5 ms·

While most laws exist simultaneously in the distinct (and sometimes even contradictory) forms of statutes, rules, and operational norms, foreign intelligence la

by swombat 13y ago

While most laws exist simultaneously in the distinct (and sometimes even contradictory) forms of statutes, rules, and operational norms, foreign intelligence laws start out by necessity with fuzzy statutory foundations, and end by necessity with secret operational norms. This situation is indeed exacerbated by the DoD's (and, I suppose, FISC's) unwillingness to be clear about its rules and rulemaking process. Thomas - I can't help but feel that you're using words and definitions (aka splitting hairs) to defend something that should not be defended here. With enough effort, almost any unethical behaviour can be made to look justifiable given the circumstances, the complexity of the world, etc etc. In my experience, I've found that a much quicker test of ethics is using the incredibly powerful subconscious brain that we have evolved with, which allows us to make pretty quick decisions about issues of right and wrong. In this case, it's pretty clear which side is wrong and needs to be brought to task and examined more closely. In no way can you possibly suggest that the level of mass spying that the NSA/GCHQ are engaging in is on the right side of the ethical line in the sand and retain any credibility as... as a human being. As for the hair-splitting, I can engage in that too: > So, my refined question would be, in what sense does this executive branch have secret rules or norms that apply to the criminal justice system? Because the executive branch created the secret spying system and then allowed it to feed into the criminal justice system as a secret source of information. Whether or not they knew about the "parallel construction" (which I prefer to call "lying to the judge's face"), they were an essential element of it. Probably they knew, given how sensitive it is. Irrespective, though, these people have done nothing to earn your staunch support. Have they? It's not a case of innocent before proven guilty. First of all, we're talking about a state, not a person. Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.

