3 ms·

I agree on the continuum, and that there is no point pretending reality isn't as it is, but on the other hand is there not a case that actions being taken by or

I agree on the continuum, and that there is no point pretending reality isn't as it is, but on the other hand is there not a case that actions being taken by organisations such as these may not actually be in the interests of the wider public, and thus they should have a degree of public oversight and/or transparency in their actions?

JumpCrisscross 15y ago
If we could multilaterally ban (and enforce a ban) on espionage, thus forcing diplomacy into the open, would I be opposed? No. But that's not the world we inhabit. Nation-states are perpetually insecure about the intentions of others. Hence, espionage will exist with states as the actors. So the next level is how widely disseminated should this information be? The intel Kroll, Dilligence, Nardello, IGI, etc. provide will always be available in one form or another. And because it's very information dense people like me, who want to understand above all else, will bid up the value of that information. I understand the public being uneasy with all of this. It's akin to pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz. But it is how geopolitics works; we are shooting the messenger. It's a shame that Anonymous et Pals may have just severed the single link the majority of people had to this world. I, on the other hand, will only have to deal with one fewer information brokers. There was an article on HN a day or two ago on how being pragmatic, even if it's sour, is better than being solely right. I think this is one of those cases.
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  > But that's not the world we inhabit. Nation-states are perpetually insecure about the intentions of others. Hence, espionage will exist with states as the actors. I can see that it pretty point-of-view, but I don't agree with this. I think we live in the world that we make, nothing is 'perpetual', and that in Western countries especially we will gain in the long-run from ensuring our own ethical standards are high. This, from my point-of-view, is practical.

JumpCrisscross 15y ago

If we could multilaterally ban (and enforce a ban) on espionage, thus forcing diplomacy into the open, would I be opposed? No. But that's not the world we inhabit. Nation-states are perpetually insecure about the intentions of others. Hence, espionage will exist with states as the actors. So the next level is how widely disseminated should this information be? The intel Kroll, Dilligence, Nardello, IGI, etc. provide will always be available in one form or another. And because it's very information dense people like me, who want to understand above all else, will bid up the value of that information. I understand the public being uneasy with all of this. It's akin to pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz. But it is how geopolitics works; we are shooting the messenger. It's a shame that Anonymous et Pals may have just severed the single link the majority of people had to this world. I, on the other hand, will only have to deal with one fewer information brokers. There was an article on HN a day or two ago on how being pragmatic, even if it's sour, is better than being solely right. I think this is one of those cases.

twelvechairs 15y ago
> But that's not the world we inhabit. Nation-states are perpetually insecure about the intentions of others. Hence, espionage will exist with states as the actors. I can see that it pretty point-of-view, but I don't agree with this. I think we live in the world that we make, nothing is 'perpetual', and that in Western countries especially we will gain in the long-run from ensuring our own ethical standards are high. This, from my point-of-view, is practical.