6 ms·

Question: Does the NSA have an obligation to be ethical?

peterkelly 10y ago
I would argue yes, in the sense that all of us do (both in our professional and personal lives). The US likes to promote itself as the "good guys", and if they want that reputation, they have to earn it. NSA's activities are in direct conflict with that ideal. Society only functions properly when people act ethically. We have laws in place for punishing those who harm others in various ways (financially, physically, etc.), as a means to discourage bad behaviour. In theory there's supposed to be international law, but sadly no-one seems to pay much attention to it.
- 2close4comfort 10y ago
  I would only add that the NSA has politicized themselves in exchange for the expansion of their powers. Now as a political entity it seems they have a much lower standard of ethics and now it is about maintaining power.
ajdlinux 10y ago
Does anyone on earth not have an obligation to be ethical? (Yes, I know there is no universally accepted definition of "ethical".)
- thecatspaw 10y ago
  Yes, noone does. You are not bound by law to be ethical. There's no law about it. Are you _supposed_ to act ethical? absolutely. but you dont have an obligation
  - ajdlinux 10y ago
    Legal obligation being the only possible meaning of "obligation", obviously.
  - eropple 10y ago
    When the best thing you can say about your position is it's not literally illegal, you should probably stop digging.
- jdimov10 10y ago
  Yes, I don't. Because when you say "act ethical" you mean "do what pleases me". This is why you can't put forth a definition, because if you did, it would expose your hypocrisy. And I'm not one bit interested in doing what pleases you. I'm only interested in doing what pleases ME (as is every other person on Earth, although most will never admit it out of cowardice). So no, I don't have ANY obligation at all towards you. Now, is it in my best interest to treat you nice and contribute to your well-being? Yes, in most circumstances I'd have to admit that it is. Have a lovely day!
  - benmcnelly 10y ago
    Pretty much right, you don't need a religion or code of conduct to tell you not to be a dick. With the NSA, and many other agencies and organizations, a culture of ends justifying means is highly contagious. Human nature and our reasons for being decent moral persons and speaking the truth instead of a lie, always has some threshold defined by our world view and beliefs. When you deal with scumbags all day, those pesky rules and rights are just in the way of justice some times.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    That's pseudo-intellectual hobbelgoggle. "Pleasing" deals with emotions, so we can drop the facade of hyper-rationality right there. Cooperation is beneficial for an itdividuums' survival, as you rightfully state. It is indeed of such importance that the standards of cooperation have been internalized long ago – for non-sociopaths, altruism is an end in itself and creates positive feelings. And if you insist on your way of looking at it you actually stopped half-way: what "pleases you" is /also/ just a useful heuristic to maximize you reproductive success. The warm feeling you get from winning the lottery is no more or less real than the warm feeling (other) people get when they see someone happily getting married. For this whole system the borders between the individual and the group are fluid. While certainly, all else being equal, the individual's need usually trumps the group's, it is anything but clear-cut in most real scenarios. You may be willing to sacrifice someones life to save your own, but that can change if the other person is you daughter, when you get to old age or when it's not a 1:1 sacrifice but merely an assumption of a non-zero risk of death.
- solipsism 10y ago
  This is a circular question. One's obligations derive from one's ethics.
jmnicolas 10y ago
The naive point of view would be that if you're an American citizen the NSA agents are supposed to be YOUR employees so they have an obligation to be whatever you ask them.
- linkregister 10y ago
  They are indirectly doing exactly what the citizenry have asked them to do. It's just that the HN community (and me) don't agree with it. 1. The most pressing issue for debates is terrorism response. [1] 2. Lawmakers and the Executive are elected on this mandate and spend significant resources (estimated $100Bn per year). [2] 3. The NSA performs all of its functions based off of requirements generated by ODNI, DoD, the Chief Executive, and congress. [3] 4. Most individuals care deeply about privacy and think there should be greater limits to what the government collects. However, less than 10% have changed their habits to improve their privacy posture. I conjecture that this suggests that privacy is not a priority compared to physical and financial security to most citizens. [4] In this case I think it is fair to say that the best interests of American society and its economy are being thwarted by security concerns of a plurality of citizens. The right course of action is for privacy debates to be publicized. The Pew report referenced in #4 shows a far greater skew toward privacy action after being informed of government and commercial surveillance. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/15/in-debates-voters-want-to-hear-most-about-terrorism-and-the-economy/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/15/in-debates-v... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/economy/cost-of-fighting-terrorism/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/economy/cost-of-fightin... [3] http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/int023.html http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/int023.html [4] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-ab...
pdkl95 10y ago
They swore an oath to protect the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 They even reaffirmed it late last year. (sorry for the google cache link; www.nsa.gov (AkamaiGHost?) is currently returning 503 Service Unavailable) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-yz7S-OVuEkJ:https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/news-stories/2015/oath-of-office-2015.shtml+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-yz7S-...
vibrio 10y ago
YOU NEED ME ON THAT WALL!!!
- sctb 10y ago
  Please comment civilly and substantively on HN or not at all.
  - vibrio 10y ago
    Please pardon if my comment came off as uncivil. My intent was to illustrate the potential ambiguity of ethics in national security issues by quoting a speech of Col. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) from a "A Few Good Men". I saw the message of Jessup's tirade as parallel to the discussion topic and as illustritive commentary on the ethical boundaries of the NSA. Who defines those boundaries and in what context? Military, intelligence, or civilian? Peacetime or a time or threat? While the emerging activities and powers of the NSA concern me, I do not believe the agency is inhabited by evil people, but rather by people that believe (correctly or not) that they are playing a key role in protecting our nation. Their ethical boundaries are likely defined by the context of the threats that they encounter during their work. Some may believe that the critique by some nerd at a computer(me), who is ignorant to many of those threats, is ironic and a demonstration of the freedom that they protect. I did not intend to disrespect HN or it's users as this a informative and entertaining forum which is a daily stop for me. In retrospect, I probably should not have used all Caps, and I should have placed an explanation along with the quote.-Respectfully, Vibrio

