4 ms·

I'm uncertain here, but my gut tells me that potential positive and negative effects of whistleblowing are so hard to predict and fully attribute (they tend to

by enjeyw 6y ago

I'm uncertain here, but my gut tells me that potential positive and negative effects of whistleblowing are so hard to predict and fully attribute (they tend to be at a global geopolitical scale where lots of other cofounding factors are involved), that we should judge whistleblowers on their underlying motivations instead. Was the whistleblower/leaker motivated purely by a desire to improve the welfare of their nation's citizens? If so, the person should be praised as a selfless patriot. If there were other motivations, like personal gain, they're potentially a traitor. Why I'm not certain about this: - What kind of other actions does this philosophy of "the motivation justifies the ends" lead to? Assassinating political leaders suddenly seems on the table... - What if the whistleblower is motivated by the welfare of the citizens of the world, rather than just of their own nation? I guess you can be a traitor to your country and a hero to humanity (see Nazi Germany etc etc)

cryptonector 6y ago
Hard cases make bad law and all that. There's no easy way to construct a good general rule here.
- enjeyw 6y ago
  Yeah very fair point, though (and?) ideally you'd want to be able to provide some heuristic for citizens to use to predict how their actions will be judged, to help them decide whether leaking is the right move or not.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Does it really matter? He revealed unconstitutional information to the press, all very forgiveable by the 1st amendment rights of every citizen. However, since the patriot act we live in only a semblence of a democracy, closer to that than an authoritarian government but unlimited surveillance is certainly on the list of things that is very very very good for when the government has started to get some momentum towards a dictatorship. the same despotic government our current administration seems to be trying to drag us kicking and screaming towards
staunch 6y ago
The principle is pretty simple: any person that has evidence that the U.S. government is violating the U.S. Constitution should report it to the American people. If there is an official channel for reporting it, they should try that first (as Snowden did), but that is totally optional. Any damage that results is the fault of the people that chose to violate the Constitution, and not the fault of the whistleblower. The violators should be imprisoned in almost every case, and probably even have their citizenship revoked. Snowden should have be granted a pardon, become a universally respected American hero, and receive a medal. Snowden's exile in Russia proves that Americans are too ignorant of their own constitution and the principles behind it to do the right thing for him. But he played his part flawlessly and history will grant him the title of American hero. 1. There's nothing about this whistleblower principle that would lead anyone to believe that assassination is fair game. Revealing constitutional violations = whistleblowing; that's it. 2. If there is no violation of the U.S. Constitution, then there is no whistleblowing to be done. Spying on foreign citizens is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution, for example, and so it should not be protected in the same way. (Whether Americans should support a constitutional amendment that protects foreign people from American spying is another matter.)

by enjeyw 6y ago

cryptonector 6y ago

Hard cases make bad law and all that. There's no easy way to construct a good general rule here.

enjeyw 6y ago
Yeah very fair point, though (and?) ideally you'd want to be able to provide some heuristic for citizens to use to predict how their actions will be judged, to help them decide whether leaking is the right move or not.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Does it really matter? He revealed unconstitutional information to the press, all very forgiveable by the 1st amendment rights of every citizen. However, since the patriot act we live in only a semblence of a democracy, closer to that than an authoritarian government but unlimited surveillance is certainly on the list of things that is very very very good for when the government has started to get some momentum towards a dictatorship. the same despotic government our current administration seems to be trying to drag us kicking and screaming towards

staunch 6y ago

The principle is pretty simple: any person that has evidence that the U.S. government is violating the U.S. Constitution should report it to the American people. If there is an official channel for reporting it, they should try that first (as Snowden did), but that is totally optional. Any damage that results is the fault of the people that chose to violate the Constitution, and not the fault of the whistleblower. The violators should be imprisoned in almost every case, and probably even have their citizenship revoked. Snowden should have be granted a pardon, become a universally respected American hero, and receive a medal. Snowden's exile in Russia proves that Americans are too ignorant of their own constitution and the principles behind it to do the right thing for him. But he played his part flawlessly and history will grant him the title of American hero. 1. There's nothing about this whistleblower principle that would lead anyone to believe that assassination is fair game. Revealing constitutional violations = whistleblowing; that's it. 2. If there is no violation of the U.S. Constitution, then there is no whistleblowing to be done. Spying on foreign citizens is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution, for example, and so it should not be protected in the same way. (Whether Americans should support a constitutional amendment that protects foreign people from American spying is another matter.)