tptacek 13y ago
This is an extremely disingenuous comment. It pretends that I'm making an argument in favor of dragnet surveillance, and pretends that it's inviting a discussion while at the same time asserting that it's impossible to come to any conclusion other than its own while "retaining credibility as a human being". Then it asserts a premise that isn't in the original article or in my comment and demands that I somehow justify it.
- scott_s 13y ago
  I agree, and I was equally troubled by it. In addition to the points you made, I am uncomfortable with the advice in it: feel your way through problems, don't think. I agree with the conclusion that the level of spying that is going on is wrong, but not with the means through which swombat said we should come to that conclusion.
  - swombat 13y ago
    Anyone who knows me knows I don't advise feeling your way through problems. However, when it comes to ethics, in the vast majority of cases, your gut judgement points in the right direction - at the very least in terms of deciding that there's something bad going on here that should be investigated further. It is impossible to honestly look at the facts we currently have and declare that the current state of affairs is not seriously fucked up and needing a lot of attention, transparency, and probably purging.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      Your gut feeling will simply let you realize when something doesn't line up with your predefined societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs. Relying on your gut as some universal ethical and moral thermometer is extremely flawed. There have been plenty of people throughout history that had no problem subjugating other people for their own gain, and I do not believe they all knew at some level that it was wrong and chose to ignore it. The point of both rational and passionate discussion is to change personal beliefs. If enough people are swayed, then changes in familial, cultural and societal beleif structures may follow. In other words, many people may implicitly trust the government, and their gut feeling may be that all is well.
      - swombat 13y ago
        Your gut feeling will simply let you realize when something doesn't line up with your predefined societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs. You do realise that this is exactly what our ethical and moral systems are based on, right? Ethics does not exist in a vacuum. It is a function of our societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs. Ultimately, no matter what rational argument you might make to yourself for (let's use an extreme example) killing an innocent person, taking their stuff, raping their daughters, hanging their sons, burning their village and drinking wine in their skull, you will feel that that's wrong, and you will avoid doing so if you can. Even if you were magically transported in some kind of viking environment where this is perfectly reasonable behaviour according to everyone around you, your moral compass, which comes from those beliefs that you have accrued and which largely define who you are, would (I hope) make you feel very bad about doing this, and it would take an enormous effort (or a deranged mind) to slip from the relatively civilised present into such an environment without any difficulty. Certainly there are people whose moral compass is totally fucked. Sociopaths/psychopaths come to mind. However, I am operating from the assumption that I am not one of those people. I can prove that to myself through simple observation of my life. There are certainly biases in the intuitive shortcut for ethics. As I pointed out before, it doesn't work well when the topic is very emotional (which I guess you could say surveillance can be for some). Also, as you rightly point out, it is not very adaptable to change. This merely means that when faced with a new situation, if you're not used to evolving your morals with the times, you need to make an extra effort to do so. By now, when faced with new things I tend to react first conservatively (I am but human), but then quickly by accepting that there are many good things in the world that I'm not aware of, and that difference or unfamiliarity are no reason to condemn. Intuition is a really powerful tool. I strongly encourage you to test its uses and limits for yourself, and see how you can get this amazing tool to work for you, rather than ignoring it and relying purely on analytical thinking that can be explained to others.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
In my experience, I've found that a much quicker test of ethics is using the incredibly powerful subconscious tool that we have evolved with (called our brain) I'm a little shocked to hear such a remark coming from you. You've historically been thoughtful. I can understand if you're just having a bad day, but there's nothing that could possibly be gained by talking down to someone like that. which allows us to make pretty quick decisions about issues of right and wrong Also, this second half is just nonsense. If you believe you're thinking for yourself, but your decisions about ethics are always quick, then you probably aren't. You're probably letting society's moral fashions determine your belief system for you.
- swombat 13y ago
  Re: "called our brain" - that was not actually meant to be an insult, but I can see how it could be read like that. I'll go and edit that out, as that was not the intention. Re: thinking methods - analytical thinking is not the only way to think effectively. Logic has its limits. I am loathe to shift the discussion to a meta-argument about thinking approaches. But here goes... It has been my experience that intuitive thinking can arrive at useful conclusions faster than analytical thinking. It is in fact the way that most people function (though I'm not defending it as a general approach) - by jumping to a conclusion and then rationalising it. However, in some cases, this intuitive thinking (described but not fully discussed in "Blink") can be useful. Blink itself gives a number of examples where it works. In my own experience, the areas where it is most effective are: - ethics: whilst I have on occasion changed my mind from my initial intuitive ethical stand, that has been rare and usually involved a shift in fundamental assumptions and world view, not just an argument. - judging people: in hiring, in particular, the few times I have hired someone that I didn't get a good feeling from almost instantly, I have regretted it. Same for dating and other people interactions. - business risk: while a good feeling is not sufficient to make a decision, getting a bad gut feeling about a business decision seems (across many successful entrepreneurs) to be a very good reason to pull out of a deal or other situation immediately without further discussion. I've certainly seen that in my experience too. There are other contexts - and also contexts where this kind of thinking definitely doesn't work, like relationships, for example, which are way too emotionally charged - but I think this will do for an HN comment.

by swombat 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

This is an extremely disingenuous comment. It pretends that I'm making an argument in favor of dragnet surveillance, and pretends that it's inviting a discussion while at the same time asserting that it's impossible to come to any conclusion other than its own while "retaining credibility as a human being". Then it asserts a premise that isn't in the original article or in my comment and demands that I somehow justify it.

