5 ms·

Because falling on your sword, while noble and makes for great story-telling, is unnecessary. Requiring whistleblowers to fall on their own swords discourages w

Because falling on your sword, while noble and makes for great story-telling, is unnecessary. Requiring whistleblowers to fall on their own swords discourages whistleblowing, which as a society we've in the past explicitly spelled out as desirable behavior. tl;dr: If you punish desirable behavior, desirable behavior won't happen.

slg 13y ago
You are making the leap to assume there will be punishment (probably a fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). He isn't yet being forced to fall on his sword. The US hasn't sentenced him to death or life in prison. The US is simply trying to bring him back to face his charges.
- mixmax 13y ago
  charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. I think it's safe to assume there will be punishment if he is extradicted to the land of the free.
  - runeks 13y ago
    > charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. Could he really be sentenced to death? I'm not familiar with US law on the subject, so I'm curious. That really sounds scary :\
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 Death is a possibility, depending on what he is charged with, though given the nature of the case I'd personally doubt the government would pursue it. It is, however, within the realm of possibility, especially after he revealed the anti-Chinese hacking information.
- chc 13y ago
  "Prosecuted to the full extent of the law" cannot possibly mean anything but facing punishment. That's not really an assumption — it's right there in the thesis.
- adventured 13y ago
  It's not a leap, simply put. It's the only logical outcome if he is caught. The government has been extraordinarily clear what will happen to Snowden. When you have some of the most powerful politicians calling him a traitor, along with clear statements from the intelligence community on the matter, it's all beyond obvious.
jasonlotito 13y ago
But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? And that case could easily be made on Snowden if he shared certain information to select people and not the public (not saying he did, mind you, just demonstrating how easy it would be to cross that line). And do not mistake prosecution with guilt. On one hand, I'm glad he shared what he did, but I also fear what could happen should we blindly believe everything we are told, whether the person telling us is a member of the government, or a member of the government in a foreign country.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? Those who look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion. If you let someone else make that decision for you: if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? And if you are able, why not cut out the middleman?
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    I didn't mean so philosophically. I meant more practically. Unless you are suggesting a malicious spy leaking secrets to the enemy should only be treated like a whistleblower, which I seriously doubt is the case. > If you let someone else make that decision for you... Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments). If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy? And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud. > if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)
thufry 13y ago
Whistleblowing is a desirable behavior only in certain situations, and the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is one that is made on a case-by-case basis and open to reasonable debate in many cases. Snowden seems to be really treading quite heavily in this grey area with his disclosures of US cyberattacks on Chinese targets. Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
- betterunix 13y ago
  The distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is pretty clear. Espionage is done covertly for the benefit of a foreign power. Whistleblowing is done overtly and for the benefit of the public. You would have to be using a pretty stretched definition of "espionage" (like the one the US government uses) to think it has anything to do with whistleblowing.
  - thufry 13y ago
    Cut-and-dried espionage isn't a grey area. It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess. If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War? In each case, the answer is not obvious -- the reason that leaking classified information is such a serious crime is that there are extreme, permanent costs to making the "wrong" decision.
    - shadowfox 13y ago
      > It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess I think that is what the OP is exhorting you to access for yourself.
      - thufry 13y ago
        I can decide for myself, but by going public, a whistleblower decides for everyone.

slg 13y ago

You are making the leap to assume there will be punishment (probably a fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). He isn't yet being forced to fall on his sword. The US hasn't sentenced him to death or life in prison. The US is simply trying to bring him back to face his charges.

mixmax 13y ago
charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. I think it's safe to assume there will be punishment if he is extradicted to the land of the free.
- runeks 13y ago
  > charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. Could he really be sentenced to death? I'm not familiar with US law on the subject, so I'm curious. That really sounds scary :\
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 Death is a possibility, depending on what he is charged with, though given the nature of the case I'd personally doubt the government would pursue it. It is, however, within the realm of possibility, especially after he revealed the anti-Chinese hacking information.
chc 13y ago
"Prosecuted to the full extent of the law" cannot possibly mean anything but facing punishment. That's not really an assumption — it's right there in the thesis.
adventured 13y ago
It's not a leap, simply put. It's the only logical outcome if he is caught. The government has been extraordinarily clear what will happen to Snowden. When you have some of the most powerful politicians calling him a traitor, along with clear statements from the intelligence community on the matter, it's all beyond obvious.

jasonlotito 13y ago

But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? And that case could easily be made on Snowden if he shared certain information to select people and not the public (not saying he did, mind you, just demonstrating how easy it would be to cross that line). And do not mistake prosecution with guilt. On one hand, I'm glad he shared what he did, but I also fear what could happen should we blindly believe everything we are told, whether the person telling us is a member of the government, or a member of the government in a foreign country.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? Those who look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion. If you let someone else make that decision for you: if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? And if you are able, why not cut out the middleman?
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  I didn't mean so philosophically. I meant more practically. Unless you are suggesting a malicious spy leaking secrets to the enemy should only be treated like a whistleblower, which I seriously doubt is the case. > If you let someone else make that decision for you... Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments). If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy? And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud. > if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)

thufry 13y ago

Whistleblowing is a desirable behavior only in certain situations, and the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is one that is made on a case-by-case basis and open to reasonable debate in many cases. Snowden seems to be really treading quite heavily in this grey area with his disclosures of US cyberattacks on Chinese targets. Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.

betterunix 13y ago
The distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is pretty clear. Espionage is done covertly for the benefit of a foreign power. Whistleblowing is done overtly and for the benefit of the public. You would have to be using a pretty stretched definition of "espionage" (like the one the US government uses) to think it has anything to do with whistleblowing.
- thufry 13y ago
  Cut-and-dried espionage isn't a grey area. It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess. If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War? In each case, the answer is not obvious -- the reason that leaking classified information is such a serious crime is that there are extreme, permanent costs to making the "wrong" decision.
  - shadowfox 13y ago
    > It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess I think that is what the OP is exhorting you to access for yourself.
    - thufry 13y ago
      I can decide for myself, but by going public, a whistleblower decides for everyone.