13 ms·

Huh. I completely agree with this justification for spying, to the point I would be upset if they weren’t spying in this way. To me spy craft is where personal

Huh. I completely agree with this justification for spying, to the point I would be upset if they weren’t spying in this way. To me spy craft is where personal ethics become less important than realpolitik. The most powerful country in the world should have an inside track on whats going on in important markets, by hook or by crook. That’s the governments job. On what grounds does Petrobras have any right to privacy from the USG?

schoen 3y ago
Huh, I have a radically different intuition from you. :-) I think "personal ethics" applies to everything and everyone in the world. The people who do things are moral agents. > On what grounds does Petrobras have any right to privacy from the USG? Among other things, their confidentiality is protected by Brazilian law. If hackers break that law, Petrobras should be entitled to a remedy against them, just like Americans should be entitled to a remedy against Russian hackers, whether they intend to steal money or private information. As far as I know, all governments harbor criminals in this sense, but I think they should be incentivized to do so much less, including by pointing out that the espionage is a crime and not glamorizing it (or being upset with governments for not doing it!).
- riversflow 3y ago
  This just seems incredibly idealistic to me. Brazilian law isn't US law, if Brazil wants to it can try and arrest spies I guess. That's all there is to it. > I think "personal ethics" applies to everything and everyone in the world. I think that spies have the moral agency to gather and report information in order to better promote the welfare of their countrymen. > I think they should be incentivized to do so much less How? That's an impossible task in my book, and the main reason I think that spies are ethically just is because it's the nature of the beast. If you figure out a good way to do this, might I suggest focusing your efforts on de-militarization instead of de-espionage? The people with bombs and tanks are the one's who do the most damage.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
Presumably the same grounds that the US DoE has a right privacy, a right not to be spied on by Brazil.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  Do organizations and governments have rights?
  - schoen 3y ago
    They have legal rights under the jurisdictions where they're established, and presumably the people working for them also retain their individual human rights.
- riversflow 3y ago
  I don't contend that the DoE or any other agency has a right to privacy from Brazil. Spy craft is just a part of international politics, turnabout is fair play.
  - schoen 3y ago
    Do you think it's bad if the U.S. prosecutes Brazilian spies who spy on U.S. organizations? Shouldn't we care whether the things that the justice system is punishing people for are things that are actually good or bad? (I mean, I guess your intuition probably says "no, not really"!) I think if it's wrong we shouldn't do it (because we shouldn't do things that are wrong), and if it's not wrong we shouldn't punish other people for doing it (because we shouldn't punish people for doing things that are not wrong). Yes, this is exactly attempting to apply personal morality to the "international system". Which is made up of people who make conscious decisions about how to behave toward other people.
    - riversflow 3y ago
      > this is exactly attempting to apply personal morality to the "international system" I can do that. Nobody should lie, it's wrong. So, as long as every nation stops lying, they can stop spying too. Easy Peasy. > Shouldn't we care whether the things that the justice system is punishing people for are things that are actually good or bad? Absolutely. Which is why usually friendly-nation spies don't seem to get in trouble. Take a look at this list, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies I think lying/misrepresenting is bad and very harmful, however I also think it is human nature, and spying helps to alleviate that information asymmetry.
feoren 3y ago
Please see my sibling comment to yours for three reasons why this is a terrible justification for spying. > The most powerful country in the world should have an inside track on whats going on in important markets, by hook or by crook We can get a pretty good idea of what's going on in important markets with publicly available information. Why is this the job of a spy agency and not its economics departments? I would like the U.S. to have a strong understanding of upcoming weather patterns, but that doesn't mean we ask the CIA to spy on everyone who's using aerosol sprays.
- riversflow 3y ago
  > We can get a pretty good idea of what's going on in important markets with publicly available information. How can you possibly know that, are you claiming to be privy to the forecasts generated by the information gathered by US spies? Further, as stated later, spying is the status quo, if spying stopped wholesale wouldn't keeping information private be significantly more valuable? > Reason 1 . . . literally any spying could be justified this way. I don't give a solitary care about the spying a foreign government does. Why should I? They don't have jurisdiction over me. I care about what it does with that intel, but that is completely separate, which gets us to your Reason 2. > Essentially anything that's outside of the status quo is suddenly classified as a risk. Basically our spy agencies' jobs become protecting the entrenched interests of those already in power No, that isn't the job of spies, they gather intelligence. You are confusing other government actions with spying. > Reason 3 Again, do you have some sort of inside track on the DoD(or some other 3 letters)? You have concocted a hypothetical about a Joe Shmoe, being caught in a dragnet filter. Is that actually a real problem? Or just a hypothetical about where this slippery slope goes. Overall I think the burden of proof is on the group who wants to go against the status quo; nations constantly spy on one another. Justify why we shouldn't spy, rather than pointing out it's pitfalls.
  - feoren 3y ago
    > Overall I think the burden of proof is on the group who wants to go against the status quo That attitude definitely benefits those who like the status quo. I think the "burden of proof", if such a thing exists, is on the position with the least prior evidence. That something is the status quo is pretty weak evidence in its favor; I can point to many instances in human history where the status quo was pretty awful. > if spying stopped wholesale Strawman. I never said spying should be "stopped wholesale". Never anything even remotely close to that, in fact. I'm not responsible for defending a position you completely fabricated. > I don't give a solitary care about the spying a foreign government does ... I care about what it does with that intel, but that is completely separate I don't believe the gathering of intelligence is "completely separate" from acting on that intel. I don't believe the accumulation of guns and ammunition is "completely separate" from the act of using those guns. I don't believe the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium is "completely separate" from building an atomic bomb. I don't believe building an atomic bomb is "completely separate" from using it. > No, that isn't the job of spies, they gather intelligence. You are confusing other government actions with spying. "Spies don't kill people, bullets kill people. Actually, bullets don't kill people, a rapid transfer of momentum from the bullet to the human body kills people. Actually, momentum doesn't kill people, a rapid loss of blood from the resulting tissue damage kills people. You are confusing human physiology with spying." Right: nobody is ever responsible for anything. > You have concocted a hypothetical about a Joe Shmoe, being caught in a dragnet filter. Is that actually a real problem? Or just a hypothetical about where this slippery slope goes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Historical_instances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Histor... You don't need a security clearance to know of many instances of this happening.

