5 ms·

Perhaps Chelsea Manning is a better comparison. Perhaps not so well intentioned or forward thinking but rather a protest outburst against a perceived regime.

by s_dev 10y ago

jMyles 10y ago
Chelsea Manning risked even more, was rewarded far less, and successfully liberated far more of the data belonging to the public. Very little of what she revealed passes any sort of common sense test about what is rightly held secret by a public entity, but rather showed that the government keeps secret anything that is politically dangerous for the narrative it tries to maintain. I see nothing but good intentions. Forward-thinking? Maybe you're right there, at least in terms of her own well-being. Perhaps she was counting on us for more than we're willing to do in terms of rescuing her from a life of torture at the hands of the state.
- imglorp 10y ago
  Regarding selective disclosure, at least Snowden and Greenwald made an attempt to keep people from getting killed. There's a big difference between leaking methods and leaking the identities of assets.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    IIRC Wikileaks asked for assistance redacting the leak and did not receive any.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "and successfully liberated far more of the data belonging to the public." This is completely false. The information Manning released absolutely did not belong in the public domain. Period. Governments, like any other private entity are allowed to keep confidential information. Much of what manning released was private conversations between state department officials and their counterparts in the Middle East. The damage could have been much worse. It's really sad to see so manny people think that 'individual privacy is paramount' but then can't grasp that other actors, including state actors, don't have reasonable rights to privacy. It's beyond naive.
  - judemelancon 10y ago
    Governments aren't (supposed to be) private entities.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      "Governments aren't (supposed to be) private entities." Governments are not 'private entities' but they certainly can have 'private information'. It's really quite difficult to debate this with you guys. If you can't imagine that diplomats can't have private conversations with their counter parts, that bureaucrats can't have private conversations with employees - then I have nothing to say to you. Once you accept that there is a lot of information that should not be publicly available, both 'secret' and 'mundane' (HR records etc..) - then you accept the government can keep private information - and then it becomes a matter of how that is regulated: oversight by congress, committee, judiciary - and access to information wherein it's appropriate. And once you accept that - you accept that Manning's release was totally immoral and unlawful. There is nothing in his cable releases that should have been released - though you could debate the release of the video of reporters dying in friendly fire.
      - jMyles 10y ago
        > If you can't imagine that diplomats can't have private conversations with their counter parts, that bureaucrats can't have private conversations with employees - then I have nothing to say to you. Just to be clear: I think many people here believe that "diplomats" and "bureaucrats" are subject to deprecation. You are holding on to the notion that the government is going to keep existing (and bungling society, economy, and environment) alongside the internet, but it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that this is not so. Government has been a necessary evil for a stage of human evolution that is now coming to a close. And it will wither with a whimper, not a bang. So, per your directive, it may just be that you have nothing to say to us.
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    > Governments, like any other private entity is the government really a "private entity"... and if it can be described as such, is it "like others"? > It's really sad to see so manny people think that 'individual privacy is paramount' but then can't grasp that other actors, including state actors, don't have reasonable rights to privacy. (assuming you mean "do have") in what way does the state have "reasonable rights to privacy"? who determines what's "reasonable"? doesn't state privacy hamstring the citizenry's oversight and regulation of their own government?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Chelsea Manning took vast numbers of documents she never read and then sent them to a stranger on the Internet who happened to have branding congenial to her politics. I think the handling of the Snowden leak was also irresponsible and, from the vantage point of doing the most public good with the disclosure, has for the most part been a fiasco (notice how much more we learn about the contents of these documents after attacks and incidents become public?). But Snowden's leak handling was surgical compared to the shitshow surrounding the Manning leak.
  - thoughtifnot 10y ago
    Yes, and; while Snowden gives conference talks from exile, she's facing charges and indefinite solitary confinement as punishment for a suicide attempt. Naive and misguided, perhaps, but you really can't argue she didn't risk (and lose) far more while basically trying to do the right thing.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      People who bomb abortion clinics also believe they're doing the right thing. We need to be careful about judging actions solely by motivations.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > People who bomb abortion clinics also believe they're doing the right thing. We need to be careful about judging actions solely by motivations. The second sentence may not be true, but is unrelated to the first, which illustrates more that we need to be careful about judging actions solely by accord with the alignment to the actors' view of "the right thing" than anything else.
      - thoughtifnot 10y ago
        If we lived in the same moral universe as them, they would be doing the right thing. The thought does give me pause, from time to time. But the point is not to redeem Manning's actions in a utilitarian sense. The facts are that she saw something (war) she found unconscionable, she wanted to do something about it, and she sacrificed about as much as she possibly could without dying-- maybe more, now that she's one of the least free people on the planet. It's not that hard to comprehend a moral philosophy where she does actually deserve points for effort. If you're asking me to just look at utility, it's very hard for me to get around the fact that the book is still being written. I can see the argument that indiscriminate leaking causes damage, and damage to well-functioning systems is bad, but I can also see the argument that the historical record is full of state secrets kept for banal or evil reasons and the proper functioning of the current intelligence apparatus may be doing more harm in a human sense than could possibly be justified, if we just knew it were happening. The irony is that ultimately, I just have to trust that there are enough people with good hearts working in the system that if something unconscionable is going on, it won't stay secret for long. So in these circumstances I'm actually much more worried about not judging by intentions enough, lest the well-intentioned decide to stay home.

