Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because it's the exact same issue involved?

How so? PRISM was leaked because, in Snowden's eyes, it's a Fourth Amendment violation.

I don't think the same could be said about attempting to hack computers in another country belonging to non-Americans.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because it's the exact same issue involved?

How so? PRISM was leaked because, in Snowden's eyes, it's a Fourth Amendment violation.

I don't think the same could be said about attempting to hack computers in another country belonging to non-Americans.

Because if your ethical system consists of more than just legalism it's entirely consistent to be opposed to a wide range of government spying.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because if your ethical system consists of more than just legalism it's entirely consistent to be opposed to a wide range of government spying.

If you're attributing that motivation to Snowden, then he made a fething bizarre career choice.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Allow me to answer your questions to someone else's questions with questions of my own:
1. Do YOU feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?

Of course not.

2. Do you feel that everyone who has access to military weapons should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be fire upon?

What in the name of all that's holy does this have to do with anything? Are you under the assumption that we don't have rules of engagement and the like, and that violation of them can't lead to you getting charged with all sorts of crimes? Do you think we just turn rifleman loose in a war zone with, "Hey, do what you want," instructions?

No, my point is that you appear to be suggesting that people in the employ of the government are expected to act as automatons in one instance, and as free thinkers in another. I'm curious as to how you reconcile that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because if your ethical system consists of more than just legalism it's entirely consistent to be opposed to a wide range of government spying.

If you're attributing that motivation to Snowden, then he made a fething bizarre career choice.

Or he made exactly the right one. Depends on how you look at it. Personally, I want the people who watch me while I sleep to act with conscience and critical thought.

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, my point is that you appear to be suggesting that people in the employ of the government are expected to act as automatons in one instance, and as free thinkers in another. I'm curious as to how you reconcile that.

No. I'll be as clear as possible here: there are no situations in which it suddenly becomes legal to do something that's blatantly illegal in the military. It has nothing at all to do with "free-thinking" versus "automaton." If you wanted to make a more apt analogy, it would be, "Everyone in the military has the freedom to decide their own personal rules of engagement at any time they like." That of course would be as disastrously stupid as, "Everyone with access to classified information has the freedom to decide if it really should be classified at any time they like."

This isn't a difficult concept, and I'm honestly curious why it seems so foreign to you.

 Seaward wrote:

Keep in mind he's only divulging all of this because he's concerned about the Fourth Amendment implications.

I am perfectly happy with information like this being leaked given how underhanded the alleged activities are. The only issue that I have is that they are simply allegations, there is no proof.

 Palindrome wrote:
I am perfectly happy with information like this being leaked given how underhanded the alleged activities are. The only issue that I have is that they are simply allegations, there is no proof.

So you want all intelligence gathering to play fair?

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, my point is that you appear to be suggesting that people in the employ of the government are expected to act as automatons in one instance, and as free thinkers in another. I'm curious as to how you reconcile that.

No. I'll be as clear as possible here: there are no situations in which it suddenly becomes legal to do something that's blatantly illegal in the military. It has nothing at all to do with "free-thinking" versus "automaton." If you wanted to make a more apt analogy, it would be, "Everyone in the military has the freedom to decide their own personal rules of engagement at any time they like." That of course would be as disastrously stupid as, "Everyone with access to classified information has the freedom to decide if it really should be classified at any time they like."

This isn't a difficult concept, and I'm honestly curious why it seems so foreign to you.

Because I don't operate with the mindset that the only requirement for being "morally right" is to be "not illegal".

 Seaward wrote:

So you want all intelligence gathering to play fair?

In a word, yes.

Yes WAAAHHH Russians etc, but given that we are supposed to be bastions of democracy and upstanding upholders of human rights clandestine intelligence gathering on allies is something that we cannot be proud of.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Because I don't operate with the mindset that the only requirement for being "morally right" is to be "not illegal".

So you have moral objections to western countries attempting to hack Chinese computers?

Either way, you'd do well to remember that your own personal moral code does not allow you to selectively pick and choose what laws do and do not apply to you. The "this is legal, but I find it morally objectionable, so I am going to break the law!" rationale does not work. I'm sure if you thought hard about it, you'd be able to come up with all sorts of diverse movements - most of whom you'd find morally objectionable, no doubt - who've used it as an excuse for all sorts of nasty things.

 Ouze wrote:
It does not. It related to Breotan's assertion that Putin is somehow playing some elaborate, machiavellian plot with Snowden's leaks as a clever distraction that only Breotan can see. The rest of us are just too damn stupid or blind to see it :(

Ah, cool. I'm with you now.

At least he can say "I told you so" when we're all in some commie gulag.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
If you're attributing that motivation to Snowden, then he made a fething bizarre career choice.

There is, of course, a significant difference between spying on Chinese troop movements, and spying on government officials coming to town for trade negotiations. It's very weird that you don't understand the difference.

 sebster wrote:
There is, of course, a significant difference between spying on Chinese troop movements, and spying on government officials coming to town for trade negotiations. It's very weird that you don't understand the difference.

Perhaps I'm simply not naive enough to believe that the only legitimate intelligence information the US or its allies could ever need would be purely about troop movements.

