5 ms·

To play the devil's advocate here: this entire article rests on the assumption that the only way public interest could be served by exposing a government progra

by Aqueous 10y ago

To play the devil's advocate here: this entire article rests on the assumption that the only way public interest could be served by exposing a government program is if that secret program is criminal. But this isn't true - the public's interest could be served even if the program is not criminal. So in my view, Washington Post is not being inconsistent - it is taking the view that while it PriSM was not criminal program, it was in the public's interest to know that it exists. A lot of times we seem to confuse 'is illegal' with 'should be illegal' - these are very different concepts. Washington Post did not necessarily take the position that PriSM was illegal in their articles, they merely supposed it was in the public's interest to know about it. Presumably to have a public debate about whether it should be illegal. (Watches karma points tick downwards.)

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "it is taking the view that while it PriSM was not criminal program, it was in the public's interest to know that it exists" How did you get to that conclusion? To me it reads that they thought PRISM was not criminal AND not in the public's interest. "...the Post suggests, there was no public interest whatsoever in revealing any of the other programs. In fact, they say, real harm was done by their exposure. That includes PRISM" So essentially the public did not need to know about PRISM and Snowden should not have made information about it public - when it wasn't Snowden, it was WaPo that made it public. They're shifting the blame. Initially they thought it was in the public interest so they printed it. Now they're saying it was not in the public interest.
- csallen 10y ago
  Was in the process of typing this exact response. Aqueous, I think you misread a bit. WaPo is trying to claim that exposing PRISM served no public interest while simultaneously publishing the information about PRISM. Whether the program is illegal or not is irrelevant -- that's grossly hypocritical behavior.
  - Aqueous 10y ago
    You are correct. I should have read more carefully. They do seem to have changed their minds. I do feel that WaPo should address the inconsistency I think my point about the difference between 'is illegal' and 'should be illegal' still stands though. A lot of the debate was confused about whether or not this program was illegal with a lot of people not caring very much about the very specific ways in which the program avoided skirting the law. Nobody examined the specifics, and everybody assumed it was illegal and unconstitutional. This public reaction may have impeded ongoing investigations, and so it could be that Washington Post ultimately saw that it was not in the public interest to reveal the program.
blowski 10y ago
I think that you made a good point. But whenever someone explicitly says they are anticipating downvotes, I downvote them.

by Aqueous 10y ago

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> "it is taking the view that while it PriSM was not criminal program, it was in the public's interest to know that it exists" How did you get to that conclusion? To me it reads that they thought PRISM was not criminal AND not in the public's interest. "...the Post suggests, there was no public interest whatsoever in revealing any of the other programs. In fact, they say, real harm was done by their exposure. That includes PRISM" So essentially the public did not need to know about PRISM and Snowden should not have made information about it public - when it wasn't Snowden, it was WaPo that made it public. They're shifting the blame. Initially they thought it was in the public interest so they printed it. Now they're saying it was not in the public interest.

csallen 10y ago
Was in the process of typing this exact response. Aqueous, I think you misread a bit. WaPo is trying to claim that exposing PRISM served no public interest while simultaneously publishing the information about PRISM. Whether the program is illegal or not is irrelevant -- that's grossly hypocritical behavior.
- Aqueous 10y ago
  You are correct. I should have read more carefully. They do seem to have changed their minds. I do feel that WaPo should address the inconsistency I think my point about the difference between 'is illegal' and 'should be illegal' still stands though. A lot of the debate was confused about whether or not this program was illegal with a lot of people not caring very much about the very specific ways in which the program avoided skirting the law. Nobody examined the specifics, and everybody assumed it was illegal and unconstitutional. This public reaction may have impeded ongoing investigations, and so it could be that Washington Post ultimately saw that it was not in the public interest to reveal the program.

blowski 10y ago

I think that you made a good point. But whenever someone explicitly says they are anticipating downvotes, I downvote them.