4 ms·

I'm not proud of it at all. The revelation was startling to me, and I was pretty unhappy about it. It was done in the name of "stopping bad people from doing

I'm not proud of it at all. The revelation was startling to me, and I was pretty unhappy about it. It was done in the name of "stopping bad people from doing bad things", but it was still illegal (at least in the white world). Snowden had the same dilemma. He was asking the NSA lawyers about the legality of their programs, and he never got an honest answer. Quitting would not have stopped the activity, and disclosing it would have subjected me to the same treatment that Snowden got. (Years later, I heard an NSA program manager boasting that they would keep asking different government lawyers for an opinion on the legality of proposed programs until they got the answer they wanted. This was after Snowden's revelations.) Pretty much everyone in CIA has a "ends justify the means" philosophy. It's easy to fall into that trap when you learn about all the devious things our enemies are doing. Apparently EOs have been used to circumvent the constitution for quite a while.

dylan604 6mo ago
Quitting would just be the first step in "I do not want to participate in this". Whistle blowing is much more complicated in that you are hoping to not just not be participating but maybe stopping it altogether. Being young and single compared to being older with dependents would absolutely make that decision harder. Violating secrecy laws to disclose illegal activity seems like something that should have a caveat to allow, but of course they don't.
- dijit 6mo ago
  This is a moral psychological quandary: quit and hope everyone shares your moral compass. (hint: they don’t). Or work to pressure change internally, and occupy space that might have gone to a more morally flexible person if it was made vacant; but while doing so engage in supporting immoral behaviour.
  - wahnfrieden 6mo ago
    Neither work without organizing. You cannot apply any meaningful pressure from the inside as an individual worker. You also do not need to work someplace to organize it.
    - dylan604 6mo ago
      If you work outside of the organization and compel someone to act on your behalf, you will be charged with that. It's how journalists have been tripped up in the past. If someone leaks to a journo, the journo is not part of the leak. If the journo asks someone to get data to be leaked to them, they've overstepped and get into trouble. That's something to not be forgotten. From the inside, talking to coworkers definitely seems risky. If they are not like minded, they could report you. It'd have been better to just have quit at that point. Because of all of that, "ethical" leaking really does seem like the only option left. It's then a matter of can the leaker live with the consequences.
- galangalalgol 6mo ago
  Actually they do. The law states that not only is it illegal to classify stuff to hide illegal activity, things classified that way are not actually classified. The whistleblower before Manning was very careful about what they leaked, and apparently went through the right chains. He was found guilty of misusing government property and given a slap on the wrist... And blackballed from working anywhere they had reach. But the law itself upheld that what he leaked was not classified.
bityard 6mo ago
It's easy for others to say, "oy, you coward, you should have blown the whistle" from the comfort their web browsers. For what it's worth, I had a security clearance in a previous job (not as high as yours, I'm sure) and I understand where you are coming from. I would have likely done the same as you. Especially with my career and the ability to provide for my family on the line.
- eunit250 6mo ago
  It's probably different if you have a family, but I have quit jobs over moral implications no problem. Most people have pretty flimsy morals and will do anything to keep the money rolling in.
  - nightfly 6mo ago
    Most people have no safety net and if the money stops rolling in their life is effectively ruined for several years
    - deaux 6mo ago
      Most people in the world? Potentially, though I doubt the "life ruined for years" part holds for >50%. Most people on HN? Definite no. Most people on HN who work in roles where they're exposed to such mass surveillance or other evil at scale (like Meta)? Absolutely not.
      - dylan604 6mo ago
        You'd be amazed at the number of people that live pay check to pay check. Even on here, I'd guess the number is higher than you'd expect. There are plenty of people in tech that do not live in SV or work for a FAANG. You're failing victim to the echo chamber if you think everyone here is a well paid bit banger
        deaux 6mo ago
        - There are people with $1M+ salaries who live pay check to pay check. This is a choice. A lot of HNers fall under this category. - A lot of people who are actually poor and live pay check to pay check aren't ruined for years if they lose their job. Because the nature of their work and lack of career usually means they're unstable and replaceable "commodity" jobs in the first place. - Almost everyone who is in a position to be exposed to evil at scale as a tech worker, is among the top 5% earners in the world. I'm being very conservative there, it's likely top 1%.
ACCount37 6mo ago
The "ends justify the means" mentality in various government security agencies is very, very real.
- Fnoord 6mo ago
  Not just for government security agencies, and not just in USA. Police generally fall for it as well.
  - sysguest 6mo ago
    well people want to finish their work and go home, that's why I know HNers don't like "surveillance everywhere", but... if you're some law enforcement, every chance to get info means hours/days saved on your work... so you reach for the "easy-way": if you can get comms of a drug gang, you can identify who belongs to that gang (instead of risking their own life by actually 'joining' the gang) But... some do cross their lines (eg watching comms of their ex, getting paid by political actors to listen over opponents, etc) it's not like law enforcements are 100% bad guys, but things are "complicated"
    - t-3 6mo ago
      It's mainly a problem of consequences and accountability. The people who suffer unjustly from unlawful surveillance and overreach are usually unable to do anything about it, and they are assumed to be criminals anyways so nobody cares. Punishments for violating the law are nearly nonexistent for "law enforcement", so a culture of impunity is formed that cannot be easily fixed. Anybody trying to enforce the rules would run into both corrupt and noncorrupt noncompliance, just like trying to get fast food workers to follow health and safety guidelines. It's probably impossible to reform and only a wholesale teardown and replacement without keeping anyone contaminated by the existing culture has a chance.
jandrewrogers 6mo ago
Every administration effectively creates their own interpretation of what is permissible in this regard. The rules of engagement as it were that are set down by each administration vary widely. Nonetheless, it has effectively become a one-way ratchet.
- timschmidt 6mo ago
  I would push back against the idea that intelligence agency behavior changes administration to administration. Looking through history, it's the intelligence agencies which have superior continuity of leadership. Which suggests things about who's directing who.
  - galangalalgol 6mo ago
    Bureaucracy in general exhibits that kind of hysteresis. It is like a running average of who has been in charged mixed with a big dose of the culture that people who choose that sort of career create. Ironically, that inertia is considered by political scientists to be a safeguard for democracy.
    - timschmidt 6mo ago
      It hits different when the bureaucracy's job is to collect and exploit secrets, and act in the shadows.
      - DANmode 6mo ago
        It also “hits different” when you’re the group paying for the bureaucracy.
kybb4 6mo ago
Happens throughout society not just Govt. Here's the Safety Ladder that exploits Fears to justify anything - Why are you doing X? We are doing it for your safety. We are doing it for the safety of your family. We are doing it to keep the org and thousands of jobs afloat. We are doing it to save the country Reducing peoples fears, not increasing them is the only path to prevent the entire chimp troupe quickly climbing that ladder any time something unpredictable happens.
bigfatkitten 6mo ago
[dead]
- simsla 6mo ago
  Genuinely curious: what would you have had him do instead?
- DANmode 6mo ago
  Bringing this poorly-informed comment back in order to ask: on which Murdoch-owned garbage network did you hear that? “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. It’s really mostly a matter of politics (and a bit of luck) that he didn’t get scooped up in HK for one intent or another. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/china-persuaded-snowden-to-flee-hong-kong-sources-idUSDEE95N0AT/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/china-persuaded-snowde...
  - bigfatkitten 6mo ago
    > “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. As far as the Chinese intelligence services are concerned, there is no difference. The maintained a heavy presence and operated as freely there then as they do now. > He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. He seems to have found himself on the wrong side of the Pacific for that to be true. > It’s really mostly a matter of politics (and a bit of luck) that he didn’t get scooped up in HK for one intent or another. It’s historically common for walk-ins to be turned away or reported by the receiving state to avoid political heat. Same happened to Jean-Phillippe Wispelaere and Brian Regan.
    - DANmode 6mo ago
      He wasn’t a walk-in, his lawyer contacted the Chinese to see if they’d let him leave and continue on. It seems like you’re intentionally not interested in learning the details of the story, so I’m not going to engage with you anymore. Think what you like, just don’t misinform the reader.