Or perhaps I'm referring to the previous article that had nothing to do with either trade negotiations nor PRISM in which Snowden revealed everything he knew, and handed over documents about, the NSA's attempt to get inside various Chinese networks.

 Seaward wrote:

Either way, you'd do well to remember that your own personal moral code does not allow you to selectively pick and choose what laws do and do not apply to you

As it happens it does, laws only apply to you if you want them too (and you are willing to accept the consequences o fbreaking them).

 Seaward wrote:
Perhaps I'm simply not naive enough to believe that the only legitimate intelligence information the US or its allies could ever need would be purely about troop movements.

Or more likely you're confusing 'naivety' with 'principled', and 'want' with 'need'.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Because I don't operate with the mindset that the only requirement for being "morally right" is to be "not illegal".

So you have moral objections to western countries attempting to hack Chinese computers?

Nope.

Seaward wrote:Either way, you'd do well to remember that your own personal moral code does not allow you to selectively pick and choose what laws do and do not apply to you.

Yes it does. The consequences of such also apply, however.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nope.

So, no moral objections to hacking China, but you're also fine with Snowden revealing classified information about it...to China.

Yes it does. The consequences of such also apply, however.

So in other words, the laws don't stop being applicable just because you decide you don't like them.

Out of curiosity, do you champion folks who bomb abortion clinics? It's illegal, sure, but they're just following their conscience. Abortion's perfectly legal, but they consider it immoral, so clearly you've got to come down on their side.

Poodle Brown.

This was in the first year of Obama and the last year of Gordon Brown. I am not surprised that the Uk security services were engaged to do something like this, which hits our credibility as a place to hold discrete conversation, Chatham house rules anyone.
You DON'T invite international delegates to spy on them and if you do your subtle about it.
Whats worse the entire transcript seems to have been for the benefit of the US.

As least I can say this, the security services pulled it off and didn't talk about it. Pity the intel was feed straight to the NSA who cant keep their mouths shut and aren't directly rocked by the scandal if they dont.

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nope.

So, no moral objections to hacking China, but you're also fine with Snowden revealing classified information about it...to China.

Yes it does. The consequences of such also apply, however.

So in other words, the laws don't stop being applicable just because you decide you don't like them.

Out of curiosity, do you champion folks who bomb abortion clinics? It's illegal, sure, but they're just following their conscience. Abortion's perfectly legal, but they consider it immoral, so clearly you've got to come down on their side.

Isn't that a bit different though? Whether you agree with or not, abortion is clearly legal. Wasn't at least part of the reason Snowden came forward because he thought the PRISM program was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal?

 Hordini wrote:
Isn't that a bit different though? Whether you agree with or not, abortion is clearly legal. Wasn't at least part of the reason Snowden came forward because he thought the PRISM program was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal?

Before I answer, let me just say this one more time: I'm completely at a loss as to why we're all continuing to pretend that the only classified information Snowden has revealed is about PRISM. PRISM isn't even the majority of it at this point.

Anyway, to the question. Just as believing something to be legal doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it if you do it, believing something to be illegal doesn't make it so. Nor does standing up to an imaginary crime give you leave to commit a whole host of real ones.

Seaward wrote:Anyway, to the question. Just as believing something to be legal doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it if you do it, believing something to be illegal doesn't make it so. Nor does standing up to an imaginary crime give you leave to commit a whole host of real ones.

Sounds like you're moving the goalposts: you're now saying Snowden is a traitor and should be punished because he has now leaked other information about less-illegal activities; however you had already passed judgement on him for the PRISM bit alone.

My take on it:
Blowing the whistle on PRISM was morally right and should be encouraged, and he should be hailed as a hero.
Leaking documents about hacking chinese computers is not as clear-cut and he should be prosecuted for doing so.


It's not a situation where you can take a person and place them into a narrow little definition that encompasses everything about them. One wrong action does not make him wear a black hat and be only capable of wrongdoing.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Sounds like you're moving the goalposts: you're now saying Snowden is a traitor and should be punished because he has now leaked other information about less-illegal activities; however you had already passed judgement on him for the PRISM bit alone.

Nope. He's a traitor for leaking PRISM, too.

One wrong action does not make him wear a black hat and be only capable of wrongdoing.

Well, he's chosen multiple wrong actions, so I'm pretty comfortable fitting him for a black hat.

To put it another way: if the PRISM program ever gets ruled on by the Supreme Court - it won't - and they find it perfectly constitutional, would your opinion change? Or are we back to you standing up for anti-abortionists who commit crimes due to their perceived need to fight against perceived immorality?

 Seaward wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Isn't that a bit different though? Whether you agree with or not, abortion is clearly legal. Wasn't at least part of the reason Snowden came forward because he thought the PRISM program was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal?

Before I answer, let me just say this one more time: I'm completely at a loss as to why we're all continuing to pretend that the only classified information Snowden has revealed is about PRISM. PRISM isn't even the majority of it at this point.

Anyway, to the question. Just as believing something to be legal doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it if you do it, believing something to be illegal doesn't make it so. Nor does standing up to an imaginary crime give you leave to commit a whole host of real ones.