schoen 3y ago

Huh, I have a radically different intuition from you. :-) I think "personal ethics" applies to everything and everyone in the world. The people who do things are moral agents. > On what grounds does Petrobras have any right to privacy from the USG? Among other things, their confidentiality is protected by Brazilian law. If hackers break that law, Petrobras should be entitled to a remedy against them, just like Americans should be entitled to a remedy against Russian hackers, whether they intend to steal money or private information. As far as I know, all governments harbor criminals in this sense, but I think they should be incentivized to do so much less, including by pointing out that the espionage is a crime and not glamorizing it (or being upset with governments for not doing it!).

riversflow 3y ago
This just seems incredibly idealistic to me. Brazilian law isn't US law, if Brazil wants to it can try and arrest spies I guess. That's all there is to it. > I think "personal ethics" applies to everything and everyone in the world. I think that spies have the moral agency to gather and report information in order to better promote the welfare of their countrymen. > I think they should be incentivized to do so much less How? That's an impossible task in my book, and the main reason I think that spies are ethically just is because it's the nature of the beast. If you figure out a good way to do this, might I suggest focusing your efforts on de-militarization instead of de-espionage? The people with bombs and tanks are the one's who do the most damage.

kwhitefoot 3y ago

Presumably the same grounds that the US DoE has a right privacy, a right not to be spied on by Brazil.

