4 ms·

There are many reasons favouring disclosure of this information, but is offering to buy the information really the best approach here? The public officials who

There are many reasons favouring disclosure of this information, but is offering to buy the information really the best approach here? The public officials who possess the information are likely bound by legal duties not to disclose it to those not entitled to see it. If an official chooses to leak confidential information in the public interest, that may be one thing, but selling confidential information for personal financial gain is corrupt conduct. To be fair to WikiLeaks, they describe the money as a "reward" for turning over the missing chapters, and do not overtly say they are looking to buy, but it seems to come awfully close to offering a financial inducement to break the law. The only people who have the information are those who are bound not to reveal it or who should never have had it in the first place.

kauffj 11y ago
The individual who leaks this information is doing so for the public good. Why not also allow them to be compensated for assuming that risk?
- scuba7183 11y ago
  How do you know they're not leaking it for the cash?
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    Why do we care, so long as the leak is accurate and - therefore - public well-being is achieved?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Because the leak may not end up being really accurate; when the contribution is done for cash and not out of care for public well-being, then all bets are off.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  You generally don't want to do this, because it perverts the incentives. When you offer cash for something that should be done out of some sense of morality, you turn it from a terminal value ("I do this because I want it to be done") into an instrumental value ("I don't care about this but I do it because I want the reward"). You'll start getting much more noise with the signal because of various "entrepreneurs" who smell the occasion for a quick buck. There's ton of psychological/sociological research which shows that people generally get funny in the head when you substitute social incentives for economic ones.
robotkilla 11y ago
Break the law or break a contract? (honest question)
- jamesk_au 11y ago
  It could be either depending on the person and how they came into possession of the information. Government officials likely have statutory duties prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information learned during the course of their duties (hence possibility of corruption once you start offering money), while others who are not strictly government officials may have signed the equivalent of a binding NDA and be under a relevant contractual obligation. A person who is neither an official nor a contractor but who nevertheless received the information knowing it was confidential and that it ought to be kept confidential might also be held by a court to be subject to an equitable obligation of confidence, which is different again.
harry8 11y ago
All this "break the law" stuff like the rule of law is still a player in any of this. Clapper says it is and everyone pisses themselves laughing. Holder says it is and yeah, same deal. The people vs $25,000 so the police can keep it with no charges laid. Patraeus wasn't economically uninvolved with the sales of his hagiography where he did all that leaking but they had an inconsequential show-trial where he got off with nothing for him - let that be a lesson. And how do we know he did that? His email was illegally hacked, without a warrant by the FBI - who's building is still named after J. Edgar Hoover who was as criminal as anyone has ever been (Aside from being a cross dresser who liked to bash homosexuals for fun and his attempts to get Martin Luther King to commit suicide through blackmail and harassment. Yeah really, you can't make this stuff up). Or we can explicitly hold up an Australian hacker with an idea, the ability to hack that idea together and have total commitment to that idea for which he required nobody's blessing, approval nor government funding to a much higher standard than public servants, hired to serve the public, who have very clearly been engaged in criminal conspiracy. Ok it's fair to do so but we need to say that out loud every time if we're doing that. Once the standard is set it has to be the same for all or the rule of law is rather a moot point. Should there be a law at all that compels people to keep this kind of thing secret? Is such a law constitutional? You have free speech but this is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Really? Because people might be worried about what is happening in the democratic process and want to be informed so they can act accordingly? That's a big call. The New York Times and the Washington Post publish one hell of a lot of "official leaks" from people who are essentially paid to do that leaking to spin the story. It's their job. Or so "someone familiar with the matter" told them. Should journalists and their employers get all the proceeds when the source takes rather more risk. To be honest I don't care whether Snowden is an altruist (although he clearly is) I'd pay the goddamn devil to get that information out so we all know it and can slowly, piece by piece, reform that post-terrorist-attack blindspot that has become an utter disgrace. Would you rather not know?

kauffj 11y ago

The individual who leaks this information is doing so for the public good. Why not also allow them to be compensated for assuming that risk?

scuba7183 11y ago
How do you know they're not leaking it for the cash?
- yellowapple 11y ago
  Why do we care, so long as the leak is accurate and - therefore - public well-being is achieved?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Because the leak may not end up being really accurate; when the contribution is done for cash and not out of care for public well-being, then all bets are off.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
You generally don't want to do this, because it perverts the incentives. When you offer cash for something that should be done out of some sense of morality, you turn it from a terminal value ("I do this because I want it to be done") into an instrumental value ("I don't care about this but I do it because I want the reward"). You'll start getting much more noise with the signal because of various "entrepreneurs" who smell the occasion for a quick buck. There's ton of psychological/sociological research which shows that people generally get funny in the head when you substitute social incentives for economic ones.

robotkilla 11y ago

Break the law or break a contract? (honest question)

jamesk_au 11y ago
It could be either depending on the person and how they came into possession of the information. Government officials likely have statutory duties prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information learned during the course of their duties (hence possibility of corruption once you start offering money), while others who are not strictly government officials may have signed the equivalent of a binding NDA and be under a relevant contractual obligation. A person who is neither an official nor a contractor but who nevertheless received the information knowing it was confidential and that it ought to be kept confidential might also be held by a court to be subject to an equitable obligation of confidence, which is different again.

harry8 11y ago

All this "break the law" stuff like the rule of law is still a player in any of this. Clapper says it is and everyone pisses themselves laughing. Holder says it is and yeah, same deal. The people vs $25,000 so the police can keep it with no charges laid. Patraeus wasn't economically uninvolved with the sales of his hagiography where he did all that leaking but they had an inconsequential show-trial where he got off with nothing for him - let that be a lesson. And how do we know he did that? His email was illegally hacked, without a warrant by the FBI - who's building is still named after J. Edgar Hoover who was as criminal as anyone has ever been (Aside from being a cross dresser who liked to bash homosexuals for fun and his attempts to get Martin Luther King to commit suicide through blackmail and harassment. Yeah really, you can't make this stuff up). Or we can explicitly hold up an Australian hacker with an idea, the ability to hack that idea together and have total commitment to that idea for which he required nobody's blessing, approval nor government funding to a much higher standard than public servants, hired to serve the public, who have very clearly been engaged in criminal conspiracy. Ok it's fair to do so but we need to say that out loud every time if we're doing that. Once the standard is set it has to be the same for all or the rule of law is rather a moot point. Should there be a law at all that compels people to keep this kind of thing secret? Is such a law constitutional? You have free speech but this is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Really? Because people might be worried about what is happening in the democratic process and want to be informed so they can act accordingly? That's a big call. The New York Times and the Washington Post publish one hell of a lot of "official leaks" from people who are essentially paid to do that leaking to spin the story. It's their job. Or so "someone familiar with the matter" told them. Should journalists and their employers get all the proceeds when the source takes rather more risk. To be honest I don't care whether Snowden is an altruist (although he clearly is) I'd pay the goddamn devil to get that information out so we all know it and can slowly, piece by piece, reform that post-terrorist-attack blindspot that has become an utter disgrace. Would you rather not know?