Okay, I understand what you're saying, and I know what you mean about Snowden revealing more than just PRISM. Let's set Snowden and PRISM aside for a moment, though. Do you think whistle-blowing is ever okay, and in what kind of situation do you think it would be justified?

 Hordini wrote:
Okay, I understand what you're saying, and I know what you mean about Snowden revealing more than just PRISM. Let's set Snowden and PRISM aside for a moment, though. Do you think whistle-blowing is ever okay, and in what kind of situation do you think it would be justified?

Corporate whistle-blowing's fine in clear cases of illegal activity. Government whistle-blowing that endangers national security when the argument for illegality is murky at best is not.

People made a knee-jerk "My hero!" reaction when he came out with the PRISM stuff, and now that he's running all over the shop and spilling everything he knows and looking, to even those of the most favorable initial opinion, like a traitorous little douchebag, it seems people want to entrench in their horribly-chosen initial position and defend it rather than going, "Yeah, boy, that sure was a bad call."

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that Snowden wasn't an analyst. He might've had no connection to PRISM at all beyond pulling the slides. The scope of his knowledge on what was gathered, exactly how it was gathered, who had access to it, under what circumstances it could be accessed, what oversight there was, and what rulings had already been made on its constitutionality is...debatable.

Seaward wrote:To put it another way: if the PRISM program ever gets ruled on by the Supreme Court - it won't - and they find it perfectly constitutional, would your opinion change? Or are we back to you standing up for anti-abortionists who commit crimes due to their perceived need to fight against perceived immorality?

That is one hell of a stupid thing to say. It's not even a strawman; it's just asinine.

Would my opinion change: No. It's legal to stone adulterous women to death in some places, that doesn't make it morally right, either. If PRISM were considered legal, then I would consider it an unjust law. (except it's not really a law, but hopefully you get what I mean)

Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM, planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:To put it another way: if the PRISM program ever gets ruled on by the Supreme Court - it won't - and they find it perfectly constitutional, would your opinion change? Or are we back to you standing up for anti-abortionists who commit crimes due to their perceived need to fight against perceived immorality?

That is one hell of a stupid thing to say. It's not even a strawman; it's just asinine.

Would my opinion change: No. It's legal to stone adulterous women to death in some places, that doesn't make it morally right, either. If PRISM were considered legal, then I would consider it an unjust law. (except it's not really a law, but hopefully you get what I mean)

Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM, planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall.

After reading through this I have come to the conclusion that seaward wants to bomb babies. This is the only logical explanation for his constant remarks.

 azazel the cat wrote:
That is one hell of a stupid thing to say. It's not even a strawman; it's just asinine.

Just trying to keep up with you guys in that department.

Would my opinion change: No. It's legal to stone adulterous women to death in some places, that doesn't make it morally right, either. If PRISM were considered legal, then I would consider it an unjust law. (except it's not really a law, but hopefully you get what I mean)

No, I don't get what you mean. What you do appear to be saying is that you find it perfectly acceptable to violate a law as long as you feel you have a "moral" enough reason, yet...

Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM, planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall.

Actually, most clinic bombings have occurred while the clinic's empty. If you support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral, why would you not support another doing the same?

Seaward wrote:If you support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral, why would you not support another doing the same?

I don't support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral. I support one man committing a felony over something I believe to be immoral.

And your abortion silliness still doesn't work. If your morality does not allow you to have an abortion, then you can just not have one. The pipebombers are trying to dictate the morality of others, and the felony they are committing is violating the law that says "don't bomb buildings", which nobody would argue is an unjust law. So again, if you wanted to actually use this as an apt comparison, then it would require Snowden to have bombed a Verizon store in protest of PRISM; not become a whistleblower.

Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM,

planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall

.

Um...to me...that says teenagers.....not babies.....cell phone store in a mall....throw in some young adults to.....okay I can see a cell going by a baby stroller...or the cell going off in the car and hits a baby stroller or another vehicle with a baby seat in it...

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral. I support one man committing a felony over something I believe to be immoral.

So as long as he's right in your eyes, you're indifferent to the law?

Man. I could swear I've heard that justification used for all sorts of nefarious stuff.

And your abortion silliness still doesn't work. If your morality does not allow you to have an abortion, then you can just not have one. The pipebombers are trying to dictate the morality of others, and the felony they are committing is violating the law that says "don't bomb buildings", which nobody would argue is an unjust law. So again, if you wanted to actually use this as an apt comparison, then it would require Snowden to have bombed a Verizon store in protest of PRISM; not become a whistleblower.

That'd be great and all, except your linchpin is that he's a whistleblower. Whistleblowing requires the presence of illegal activity to blow the whistle on, which does not exist in the PRISM case.

So in the end, he's just a traitor.

Seaward wrote:
That'd be great and all, except your linchpin is that he's a whistleblower. Whistleblowing requires the presence of illegal activity to blow the whistle on, which does not exist in the PRISM case.

So in the end, he's just a traitor.

And here we have our impasse: you make no distinction between morality and legalism, even in the face of immoral laws.

Thus, we may as well stop here.