8 ms·

So, I am reading an article written by Chelsea Manning about trust and confidentiality. Am I reading this right? Is this where we are at now!?

by caiob 9y ago

jackmott 9y ago
Yes.
castis 9y ago
I don't understand the subcontext of your rhetorical question. Could you explain why this would be a problem?
- Danihan 9y ago
  She was placed in a position of trust to watch over classified data, and massively breached that trust. And was imprisoned for it, and in fact would still be in prison had the sentence not been commuted. Agree or disagree with her actions, it is extremely ironic. Is it really that difficult to understand the subtext here?
  - phailhaus 9y ago
    Yeah, because it's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It has nothing to do with trust.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      You probably meant to direct that to the original poster, not the person you responded to. That person was clarifying the subtext.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      The entire article is about society putting too much trust in computer systems. So yes, it is about trust. Beyond that, I was answering a question about subtext, not discussing the article directly.
      - phailhaus 9y ago
        The article is about the alarming amount of information we've granted to private companies, Chelsea was imprisoned for releasing classified documents. How are the two related? Your argument would still "apply" if Chelsea had cheated on a lover; "hey, she betrayed someone's trust so how can she talk about trust?" Basically, nothing's she's done invalidates or even weakens her points.
        Danihan 9y ago
        She's basically proving her own point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
        phailhaus 9y ago
        Again, you seem to not have read the article, because it's not about having your private data leaked. Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict.
        Danihan 9y ago
        >Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict. Which is "mishandled."
        phailhaus 9y ago
        No, it's not mishandling. It's not a mistake, it's not malicious, you just don't know how they're going to use it. "Mishandling" implies some sort of breach of trust or contract, but in this case you didn't realize what you were agreeing to when you handed over your data. They're handling the data as they've always intended.
  - mahyarm 9y ago
    Imagine your an accountant for a firm, you realize they are committing unethical accounting practices, some which may be 'legal', some which may be 'not legal'. You feel like they are pretty heinous and they breached the 'trust of the public' by doing so. In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      How would you know my opinion on it?
      - lovich 9y ago
        Because you stated it was ironic for someone who breached the trust of the military to be talking about trust, which implies that you valued the militaries trust over the trust of people in the military.
        Danihan 9y ago
        It's ironic regardless. Whether I value the military's trust or not doesn't enter into it. Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics. She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.
        lovich 9y ago
        Then I guess it depends on if you view the military doing things that most of the people who they are supposed to protect disagree with, as a violation of trust or not. I personally don't believe that saying one side followed all the rules when they have the power to make the rules has any weight as a moral argument
      - deleted 9y ago
  - chc 9y ago
    Would you see the same irony in any other whistle-blower writing this article? I don't think most people see whistle-blowing as equivalent to breaching individuals' privacy. One is defending the public from wrongs done by powerful organizations, while the other is harming the public by threatening their privacy. You have to erase a lot of details to draw an equivalence there.
  - ionised 9y ago
    And the US military was trusted with not murdering civilians and journalists and breached that trust. Chelsea Manning made us aware of it by leaking documents I deem to be in the public interest. Between the US military and Chelsea Manning, guess who I trust more?
shallot_router 9y ago
About trust and confidentiality... of citizens' private data. By contrast, she leaked military/diplomatic documents and footage. Not exactly a 1-to-1 parallel.
- caiob 9y ago
  Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
  - phailhaus 9y ago
    Did you even try? From the article: > Chelsea Manning is an advocate of government transparency, a transgender rights activist and a former United States Army intelligence analyst.
    - pyre 9y ago
      Based on the commenter's first comment in this thread, I'm assuming that they already know who Chelsea Manning is. Unfortunately the content of all of their comments seems aimed to inflame/offend rather than discuss.
  - civilian 9y ago
    Aren't you just committing an appeal to authority fallacy? Read her article and judge the merits there. It's the NYTimes, it's not like the article is going to break philosophical ground, it's more of a summary of what has happened. The way that our faces, location and information is collected has potential for dystopia, and that's an easy argument to make. //edit: For context, the comment I was replying to read: > Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
    - an27 9y ago
      Did that user just delete their comments or is this a new antispam/censorship feature of the forum software?
pyre 9y ago
Unless Chelsea Manning is trying to convince us to trust her with our private data, I don't see where the irony is. It's similar to a reformed/retired safe cracker is telling us which safes are hard to crack. The safe cracker would be in a position to know about how difficult it would be to crack safes. The major difference being that the safe cracker possibly stands to benefit from lying to us in an effort to make their job easier (convince us to get safes that are in reality easy to crack). In the situation with Chelsea Manning, I'm not sure where you think that she stands to benefit from us following any advice that she's giving.
- SXX 9y ago
  Regardless of the article that analogy with safe cracker lead nowhere. Almost every good expert in computer security was at some point black hat and you never know what they actually are now.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    I think that's a stretch (police state definitions of "black hat" non-withstanding)
    - SXX 9y ago
      Even so person capable of keeping software secure can as well tell you how secure it is while selling bugs in said software to 3 letter agency, some authoritarian state or basically anyone who have enough cash. Oh, I forgot that we don't call it black hat and this is totally legit business. That safe cracker from example above would be ashamed, he couldn't even dream of something like that.
allworknoplay 9y ago
She saw something wrong going on and blew a whistle; she was sentenced and it was commuted in the name of transparency and respect for the government's obligations to its citizens and transparency. So basically, she saw the government's breach of trust and called it out, and is doing so again now. It seems like either you don't understand what Chelsea did in the first place, or your argument is simply with Chelsea herself for any number of possible reasons. Yes, this is where we are now. Fucking good.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  It's a little more complex than that. Chelsea did what she thought was right (and I generally agree in principle) but the actual dump was just... everything. It wasn't a well curated dump, much of the data wasn't whistleblowing. If you compare how Chelsea handled it vs Snowden they are worlds apart. Chelsea wanted to be a whistleblower but IMO behaved like a leaker/dumper. Of course intent does matter but, even though I'm very pro-Chelsea, lets not pretend Chelsea behaved admirably in how she handled the leaks.
sctb 9y ago
Please post more substantively than this—we're here to learn. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

