7 ms·

There is a huge difference you're ignoring. The act of whistleblowing on Monsanto was unlikely to be illegal (at least I do not know what laws that could be use

There is a huge difference you're ignoring. The act of whistleblowing on Monsanto was unlikely to be illegal (at least I do not know what laws that could be used against the whistileblower, ignoring any whistleblower protections). Snowden, however, violated numerous amounts of laws in his act of whistleblowing. Now I'm not saying what Snowden did was right or wrong but these two are not equatable. Government protections for whistleblowers are important but protecting someone who had to break the law in order to whistleblow versus someone who did not are two very different things and I think mixing the topics may take away from the importance of one versus the other (protection from retaliation through a corporation versus being locked up due to the government) or worse simply conflate them and their associated arguments.

leereeves 10y ago
If Monsanto wrote the law, blowing the whistle on Monsanto would also be illegal. That's not a difference of kind, but of power.
CaptSpify 10y ago
Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up. Once all legal means have been exhausted, going illegal is generally acceptable, IMO
- click170 10y ago
  Completely agree. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up Not really and a bit hyperbolic. According to Snowden he went to 10 "district officials" of which none of them took action. The NSA as well as other DoD agencies have a channel for complaints like this to go through where they're seen by a group of people, not a district official. Snowden never made reference to filing one of those as far as I can find. All we have is his word he told someone relevant but completely skipped the appropriate channel for such reporting. So I'm not sure he actually exhausted his legal means. I just don't have the data to say either way. But I'm still not sure I'd go with the "going illegal is generally acceptable" even after that; that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual. Thats why I said "generally"
  - themartorana 10y ago
    When that chain is complicit all the way up, there's no longer a legitimate path to raise the red flag. We know the chain was complicit all the way up to Clapper, and so did Snowden, which then makes "proper paths" illegitimate.
    - nickff 10y ago
      The chain is still complicit all the way to the president, who took no action against the NSA after their actions were publicly revealed, or against Clapper after he lied to Congress. Taking action in those instances is the least the President could have done; he should have been a vigilant defender of the people, who eliminated the programs before they are even disclosed.
  - colordrops 10y ago
    Even if he didn't report to anyone, what he did would still be ethical. There is a big risk that your report will be ignored or even punished, considering that the illegal programs were explicitly and purposely approved and implemented by upper management. That's like reporting to your school principle that your school principle is embezzling school funds.
  - pyre 10y ago
    There were other NSA whistleblowers before Snowden, but they tried to go the legal route and were punished for it. It was only Snowden's illegal sharing of information that made sure the real story got out.
rsp1984 10y ago
> There is a huge difference you're ignoring... Snowden, however, violated numerous amounts of laws The difference that you are ignoring is that it's in the government's power to legalize or even incentivize whistleblowing on a company while at the same time it's equally easy for the government to outlaw whistleblowing on the country. The government of a country sets the laws. It defines what's lawful and what's not. Therefore when it comes to whistleblowing on a country it becomes borderline irrelevant whether some laws are broken or not as long as the whistleblowing otherwise aligns with universally accepted human values and ethics.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  I'm not sure where I'm ignoring any of that but you seem to be saying that because a country can make laws preventing you from whistleblowing that therefore it's borderline irrelevant whether you're doing something illegal or not in order to whistleblow. That is far too general of a position than what I'm comfortable with. Seems somewhat anarchist to me.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - themartorana 10y ago
    The reason the government incentivizes whistleblowing and protects those that do so is because without those laws there is a legitimate fear of retaliation. In order to protect itself, the government makes sure that that fear is actualized when whistleblowing on it. I have to agree with the GP that when pointing out breaking the law is breaking the law, there is a loss of legitimacy.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    Laws are usually theoretical until they are broken and tried in court. Even then they are still subject to revision. This is not anarchist in any sense of the word, colloquially or academically. It's hundreds of years (or more) of legal practice.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
guelo 10y ago
Snowden violated laws in order to reveal government violations of the law, as confirmed by a panel of judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who declared that the NSA's bulk telephone data programs were not legal.
theli0nheart 10y ago
> protecting someone who had to break the law in order to whistleblow versus someone who did not are two very different things and I worry mixing the topics may become confusing "Confusing" is such an odd term to label this as. It's not confusing at all. It's pretty clear from your comment you just plain don't think they're the same and you don't want anyone else to either. Furthermore, your whole argument is based on an assertion which is based on no evidence. I would happily wager that Monsanto's employee agreement strictly forbids sharing trade secrets, private financial information with third parties, etc.
redstripe 10y ago
When the system becomes so corrupt that people who would be hurt by whistleblowers can control legislation, the test of "legality" doesn't hold as much meaning anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
- themartorana 10y ago
  Ugh. Ag-gag is perfectly analogous. I don't understand it one iota. When you make reporting an illegal activity illegal, you have made that activity legal.
mirimir 10y ago
Well, I'm sure that the Monsanto executive had signed a confidentiality agreement. But that's obviously trumped by SEC's whistleblower program.
- chrischen 10y ago
  Unfortunately for Snowden nothing trumps the US Government.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Russia ;)
sambe 10y ago
It's pretty likely that he broke his NDA/contract. If he was not considered a whistleblower, you can be sure he would be prosecuted.
tempodox 10y ago
Declaring whistle blowing illegal is nothing but an evasion of the checks & balances that belong in a democracy. Whoever declares whistle blowing illegal belongs in jail for a long time.
chrischen 10y ago
It used to be illegal for black people to vote.
- jnicholasp 10y ago
  Which is, by kind of a long ways which makes your valid point sort of amusingly understated, the least of the legal injustices that black people in America have been subject to.
2close4comfort 10y ago
What you are missing is that the SEC/USG is getting paid, so it is OK.

leereeves 10y ago

If Monsanto wrote the law, blowing the whistle on Monsanto would also be illegal. That's not a difference of kind, but of power.