Perhaps Chelsea Manning is a better comparison. Perhaps not so well intentioned or forward thinking but rather a protest outburst against a perceived regime.

by s_dev 10y ago

Perhaps Chelsea Manning is a better comparison. Perhaps not so well intentioned or forward thinking but rather a protest outburst against a perceived regime.

jMyles 10y ago

Chelsea Manning risked even more, was rewarded far less, and successfully liberated far more of the data belonging to the public. Very little of what she revealed passes any sort of common sense test about what is rightly held secret by a public entity, but rather showed that the government keeps secret anything that is politically dangerous for the narrative it tries to maintain. I see nothing but good intentions. Forward-thinking? Maybe you're right there, at least in terms of her own well-being. Perhaps she was counting on us for more than we're willing to do in terms of rescuing her from a life of torture at the hands of the state.

imglorp 10y ago
Regarding selective disclosure, at least Snowden and Greenwald made an attempt to keep people from getting killed. There's a big difference between leaking methods and leaking the identities of assets.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  IIRC Wikileaks asked for assistance redacting the leak and did not receive any.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
jomamaxx 10y ago
"and successfully liberated far more of the data belonging to the public." This is completely false. The information Manning released absolutely did not belong in the public domain. Period. Governments, like any other private entity are allowed to keep confidential information. Much of what manning released was private conversations between state department officials and their counterparts in the Middle East. The damage could have been much worse. It's really sad to see so manny people think that 'individual privacy is paramount' but then can't grasp that other actors, including state actors, don't have reasonable rights to privacy. It's beyond naive.
- judemelancon 10y ago
  Governments aren't (supposed to be) private entities.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "Governments aren't (supposed to be) private entities." Governments are not 'private entities' but they certainly can have 'private information'. It's really quite difficult to debate this with you guys. If you can't imagine that diplomats can't have private conversations with their counter parts, that bureaucrats can't have private conversations with employees - then I have nothing to say to you. Once you accept that there is a lot of information that should not be publicly available, both 'secret' and 'mundane' (HR records etc..) - then you accept the government can keep private information - and then it becomes a matter of how that is regulated: oversight by congress, committee, judiciary - and access to information wherein it's appropriate. And once you accept that - you accept that Manning's release was totally immoral and unlawful. There is nothing in his cable releases that should have been released - though you could debate the release of the video of reporters dying in friendly fire.
    - jMyles 10y ago
      > If you can't imagine that diplomats can't have private conversations with their counter parts, that bureaucrats can't have private conversations with employees - then I have nothing to say to you. Just to be clear: I think many people here believe that "diplomats" and "bureaucrats" are subject to deprecation. You are holding on to the notion that the government is going to keep existing (and bungling society, economy, and environment) alongside the internet, but it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that this is not so. Government has been a necessary evil for a stage of human evolution that is now coming to a close. And it will wither with a whimper, not a bang. So, per your directive, it may just be that you have nothing to say to us.
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  > Governments, like any other private entity is the government really a "private entity"... and if it can be described as such, is it "like others"? > It's really sad to see so manny people think that 'individual privacy is paramount' but then can't grasp that other actors, including state actors, don't have reasonable rights to privacy. (assuming you mean "do have") in what way does the state have "reasonable rights to privacy"? who determines what's "reasonable"? doesn't state privacy hamstring the citizenry's oversight and regulation of their own government?
tptacek 10y ago
Chelsea Manning took vast numbers of documents she never read and then sent them to a stranger on the Internet who happened to have branding congenial to her politics. I think the handling of the Snowden leak was also irresponsible and, from the vantage point of doing the most public good with the disclosure, has for the most part been a fiasco (notice how much more we learn about the contents of these documents after attacks and incidents become public?). But Snowden's leak handling was surgical compared to the shitshow surrounding the Manning leak.
- thoughtifnot 10y ago
  Yes, and; while Snowden gives conference talks from exile, she's facing charges and indefinite solitary confinement as punishment for a suicide attempt. Naive and misguided, perhaps, but you really can't argue she didn't risk (and lose) far more while basically trying to do the right thing.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    People who bomb abortion clinics also believe they're doing the right thing. We need to be careful about judging actions solely by motivations.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > People who bomb abortion clinics also believe they're doing the right thing. We need to be careful about judging actions solely by motivations. The second sentence may not be true, but is unrelated to the first, which illustrates more that we need to be careful about judging actions solely by accord with the alignment to the actors' view of "the right thing" than anything else.
    - thoughtifnot 10y ago
      If we lived in the same moral universe as them, they would be doing the right thing. The thought does give me pause, from time to time. But the point is not to redeem Manning's actions in a utilitarian sense. The facts are that she saw something (war) she found unconscionable, she wanted to do something about it, and she sacrificed about as much as she possibly could without dying-- maybe more, now that she's one of the least free people on the planet. It's not that hard to comprehend a moral philosophy where she does actually deserve points for effort. If you're asking me to just look at utility, it's very hard for me to get around the fact that the book is still being written. I can see the argument that indiscriminate leaking causes damage, and damage to well-functioning systems is bad, but I can also see the argument that the historical record is full of state secrets kept for banal or evil reasons and the proper functioning of the current intelligence apparatus may be doing more harm in a human sense than could possibly be justified, if we just knew it were happening. The irony is that ultimately, I just have to trust that there are enough people with good hearts working in the system that if something unconscionable is going on, it won't stay secret for long. So in these circumstances I'm actually much more worried about not judging by intentions enough, lest the well-intentioned decide to stay home.