So, I am reading an article written by Chelsea Manning about trust and confidentiality. Am I reading this right? Is this where we are at now!?

by caiob 9y ago

So, I am reading an article written by Chelsea Manning about trust and confidentiality. Am I reading this right? Is this where we are at now!?

jackmott 9y ago

Yes.

castis 9y ago

I don't understand the subcontext of your rhetorical question. Could you explain why this would be a problem?

Danihan 9y ago
She was placed in a position of trust to watch over classified data, and massively breached that trust. And was imprisoned for it, and in fact would still be in prison had the sentence not been commuted. Agree or disagree with her actions, it is extremely ironic. Is it really that difficult to understand the subtext here?
- phailhaus 9y ago
  Yeah, because it's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It has nothing to do with trust.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    You probably meant to direct that to the original poster, not the person you responded to. That person was clarifying the subtext.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    The entire article is about society putting too much trust in computer systems. So yes, it is about trust. Beyond that, I was answering a question about subtext, not discussing the article directly.
    - phailhaus 9y ago
      The article is about the alarming amount of information we've granted to private companies, Chelsea was imprisoned for releasing classified documents. How are the two related? Your argument would still "apply" if Chelsea had cheated on a lover; "hey, she betrayed someone's trust so how can she talk about trust?" Basically, nothing's she's done invalidates or even weakens her points.
      - Danihan 9y ago
        She's basically proving her own point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
        phailhaus 9y ago
        Again, you seem to not have read the article, because it's not about having your private data leaked. Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict.
        Danihan 9y ago
        >Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict. Which is "mishandled."
        phailhaus 9y ago
        No, it's not mishandling. It's not a mistake, it's not malicious, you just don't know how they're going to use it. "Mishandling" implies some sort of breach of trust or contract, but in this case you didn't realize what you were agreeing to when you handed over your data. They're handling the data as they've always intended.
- mahyarm 9y ago
  Imagine your an accountant for a firm, you realize they are committing unethical accounting practices, some which may be 'legal', some which may be 'not legal'. You feel like they are pretty heinous and they breached the 'trust of the public' by doing so. In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    How would you know my opinion on it?
    - lovich 9y ago
      Because you stated it was ironic for someone who breached the trust of the military to be talking about trust, which implies that you valued the militaries trust over the trust of people in the military.
      - Danihan 9y ago
        It's ironic regardless. Whether I value the military's trust or not doesn't enter into it. Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics. She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.
        lovich 9y ago
        Then I guess it depends on if you view the military doing things that most of the people who they are supposed to protect disagree with, as a violation of trust or not. I personally don't believe that saying one side followed all the rules when they have the power to make the rules has any weight as a moral argument
    - deleted 9y ago
- chc 9y ago
  Would you see the same irony in any other whistle-blower writing this article? I don't think most people see whistle-blowing as equivalent to breaching individuals' privacy. One is defending the public from wrongs done by powerful organizations, while the other is harming the public by threatening their privacy. You have to erase a lot of details to draw an equivalence there.
- ionised 9y ago
  And the US military was trusted with not murdering civilians and journalists and breached that trust. Chelsea Manning made us aware of it by leaking documents I deem to be in the public interest. Between the US military and Chelsea Manning, guess who I trust more?

