>> "it is taking the view that while it PriSM was not criminal program, it was in the public's interest to know that it exists"
How did you get to that conclusion? To me it reads that they thought PRISM was not criminal AND not in the public's interest.
"...the Post suggests, there was no public interest whatsoever in revealing any of the other programs. In fact, they say, real harm was done by their exposure. That includes PRISM"
So essentially the public did not need to know about PRISM and Snowden should not have made information about it public - when it wasn't Snowden, it was WaPo that made it public. They're shifting the blame. Initially they thought it was in the public interest so they printed it. Now they're saying it was not in the public interest.
Was in the process of typing this exact response. Aqueous, I think you misread a bit. WaPo is trying to claim that exposing PRISM served no public interest while simultaneously publishing the information about PRISM. Whether the program is illegal or not is irrelevant -- that's grossly hypocritical behavior.
You are correct. I should have read more carefully. They do seem to have changed their minds. I do feel that WaPo should address the inconsistency
I think my point about the difference between 'is illegal' and 'should be illegal' still stands though. A lot of the debate was confused about whether or not this program was illegal with a lot of people not caring very much about the very specific ways in which the program avoided skirting the law. Nobody examined the specifics, and everybody assumed it was illegal and unconstitutional. This public reaction may have impeded ongoing investigations, and so it could be that Washington Post ultimately saw that it was not in the public interest to reveal the program.
How did you get to that conclusion? To me it reads that they thought PRISM was not criminal AND not in the public's interest.
"...the Post suggests, there was no public interest whatsoever in revealing any of the other programs. In fact, they say, real harm was done by their exposure. That includes PRISM"
So essentially the public did not need to know about PRISM and Snowden should not have made information about it public - when it wasn't Snowden, it was WaPo that made it public. They're shifting the blame. Initially they thought it was in the public interest so they printed it. Now they're saying it was not in the public interest.