If one contractor knows what the other has bid, he can just underbid by a dollar - that becomes more like an auction which is a cumbersome technique for a single large project

I'm too honest for this world ... even if another contractor would bid lower than my rate I wouldn't go below my calculations just to get the contract - and I've been asked to do that multiple times ... I've based those calculations on my expenses and the value of my work - the margin of 5% I offer is on the table (longer duration, working remote, expenses, etc.) so again no secrets - and if a customer asks me to go just € 1,00 lower to get ahead of the competition I send him on his way (that also has happened twice already) - he has no clue about the work he wants done if that paltry sum has any influence on his decision (precluding absolutely identical offers which almost never happens), thus the decisions he'll make during the project will probably also be based on such nonsensical criteria causing me a lot of headaches in my work ... if companies think they can get a better offer by keeping bids secret it's still 'one over' and not value for value - that's like suspecting your business partners of cheating you if you talk to them openly - not a good basis for doing business ...

I'm not so sure that he didn't put some of our people at risk.

That's just my point: not guilty until proven otherwise. So if someone is making excuses then it's his accusers coming up with hypothetical 'what ifs'. If they can come up with solid evidence that he published the name or circumstances of some NSA agent who subsequently died while infiltrating Al Quaida so be it - charge him with treason and even accessory to murder. Until then all this posturing is just a farce.

I think that his release of documents that showed unconstitutional activities on the part of the government should NOT be used against him and instead should be evidence against those abusing the constitution.

:) :) :)

maybe some commendation or some medal or just a nice house in the suburbs for his ruined life might be in order, too ;)

again: if all of the above remains as per status quo ...

I already agreed on the 'guilty' for breaking his contract - even conceded agreement on the murder / treason charge if they do have evidence. But why don't they charge him with it after a year of clamoring and threatening? It wouldn't be the first trial in absentia - why keep insinuating instead of proving?

As long as the only evidence we've seen so far is the wrongdoing of the state and that he had is life ruined for it (not to mention his life threatened), I'm inclined to award him 'damages' as he did do us a service. If other evidence is brought forward I'll be happy to reconsider - until then let them keep their overflowing diapers and grand rhetoric.

Teresa,

You dropped the context when you quoted me.  Here is the full quote [emphasis added]:

There are a few things a government needs to keep secret (very few).  Like the locations of missles, ships sailing times when at war, identifying info on people undercover in terrorist groups, specific methods for gaining clandestine information on terrorists, etc. And if someone signs up to work with that kind of classified information and then reveals it, they should be tried and convicted and imprisoned.

When the convoys of ships left harbor in WWII, it was secret and they left in the dead of the night.  If that had not been secret, or if it was revealed to the Nazis a wolf pack of submarines would sink the ships - this happened many times and the loss of life was horrible.  Our missles are a deterent and if their position is revealed, their deterent value is lessened because they can be taken out.  That makes the possibility of war, and the loss of life much greater.  If an agent is working undercover, infiltrating a terror cell, or a home invasion gang, or any violent group, then revealing his identity is likely to get him killed.

Don't you believe that if someone had revealed the D-Day time and location to the Nazis, that they should have been convicted and imprisoned?

-----------------

You wrote:

The most anyone else would be forced to face in the private sector for such an infraction is unemployment and possible blackballing, not prison. 

That's not so.  The kind of information I specifically named, and then referred to as that kind of classified information would get a civilian tried for treason.  This happened in WWII and if some civilian were caught today and found to have given crucial aid to the 911 terrorists they'd be tried - even if the aid they provided was nothing more than revealing classified information.

When I was granted top secret security clearance for some software work I did - work that was for the military, I signed a paper that made it very clear to me that revealing any classified information could result in prison time.  And I was a private contractor, working for another private contractor who had different contracts with the Navy, Army and Air Force.

-----------------

You wrote: 

I'm not at all sure why you're taking this personally instead of defending your position. Your reaction is kind of bizarre to me, honestly. The only people who seem to think Snowden should face prosecution are those who think government has more rights than anyone here does. I think that's dangerous.  

It isn't "this" that I was taking personally it was your style of arguing.  You won't answer the single question I posed, you implied that government is my God, and that I accept whatever comes from government on faith, you said that I am advocating equivocation.  Those are just slurs that have no foundation and not any kind of logical argument.

I find it very bizarre that you want to totally ignore my points and yet contintue to argue as if I'd never replied to you.  My points are very simple: When you have enemies that are trying to kill you, and when you are at war, there are secrets the goverment must keep from the enemy.  If they don't, innocent lives will be lost.  That's a simple fact.  We attempt to mitigate the risk of government acting in the dark by having entire committees of elected officials actively engage in oversight.  I've also pointed out that it makes sense for the government to keep a few things secret temporarily for purely good business sense.  If they are going to build something that will increase the value of surrounding land they should make their land purchase before releasing the information.  If they are requesting bids for work to be done, they should keep the bid amounts secret till they are all received - out of fairness to those who are first to submit bids, and to stop people from bidding not on the work but on the other bids.

When you say "only ... those who think government has more rights than anyone else here does..." I don't know what to reply.  I read and think about what others write, but I reason out my own answers - I don't give more points for consensus.  People are split on this issue.  I don't side with those who want to imprison him over the NSA stuff, and I don't side with those who say because of the NSA stuff revealed we should ignore any of the damaging stuff he did.

And we both agree that government has NO moral rights at all.  They do have legal rights - courses of action they can take by law.  And I haven't seen anyone here who says that government has more rights than individuals.  I don't follow your arguments at all.

Teresa,

You still don't answer the question about a government being able to keep secrets from enemies.

Here is an example:  Klaus Fuchs was a physicist on the WWII Manhattan Project and leaked enough classifed information on the construction of an atomic weapon to the Soviet Union that they were able to put us in a cold war.  Would you demand that someone produce a body before declaring that Fuchs be tried, convicted and imprisoned?  Do you think that the military has the right to keep weaponry details secret from our enemies?  Or is that all bizarre to you as well?

Teresa, 

I didn't equivocate.  If you think I did please quote what I wrote and state which word or phrase I used to mean more than one thing so as to create a logical fallacy.  Otherwise you are just making a meaningless assertion or you don't know what 'equivocation' means.

---------------

It's plain absurd to claim Snowden intended to do damage to the efforts of freedom, but that is your claim. I don't buy it.

I didn't say what Snowden "intended" and it is NOT my claim that he 'intended to do damage to the efforts of freedom.'  You should quote a person before attacking what they say as "absurd"... because you often have me saying things that I actually did NOT say at all.  

What kind of fuzzy thinking was going in Snowden's mind is not the issue.  The issues are: 1.) Whether or not there are things it is proper for a government to keep secret.  And if so: 2.) Are any of those things so directly related to individual rights that violating that confidentiality is aiding in the violation of individual rights - hence subject to criminal prosecution.

Why won't you address those two issues? 

The "Nash Auction" of telecom bandwidth by the FCC is a famous example of open bidding.  The government got more than they would have with the old secret method.  The telecom carriers and brokers paid less than they would have.  Secrecy has its place, but like force and lying, it is limited in what it can achieve as an engine of creation.

Vera, they got "more" and paid "less" based on their expectations from previous (traditional; closed) auctions. Also, in the past, broadcasters and brokers acquired properties they did not want in order to get something which they could trade later for what they did want.  That is the definition of money, but it also represents a market inefficiency.  The open auction reduced inefficiencies by removing uncertainties.