3 ms·

>> Talking about legal policies without considering the greater moral framework in which they exist is disingenuous And torpedoing productive policy discussion

>> Talking about legal policies without considering the greater moral framework in which they exist is disingenuous And torpedoing productive policy discussion with increasingly vague discussion is also so. What help is hand waving about the unfortunately approximate relationship between policy and ethics? Your comment suggests a question about the relationship (without asking one) as if it were a wise counterpoint. OK, now what? It's not as if any reader of that comment was prior unaware of the inexact correspondence between law and morality. Am I required to solve that relationship in the general case before proceeding with policy? How about only in the problem space of agreements (such as the classified NDA)? Or do I also need to resolve that relationship in all cases concerning the relationship between individuals and society and the state? Your argument approaches that irritating stoner kid in sophomore year who could get to "But in the end can we even say anything is wrong?" from anywhere. If there is specific bit of ethics or morals that should be addressed then bring it up, otherwise is it just a general call for remembering to think ethically? If so, then thanks I guess? The video was investigated openly and was ruled an accident. Like it or hate it it's been determined not a war crime, though it has become something of a form of snuff film for people who really want to find US warcrimes.

nitrogen 11y ago
> And torpedoing productive policy discussion with increasingly vague discussion is also so. What help is hand waving about the unfortunately approximate relationship between policy and ethics? Two points: 1. You're not the only person who can decide the scope of a conversation on an Internet forum. 2. Accusations of "torpedoing" and "hand waving" are unfounded. Here's the thread so far, in which you seem to be the one waving hands: > > > > [BWStearns] You basically have to believe that all US foreign activity or all secrecy is inherently bad to say that that the Manning dump moved us forward as a democracy. > > > [jbapple] I think this hyperbole is no more helpful to the conversation than your original one ("patently childish"). > > [BWStearns] Name an illegal US activity that was unmasked via the Manning dump. > [nitrogen] There's more to right and wrong than strict deontology. What's legal or illegal is only a very fuzzy approximation of what's ethical or moral. So demands like "name an illegal activity" are missing the deeper moral/ethical point, regardless of whether there are illegal activities in the dumps... I think it's pretty clear that I was addressing this comment thread. To put it beyond all possible misinterpretation, I'm saying that moving forward as a democracy is about more than what's strictly legal or illegal. The only question that should matter when evaluating a whistleblower is this: does the information serve the public interest? I'd argue that bar should be extremely low, primarily for the reason that the people of the US cannot make informed decisions without being informed. Also relevant is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11004830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11004830 > Your argument approaches that irritating stoner kid in sophomore year who could get to "But in the end can we even say anything is wrong?" from anywhere. Your argument approaches that irritating paternalizing of government rhetoric in which "sober" analysis can only come to one conclusion, that the "current best solution to the problem is where we are currently". I've been discussing in good faith, at worst omitting implied context to save space and time, and you're resorting here to what comes across as thinly veiled ad hominem. There is plenty of interesting and productive conversation to be had about secrecy and whistleblowers, but this thread has become too long, too narrow, and bordering on too personal for me to desire to continue here.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  Fair criticism that I might have started to be a dick. Sorry about that. On the productive side, do you have any suggestions regarding a way to make a whistleblower law that increases the odds of "good whistleblowers" without just saying "we're done enforcing classification"? Our disagreement over whether or not Manning's dump does anything for democracy is actually a great illustration of why it's hard to make such laws/policies. Criticizing me for not figuring out a better solution isn't suggesting a better solution. I honest to god want to hear one. Hell, I'll throw out something I can at least lie myself into seeming like a good idea: A leaker, believing public disclosure of classified material to be necessary in order to uphold their oath to the constitution, is not subject to the Espionage Act if they immediately submit themselves to the authority of the Supreme Court where a [unanimous|8|7|6|5] vote decision is required to press charges of [insert relevant non-espionage act crimes here, stealing gov't property, clearance violations, etc], and if so which charges to press.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    If you want to preserve classification, I'd work on the training and motive side, rather than what happens after a leak. Prevent the leaks by preventing activity that motivates leakers. Punish anyone who sells information for direct cash or commercial favors. Make it clear what information will result in immediate physical harm if leaked, and don't abuse the classification system to hide embarrassing, negligent, corrupt, or criminal behavior. Don't engage in mass surveillance. In general when I solve a problem I try to go as close to the source as possible, and/or look at a layer of abstraction that isn't often considered.

nitrogen 11y ago

> And torpedoing productive policy discussion with increasingly vague discussion is also so. What help is hand waving about the unfortunately approximate relationship between policy and ethics? Two points: 1. You're not the only person who can decide the scope of a conversation on an Internet forum. 2. Accusations of "torpedoing" and "hand waving" are unfounded. Here's the thread so far, in which you seem to be the one waving hands: > > > > [BWStearns] You basically have to believe that all US foreign activity or all secrecy is inherently bad to say that that the Manning dump moved us forward as a democracy. > > > [jbapple] I think this hyperbole is no more helpful to the conversation than your original one ("patently childish"). > > [BWStearns] Name an illegal US activity that was unmasked via the Manning dump. > [nitrogen] There's more to right and wrong than strict deontology. What's legal or illegal is only a very fuzzy approximation of what's ethical or moral. So demands like "name an illegal activity" are missing the deeper moral/ethical point, regardless of whether there are illegal activities in the dumps... I think it's pretty clear that I was addressing this comment thread. To put it beyond all possible misinterpretation, I'm saying that moving forward as a democracy is about more than what's strictly legal or illegal. The only question that should matter when evaluating a whistleblower is this: does the information serve the public interest? I'd argue that bar should be extremely low, primarily for the reason that the people of the US cannot make informed decisions without being informed. Also relevant is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11004830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11004830 > Your argument approaches that irritating stoner kid in sophomore year who could get to "But in the end can we even say anything is wrong?" from anywhere. Your argument approaches that irritating paternalizing of government rhetoric in which "sober" analysis can only come to one conclusion, that the "current best solution to the problem is where we are currently". I've been discussing in good faith, at worst omitting implied context to save space and time, and you're resorting here to what comes across as thinly veiled ad hominem. There is plenty of interesting and productive conversation to be had about secrecy and whistleblowers, but this thread has become too long, too narrow, and bordering on too personal for me to desire to continue here.

BWStearns 11y ago
Fair criticism that I might have started to be a dick. Sorry about that. On the productive side, do you have any suggestions regarding a way to make a whistleblower law that increases the odds of "good whistleblowers" without just saying "we're done enforcing classification"? Our disagreement over whether or not Manning's dump does anything for democracy is actually a great illustration of why it's hard to make such laws/policies. Criticizing me for not figuring out a better solution isn't suggesting a better solution. I honest to god want to hear one. Hell, I'll throw out something I can at least lie myself into seeming like a good idea: A leaker, believing public disclosure of classified material to be necessary in order to uphold their oath to the constitution, is not subject to the Espionage Act if they immediately submit themselves to the authority of the Supreme Court where a [unanimous|8|7|6|5] vote decision is required to press charges of [insert relevant non-espionage act crimes here, stealing gov't property, clearance violations, etc], and if so which charges to press.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  If you want to preserve classification, I'd work on the training and motive side, rather than what happens after a leak. Prevent the leaks by preventing activity that motivates leakers. Punish anyone who sells information for direct cash or commercial favors. Make it clear what information will result in immediate physical harm if leaked, and don't abuse the classification system to hide embarrassing, negligent, corrupt, or criminal behavior. Don't engage in mass surveillance. In general when I solve a problem I try to go as close to the source as possible, and/or look at a layer of abstraction that isn't often considered.