6 ms·

Meh. While email hacks are obviously different than "whistleblowing" nobody would be batting an eye if somebody had hacked a trove of Mafia (or other organized

Meh. While email hacks are obviously different than "whistleblowing" nobody would be batting an eye if somebody had hacked a trove of Mafia (or other organized crime) emails and released them publicly. The reality is that sometimes hacking is in the public interest and sometimes it's not, but figuring out when is not easy or black and white. One aspect to these discussions that I find sort of befuddling is the idea that somehow those involved in "making the news" (so to speak) shouldn't have to think about what they're saying or how they're saying it unless they're "on the record," that we should expect their public face to be a mask hiding any insight into the private face behind it, and that somehow they ought to be magically protected from the potential publicizing of recordings, hacks, or eavesdropping. Clearly the public at large is somewhat jaded and cynical, but there's still a very obvious desire to have "honest" and "open" candidates who make their goals, intentions, and ideologies clear. Of course the public theoretically wants to know how the sausage is made. That the candidates can't recognize this and can't or won't operate as though the public might be watching without crying foul seems to me a bigger farce than pretending that one's own words are a conspiracy... but what do I know? I guess the idea that one ought to maintain some level restraint and conviviality both publicly and privately is dated and quaint.

SamBam 10y ago
> Meh. While email hacks are obviously different than "whistleblowing" nobody would be batting an eye if somebody had hacked a trove of Mafia (or other organized crime) emails and released them publicly. ...but the Mafia are a priori criminals, while politicians are not (except in a sophomoric "all politicians are liars" kind of way). What crime did Powell commit to have his everyday privacies exposed to the world?
- rfrank 10y ago
  What crime did the American people commit to have their digital lives cataloged and analyzed by the NSA?
  - drewrv 10y ago
    The NSA are not releasing my inbox for the whole world to see.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      Yeah, they just step around due process and use parallel construction to throw people in jail who they couldn't actually prosecute. That makes the destruction of our privacy ok, I guess.
      - Senji 10y ago
        If they can nail you for a felony w/ parallel construction, and you've legitimately acted in a wrongful way, I'd be fine with that.
        rfrank 10y ago
        Ends justify the means is not a wise axiom to base a surveillance system on.
  - mazelife 10y ago
    I've seen variants of this argument made up and down this thread, and I don't think it holds any water. And I say this as someone that thinks the NSA's mass surveillance is morally wrong, unconstitutional, and probably ultimately counterproductive. I'm willing to stipulate there's an avenue for civil disobedience in which leaking of private information is used as a way to apply pressure to actors within the government and private industry who might be sanctioning the NSA's practices. In other words I could see a course of action that includes widespread, comprehensive attempts to hack and leak the emails of FISA court judges, employees and appointees of US intelligence agencies, executives and board members of companies like AOL, Palantir, and Verizon who are known to have enthusiastically participated in this surveillance, and elected officials in the executive or legislative branches of the government who have supported or perpetuated this spying. The idea being that if the people who keep this system of surveillance grinding onwards experience the personal consequence of having their private info leaked to the public, they might reconsider their actions. I could see a course of action like this and even agree there's some valid arguments for it, but it's also incredibly dangerous, and would require, I dunno, a great deal of judgement and restraint to not cause huge collateral damage to perfectly innocent people, or to end up ruining the lives of people who were only tangential participants in the system. In other words, this strategy is deeply problematic and dangerous at the best of times. But let's not kid ourselves that that's even what's going on here. You could try to argue that Hillary Clinton, as the likely next president, is a part of this system, and so she should be on the list of people who are targeted for leaking in the course of civil disobedience. But Trump also supports this surveillance, so he should too. But the thing is, we don't have to guess at the motives of Wikileaks here, they are quite clearly making no such civil disobedience claims [1]. And if you look at whose information is being leaked—Clinton campaign staffers, the DNC—and estimate where these particular actors fall on the scale of culpability in the NSAs spying (hint: well down the list), you start to see that trying to ascribe some higher civic purpose to these particular leaks isn't warranted. [1] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
- Glyptodon 10y ago
  I sure don't see "private" anywhere in "public servant." Climbing a ladder necessarily makes everything about you much less private and much more visible to those on the street. All the more so when the barrier between the ostensibly separate "public" and "private" spheres is continually blurred and broken. Public service invites public scrutiny. The idea that it wouldn't seems ...undemocratic.