dylan604 6mo ago

Quitting would just be the first step in "I do not want to participate in this". Whistle blowing is much more complicated in that you are hoping to not just not be participating but maybe stopping it altogether. Being young and single compared to being older with dependents would absolutely make that decision harder. Violating secrecy laws to disclose illegal activity seems like something that should have a caveat to allow, but of course they don't.

dijit 6mo ago
This is a moral psychological quandary: quit and hope everyone shares your moral compass. (hint: they don’t). Or work to pressure change internally, and occupy space that might have gone to a more morally flexible person if it was made vacant; but while doing so engage in supporting immoral behaviour.
- wahnfrieden 6mo ago
  Neither work without organizing. You cannot apply any meaningful pressure from the inside as an individual worker. You also do not need to work someplace to organize it.
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    If you work outside of the organization and compel someone to act on your behalf, you will be charged with that. It's how journalists have been tripped up in the past. If someone leaks to a journo, the journo is not part of the leak. If the journo asks someone to get data to be leaked to them, they've overstepped and get into trouble. That's something to not be forgotten. From the inside, talking to coworkers definitely seems risky. If they are not like minded, they could report you. It'd have been better to just have quit at that point. Because of all of that, "ethical" leaking really does seem like the only option left. It's then a matter of can the leaker live with the consequences.
galangalalgol 6mo ago
Actually they do. The law states that not only is it illegal to classify stuff to hide illegal activity, things classified that way are not actually classified. The whistleblower before Manning was very careful about what they leaked, and apparently went through the right chains. He was found guilty of misusing government property and given a slap on the wrist... And blackballed from working anywhere they had reach. But the law itself upheld that what he leaked was not classified.

bityard 6mo ago

It's easy for others to say, "oy, you coward, you should have blown the whistle" from the comfort their web browsers. For what it's worth, I had a security clearance in a previous job (not as high as yours, I'm sure) and I understand where you are coming from. I would have likely done the same as you. Especially with my career and the ability to provide for my family on the line.

