3 ms·

I don't see what everyone is so shocked by. Sensitive government information is in the wild. The government is using laws in place to try to limit the exposur

I don't see what everyone is so shocked by. Sensitive government information is in the wild. The government is using laws in place to try to limit the exposure of said sensitive data. Personally I don't think that journalists are the ones who should have final say over what information should and should not be exposed. Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, I don't see what is so revolting about this whole development. Journalist is thought to have very sensitive information about leading world powers. Leading world powers want information on who has the data, where it's been released, and want to limit further exposure. You want to be a journalist involved in releasing government top secret information? This is what you have to be ready to deal with. As a journalist, you're not above the law either. To be clear, I'm not saying the government is always right either, I'm saying that the government is just doing what it's job is: keep top secret information from reaching sensitive hands.

sophacles 13y ago
And therein lies the real problem. Very few (possibly none) people think "I will subvert and subjugate the entire populace in evil oppressive ways for my own power". Rather they think "I truly believe my job is important and this is what's best". The SWAT teams that destroy a peaceful organic farm in Texas are just doing their job to collect evidence according to a warrant. There may be a little petty "fucking hippies attitude" in there, but they aren't thinking "lets scare everyone from ever trying to have a nice big garden again". The police commander/cheif/whatever isn't thinking "lets make sure to cause as much damage as possible", they are thinking "lets do this safely and decisively, criminals need to be shown there is no point in crime". The prosecutor and judge aren't thinking "hey oppressing is fun!" they are thinking "we need to live under the rule of law, lets make sure that happens", and that is just their job. Hell even the people who vote for laws and representatives are thinking "this really is the best way to keep crime down and keep people from trashing the nice places we're trying to make here. The intelligence apparatus is the same. Sure they are just doing their job to get material labeled as sensitive back under control. They really think it's dangerous for it to be out there. The people who label it such are truly under the impression that it is dangerous to the country they protect for it to be widely known. The people who build the gathering apparatus truly believe it won't be abused. The abusers themselves aren't looking at it and saying "oh subjugate subjugate subjugate!" They are saying "I know my motives are pure - a little abuse of means is less important than the noble end.". The bad ones are not saying "fuck the people, they are an impediment". They are saying "I can get my own position bettered by ignoring one little rule". They say " My primary goal is personal gain, this twisty interpretation gives me that, and besides - it's legal in that light, so why is it bad?" It's a death by a thousand cuts - the slow erosion of OK action by a large number of distributed players playing for their own gain. The agency of a group (a conspiracy) is not needed - and in fact would be better - it's easier to target and stop. The people who aren't abusers can't imagine the little abuses that would arise - they say "but it won't be used that way, it's absurd!" Think of it like engineering a system: the security people fight their own engineering teams as much as they fight the "bad guys". They hear regularly "why would anyone think to do that?" "how could someone know that to abuse it?" "I can't imagine anyone going to such trouble for my little bit" and on and on. It's difficult to make people who aren't used to thinking and seeing it realize that such things happen all the time. Human systems and rules aren't any different. This is what we need to focus on - closing the holes, fighting the little abuses, and generally making things overall better, rather than looking for the big conspiracies that may not even exist (because they don't actually need to).
jccc 13y ago
"One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda" [note: using a clear abuse of a terrorism law] "was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks." http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-forced-guardian-destroy-copy-snowden-material-222933670.html http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-forced-guardian-destroy-cop... It should be obvious to all of us how futile it is to destroy those hard drives if the goal is merely to limit exposure. We may reasonably assume this is just as obvious to people making decisions in those intelligence agencies, which ought to give you a big clue about the real intent of actions like these.

sophacles 13y ago

And therein lies the real problem. Very few (possibly none) people think "I will subvert and subjugate the entire populace in evil oppressive ways for my own power". Rather they think "I truly believe my job is important and this is what's best". The SWAT teams that destroy a peaceful organic farm in Texas are just doing their job to collect evidence according to a warrant. There may be a little petty "fucking hippies attitude" in there, but they aren't thinking "lets scare everyone from ever trying to have a nice big garden again". The police commander/cheif/whatever isn't thinking "lets make sure to cause as much damage as possible", they are thinking "lets do this safely and decisively, criminals need to be shown there is no point in crime". The prosecutor and judge aren't thinking "hey oppressing is fun!" they are thinking "we need to live under the rule of law, lets make sure that happens", and that is just their job. Hell even the people who vote for laws and representatives are thinking "this really is the best way to keep crime down and keep people from trashing the nice places we're trying to make here. The intelligence apparatus is the same. Sure they are just doing their job to get material labeled as sensitive back under control. They really think it's dangerous for it to be out there. The people who label it such are truly under the impression that it is dangerous to the country they protect for it to be widely known. The people who build the gathering apparatus truly believe it won't be abused. The abusers themselves aren't looking at it and saying "oh subjugate subjugate subjugate!" They are saying "I know my motives are pure - a little abuse of means is less important than the noble end.". The bad ones are not saying "fuck the people, they are an impediment". They are saying "I can get my own position bettered by ignoring one little rule". They say " My primary goal is personal gain, this twisty interpretation gives me that, and besides - it's legal in that light, so why is it bad?" It's a death by a thousand cuts - the slow erosion of OK action by a large number of distributed players playing for their own gain. The agency of a group (a conspiracy) is not needed - and in fact would be better - it's easier to target and stop. The people who aren't abusers can't imagine the little abuses that would arise - they say "but it won't be used that way, it's absurd!" Think of it like engineering a system: the security people fight their own engineering teams as much as they fight the "bad guys". They hear regularly "why would anyone think to do that?" "how could someone know that to abuse it?" "I can't imagine anyone going to such trouble for my little bit" and on and on. It's difficult to make people who aren't used to thinking and seeing it realize that such things happen all the time. Human systems and rules aren't any different. This is what we need to focus on - closing the holes, fighting the little abuses, and generally making things overall better, rather than looking for the big conspiracies that may not even exist (because they don't actually need to).

jccc 13y ago

"One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda" [note: using a clear abuse of a terrorism law] "was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks." http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-forced-guardian-destroy-copy-snowden-material-222933670.html http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-forced-guardian-destroy-cop... It should be obvious to all of us how futile it is to destroy those hard drives if the goal is merely to limit exposure. We may reasonably assume this is just as obvious to people making decisions in those intelligence agencies, which ought to give you a big clue about the real intent of actions like these.