4 ms·

Yes, if what you reveal is unethical but legal. Laws are not handed down from the heavens; laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (polit

Yes, if what you reveal is unethical but legal. Laws are not handed down from the heavens; laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians), and can easily become disconnected from morality.

mpyne 13y ago
The better question is: Are you a whistleblower in a legal sense if what you reveal is legal? The government doesn't operate on unicorns and happy thoughts, it operates on the law. It's the job of the people to elect representatives such that the law conforms as much as possible to unicorns and happy thoughts.
- shawnz 13y ago
  Yes (or at least, possibly). > A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Source: http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Looking up the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 [1] even more closely, it appears it won't apply to Snowden here. If the material is protected from disclosure by law or E.O. (like this was) then you can only report it to the Office of Special Counsel or the agency I.G. and receive whistleblower protection. It's in fact arguable that things like PRISM even violated any of those provisions, which makes it risky (on a legal basis) to leak even if he wasn't in the intelligence community. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8SiB7:e10062 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8S...:
    - rdl 13y ago
      There is a difference between full protection (not being allowed to be fired) and not being convicted for 25-life under espionage act. It would be insane to retain Snowden in his former role. He is an untrustworthy SCIF sysadmin. He might be worthwhile in the IG office or some public facing role, but I am fine if he is fired, clearance revoked, etc pre trial, even if his disclosures ultimately are positive and lead to legal changes and he isn't convicted.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Good point, though that does make me wonder if he might have technically fallen under Whistleblower Protection (technically an HR thing) and still been liable to imprisonment based on the Espionage Act. Seems weird they'd be orthogonal, but then we're in a weird situation.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians) Your argument is flawed, because you're mistaking your personal opinions for fact and then trying to build logical arguments on them. Politicians are people, they're not 'a notoriously corrupt set of human beings' distinct from the normal mass of humanity.
- trobertson 13y ago
  Even disregarding the corruption part, his point still stands. Laws are made by people. People are not infallible. People make mistakes. It is therefore obvious that there is potential for bad and unjust laws. Adding in the corruption part, you can then see that there is potential for laws and policies that are purposefully unjust.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Of course there is! My objection is that he starts from the premise that politicians are inherently evil.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      It's a fact that politicians are more notorious for corruption than the average person. But even ignoring that, his argument does not depend on politicians being more evil than the average person. You're seeing a fatal flaw where there is only a molehill.

mpyne 13y ago

The better question is: Are you a whistleblower in a legal sense if what you reveal is legal? The government doesn't operate on unicorns and happy thoughts, it operates on the law. It's the job of the people to elect representatives such that the law conforms as much as possible to unicorns and happy thoughts.

shawnz 13y ago
Yes (or at least, possibly). > A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Source: http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm
- mpyne 13y ago
  Looking up the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 [1] even more closely, it appears it won't apply to Snowden here. If the material is protected from disclosure by law or E.O. (like this was) then you can only report it to the Office of Special Counsel or the agency I.G. and receive whistleblower protection. It's in fact arguable that things like PRISM even violated any of those provisions, which makes it risky (on a legal basis) to leak even if he wasn't in the intelligence community. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8SiB7:e10062 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8S...:
  - rdl 13y ago
    There is a difference between full protection (not being allowed to be fired) and not being convicted for 25-life under espionage act. It would be insane to retain Snowden in his former role. He is an untrustworthy SCIF sysadmin. He might be worthwhile in the IG office or some public facing role, but I am fine if he is fired, clearance revoked, etc pre trial, even if his disclosures ultimately are positive and lead to legal changes and he isn't convicted.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Good point, though that does make me wonder if he might have technically fallen under Whistleblower Protection (technically an HR thing) and still been liable to imprisonment based on the Espionage Act. Seems weird they'd be orthogonal, but then we're in a weird situation.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 13y ago

laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians) Your argument is flawed, because you're mistaking your personal opinions for fact and then trying to build logical arguments on them. Politicians are people, they're not 'a notoriously corrupt set of human beings' distinct from the normal mass of humanity.

trobertson 13y ago
Even disregarding the corruption part, his point still stands. Laws are made by people. People are not infallible. People make mistakes. It is therefore obvious that there is potential for bad and unjust laws. Adding in the corruption part, you can then see that there is potential for laws and policies that are purposefully unjust.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Of course there is! My objection is that he starts from the premise that politicians are inherently evil.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    It's a fact that politicians are more notorious for corruption than the average person. But even ignoring that, his argument does not depend on politicians being more evil than the average person. You're seeing a fatal flaw where there is only a molehill.