4 ms·

Government Secrets and the Need for Whistle-blowers

273 points by Libertatea 13y ago

noerps 13y ago
Even if we are hyping or sensationalizing this topic, current behavior is a very good indicator for future behavior.
carbocation 13y ago
This is a big, bold article worth reading in its entirety. He does not shy away from taking a very strong stance. Here is one paragraph that stood out: "Whistle-blowing is the moral response to immoral activity by those in power. What's important here are government programs and methods, not data about individuals. I understand I am asking for people to engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely, but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret and probably illegal programs -- do it."
znowi 13y ago
I'd like to quote this part: I understand I am asking for people to engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely, but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret and probably illegal programs -- do it. In the heat of our anger against anything government and secretive, it's easy to forget about common people who work there and I believe more than one feel that what they do may be morally unjust. It's not a comfortable position to be in. And greatly so for anyone deciding to speak up. They make a great deal of sacrifice and I, as a citizen, am immensely thankful to them.
- thisone 13y ago
  My problem with encouraging people to break the law is that they can delude themselves into believing that there will be no consequences to them personally. No matter how right you are to break the law, you will still have to face the consequences. If someone is going to martyr themselves for their beliefs, I sure as hell hope they have a damn good team of lawyers behind them.
euroclydon 13y ago
If the NSA were not building an enormous computing facility in Utah, we could rightly accuse them of being incompetent. The government requested three months of Verizon's phone records right after the Boston bombing, not right after say, a derogatory article was published on Michelle Obama. The government's actions must be viewed in light of the law enforcement agencies continuous drive to use technology to solve crimes and catch perpetrators. Most people celebrate this when they watch the CSI TV shows. Consider how DNA technology has made it more efficient to convict murderers, and how DNA has exonerated people on death row. Now consider how many people are eliminated as potential murder suspects because an early DNA screen clears then and consider how many people are eliminated as potential suspects in other crimes because their phone records put them in another place -- now I know that's a two edge sword, but technology is more illuminating and less bias than eye-witness testimony.
- josh2600 13y ago
  Hey I've got an idea! Why don't we all register with the government at birth and provide tissue samples each year to verify our identity. Better yet, let's all wear ankle tracking devices or even better still just embed them in the back of babies necks Matrix-style. These kinds of dragnets suck, for more reasons than I care to admit. The fallacy of your argument is the idea that catching a few bad apples justifies the good ones that get caught in the same net. The people on CSI have due process, few of the NSAs targets will ever see their day in court. Technology is neutral. Its application is decidedly not.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceautery 13y ago
    We do register with the government at birth.
    - josh2600 13y ago
      But you hardly provide tissue samples as you age. Your point has little to do with my argument :/. Registration at birth is a choice we made because of the social values of planning. It's unlikely that those same people, as adults, would consent to yearly tissue exchange or other undignified spying apparati.
ceautery 13y ago
I tend to take the opposite of the popular HN view on security issues (to my karmatic dismay), but... "our government regularly classifies things not because they need to be secret, but because their release would be embarrassing." - Agreed. "but the U.S. government seems to have successfully destroyed it {wikileaks} as a platform." - Agreed. I don't agree, though, that you should put yourself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support. I also don't agree that the government shouldn't pursue programs like this. If popular fiction is to be believed, crime is predictable, and the magic answer to finding malicious people is there in the Internet, if we have a superhacker who can bang randomly on a keyboard while making Trekkie-sounding soliloquies. I say eh, let them have a go at it. Because it will ultimately fail to give the desired results, just as airport body scanners have failed to find badguys, just as DHS security checkpoints have failed. Nothing will replace regular brownshoe investigation, and no brave action on the part of individuals will fix our tendency to build corrupt governments who abuse power. No, Bruce, I'm going to take care of my family by not being sent to jail, rather than be a martyr to the doomed cause of dismantling the government's ability to use the net to spy on us.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Well, I do not object to your decision. However, I really do think one has a moral obligation to put oneself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support, provided there is a reasonable gravity. That means: it depends on your (conscience) valuation of both risk & moral gravity. Schneier is stating his view: the defense of the Rule of Law in this case is grave enough to put yourself (and even your family) at risk. There are many people who have done this (and in the States there are quite a few). But as with moral decisions, I shall not judge you. However, I also am with Bruce in this. The Rule of Law is more important than you & your family. When you think of the USSR, you may get to shocking conclusions.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I disagree with the thought that one has a moral obligation to do something about something you find immoral. What argument would you put forth to defend such a statement?
squozzer 13y ago
I for one have trouble egging-on whistleblowers not because of what they do, but because I have no effective way to back them up.

