On Jun 11, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Tom Limoncelli <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. They are exposing something that is clearly against the law. > 2. They are not benefiting monetarily from having the information revealed. > 3. All other courses of action have been tried and failed (possibly > not by them but by others). > > You can debate whether the list is complete or whether Snowden could > say "yes" to all three. Personally from what I've read, he could > easily say "yes" to all three (with the third being less > cut-and-dried).
I think the first is a little less cut and dried. The FISA court system is somewhat well trodden case-law, and SCOTUS has refused all attempts to limit their authority and scope. To say that Verizon/PRISM is "against the law" is making a legal judgement that a sysadmin may not be qualified to make and certainly may not be accurate in this situation (at least not according to our rule of law where SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and they haven't seemed to have agreed thus far). D _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