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    I think that this is really interesting and shows how we all want information. When the NSA wants to scrutinize people we scream bloody murder but we want to be able to do the same thing to our elected officials. Does being a public figure forfeit all of the rights that we here are so passionate about?
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Well, I don't care about their personal dealings, and I tend to not worry if the phrasing of their communication is less than tactful, but I do think a lot of private conversation about public matters is held by those in power, and is private only because it's damning rather than because it's exposure is a national security threat.
- johnmarius 10y ago
  Could you elaborate on the difference between mafia members and politicians?
- EdHominem 10y ago
  You know, saying he had information meaning we had to go to war when in fact, he didn't. Imagine someone rilling everyone up about a pedophile who kidnapped their child and then, when everyone has kicked the kidnapper's door in and shot him, they reveal that it was actually just a rumor? Why should we draw some hard line between sides of his life? I never hear prosecutors say "Well, he robbed a bank, but only as part of his day-job. When he retires he'll be guiltless."
LukaAl 10y ago
I have two problems with your reasoning: - Who decides that hacking the Mafia is Ok and someone else it is not? And if Mafia is ok, what about lesser criminals? What about someone you suspect is criminal but you are not sure? - It is in theory laudable to ask full transparency from our politicians. And, yes, the on/off record distinction is sometimes problematic. But this is not what we are talking about. The article discusses private conversation between two public persons. They should think on how they express themselves in these conversations? This couldn't have the effect of freezing their ability to communicate? I have no idea, but I think it will be problematic. I'm not saying that one of the two involved parties could not breach the privacy assumption. That is own personal choice with the consequences to his reputation, so he could decide to do that according to his ethical consideration if he thinks what he has seen is wrong...
- wongarsu 10y ago
  >They should think on how they express themselves in these conversations? Everything we say, including the way we say it, is a reflection of our values and though processes. If the way somebody talks off-record is drastically different from the way he/she talks on record, the problem is not the off record talk. The problem is that this mismatch indicates that the on-record talk doesn't actually reflect the person's true values and opinions and is just a facade.
  - jahewson 10y ago
    I think you're looking for an objective truth that just doesn't exist. People change their minds. People have different opinions on things from one day to the next, based on what they just read. People will publicly say "the right thing" while privately having reservations about it - and that's ok. Now if they go round saying the exact opposite in private, and condemn their own public remarks, then there's a problem. But that's mostly not the case.
  - LukaAl 10y ago
    I'm not sure I want to ever work with you. There are a lot of situations when with my coworker I discuss things in a way that could be misunderstood. This because my coworker have access to a lot of context (we work together) and they are well intentioned and able to extrapolate from the context my real meaning and belief. The general public doesn't have the same context. Plus, a third party could have a vested interest in representing my ideas under the worst light for me. So this is why I want to make some statement publicly, knowing the impact of my phrase, and use a different tone in private with people that know me. And that's without touching the problem of public policies. Honestly speaking, some issues are generally too complex to be analyzed in a debate or in public speeches. So complex articulated analysis needs to be reduced and simplified. On some topic, it is possible to have a point of view that, when expressed, is a very valid one, but requires a lot of education to get buy-in from the general public. So if you are a politician what do you do? You could choose to use part of your consensus to push for a dividing policy and educate the public on why you are right. Are you could decide to wait, flow with the public, until you are ready to make your position public.
tptacek 10y ago
What kind of moral reasoning is this? There's always some group of people we can see victimized without batting an eye. "What's bad is what shocks our conscience" is no philosophy of justice. It barely qualifies one to write an advice column. Meanwhile: exactly why is it you believe it's OK to hack the personal emails of mafia members? Having committed some crime, is it your feeling that they simply deserve all the punishments we can conceive of? I agree with you: few would bat an eye were that the standard. You could probably break a few kneecaps, too, if you wanted. Fair's fair! Who else's privacy can we simply ignore? How about Scientologists? The Ku Klux Klan? Sounds great so far. How about NARAL? CAIR? You want to take a vote and see how far we can go?
- tedunangst 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure my ex's new boyfriend is up to no good. I'd like to add him to the list.

