15 ms·

> 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 go

by 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
Loyalty to your oaths is part of "universally accepted human values and ethics". The problem is that loyalty to your team (Team NSA, say), and loyalty to your oath, may sometimes conflict with loyalty to your country, which may itself conflict with loyalty to the human race. When that happens, you have to decide which loyalties you hold higher. Snowden did, and I can't say that he chose wrongly. But there are no "universally accepted human values and ethics" that determine what to do in that situation. It's often the stuff of literature precisely because the normal values and ethics are at war with one another.
- nickff 10y ago
  I would argue that Snowden acted in a manner completely loyal to the United States and the Constitution, though disloyal to the NSA. If one believes the oath of allegiance (or the constitution) is more important than an employment arrangement, Snowden seems to be in the right.
  - nosequel 10y ago
    Snowden didn't break an "employment arrangement", he knowingly broke the law that everyone with a TS/SCI clearance is given. This isn't a one-liner you sign and date the day before you start. Getting a TS/SCI clearance is a long process, and you very clearly know you are not supposed to talk about it, no matter what you hear or see. Now, Snowden might have still be right, I'm not debating that, but chalking it up to a breach of employment contract is naive.
    - Nullabillity 10y ago
      Okay, he didn't break an actual employment contract, he broke a glorified employment contract. Happy?
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Good point. The goal of a good propaganda systems is to make individuals believe that disloyalty to the team is disloyalty to the oath "you betray us, you betray your own country / Constitution / Foundng Fathers etc." At some point people tell that story to themselves, because it makes it easier to function and reduces cognitive dissonance.
Benjammer 10y ago
What if someone doesn't violate "whistleblower laws," but illegally accesses personal/private information in order to obtain the information to leak? Like what if someone not affiliated with the company illegally hacked into Monsanto's servers in order to find information to then "whistleblow" on? Ends, means, etc...
- justinpombrio 10y ago
  To repeat: "as long as the whistleblowing otherwise aligns with universally accepted human values and ethics".
- jnicholasp 10y ago
  Does it complicate your scenario if the private information the whistleblower has illegally accessed was itself illegally accessed, as is the case in the Snowden situation? Doesn't it make the government's position ironically untenable, to want to prosecute someone for doing on a relatively small scale what they've been doing on a massive scale?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rtpg 10y ago
this implies the government is a monolithic entity that decides everything. This is why we have elections and a separation of legislative and executive branches. This is why Congress holds hearings on intelligence. The Church Committee happened, after all. And the courts can tell the NSA to not do things, and it (mostly) happens. The incentives are mostly aligned, but the people being voted in seem to disagree with the idea that government whistleblowers need as much protection.
rbanffy 10y ago
> The government of a country sets the laws. In this case, it's an elected government. It's fixable.
_Codemonkeyism 10y ago
I would be interested what these "universally accepted human values and ethics" are.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Well, we can obviously start with my personal set of values and ethics as a template ;)
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Ok, here you go: 1. That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. 2. Do unto others what you would have them do to you. 3. Never levy a punishment greater than the harm of the offense. 4. Avoid direct conflict with anyone who will kick your ass.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    > Do unto others what you would have them do to you. What if you're suicidal? Wouldn't that make murder cool under this set of ethics?
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      Murdering someone would prevent them from committing suicide. Being suicidal is not quite the same as wishing to be murdered. As far as I know, suicide (or self-euthanasia) does not have a settled, common ethical ground. Some cultures abhor it, and some expect it. A few have some problems with the occasional suicide-by-murderous-rampage. Thus, any "universal" ethics would not be able to answer any questions about it in a consistent way. Suicide is a corner case, anyway. The above 4 rules can probably handle at least 80% of ethical dilemmas without much additional thought. Certainly, if you think you would like to know whether a government or multinational is acting against your interests, and you discover evidence of it in your employer, you should sever your relationship by rule #1, blow the whistle by rule #2, and try to remain anonymous by rule #4. Additionally, the worst retaliation you should fear is to have your own bad behavior outed to the public, by rule #3. But you already know your employer is unethical, so who knows what they might do to you? The world would probably be a better place without rule #4, but that's describing what we are, not what we wish to be.