shallot_router 9y ago

About trust and confidentiality... of citizens' private data. By contrast, she leaked military/diplomatic documents and footage. Not exactly a 1-to-1 parallel.

caiob 9y ago
Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
- phailhaus 9y ago
  Did you even try? From the article: > Chelsea Manning is an advocate of government transparency, a transgender rights activist and a former United States Army intelligence analyst.
  - pyre 9y ago
    Based on the commenter's first comment in this thread, I'm assuming that they already know who Chelsea Manning is. Unfortunately the content of all of their comments seems aimed to inflame/offend rather than discuss.
- civilian 9y ago
  Aren't you just committing an appeal to authority fallacy? Read her article and judge the merits there. It's the NYTimes, it's not like the article is going to break philosophical ground, it's more of a summary of what has happened. The way that our faces, location and information is collected has potential for dystopia, and that's an easy argument to make. //edit: For context, the comment I was replying to read: > Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
  - an27 9y ago
    Did that user just delete their comments or is this a new antispam/censorship feature of the forum software?

pyre 9y ago

Unless Chelsea Manning is trying to convince us to trust her with our private data, I don't see where the irony is. It's similar to a reformed/retired safe cracker is telling us which safes are hard to crack. The safe cracker would be in a position to know about how difficult it would be to crack safes. The major difference being that the safe cracker possibly stands to benefit from lying to us in an effort to make their job easier (convince us to get safes that are in reality easy to crack). In the situation with Chelsea Manning, I'm not sure where you think that she stands to benefit from us following any advice that she's giving.

SXX 9y ago
Regardless of the article that analogy with safe cracker lead nowhere. Almost every good expert in computer security was at some point black hat and you never know what they actually are now.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  I think that's a stretch (police state definitions of "black hat" non-withstanding)
  - SXX 9y ago
    Even so person capable of keeping software secure can as well tell you how secure it is while selling bugs in said software to 3 letter agency, some authoritarian state or basically anyone who have enough cash. Oh, I forgot that we don't call it black hat and this is totally legit business. That safe cracker from example above would be ashamed, he couldn't even dream of something like that.

allworknoplay 9y ago

She saw something wrong going on and blew a whistle; she was sentenced and it was commuted in the name of transparency and respect for the government's obligations to its citizens and transparency. So basically, she saw the government's breach of trust and called it out, and is doing so again now. It seems like either you don't understand what Chelsea did in the first place, or your argument is simply with Chelsea herself for any number of possible reasons. Yes, this is where we are now. Fucking good.

abritinthebay 9y ago
It's a little more complex than that. Chelsea did what she thought was right (and I generally agree in principle) but the actual dump was just... everything. It wasn't a well curated dump, much of the data wasn't whistleblowing. If you compare how Chelsea handled it vs Snowden they are worlds apart. Chelsea wanted to be a whistleblower but IMO behaved like a leaker/dumper. Of course intent does matter but, even though I'm very pro-Chelsea, lets not pretend Chelsea behaved admirably in how she handled the leaks.

sctb 9y ago

Please post more substantively than this—we're here to learn. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html