SamBam 10y ago

> Meh. While email hacks are obviously different than "whistleblowing" nobody would be batting an eye if somebody had hacked a trove of Mafia (or other organized crime) emails and released them publicly. ...but the Mafia are a priori criminals, while politicians are not (except in a sophomoric "all politicians are liars" kind of way). What crime did Powell commit to have his everyday privacies exposed to the world?

rfrank 10y ago
What crime did the American people commit to have their digital lives cataloged and analyzed by the NSA?
- drewrv 10y ago
  The NSA are not releasing my inbox for the whole world to see.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Yeah, they just step around due process and use parallel construction to throw people in jail who they couldn't actually prosecute. That makes the destruction of our privacy ok, I guess.
    - Senji 10y ago
      If they can nail you for a felony w/ parallel construction, and you've legitimately acted in a wrongful way, I'd be fine with that.
      - rfrank 10y ago
        Ends justify the means is not a wise axiom to base a surveillance system on.
- mazelife 10y ago
  I've seen variants of this argument made up and down this thread, and I don't think it holds any water. And I say this as someone that thinks the NSA's mass surveillance is morally wrong, unconstitutional, and probably ultimately counterproductive. I'm willing to stipulate there's an avenue for civil disobedience in which leaking of private information is used as a way to apply pressure to actors within the government and private industry who might be sanctioning the NSA's practices. In other words I could see a course of action that includes widespread, comprehensive attempts to hack and leak the emails of FISA court judges, employees and appointees of US intelligence agencies, executives and board members of companies like AOL, Palantir, and Verizon who are known to have enthusiastically participated in this surveillance, and elected officials in the executive or legislative branches of the government who have supported or perpetuated this spying. The idea being that if the people who keep this system of surveillance grinding onwards experience the personal consequence of having their private info leaked to the public, they might reconsider their actions. I could see a course of action like this and even agree there's some valid arguments for it, but it's also incredibly dangerous, and would require, I dunno, a great deal of judgement and restraint to not cause huge collateral damage to perfectly innocent people, or to end up ruining the lives of people who were only tangential participants in the system. In other words, this strategy is deeply problematic and dangerous at the best of times. But let's not kid ourselves that that's even what's going on here. You could try to argue that Hillary Clinton, as the likely next president, is a part of this system, and so she should be on the list of people who are targeted for leaking in the course of civil disobedience. But Trump also supports this surveillance, so he should too. But the thing is, we don't have to guess at the motives of Wikileaks here, they are quite clearly making no such civil disobedience claims [1]. And if you look at whose information is being leaked—Clinton campaign staffers, the DNC—and estimate where these particular actors fall on the scale of culpability in the NSAs spying (hint: well down the list), you start to see that trying to ascribe some higher civic purpose to these particular leaks isn't warranted. [1] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
Glyptodon 10y ago
I sure don't see "private" anywhere in "public servant." Climbing a ladder necessarily makes everything about you much less private and much more visible to those on the street. All the more so when the barrier between the ostensibly separate "public" and "private" spheres is continually blurred and broken. Public service invites public scrutiny. The idea that it wouldn't seems ...undemocratic.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  I think that this is really interesting and shows how we all want information. When the NSA wants to scrutinize people we scream bloody murder but we want to be able to do the same thing to our elected officials. Does being a public figure forfeit all of the rights that we here are so passionate about?
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Well, I don't care about their personal dealings, and I tend to not worry if the phrasing of their communication is less than tactful, but I do think a lot of private conversation about public matters is held by those in power, and is private only because it's damning rather than because it's exposure is a national security threat.
johnmarius 10y ago
Could you elaborate on the difference between mafia members and politicians?
EdHominem 10y ago
You know, saying he had information meaning we had to go to war when in fact, he didn't. Imagine someone rilling everyone up about a pedophile who kidnapped their child and then, when everyone has kicked the kidnapper's door in and shot him, they reveal that it was actually just a rumor? Why should we draw some hard line between sides of his life? I never hear prosecutors say "Well, he robbed a bank, but only as part of his day-job. When he retires he'll be guiltless."

