PRISM

[Lamplighter]

<snip>These guys who disclose secret information to the general public
through leaks are traitors to their nation and harm us in many, many ways.

They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked,
and for that reason alone they should be jailed.

I have trouble with each of these statements,
primarily because I don't think there is a bright red line
between being " a traitor " a " whistleblower " and " civil disobediance "

When leaks occur about government activities, the first reaction
of the government is to publicly label the person a "spy" or "traitor"
and the government usually seeks some kind of criminal charge(s).
This is what is happening with Snowden now.
Only time will tell if harm was done, and if the government charges are valid.

....

Then with respect to signing non-disclosure charges, again I don't think there's a bright red line.

The case of Thomas Drake, starting in the 2002, is a prime example
of someone signing all sorts of non-disclosure documents
and advancing through promotions up through the CIA and NSA.
He followed all the proscribed legal procedures to correct issues.
He then publicly disclosed problems he had identified as "illegal",
and was then indicted by the government, as I described above.

Basically, the conflict in non-disclosure agreements is "informed consent"
A person cannot consent to something (secrets) they do not yet know
If consent is a pre-condition and only after consenting they can learn the secret,
their non-disclosure agreement may well become the lesser issue.