273 points by Libertatea 13y ago

Even if we are hyping or sensationalizing this topic, current behavior is a very good indicator for future behavior.

This is a big, bold article worth reading in its entirety. He does not shy away from taking a very strong stance. Here is one paragraph that stood out: "Whistle-blowing is the moral response to immoral activity by those in power. What's important here are government programs and methods, not data about individuals. I understand I am asking for people to engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely, but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret and probably illegal programs -- do it."

znowi 13y ago

I'd like to quote this part: I understand I am asking for people to engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely, but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret and probably illegal programs -- do it. In the heat of our anger against anything government and secretive, it's easy to forget about common people who work there and I believe more than one feel that what they do may be morally unjust. It's not a comfortable position to be in. And greatly so for anyone deciding to speak up. They make a great deal of sacrifice and I, as a citizen, am immensely thankful to them.

thisone 13y ago
My problem with encouraging people to break the law is that they can delude themselves into believing that there will be no consequences to them personally. No matter how right you are to break the law, you will still have to face the consequences. If someone is going to martyr themselves for their beliefs, I sure as hell hope they have a damn good team of lawyers behind them.

euroclydon 13y ago

If the NSA were not building an enormous computing facility in Utah, we could rightly accuse them of being incompetent. The government requested three months of Verizon's phone records right after the Boston bombing, not right after say, a derogatory article was published on Michelle Obama. The government's actions must be viewed in light of the law enforcement agencies continuous drive to use technology to solve crimes and catch perpetrators. Most people celebrate this when they watch the CSI TV shows. Consider how DNA technology has made it more efficient to convict murderers, and how DNA has exonerated people on death row. Now consider how many people are eliminated as potential murder suspects because an early DNA screen clears then and consider how many people are eliminated as potential suspects in other crimes because their phone records put them in another place -- now I know that's a two edge sword, but technology is more illuminating and less bias than eye-witness testimony.

josh2600 13y ago
Hey I've got an idea! Why don't we all register with the government at birth and provide tissue samples each year to verify our identity. Better yet, let's all wear ankle tracking devices or even better still just embed them in the back of babies necks Matrix-style. These kinds of dragnets suck, for more reasons than I care to admit. The fallacy of your argument is the idea that catching a few bad apples justifies the good ones that get caught in the same net. The people on CSI have due process, few of the NSAs targets will ever see their day in court. Technology is neutral. Its application is decidedly not.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ceautery 13y ago
  We do register with the government at birth.
  - josh2600 13y ago
    But you hardly provide tissue samples as you age. Your point has little to do with my argument :/. Registration at birth is a choice we made because of the social values of planning. It's unlikely that those same people, as adults, would consent to yearly tissue exchange or other undignified spying apparati.

ceautery 13y ago

I tend to take the opposite of the popular HN view on security issues (to my karmatic dismay), but... "our government regularly classifies things not because they need to be secret, but because their release would be embarrassing." - Agreed. "but the U.S. government seems to have successfully destroyed it {wikileaks} as a platform." - Agreed. I don't agree, though, that you should put yourself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support. I also don't agree that the government shouldn't pursue programs like this. If popular fiction is to be believed, crime is predictable, and the magic answer to finding malicious people is there in the Internet, if we have a superhacker who can bang randomly on a keyboard while making Trekkie-sounding soliloquies. I say eh, let them have a go at it. Because it will ultimately fail to give the desired results, just as airport body scanners have failed to find badguys, just as DHS security checkpoints have failed. Nothing will replace regular brownshoe investigation, and no brave action on the part of individuals will fix our tendency to build corrupt governments who abuse power. No, Bruce, I'm going to take care of my family by not being sent to jail, rather than be a martyr to the doomed cause of dismantling the government's ability to use the net to spy on us.

pfortuny 13y ago
Well, I do not object to your decision. However, I really do think one has a moral obligation to put oneself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support, provided there is a reasonable gravity. That means: it depends on your (conscience) valuation of both risk & moral gravity. Schneier is stating his view: the defense of the Rule of Law in this case is grave enough to put yourself (and even your family) at risk. There are many people who have done this (and in the States there are quite a few). But as with moral decisions, I shall not judge you. However, I also am with Bruce in this. The Rule of Law is more important than you & your family. When you think of the USSR, you may get to shocking conclusions.
- diminoten 13y ago
  I disagree with the thought that one has a moral obligation to do something about something you find immoral. What argument would you put forth to defend such a statement?

squozzer 13y ago

I for one have trouble egging-on whistleblowers not because of what they do, but because I have no effective way to back them up.