I would argue yes, in the sense that all of us do (both in our professional and personal lives). The US likes to promote itself as the "good guys", and if they want that reputation, they have to earn it. NSA's activities are in direct conflict with that ideal. Society only functions properly when people act ethically. We have laws in place for punishing those who harm others in various ways (financially, physically, etc.), as a means to discourage bad behaviour. In theory there's supposed to be international law, but sadly no-one seems to pay much attention to it.

2close4comfort 10y ago
I would only add that the NSA has politicized themselves in exchange for the expansion of their powers. Now as a political entity it seems they have a much lower standard of ethics and now it is about maintaining power.

ajdlinux 10y ago

Does anyone on earth not have an obligation to be ethical? (Yes, I know there is no universally accepted definition of "ethical".)

thecatspaw 10y ago
Yes, noone does. You are not bound by law to be ethical. There's no law about it. Are you _supposed_ to act ethical? absolutely. but you dont have an obligation
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  Legal obligation being the only possible meaning of "obligation", obviously.
- eropple 10y ago
  When the best thing you can say about your position is it's not literally illegal, you should probably stop digging.
jdimov10 10y ago
Yes, I don't. Because when you say "act ethical" you mean "do what pleases me". This is why you can't put forth a definition, because if you did, it would expose your hypocrisy. And I'm not one bit interested in doing what pleases you. I'm only interested in doing what pleases ME (as is every other person on Earth, although most will never admit it out of cowardice). So no, I don't have ANY obligation at all towards you. Now, is it in my best interest to treat you nice and contribute to your well-being? Yes, in most circumstances I'd have to admit that it is. Have a lovely day!
- benmcnelly 10y ago
  Pretty much right, you don't need a religion or code of conduct to tell you not to be a dick. With the NSA, and many other agencies and organizations, a culture of ends justifying means is highly contagious. Human nature and our reasons for being decent moral persons and speaking the truth instead of a lie, always has some threshold defined by our world view and beliefs. When you deal with scumbags all day, those pesky rules and rights are just in the way of justice some times.
- matt4077 10y ago
  That's pseudo-intellectual hobbelgoggle. "Pleasing" deals with emotions, so we can drop the facade of hyper-rationality right there. Cooperation is beneficial for an itdividuums' survival, as you rightfully state. It is indeed of such importance that the standards of cooperation have been internalized long ago – for non-sociopaths, altruism is an end in itself and creates positive feelings. And if you insist on your way of looking at it you actually stopped half-way: what "pleases you" is /also/ just a useful heuristic to maximize you reproductive success. The warm feeling you get from winning the lottery is no more or less real than the warm feeling (other) people get when they see someone happily getting married. For this whole system the borders between the individual and the group are fluid. While certainly, all else being equal, the individual's need usually trumps the group's, it is anything but clear-cut in most real scenarios. You may be willing to sacrifice someones life to save your own, but that can change if the other person is you daughter, when you get to old age or when it's not a 1:1 sacrifice but merely an assumption of a non-zero risk of death.
solipsism 10y ago
This is a circular question. One's obligations derive from one's ethics.