scott_s 13y ago
I agree, and I was equally troubled by it. In addition to the points you made, I am uncomfortable with the advice in it: feel your way through problems, don't think. I agree with the conclusion that the level of spying that is going on is wrong, but not with the means through which swombat said we should come to that conclusion.
- swombat 13y ago
  Anyone who knows me knows I don't advise feeling your way through problems. However, when it comes to ethics, in the vast majority of cases, your gut judgement points in the right direction - at the very least in terms of deciding that there's something bad going on here that should be investigated further. It is impossible to honestly look at the facts we currently have and declare that the current state of affairs is not seriously fucked up and needing a lot of attention, transparency, and probably purging.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    Your gut feeling will simply let you realize when something doesn't line up with your predefined societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs. Relying on your gut as some universal ethical and moral thermometer is extremely flawed. There have been plenty of people throughout history that had no problem subjugating other people for their own gain, and I do not believe they all knew at some level that it was wrong and chose to ignore it. The point of both rational and passionate discussion is to change personal beliefs. If enough people are swayed, then changes in familial, cultural and societal beleif structures may follow. In other words, many people may implicitly trust the government, and their gut feeling may be that all is well.
    - swombat 13y ago
      Your gut feeling will simply let you realize when something doesn't line up with your predefined societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs. You do realise that this is exactly what our ethical and moral systems are based on, right? Ethics does not exist in a vacuum. It is a function of our societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs. Ultimately, no matter what rational argument you might make to yourself for (let's use an extreme example) killing an innocent person, taking their stuff, raping their daughters, hanging their sons, burning their village and drinking wine in their skull, you will feel that that's wrong, and you will avoid doing so if you can. Even if you were magically transported in some kind of viking environment where this is perfectly reasonable behaviour according to everyone around you, your moral compass, which comes from those beliefs that you have accrued and which largely define who you are, would (I hope) make you feel very bad about doing this, and it would take an enormous effort (or a deranged mind) to slip from the relatively civilised present into such an environment without any difficulty. Certainly there are people whose moral compass is totally fucked. Sociopaths/psychopaths come to mind. However, I am operating from the assumption that I am not one of those people. I can prove that to myself through simple observation of my life. There are certainly biases in the intuitive shortcut for ethics. As I pointed out before, it doesn't work well when the topic is very emotional (which I guess you could say surveillance can be for some). Also, as you rightly point out, it is not very adaptable to change. This merely means that when faced with a new situation, if you're not used to evolving your morals with the times, you need to make an extra effort to do so. By now, when faced with new things I tend to react first conservatively (I am but human), but then quickly by accepting that there are many good things in the world that I'm not aware of, and that difference or unfamiliarity are no reason to condemn. Intuition is a really powerful tool. I strongly encourage you to test its uses and limits for yourself, and see how you can get this amazing tool to work for you, rather than ignoring it and relying purely on analytical thinking that can be explained to others.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

In my experience, I've found that a much quicker test of ethics is using the incredibly powerful subconscious tool that we have evolved with (called our brain) I'm a little shocked to hear such a remark coming from you. You've historically been thoughtful. I can understand if you're just having a bad day, but there's nothing that could possibly be gained by talking down to someone like that. which allows us to make pretty quick decisions about issues of right and wrong Also, this second half is just nonsense. If you believe you're thinking for yourself, but your decisions about ethics are always quick, then you probably aren't. You're probably letting society's moral fashions determine your belief system for you.

swombat 13y ago
Re: "called our brain" - that was not actually meant to be an insult, but I can see how it could be read like that. I'll go and edit that out, as that was not the intention. Re: thinking methods - analytical thinking is not the only way to think effectively. Logic has its limits. I am loathe to shift the discussion to a meta-argument about thinking approaches. But here goes... It has been my experience that intuitive thinking can arrive at useful conclusions faster than analytical thinking. It is in fact the way that most people function (though I'm not defending it as a general approach) - by jumping to a conclusion and then rationalising it. However, in some cases, this intuitive thinking (described but not fully discussed in "Blink") can be useful. Blink itself gives a number of examples where it works. In my own experience, the areas where it is most effective are: - ethics: whilst I have on occasion changed my mind from my initial intuitive ethical stand, that has been rare and usually involved a shift in fundamental assumptions and world view, not just an argument. - judging people: in hiring, in particular, the few times I have hired someone that I didn't get a good feeling from almost instantly, I have regretted it. Same for dating and other people interactions. - business risk: while a good feeling is not sufficient to make a decision, getting a bad gut feeling about a business decision seems (across many successful entrepreneurs) to be a very good reason to pull out of a deal or other situation immediately without further discussion. I've certainly seen that in my experience too. There are other contexts - and also contexts where this kind of thinking definitely doesn't work, like relationships, for example, which are way too emotionally charged - but I think this will do for an HN comment.