CaptSpify 10y ago

Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up. Once all legal means have been exhausted, going illegal is generally acceptable, IMO

click170 10y ago
Completely agree. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> Snowden did however try to run it up the chain of command, and was told to sit down and shut up Not really and a bit hyperbolic. According to Snowden he went to 10 "district officials" of which none of them took action. The NSA as well as other DoD agencies have a channel for complaints like this to go through where they're seen by a group of people, not a district official. Snowden never made reference to filing one of those as far as I can find. All we have is his word he told someone relevant but completely skipped the appropriate channel for such reporting. So I'm not sure he actually exhausted his legal means. I just don't have the data to say either way. But I'm still not sure I'd go with the "going illegal is generally acceptable" even after that; that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > that's a risky judgement call that I think always has to be contextual. Thats why I said "generally"
- themartorana 10y ago
  When that chain is complicit all the way up, there's no longer a legitimate path to raise the red flag. We know the chain was complicit all the way up to Clapper, and so did Snowden, which then makes "proper paths" illegitimate.
  - nickff 10y ago
    The chain is still complicit all the way to the president, who took no action against the NSA after their actions were publicly revealed, or against Clapper after he lied to Congress. Taking action in those instances is the least the President could have done; he should have been a vigilant defender of the people, who eliminated the programs before they are even disclosed.
- colordrops 10y ago
  Even if he didn't report to anyone, what he did would still be ethical. There is a big risk that your report will be ignored or even punished, considering that the illegal programs were explicitly and purposely approved and implemented by upper management. That's like reporting to your school principle that your school principle is embezzling school funds.
- pyre 10y ago
  There were other NSA whistleblowers before Snowden, but they tried to go the legal route and were punished for it. It was only Snowden's illegal sharing of information that made sure the real story got out.

rsp1984 10y ago

> There is a huge difference you're ignoring... Snowden, however, violated numerous amounts of laws The difference that you are ignoring is that it's in the government's power to legalize or even incentivize whistleblowing on a company while at the same time it's equally easy for the government to outlaw whistleblowing on the country. The government of a country sets the laws. It defines what's lawful and what's not. Therefore when it comes to whistleblowing on a country it becomes borderline irrelevant whether some laws are broken or not as long as the whistleblowing otherwise aligns with universally accepted human values and ethics.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
I'm not sure where I'm ignoring any of that but you seem to be saying that because a country can make laws preventing you from whistleblowing that therefore it's borderline irrelevant whether you're doing something illegal or not in order to whistleblow. That is far too general of a position than what I'm comfortable with. Seems somewhat anarchist to me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- themartorana 10y ago
  The reason the government incentivizes whistleblowing and protects those that do so is because without those laws there is a legitimate fear of retaliation. In order to protect itself, the government makes sure that that fear is actualized when whistleblowing on it. I have to agree with the GP that when pointing out breaking the law is breaking the law, there is a loss of legitimacy.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  Laws are usually theoretical until they are broken and tried in court. Even then they are still subject to revision. This is not anarchist in any sense of the word, colloquially or academically. It's hundreds of years (or more) of legal practice.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago

guelo 10y ago

Snowden violated laws in order to reveal government violations of the law, as confirmed by a panel of judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who declared that the NSA's bulk telephone data programs were not legal.

theli0nheart 10y ago

> protecting someone who had to break the law in order to whistleblow versus someone who did not are two very different things and I worry mixing the topics may become confusing "Confusing" is such an odd term to label this as. It's not confusing at all. It's pretty clear from your comment you just plain don't think they're the same and you don't want anyone else to either. Furthermore, your whole argument is based on an assertion which is based on no evidence. I would happily wager that Monsanto's employee agreement strictly forbids sharing trade secrets, private financial information with third parties, etc.

redstripe 10y ago

When the system becomes so corrupt that people who would be hurt by whistleblowers can control legislation, the test of "legality" doesn't hold as much meaning anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

themartorana 10y ago
Ugh. Ag-gag is perfectly analogous. I don't understand it one iota. When you make reporting an illegal activity illegal, you have made that activity legal.

mirimir 10y ago

Well, I'm sure that the Monsanto executive had signed a confidentiality agreement. But that's obviously trumped by SEC's whistleblower program.

chrischen 10y ago
Unfortunately for Snowden nothing trumps the US Government.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Russia ;)

sambe 10y ago

It's pretty likely that he broke his NDA/contract. If he was not considered a whistleblower, you can be sure he would be prosecuted.

tempodox 10y ago

Declaring whistle blowing illegal is nothing but an evasion of the checks & balances that belong in a democracy. Whoever declares whistle blowing illegal belongs in jail for a long time.

chrischen 10y ago

It used to be illegal for black people to vote.

jnicholasp 10y ago
Which is, by kind of a long ways which makes your valid point sort of amusingly understated, the least of the legal injustices that black people in America have been subject to.

2close4comfort 10y ago

What you are missing is that the SEC/USG is getting paid, so it is OK.