6 ms·

If I were a spook, I would throw myself under a bus. Barring that, I would just keep my mouth shut if I were in an unprivileged position like that. If I don't

by jlgreco 13y ago

If I were a spook, I would throw myself under a bus. Barring that, I would just keep my mouth shut if I were in an unprivileged position like that. If I don't have permission to declassify it, what business is it of mine to say that the public does not have the full picture? I can't imagine even saying that much isn't frowned upon. No, I imagine any official statement to the effect of "you don't know everything" is only authorized very carefully. There is no real "partial explanation" option here. There are only full explanations, and unverifiable PR spin. Nothing in between. Unverifiable PR spin is the only option? Tough shit, I am not satisfied.

anigbrowl 13y ago
If I were a spook, I would throw myself under a bus. Are you saying that you don't believe that governments (at any level) should engage in any kind of intelligence-gathering or espionage, ever? Or that there is ever any role for secrecy? If so, I regard that as a valid position, but also a naive one.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Being a spook is incompatible with who I am. If I were forced to be a spook, "drafted into spook-dom", I would do anything necessary to end the coercion. If necessary, I would throw myself under a bus. I believe this to be a principled response to coercion. Actually on second thought, that is short-sighted. I would leak everything that I could, then I would throw myself under a bus. If you are asking me what I think spooks, who are not me, should do in this situation, then I think I have answered that. They should either expect the criticism they will receive for their worthless PR spin responses, or they should respond in a way that would not cause such a reaction. I don't care if they think the later is not an option, or even if it actually is not an option. That is their problem, not mine. Shitty position for a spook to be in? They don't have any other options? So fucking what. They made their bed. Criticism of what they said should not be tempered just because you think it is the only think they could say.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    OK, but what about the question I asked? I get that you would never voluntarily go to work for the NSA, CIA, or similar, but my question is whether you think organizations like that should be allowed to exist at all, not whether you would choose to work there. I'm pointing out a practical limitation on what they can say arising of how such agencies function, you're talking about how they should feel about it on a personal level. I have no interest in how they feel about it as individuals.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      You are saying that they cannot release everything. I am saying that I don't care, I will still criticise them for a piss poor response even if that is all that they are capable of giving. If I require something of them that they cannot provide, I do not stop requiring it of them. If they cannot satisfy me, I will remain unsatisfied. I will not change my standards to accommodate them. I've answered your question now three times. Are you going to pretend not to hear me again?
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        So basically you're just throwing a temper tantrum. It seems to me that your problem is with the way these organizations are constituted by law, but your reaction is to make moral criticisms of the individuals who work there and are trying to operate within the law. I think in this case that there are strong arguments for changing the law, but it seems utterly pointless to blame people for following it when that is what they are sworn to do.
  - bane 13y ago
    oh the melodrama
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      What do you mean by this comment?
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  I don't know if the GP is saying that, but I certainly am. Perhaps it's naive but the problem is; the government simply can't be trusted with this level of power. Every time a government is giving these kind of powers they do something corrupt/evil with it. So better to not have it at all and face the consequences than to keep having shit storms like this current one popping up all the time. Full transparency in government, consequences be damned.

by jlgreco 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

If I were a spook, I would throw myself under a bus. Are you saying that you don't believe that governments (at any level) should engage in any kind of intelligence-gathering or espionage, ever? Or that there is ever any role for secrecy? If so, I regard that as a valid position, but also a naive one.

jlgreco 13y ago
Being a spook is incompatible with who I am. If I were forced to be a spook, "drafted into spook-dom", I would do anything necessary to end the coercion. If necessary, I would throw myself under a bus. I believe this to be a principled response to coercion. Actually on second thought, that is short-sighted. I would leak everything that I could, then I would throw myself under a bus. If you are asking me what I think spooks, who are not me, should do in this situation, then I think I have answered that. They should either expect the criticism they will receive for their worthless PR spin responses, or they should respond in a way that would not cause such a reaction. I don't care if they think the later is not an option, or even if it actually is not an option. That is their problem, not mine. Shitty position for a spook to be in? They don't have any other options? So fucking what. They made their bed. Criticism of what they said should not be tempered just because you think it is the only think they could say.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  OK, but what about the question I asked? I get that you would never voluntarily go to work for the NSA, CIA, or similar, but my question is whether you think organizations like that should be allowed to exist at all, not whether you would choose to work there. I'm pointing out a practical limitation on what they can say arising of how such agencies function, you're talking about how they should feel about it on a personal level. I have no interest in how they feel about it as individuals.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    You are saying that they cannot release everything. I am saying that I don't care, I will still criticise them for a piss poor response even if that is all that they are capable of giving. If I require something of them that they cannot provide, I do not stop requiring it of them. If they cannot satisfy me, I will remain unsatisfied. I will not change my standards to accommodate them. I've answered your question now three times. Are you going to pretend not to hear me again?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      So basically you're just throwing a temper tantrum. It seems to me that your problem is with the way these organizations are constituted by law, but your reaction is to make moral criticisms of the individuals who work there and are trying to operate within the law. I think in this case that there are strong arguments for changing the law, but it seems utterly pointless to blame people for following it when that is what they are sworn to do.
- bane 13y ago
  oh the melodrama
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    What do you mean by this comment?
flyinRyan 13y ago
I don't know if the GP is saying that, but I certainly am. Perhaps it's naive but the problem is; the government simply can't be trusted with this level of power. Every time a government is giving these kind of powers they do something corrupt/evil with it. So better to not have it at all and face the consequences than to keep having shit storms like this current one popping up all the time. Full transparency in government, consequences be damned.