> with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States<p>There are two versions of the United States.<p>1. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight they don't normally get into the doings of their employees (government officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon whose whims the government has power, and allegedly upon whose whims that power can be revoked.<p>2. The Government of. This is the actual entity of power in the USA, and probably has been forever (though the way the Executive branch reacted to union riots makes me wonder - it was genuinely concerned it was about to be deposed, I wonder if that was a valid fear?) This is injured when word gets out about it breaking its own laws - it makes the USA look bad, it destroys trust and thus the ability for the government to maintain control of the people, etc. This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Anybody challenging this power is an enemy of #2, even if they aren't an enemy of #1. Great examples are some of our industry's favorite persons of interest, namely Snowden, Manning. Back in the day it was Civil Rights activists (note I'm not drawing a comparison between current leaks and that era, just saying it's another example of enemies of #2 but not #1).<p>As per the article, the line "be used to the injury of the USA" is obviously being interpreted by the current administration to mean "to the injury of #2" above.
As I read through I didn't think there was too much to this - if we're going to have big classified databases then strong auditing is absolutely essential and I'm glad it's happening (people selling the data in them to corporations and governments is absolutely a valid concern).<p>I'm happy I kept reading though, because I thought this bit down near the bottom was insightful:<p><i>Authentication, which often involves sharing information about the contents of a forthcoming story with the government, is a common journalistic practice that allows the government to weigh in on any risks involved in publishing the material of which the journalist may not be aware. By turning that process into a trap for journalists and sources, the government is sacrificing an opportunity to safeguard its legitimate interests and tell its side of the story.</i>
> On August 8, 2014, dozens of FBI agents raided Hale’s house with guns drawn and searched his computer and flash drives. This all happened during the Obama administration, which declined to file charges. Five years later, Trump’s Justice Department revived the case.<p>The article fails to point out that it was the Obama administration that really turned up the heat on whistleblowers:<p><a href="https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/" rel="nofollow">https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...</a><p>I suspect that at the time many Obama supporters simply didn't care. Their guy was in charge and that was that.<p>Short-sighted to be sure.<p>Far too few considered the possibility that the opposition was watching and learning what new things might be possible.
I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear.<p>If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.
Conservatism should be about maintaining checks and balances that keep the government honest. IMO this is something that even Trump's supporters should be concerned about, especially if they themselves lean a bit libertarian.
There is a contradiction: "Although Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, doesn’t have access to the content of those backed-up messages, Google and Apple do." and<p>" 'iMessage communications are end-to-end encrypted and Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage data when it is in transit between devices,' the guidelines state."<p>I would say it is the other way around, FB and Google <i>can</i> access the content of messages, Apple can not.