by rsp1984 10y ago

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

Loyalty to your oaths is part of "universally accepted human values and ethics". The problem is that loyalty to your team (Team NSA, say), and loyalty to your oath, may sometimes conflict with loyalty to your country, which may itself conflict with loyalty to the human race. When that happens, you have to decide which loyalties you hold higher. Snowden did, and I can't say that he chose wrongly. But there are no "universally accepted human values and ethics" that determine what to do in that situation. It's often the stuff of literature precisely because the normal values and ethics are at war with one another.

nickff 10y ago
I would argue that Snowden acted in a manner completely loyal to the United States and the Constitution, though disloyal to the NSA. If one believes the oath of allegiance (or the constitution) is more important than an employment arrangement, Snowden seems to be in the right.
- nosequel 10y ago
  Snowden didn't break an "employment arrangement", he knowingly broke the law that everyone with a TS/SCI clearance is given. This isn't a one-liner you sign and date the day before you start. Getting a TS/SCI clearance is a long process, and you very clearly know you are not supposed to talk about it, no matter what you hear or see. Now, Snowden might have still be right, I'm not debating that, but chalking it up to a breach of employment contract is naive.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    Okay, he didn't break an actual employment contract, he broke a glorified employment contract. Happy?
rdtsc 10y ago
Good point. The goal of a good propaganda systems is to make individuals believe that disloyalty to the team is disloyalty to the oath "you betray us, you betray your own country / Constitution / Foundng Fathers etc." At some point people tell that story to themselves, because it makes it easier to function and reduces cognitive dissonance.

Benjammer 10y ago

What if someone doesn't violate "whistleblower laws," but illegally accesses personal/private information in order to obtain the information to leak? Like what if someone not affiliated with the company illegally hacked into Monsanto's servers in order to find information to then "whistleblow" on? Ends, means, etc...

justinpombrio 10y ago
To repeat: "as long as the whistleblowing otherwise aligns with universally accepted human values and ethics".
jnicholasp 10y ago
Does it complicate your scenario if the private information the whistleblower has illegally accessed was itself illegally accessed, as is the case in the Snowden situation? Doesn't it make the government's position ironically untenable, to want to prosecute someone for doing on a relatively small scale what they've been doing on a massive scale?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rtpg 10y ago

this implies the government is a monolithic entity that decides everything. This is why we have elections and a separation of legislative and executive branches. This is why Congress holds hearings on intelligence. The Church Committee happened, after all. And the courts can tell the NSA to not do things, and it (mostly) happens. The incentives are mostly aligned, but the people being voted in seem to disagree with the idea that government whistleblowers need as much protection.

rbanffy 10y ago

> The government of a country sets the laws. In this case, it's an elected government. It's fixable.

_Codemonkeyism 10y ago

I would be interested what these "universally accepted human values and ethics" are.

sliverstorm 10y ago
Well, we can obviously start with my personal set of values and ethics as a template ;)
logfromblammo 10y ago
Ok, here you go: 1. That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. 2. Do unto others what you would have them do to you. 3. Never levy a punishment greater than the harm of the offense. 4. Avoid direct conflict with anyone who will kick your ass.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > Do unto others what you would have them do to you. What if you're suicidal? Wouldn't that make murder cool under this set of ethics?
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Murdering someone would prevent them from committing suicide. Being suicidal is not quite the same as wishing to be murdered. As far as I know, suicide (or self-euthanasia) does not have a settled, common ethical ground. Some cultures abhor it, and some expect it. A few have some problems with the occasional suicide-by-murderous-rampage. Thus, any "universal" ethics would not be able to answer any questions about it in a consistent way. Suicide is a corner case, anyway. The above 4 rules can probably handle at least 80% of ethical dilemmas without much additional thought. Certainly, if you think you would like to know whether a government or multinational is acting against your interests, and you discover evidence of it in your employer, you should sever your relationship by rule #1, blow the whistle by rule #2, and try to remain anonymous by rule #4. Additionally, the worst retaliation you should fear is to have your own bad behavior outed to the public, by rule #3. But you already know your employer is unethical, so who knows what they might do to you? The world would probably be a better place without rule #4, but that's describing what we are, not what we wish to be.