3 ms·

I think it's more complicated than that. I think her sentence, like most in the US, is overly punitive and unlikely to do anything other than ruin her life with

I think it's more complicated than that. I think her sentence, like most in the US, is overly punitive and unlikely to do anything other than ruin her life without any greater benefit to society, but I also hesitate to say what she did was clearly right or that she shouldn't face any consequences for it. I haven't read any of the documents that she leaked, but there is a certain danger in ignoring vigilantism even in cases where it is the right thing to do, because certainly we don't have the context to know whether that information could have been dangerous to be released, and perhaps she didn't either. It's one thing for journalists to report on leaked information, but another to give a free pass to someone who violates the terms of their access to classified information.

rwallace 10y ago
> I haven't read any of the documents that she leaked, but there is a certain danger in ignoring vigilantism even in cases where it is the right thing to do But surely there is a pattern here that carries an even greater danger? Pattern: an institution (in this case the US military, but it can be any government department, corporation, basically anything that is much more powerful than an individual) does something wrong and keeps it a secret. Whistleblower divulges the secret. Institution calls this treachery, tries to destroy whistleblower's life, and being much more powerful, will probably succeed unless society defends whistleblower. Who gets to decide whether the information really needed to be kept secret? If we say the divulging thereof was dangerous vigilantism for which there should be consequences, regardless of its content, then we grant the institution a licence to make that decision unilaterally. This amounts to a free pass for institutional corruption – which, let us remember, is something that can ruin the world. Mind you, I'm not saying whistleblower should get to make that decision unilaterally either. I'm saying I can think of no better option than deciding the case on its merits: look at the content of the divulged information and decide whether it was legitimately divulged (e.g. evidence of the institution committing a crime) or illegitimately (e.g. selling secrets to the enemy).

rwallace 10y ago

> I haven't read any of the documents that she leaked, but there is a certain danger in ignoring vigilantism even in cases where it is the right thing to do But surely there is a pattern here that carries an even greater danger? Pattern: an institution (in this case the US military, but it can be any government department, corporation, basically anything that is much more powerful than an individual) does something wrong and keeps it a secret. Whistleblower divulges the secret. Institution calls this treachery, tries to destroy whistleblower's life, and being much more powerful, will probably succeed unless society defends whistleblower. Who gets to decide whether the information really needed to be kept secret? If we say the divulging thereof was dangerous vigilantism for which there should be consequences, regardless of its content, then we grant the institution a licence to make that decision unilaterally. This amounts to a free pass for institutional corruption – which, let us remember, is something that can ruin the world. Mind you, I'm not saying whistleblower should get to make that decision unilaterally either. I'm saying I can think of no better option than deciding the case on its merits: look at the content of the divulged information and decide whether it was legitimately divulged (e.g. evidence of the institution committing a crime) or illegitimately (e.g. selling secrets to the enemy).