3 ms·

> These were legally authorized programs By secret courts, in clear violation of the 4th amendment (that the author never mentions). He seems to be under the i

> These were legally authorized programs By secret courts, in clear violation of the 4th amendment (that the author never mentions). He seems to be under the impression that the legal system is infallible. I find it difficult to believe a Harvard graduate and former DOJ associate counsel could be so naive. The entire article can be summed up with "a court did not find it illegal, therefore it was good and right".

JoeyBananas 4y ago
If the legal system is not infallible, is the moral compass of every random NSA worker supposed to be less infallible? If you asked 10 different NSA employees at the time whether they thought the mass surveillance was ethical or not you'd probably have gotten 10 different answers. That's why you really do have to rely on the law to tell you what's right, not any single person's own judgement. Yes, Edward Snowden ended up winning in the court of public opinion but I don't think his victory is deserved.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  > That's why you really do have to rely on the law to tell you what's right Firstly, he did: those programs clearly violate the 4th amendment, regardless of what a secret court says. But I suppose you meant one has to rely on the legal system, not law. But even applied to law itself, that's a very extremist position if applied consistently. Let me elaborate: > If you asked 10 different NSA employees at the time whether they thought the mass surveillance was ethical or not you'd probably have gotten 10 different answers There's a big difference between merely thinking it's unethical, and thinking it's so unethical they're willing to go against the intelligence apparatus of the USA and become a fugitive from the global West to shed light upon it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where every ethically-inclined person followed your thinking. Such rigidity is a fast way to pathological results, as long as they are "legal". And unethically-inclined people of course won't follow your thinking, and will institute some Kafkaesque legal procedure for anyone that wanted to challenge their programs.

JoeyBananas 4y ago

If the legal system is not infallible, is the moral compass of every random NSA worker supposed to be less infallible? If you asked 10 different NSA employees at the time whether they thought the mass surveillance was ethical or not you'd probably have gotten 10 different answers. That's why you really do have to rely on the law to tell you what's right, not any single person's own judgement. Yes, Edward Snowden ended up winning in the court of public opinion but I don't think his victory is deserved.

car_analogy 4y ago
> That's why you really do have to rely on the law to tell you what's right Firstly, he did: those programs clearly violate the 4th amendment, regardless of what a secret court says. But I suppose you meant one has to rely on the legal system, not law. But even applied to law itself, that's a very extremist position if applied consistently. Let me elaborate: > If you asked 10 different NSA employees at the time whether they thought the mass surveillance was ethical or not you'd probably have gotten 10 different answers There's a big difference between merely thinking it's unethical, and thinking it's so unethical they're willing to go against the intelligence apparatus of the USA and become a fugitive from the global West to shed light upon it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where every ethically-inclined person followed your thinking. Such rigidity is a fast way to pathological results, as long as they are "legal". And unethically-inclined people of course won't follow your thinking, and will institute some Kafkaesque legal procedure for anyone that wanted to challenge their programs.