4 ms·

> One has to trust those who are authorised to examine the legality of such programmes. Why? Their track record is pretty atrocious. > And of course, one must

by swyman 11y ago

> One has to trust those who are authorised to examine the legality of such programmes. Why? Their track record is pretty atrocious. > And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. How? And how would one ever discover the abuse without examination?

zeveb 11y ago
> > And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. > How? And how would one ever discover the abuse without examination? Because there are inspectors general whose entire careers are built upon investigating the claims of whistleblowers. Anyone who does have legitimate access to information about classified programmes is able to legally contact numerous IGs authorised to investigate those programmes. The entire incentive structure for IGs is designed to reward them when they find wrongdoing. But, as I noted, one also has to be humble enough to recognise that just because one thinks something is wrong or illegal, that doesn't mean that it is.
- TechnicalVault 11y ago
  Legality is something to leave to the lawyers to argue for sure but that is merely law. Saying that only government gets to decide the moral question of right and wrong is dangerous though. If we fail to recognise the right to conscience we risk falling victim to the many errors that governments have made over the years, particularly in the name of security.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Actually, there aren't in practice. Every whistleblower that took the problems to them had their careers destroyed in one way or another while I.G. looked the other way. Then, they took it outside the organization to the press or the courts where they were found to be true whistleblowers. That it always comes to this shows those organizations are very corrupt and eliminating that from within is provably impossible given all the precedents. Whistleblowing and sometimes courts are the only working model. "But, as I noted, one also has to be humble enough to recognise that just because one thinks something is wrong or illegal, that doesn't mean that it is." Did you ever see the actual court cases on these things? The NSA's rep said the judicial system has basically no part in anything they deem classified. Whether there's a crime or not, they can't question it and it can't be punished. We'll be humble once we see it from their side first.

by swyman 11y ago

zeveb 11y ago

> > And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. > How? And how would one ever discover the abuse without examination? Because there are inspectors general whose entire careers are built upon investigating the claims of whistleblowers. Anyone who does have legitimate access to information about classified programmes is able to legally contact numerous IGs authorised to investigate those programmes. The entire incentive structure for IGs is designed to reward them when they find wrongdoing. But, as I noted, one also has to be humble enough to recognise that just because one thinks something is wrong or illegal, that doesn't mean that it is.

TechnicalVault 11y ago
Legality is something to leave to the lawyers to argue for sure but that is merely law. Saying that only government gets to decide the moral question of right and wrong is dangerous though. If we fail to recognise the right to conscience we risk falling victim to the many errors that governments have made over the years, particularly in the name of security.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Actually, there aren't in practice. Every whistleblower that took the problems to them had their careers destroyed in one way or another while I.G. looked the other way. Then, they took it outside the organization to the press or the courts where they were found to be true whistleblowers. That it always comes to this shows those organizations are very corrupt and eliminating that from within is provably impossible given all the precedents. Whistleblowing and sometimes courts are the only working model. "But, as I noted, one also has to be humble enough to recognise that just because one thinks something is wrong or illegal, that doesn't mean that it is." Did you ever see the actual court cases on these things? The NSA's rep said the judicial system has basically no part in anything they deem classified. Whether there's a crime or not, they can't question it and it can't be punished. We'll be humble once we see it from their side first.