable adversary to extrapolate current positions (e.g. information from 10 years ago is not necessarily relevant)
* The names of targets of ongoing criminal investigations
Some examples of things that I think are inappropriate uses of government secrets:
* The legal-justification of some FISC rulings
* The legal-interpretations of government attorneys that support ongoing government actions
* A high level overview of information that the government captures on its citizens (who have no suspicion of criminal activity).
> "I fail to see any downsides that the release of any of this data might cause."
I think it's very likely that the data that Snowden leaked to responsible journalists contained the names of undercover agents in the field. If one of the journalists irresponsibly leaked these names it could easily be responsible for the deaths of those agents.
I don't think this is likely, as I think the journalists that Snowden leaked his documents to have been — on the whole — fairly responsible. However, it is certainly a potential downside of the leak.
I said in the same breath that I fail to see any downsides that the release of this data could cause. Perhaps my views change with additional thoughts and ideas, which is why I asked for yours.
I personally am of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets. I fail to see any downsides that the release of any of this data might cause.
There are lots that could damage US intelligence gathering, but I don't see that as a downside at all. Spying should be hard, as every human is entitled to private communications, even the ones born outside of our imaginary invisible lines we call USA NUMBER ONE.