saalweachter 3y ago
Do organizations and governments have rights?
- schoen 3y ago
  They have legal rights under the jurisdictions where they're established, and presumably the people working for them also retain their individual human rights.
riversflow 3y ago
I don't contend that the DoE or any other agency has a right to privacy from Brazil. Spy craft is just a part of international politics, turnabout is fair play.
- schoen 3y ago
  Do you think it's bad if the U.S. prosecutes Brazilian spies who spy on U.S. organizations? Shouldn't we care whether the things that the justice system is punishing people for are things that are actually good or bad? (I mean, I guess your intuition probably says "no, not really"!) I think if it's wrong we shouldn't do it (because we shouldn't do things that are wrong), and if it's not wrong we shouldn't punish other people for doing it (because we shouldn't punish people for doing things that are not wrong). Yes, this is exactly attempting to apply personal morality to the "international system". Which is made up of people who make conscious decisions about how to behave toward other people.
  - riversflow 3y ago
    > this is exactly attempting to apply personal morality to the "international system" I can do that. Nobody should lie, it's wrong. So, as long as every nation stops lying, they can stop spying too. Easy Peasy. > Shouldn't we care whether the things that the justice system is punishing people for are things that are actually good or bad? Absolutely. Which is why usually friendly-nation spies don't seem to get in trouble. Take a look at this list, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies I think lying/misrepresenting is bad and very harmful, however I also think it is human nature, and spying helps to alleviate that information asymmetry.

feoren 3y ago

Please see my sibling comment to yours for three reasons why this is a terrible justification for spying. > The most powerful country in the world should have an inside track on whats going on in important markets, by hook or by crook We can get a pretty good idea of what's going on in important markets with publicly available information. Why is this the job of a spy agency and not its economics departments? I would like the U.S. to have a strong understanding of upcoming weather patterns, but that doesn't mean we ask the CIA to spy on everyone who's using aerosol sprays.

riversflow 3y ago
> We can get a pretty good idea of what's going on in important markets with publicly available information. How can you possibly know that, are you claiming to be privy to the forecasts generated by the information gathered by US spies? Further, as stated later, spying is the status quo, if spying stopped wholesale wouldn't keeping information private be significantly more valuable? > Reason 1 . . . literally any spying could be justified this way. I don't give a solitary care about the spying a foreign government does. Why should I? They don't have jurisdiction over me. I care about what it does with that intel, but that is completely separate, which gets us to your Reason 2. > Essentially anything that's outside of the status quo is suddenly classified as a risk. Basically our spy agencies' jobs become protecting the entrenched interests of those already in power No, that isn't the job of spies, they gather intelligence. You are confusing other government actions with spying. > Reason 3 Again, do you have some sort of inside track on the DoD(or some other 3 letters)? You have concocted a hypothetical about a Joe Shmoe, being caught in a dragnet filter. Is that actually a real problem? Or just a hypothetical about where this slippery slope goes. Overall I think the burden of proof is on the group who wants to go against the status quo; nations constantly spy on one another. Justify why we shouldn't spy, rather than pointing out it's pitfalls.
- feoren 3y ago
  > Overall I think the burden of proof is on the group who wants to go against the status quo That attitude definitely benefits those who like the status quo. I think the "burden of proof", if such a thing exists, is on the position with the least prior evidence. That something is the status quo is pretty weak evidence in its favor; I can point to many instances in human history where the status quo was pretty awful. > if spying stopped wholesale Strawman. I never said spying should be "stopped wholesale". Never anything even remotely close to that, in fact. I'm not responsible for defending a position you completely fabricated. > I don't give a solitary care about the spying a foreign government does ... I care about what it does with that intel, but that is completely separate I don't believe the gathering of intelligence is "completely separate" from acting on that intel. I don't believe the accumulation of guns and ammunition is "completely separate" from the act of using those guns. I don't believe the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium is "completely separate" from building an atomic bomb. I don't believe building an atomic bomb is "completely separate" from using it. > No, that isn't the job of spies, they gather intelligence. You are confusing other government actions with spying. "Spies don't kill people, bullets kill people. Actually, bullets don't kill people, a rapid transfer of momentum from the bullet to the human body kills people. Actually, momentum doesn't kill people, a rapid loss of blood from the resulting tissue damage kills people. You are confusing human physiology with spying." Right: nobody is ever responsible for anything. > You have concocted a hypothetical about a Joe Shmoe, being caught in a dragnet filter. Is that actually a real problem? Or just a hypothetical about where this slippery slope goes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Historical_instances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Histor... You don't need a security clearance to know of many instances of this happening.