eunit250 6mo ago
It's probably different if you have a family, but I have quit jobs over moral implications no problem. Most people have pretty flimsy morals and will do anything to keep the money rolling in.
- nightfly 6mo ago
  Most people have no safety net and if the money stops rolling in their life is effectively ruined for several years
  - deaux 6mo ago
    Most people in the world? Potentially, though I doubt the "life ruined for years" part holds for >50%. Most people on HN? Definite no. Most people on HN who work in roles where they're exposed to such mass surveillance or other evil at scale (like Meta)? Absolutely not.
    - dylan604 6mo ago
      You'd be amazed at the number of people that live pay check to pay check. Even on here, I'd guess the number is higher than you'd expect. There are plenty of people in tech that do not live in SV or work for a FAANG. You're failing victim to the echo chamber if you think everyone here is a well paid bit banger
      - deaux 6mo ago
        - There are people with $1M+ salaries who live pay check to pay check. This is a choice. A lot of HNers fall under this category. - A lot of people who are actually poor and live pay check to pay check aren't ruined for years if they lose their job. Because the nature of their work and lack of career usually means they're unstable and replaceable "commodity" jobs in the first place. - Almost everyone who is in a position to be exposed to evil at scale as a tech worker, is among the top 5% earners in the world. I'm being very conservative there, it's likely top 1%.

ACCount37 6mo ago

The "ends justify the means" mentality in various government security agencies is very, very real.

Fnoord 6mo ago
Not just for government security agencies, and not just in USA. Police generally fall for it as well.
- sysguest 6mo ago
  well people want to finish their work and go home, that's why I know HNers don't like "surveillance everywhere", but... if you're some law enforcement, every chance to get info means hours/days saved on your work... so you reach for the "easy-way": if you can get comms of a drug gang, you can identify who belongs to that gang (instead of risking their own life by actually 'joining' the gang) But... some do cross their lines (eg watching comms of their ex, getting paid by political actors to listen over opponents, etc) it's not like law enforcements are 100% bad guys, but things are "complicated"
  - t-3 6mo ago
    It's mainly a problem of consequences and accountability. The people who suffer unjustly from unlawful surveillance and overreach are usually unable to do anything about it, and they are assumed to be criminals anyways so nobody cares. Punishments for violating the law are nearly nonexistent for "law enforcement", so a culture of impunity is formed that cannot be easily fixed. Anybody trying to enforce the rules would run into both corrupt and noncorrupt noncompliance, just like trying to get fast food workers to follow health and safety guidelines. It's probably impossible to reform and only a wholesale teardown and replacement without keeping anyone contaminated by the existing culture has a chance.

jandrewrogers 6mo ago

Every administration effectively creates their own interpretation of what is permissible in this regard. The rules of engagement as it were that are set down by each administration vary widely. Nonetheless, it has effectively become a one-way ratchet.

timschmidt 6mo ago
I would push back against the idea that intelligence agency behavior changes administration to administration. Looking through history, it's the intelligence agencies which have superior continuity of leadership. Which suggests things about who's directing who.
- galangalalgol 6mo ago
  Bureaucracy in general exhibits that kind of hysteresis. It is like a running average of who has been in charged mixed with a big dose of the culture that people who choose that sort of career create. Ironically, that inertia is considered by political scientists to be a safeguard for democracy.
  - timschmidt 6mo ago
    It hits different when the bureaucracy's job is to collect and exploit secrets, and act in the shadows.
    - DANmode 6mo ago
      It also “hits different” when you’re the group paying for the bureaucracy.

kybb4 6mo ago

Happens throughout society not just Govt. Here's the Safety Ladder that exploits Fears to justify anything - Why are you doing X? We are doing it for your safety. We are doing it for the safety of your family. We are doing it to keep the org and thousands of jobs afloat. We are doing it to save the country Reducing peoples fears, not increasing them is the only path to prevent the entire chimp troupe quickly climbing that ladder any time something unpredictable happens.

bigfatkitten 6mo ago

[dead]

simsla 6mo ago
Genuinely curious: what would you have had him do instead?
DANmode 6mo ago
Bringing this poorly-informed comment back in order to ask: on which Murdoch-owned garbage network did you hear that? “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. It’s really mostly a matter of politics (and a bit of luck) that he didn’t get scooped up in HK for one intent or another. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/china-persuaded-snowden-to-flee-hong-kong-sources-idUSDEE95N0AT/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/china-persuaded-snowde...
- bigfatkitten 6mo ago
  > “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. As far as the Chinese intelligence services are concerned, there is no difference. The maintained a heavy presence and operated as freely there then as they do now. > He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. He seems to have found himself on the wrong side of the Pacific for that to be true. > It’s really mostly a matter of politics (and a bit of luck) that he didn’t get scooped up in HK for one intent or another. It’s historically common for walk-ins to be turned away or reported by the receiving state to avoid political heat. Same happened to Jean-Phillippe Wispelaere and Brian Regan.
  - DANmode 6mo ago
    He wasn’t a walk-in, his lawyer contacted the Chinese to see if they’d let him leave and continue on. It seems like you’re intentionally not interested in learning the details of the story, so I’m not going to engage with you anymore. Think what you like, just don’t misinform the reader.