4 ms·

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

by castis 9y ago

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?

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

by castis 9y ago

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

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?