4 ms·

When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My pref

When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.

robertAngst 8y ago
Freedom of Information only exists because government is historically corrupt and there needs to be a counterweight. Given the corruptness of government, Freedom of Information can be bad. Unredacted data sounds dangerous, but it asks the question- "Why is the government doing it to begin with?"
- sigzero 8y ago
  Because there ARE secrets that governments need to keep.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    I find it amazing that this is actually downvoted, but then again this is probably a biased audience as far as that topic goes
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    Then they should be held to account for abusing their powers to also cover up illegal activity.
Lowkeyloki 8y ago
When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people? If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.
- henryfjordan 8y ago
  The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?
  - Lowkeyloki 8y ago
    I never said that all government information should belong to the people. I asked a question. I do believe there's a line. But I don't like where that line is now, in part because the line isn't well-defined. Although, if I did have nuclear launch codes, I doubt I could do anything meaningful with them. As it should be. Simply knowing the codes is not enough to authorize one to launch nuclear weapons. That would be a catastrophic single point of failure.
    - SiempreViernes 8y ago
      Indeed, you have to be the president too. That person should always be able to launch the nukes at any target whatsoever, and ensuring this is possible is the task of the United States Nuclear forces.
    - henryfjordan 8y ago
      Ahh, sorry I read your comment as more zealous than it was. To my knowledge (and I could be very wrong), Manning and Assange released info about then-current troop operations in the middle east. People's lives were endangered by the release of the info. You might not like where the line is, but I don't think they have too much of a leg to stand on either (assuming my understand is correct).
      - Lowkeyloki 8y ago
        TL;DR: I do think some of what Assange did was morally wrong, but not nearly as much as what he's legally guilty of. I feel that way because the way the US government weilds the information classification system makes it far too blunt a tool. --- Thank you for rereading and acknowledging. The then-current troop operations information is a great example of sensitive information that shouldn't be public for obvious reasons. (Although I don't want to tug at that thread too hard because it leads to opinions on the validity of the war in the first place. It's complicated. ;-) That's a well-reasoned view of the specific thing that was done wrong. However, our government doesn't seem to want to draw the line there. There was a lot of other stuff in that dump. Some of it was embarrassing. Much of it was banal. But the US government doesn't want to make that distinction. It was classified information, whether that made sense in every case or not. I can't say with any certainty, but I doubt the troop operations information was intentionally released. If, hypothetically speaking, all the other information in the dump was declassified, I don't think Manning and Assange would have wanted to release information that would endanger lives. I think they were just overzealous and didn't have the time or want to take the time to comb through it all first. Look how long it took journalists to do it. So if they were being specifically prosecuted for the troop ops info, that would be one thing in my book. It's quite another thing to be accused of high treason for disseminating embarrassing things and things that are only considered sensitive because that's the default classification.
GordonS 8y ago
Perhaps leaks of war crimes and the like could actually be a catalyst for greater government transparency? The way I see it, the status quo is unlikely to change without a pretty big nudge.
favorited 8y ago
> The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent The Times was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers, but they didn't facilitate their theft. Ellsberg was charged for the theft, but of course the Nixon admin's misconduct resulted in the charges being dismissed.
rorykoehler 8y ago
IF said information contains evidence of illegal activity then it should be exempt from secrecy laws. Start at the root and work out.

robertAngst 8y ago

Freedom of Information only exists because government is historically corrupt and there needs to be a counterweight. Given the corruptness of government, Freedom of Information can be bad. Unredacted data sounds dangerous, but it asks the question- "Why is the government doing it to begin with?"

sigzero 8y ago
Because there ARE secrets that governments need to keep.
- airstrike 8y ago
  I find it amazing that this is actually downvoted, but then again this is probably a biased audience as far as that topic goes
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  Then they should be held to account for abusing their powers to also cover up illegal activity.

Lowkeyloki 8y ago

When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people? If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.

henryfjordan 8y ago
The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?
- Lowkeyloki 8y ago
  I never said that all government information should belong to the people. I asked a question. I do believe there's a line. But I don't like where that line is now, in part because the line isn't well-defined. Although, if I did have nuclear launch codes, I doubt I could do anything meaningful with them. As it should be. Simply knowing the codes is not enough to authorize one to launch nuclear weapons. That would be a catastrophic single point of failure.
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    Indeed, you have to be the president too. That person should always be able to launch the nukes at any target whatsoever, and ensuring this is possible is the task of the United States Nuclear forces.
  - henryfjordan 8y ago
    Ahh, sorry I read your comment as more zealous than it was. To my knowledge (and I could be very wrong), Manning and Assange released info about then-current troop operations in the middle east. People's lives were endangered by the release of the info. You might not like where the line is, but I don't think they have too much of a leg to stand on either (assuming my understand is correct).
    - Lowkeyloki 8y ago
      TL;DR: I do think some of what Assange did was morally wrong, but not nearly as much as what he's legally guilty of. I feel that way because the way the US government weilds the information classification system makes it far too blunt a tool. --- Thank you for rereading and acknowledging. The then-current troop operations information is a great example of sensitive information that shouldn't be public for obvious reasons. (Although I don't want to tug at that thread too hard because it leads to opinions on the validity of the war in the first place. It's complicated. ;-) That's a well-reasoned view of the specific thing that was done wrong. However, our government doesn't seem to want to draw the line there. There was a lot of other stuff in that dump. Some of it was embarrassing. Much of it was banal. But the US government doesn't want to make that distinction. It was classified information, whether that made sense in every case or not. I can't say with any certainty, but I doubt the troop operations information was intentionally released. If, hypothetically speaking, all the other information in the dump was declassified, I don't think Manning and Assange would have wanted to release information that would endanger lives. I think they were just overzealous and didn't have the time or want to take the time to comb through it all first. Look how long it took journalists to do it. So if they were being specifically prosecuted for the troop ops info, that would be one thing in my book. It's quite another thing to be accused of high treason for disseminating embarrassing things and things that are only considered sensitive because that's the default classification.

GordonS 8y ago

Perhaps leaks of war crimes and the like could actually be a catalyst for greater government transparency? The way I see it, the status quo is unlikely to change without a pretty big nudge.

favorited 8y ago

> The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent The Times was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers, but they didn't facilitate their theft. Ellsberg was charged for the theft, but of course the Nixon admin's misconduct resulted in the charges being dismissed.

rorykoehler 8y ago

IF said information contains evidence of illegal activity then it should be exempt from secrecy laws. Start at the root and work out.