4 ms·

Can you please explain?

by sounds 11y ago

ncallaway 11y ago
If I had to summarize tptacek's argument it would be something along the lines of: 1) Assumption: A pardon of Snowden is only appropriate if the upsides of the leak outweigh the downsides of the leak. 2) We don't know the full downside of the leaks (since that requires knowledge of the future) [1] 3) Therefore, the potential exists for the downside of the leaks to outweigh the upside. 4) Therefore, we shouldn't offer to pardon him yet as we don't know it's appropriate. The conclusion of the argument relates only to the decision on whether to extend a pardon to Snowden. We don't need to make a presumption of innocence or guilt when deciding to offer a pardon to someone. There is no right to a pardon, and no right to be considered for a pardon. These decisions are the prerogative of the President (for federal crimes). Calling his argument "guilty until proven innocent" would only be a fair assessment of his argument if tptacek was advocating for punishing Snowden before a trial court and jury determine his guilt. [1] As an aside, I don't see how this statement could ever become false — at least for time scales that would be relevant to offering relief to Snowden.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Yup. Thanks!
  - sneak 11y ago
    Could you please share with us your idea of one of these potentially damaging downsides? I personally am of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets. I fail to see any downsides that the release of any of this data might cause. There are lots that could damage US intelligence gathering, but I don't see that as a downside at all. Spying should be hard, as every human is entitled to private communications, even the ones born outside of our imaginary invisible lines we call USA NUMBER ONE.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I am not of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets, so there's probably no productive conversation to have on this topic.
      - sneak 11y ago
        I said in the same breath that I fail to see any downsides that the release of this data could cause. Perhaps my views change with additional thoughts and ideas, which is why I asked for yours.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      A direct democracy is not entitled to secrets. But a democratic republic can agree to delegate secrets to a capable representative. The representative would then be responsible for determining whether the public would be better served by keeping a secret or disclosing it. Of course, if the public cannot have effective oversight over its representatives, it's not a democratic republic any more, but an oligarchic or aristocratic republic, and the representatives are acting on behalf of the elites rather than the general public.
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      Just as a quick disclosure of my personal opinion: I'm of the belief that Snowden's disclosures were reasonably well managed, and a net good for society. I wouldn't advocate for a pardon of Snowden, but I do think the current charges against him should be dropped. > "I personally am of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets" While I think the government absolutely has abused its privilege to hold secrets from the public, I think it's pretty clear that the government is entitled to some secrets. Information that — if disclosed — would lead to a clear and present dangers to specific individuals seems like a clear-cut case of reasonable government secrets. Some examples of this: * The names of police officers working undercover-cases and the names of their targets * Specific troop position and movements in a time-frame that would allow a reasonable adversary to extrapolate current positions (e.g. information from 10 years ago is not necessarily relevant) * The names of targets of ongoing criminal investigations Some examples of things that I think are inappropriate uses of government secrets: * The legal-justification of some FISC rulings * The legal-interpretations of government attorneys that support ongoing government actions * A high level overview of information that the government captures on its citizens (who have no suspicion of criminal activity). > "I fail to see any downsides that the release of any of this data might cause." I think it's very likely that the data that Snowden leaked to responsible journalists contained the names of undercover agents in the field. If one of the journalists irresponsibly leaked these names it could easily be responsible for the deaths of those agents. I don't think this is likely, as I think the journalists that Snowden leaked his documents to have been — on the whole — fairly responsible. However, it is certainly a potential downside of the leak.

Can you please explain?

by sounds 11y ago

Can you please explain?

If I had to summarize tptacek's argument it would be something along the lines of: 1) Assumption: A pardon of Snowden is only appropriate if the upsides of the leak outweigh the downsides of the leak. 2) We don't know the full downside of the leaks (since that requires knowledge of the future) [1] 3) Therefore, the potential exists for the downside of the leaks to outweigh the upside. 4) Therefore, we shouldn't offer to pardon him yet as we don't know it's appropriate. The conclusion of the argument relates only to the decision on whether to extend a pardon to Snowden. We don't need to make a presumption of innocence or guilt when deciding to offer a pardon to someone. There is no right to a pardon, and no right to be considered for a pardon. These decisions are the prerogative of the President (for federal crimes). Calling his argument "guilty until proven innocent" would only be a fair assessment of his argument if tptacek was advocating for punishing Snowden before a trial court and jury determine his guilt. [1] As an aside, I don't see how this statement could ever become false — at least for time scales that would be relevant to offering relief to Snowden.

tptacek 11y ago
Yup. Thanks!
- sneak 11y ago
  Could you please share with us your idea of one of these potentially damaging downsides? I personally am of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets. I fail to see any downsides that the release of any of this data might cause. There are lots that could damage US intelligence gathering, but I don't see that as a downside at all. Spying should be hard, as every human is entitled to private communications, even the ones born outside of our imaginary invisible lines we call USA NUMBER ONE.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I am not of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets, so there's probably no productive conversation to have on this topic.
    - sneak 11y ago
      I said in the same breath that I fail to see any downsides that the release of this data could cause. Perhaps my views change with additional thoughts and ideas, which is why I asked for yours.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    A direct democracy is not entitled to secrets. But a democratic republic can agree to delegate secrets to a capable representative. The representative would then be responsible for determining whether the public would be better served by keeping a secret or disclosing it. Of course, if the public cannot have effective oversight over its representatives, it's not a democratic republic any more, but an oligarchic or aristocratic republic, and the representatives are acting on behalf of the elites rather than the general public.
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    Just as a quick disclosure of my personal opinion: I'm of the belief that Snowden's disclosures were reasonably well managed, and a net good for society. I wouldn't advocate for a pardon of Snowden, but I do think the current charges against him should be dropped. > "I personally am of the belief that the government is entitled to zero secrets" While I think the government absolutely has abused its privilege to hold secrets from the public, I think it's pretty clear that the government is entitled to some secrets. Information that — if disclosed — would lead to a clear and present dangers to specific individuals seems like a clear-cut case of reasonable government secrets. Some examples of this: * The names of police officers working undercover-cases and the names of their targets * Specific troop position and movements in a time-frame that would allow a reasonable adversary to extrapolate current positions (e.g. information from 10 years ago is not necessarily relevant) * The names of targets of ongoing criminal investigations Some examples of things that I think are inappropriate uses of government secrets: * The legal-justification of some FISC rulings * The legal-interpretations of government attorneys that support ongoing government actions * A high level overview of information that the government captures on its citizens (who have no suspicion of criminal activity). > "I fail to see any downsides that the release of any of this data might cause." I think it's very likely that the data that Snowden leaked to responsible journalists contained the names of undercover agents in the field. If one of the journalists irresponsibly leaked these names it could easily be responsible for the deaths of those agents. I don't think this is likely, as I think the journalists that Snowden leaked his documents to have been — on the whole — fairly responsible. However, it is certainly a potential downside of the leak.