6 ms·

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-cas

by 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.
  - chc 13y ago
    > 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? Those things aren't being done to the public. Cripes, man.
    - thufry 13y ago
      Something doesn't have to be done to an individual directly for that action to strongly influence that person's life. The Union victory in the Civil War, to this day, influences the average American's life much more than PRISM. All actions with wide-ranging lasting consequences are "done to the public."
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      Network intrusions in China weren't done against the U.S. public either, but Snowden disclosed that publicly.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        Attacks against civilian infrastructure, like hospitals. "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII ) If someone does something in your name and with your money that you would be ashamed to do yourself, how is that not an attack on you? Honest question.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
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. Yes, and? What difference would there be? The civilians in some third world village would have time to run to the hills, and the US would still get to drop their bombs and use their drones, and weapons and arms manufacturers would still get to supply them. They make just as much money wether they blow up empty space or people, after all. Sure, it would stem the flow of convenient terrorists which provide the pretext for the fireworks, but you could have undercover operatives do that, and since those also have to get paid by tax payers, it would be a net win -- even more money would be magically generated and trickle down to everybody, yay! We would all move from rich to mega rich, so yes, I would want to make that case, absolutely.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > but you could have undercover operatives do that No, you couldn't.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Even then, it's not like actual "bad guys only" are needed, only the public perception in enough people that they exist. There are many avenues to explore here, think big? You kinda have to; it's a trillion dollar industry, it doesn't take no for an answer.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      Yeah, but now we are in the world of fantasy. I really can't speculate there.
- thufry 13y ago
  Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? Classified information is necessary when dealing with a hostile force that keeps classified information of its own. It's a lot easier to claim that "Information X should be public" than it is to make a blanket claim that "All information should be public."

by thufry 13y ago

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.
- chc 13y ago
  > 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? Those things aren't being done to the public. Cripes, man.
  - thufry 13y ago
    Something doesn't have to be done to an individual directly for that action to strongly influence that person's life. The Union victory in the Civil War, to this day, influences the average American's life much more than PRISM. All actions with wide-ranging lasting consequences are "done to the public."
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Network intrusions in China weren't done against the U.S. public either, but Snowden disclosed that publicly.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Attacks against civilian infrastructure, like hospitals. "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII ) If someone does something in your name and with your money that you would be ashamed to do yourself, how is that not an attack on you? Honest question.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

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. Yes, and? What difference would there be? The civilians in some third world village would have time to run to the hills, and the US would still get to drop their bombs and use their drones, and weapons and arms manufacturers would still get to supply them. They make just as much money wether they blow up empty space or people, after all. Sure, it would stem the flow of convenient terrorists which provide the pretext for the fireworks, but you could have undercover operatives do that, and since those also have to get paid by tax payers, it would be a net win -- even more money would be magically generated and trickle down to everybody, yay! We would all move from rich to mega rich, so yes, I would want to make that case, absolutely.

jasonlotito 13y ago
> but you could have undercover operatives do that No, you couldn't.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Even then, it's not like actual "bad guys only" are needed, only the public perception in enough people that they exist. There are many avenues to explore here, think big? You kinda have to; it's a trillion dollar industry, it doesn't take no for an answer.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Yeah, but now we are in the world of fantasy. I really can't speculate there.
thufry 13y ago
Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? Classified information is necessary when dealing with a hostile force that keeps classified information of its own. It's a lot easier to claim that "Information X should be public" than it is to make a blanket claim that "All information should be public."