20 warrant and the PRISM slides, few of the other documents that Snowden had given Poitras and Greenwald for publication had little to do with either domestic surveillance or the infringements on the privacy of Americans. By the Lawfare Institute’s count, 32 of Snowden’s leaks to these journalists concerned the NSA’s overseas sources and method, nine identified overseas locations of the NSA’s intelligence bases, 25 of them revealed the identities of foreign officials of interest to US intelligence agencies, 14 of them disclosed information about Internet companies legally cooperating with the NSA, and 19 of them concerned technology products that the NSA had been using or researching. In addition, a considerable number of the published documents did not even belong to the NSA but were copies of reports sent to the NSA by its allies, including the British, Australian, Canadian, French, Norwegian and Israeli intelligence services. For example, he provided journalists with secret documents from the British cyber service GCHQ describing its own plans to obtain a legal warrant to penetrate the Russian computer security firm Kaspersky to expand its “computer network exploitation capability." All the GCHQ was revealing in this document was its own capabilities to monitor a Russian target of interest to it. While the release of these foreign documents may have embarrassed foreign allies of the United States, they exposed no violations of US law by the NSA. It was a legitimate part of the NSA’s job to share information with its allies. This raises the question: what constitutes whistle-blowing? To the general public no doubt, a whistle-blower is simply a person who exposes government misdeeds from inside that government. But in the eyes of the law someone who discloses classified information to an unauthorized person, even as an act of personal conscience, is not exempt from punitive consequences of his act. Indeed, if a person deliberately reveals secret US operations, es