jmnicolas 10y ago

The naive point of view would be that if you're an American citizen the NSA agents are supposed to be YOUR employees so they have an obligation to be whatever you ask them.

linkregister 10y ago
They are indirectly doing exactly what the citizenry have asked them to do. It's just that the HN community (and me) don't agree with it. 1. The most pressing issue for debates is terrorism response. [1] 2. Lawmakers and the Executive are elected on this mandate and spend significant resources (estimated $100Bn per year). [2] 3. The NSA performs all of its functions based off of requirements generated by ODNI, DoD, the Chief Executive, and congress. [3] 4. Most individuals care deeply about privacy and think there should be greater limits to what the government collects. However, less than 10% have changed their habits to improve their privacy posture. I conjecture that this suggests that privacy is not a priority compared to physical and financial security to most citizens. [4] In this case I think it is fair to say that the best interests of American society and its economy are being thwarted by security concerns of a plurality of citizens. The right course of action is for privacy debates to be publicized. The Pew report referenced in #4 shows a far greater skew toward privacy action after being informed of government and commercial surveillance. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/15/in-debates-voters-want-to-hear-most-about-terrorism-and-the-economy/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/15/in-debates-v... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/economy/cost-of-fighting-terrorism/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/economy/cost-of-fightin... [3] http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/int023.html http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/int023.html [4] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-ab...

pdkl95 10y ago

They swore an oath to protect the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 They even reaffirmed it late last year. (sorry for the google cache link; www.nsa.gov (AkamaiGHost?) is currently returning 503 Service Unavailable) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-yz7S-OVuEkJ:https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/news-stories/2015/oath-of-office-2015.shtml+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-yz7S-...

vibrio 10y ago

YOU NEED ME ON THAT WALL!!!

sctb 10y ago
Please comment civilly and substantively on HN or not at all.
- vibrio 10y ago
  Please pardon if my comment came off as uncivil. My intent was to illustrate the potential ambiguity of ethics in national security issues by quoting a speech of Col. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) from a "A Few Good Men". I saw the message of Jessup's tirade as parallel to the discussion topic and as illustritive commentary on the ethical boundaries of the NSA. Who defines those boundaries and in what context? Military, intelligence, or civilian? Peacetime or a time or threat? While the emerging activities and powers of the NSA concern me, I do not believe the agency is inhabited by evil people, but rather by people that believe (correctly or not) that they are playing a key role in protecting our nation. Their ethical boundaries are likely defined by the context of the threats that they encounter during their work. Some may believe that the critique by some nerd at a computer(me), who is ignorant to many of those threats, is ironic and a demonstration of the freedom that they protect. I did not intend to disrespect HN or it's users as this a informative and entertaining forum which is a daily stop for me. In retrospect, I probably should not have used all Caps, and I should have placed an explanation along with the quote.-Respectfully, Vibrio