LukaAl 10y ago

I have two problems with your reasoning: - Who decides that hacking the Mafia is Ok and someone else it is not? And if Mafia is ok, what about lesser criminals? What about someone you suspect is criminal but you are not sure? - It is in theory laudable to ask full transparency from our politicians. And, yes, the on/off record distinction is sometimes problematic. But this is not what we are talking about. The article discusses private conversation between two public persons. They should think on how they express themselves in these conversations? This couldn't have the effect of freezing their ability to communicate? I have no idea, but I think it will be problematic. I'm not saying that one of the two involved parties could not breach the privacy assumption. That is own personal choice with the consequences to his reputation, so he could decide to do that according to his ethical consideration if he thinks what he has seen is wrong...

wongarsu 10y ago
>They should think on how they express themselves in these conversations? Everything we say, including the way we say it, is a reflection of our values and though processes. If the way somebody talks off-record is drastically different from the way he/she talks on record, the problem is not the off record talk. The problem is that this mismatch indicates that the on-record talk doesn't actually reflect the person's true values and opinions and is just a facade.
- jahewson 10y ago
  I think you're looking for an objective truth that just doesn't exist. People change their minds. People have different opinions on things from one day to the next, based on what they just read. People will publicly say "the right thing" while privately having reservations about it - and that's ok. Now if they go round saying the exact opposite in private, and condemn their own public remarks, then there's a problem. But that's mostly not the case.
- LukaAl 10y ago
  I'm not sure I want to ever work with you. There are a lot of situations when with my coworker I discuss things in a way that could be misunderstood. This because my coworker have access to a lot of context (we work together) and they are well intentioned and able to extrapolate from the context my real meaning and belief. The general public doesn't have the same context. Plus, a third party could have a vested interest in representing my ideas under the worst light for me. So this is why I want to make some statement publicly, knowing the impact of my phrase, and use a different tone in private with people that know me. And that's without touching the problem of public policies. Honestly speaking, some issues are generally too complex to be analyzed in a debate or in public speeches. So complex articulated analysis needs to be reduced and simplified. On some topic, it is possible to have a point of view that, when expressed, is a very valid one, but requires a lot of education to get buy-in from the general public. So if you are a politician what do you do? You could choose to use part of your consensus to push for a dividing policy and educate the public on why you are right. Are you could decide to wait, flow with the public, until you are ready to make your position public.

tptacek 10y ago

What kind of moral reasoning is this? There's always some group of people we can see victimized without batting an eye. "What's bad is what shocks our conscience" is no philosophy of justice. It barely qualifies one to write an advice column. Meanwhile: exactly why is it you believe it's OK to hack the personal emails of mafia members? Having committed some crime, is it your feeling that they simply deserve all the punishments we can conceive of? I agree with you: few would bat an eye were that the standard. You could probably break a few kneecaps, too, if you wanted. Fair's fair! Who else's privacy can we simply ignore? How about Scientologists? The Ku Klux Klan? Sounds great so far. How about NARAL? CAIR? You want to take a vote and see how far we can go?

tedunangst 10y ago
I'm pretty sure my ex's new boyfriend is up to no good. I'd like to add him to the list.