Getting mired in discussions of one man's character or the legal definitions of whistle blowing and civil disobedience is 100% missing the issue and failing to have the much more important conversation about the supra-legal and self-interested intelligence apparatus fyi hth
None of our discussions are important.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Getting mired in discussions of one man's character or the legal definitions of whistle blowing and civil disobedience is 100% missing the issue and failing to have the much more important conversation about the supra-legal and self-interested intelligence apparatus fyi hth
Right. I am of a mind that Snowden is a shithead who broke the law.
I am also of a mind that what the intelligence community is doing is straight up disgusting.
I kind of want to go in the Snowden thread, but that is one of the rare topics where I don't even understand the position the other side takes, so I should probably steer clear. I literally do not think you can think he is a whistleblower unless you don't understand what a whistleblower is.
uh huh
I usually see both sides. That is distinct from when I say I don't understand something because I actuelly lack knowledge of it.
Snowden just isn't a whistleblower, by definition. It's a legal concept. He does not satisfy it under any applicable test.
Could the reason for that be mostly semantics to do with the fact that he's tattling on the structure that sets that very definition?
Not rhetorical
He was not. NSA is distinct from the DOJ. DOL protects whistleblowers. So the correct action as a whisteblower is to go up the chain of command. If you are not heard all the way up, then you go to DOJ. Of course, he stole the data in the first place and whistleblower rules would not protect him from that because it was theft and that was illegal, but that he feared prosecution for a felony he committed doesn't somehow make him a whistleblower.
I have probably a decent grasp on the NSA and DOJ being different entities, but they're largely part of the same machine. It seems to me there's a fairly unified front at the federal level in favor of the ridiculous amount of fucked up surveillance that's been happening for the last 10 years. Not that a vast conspiracy or centralized corruption is at work or anything, but that it makes a lot of people's jobs easier and the people who might otherwise A: think that it is a massive overstep not worth the dubiously purported safety, and/or B: Could at least reasonably agree it's not a necessity, are motivated by a fucked up political climate that dissuades people from taking a step back from the war on terror.
Basically, while you are most assuredly right in that he's not technically a whistleblower, I don't have a lot of faith that a bona fide whistleblower could get an inch of traction in this climate. I would not be surprised to find that someone making that move would as likely land quietly in a supermax as on the front page of The Guardian.
1 - Hypothetical self-interest is not sufficient justification for violation of the law. That's a fundamental concept in Civil Disobedience.
2 - Whistleblowing covers revelation of violations of law. The vast majority of what Snowden revealed was not a violation of the law, just what he thought was the correct policy. Even the subset of activities he identified that were in violation of the law were so vague as to make actions to bring wrongdoers to justice or rectify policies impossible. "Some" people were listening to things without authority. "Some" justifications were fabricated.
Whistleblowing doesn't cover revelation of classified activities you think are bad, just ones that are illegal.
1 - Realistic danger to your person is perfectly fine justification for violation of the law
2 - The reason a lot of the shit the NSA gets up to is legal is because we made into law an act we didn't fuckin read, and they ran with it as fast as they could before anyone could call a goddamn do-over.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally justified in the same way that something being illegal doesn't make it morally wrong.
That being said, I'm not saying Snowden has made all correct and excellent decisions, but he's doing a whole lot better than the NSA and Congress are doing with this now multiple-decade-effecting Orwellian shit show.
Getting mired in discussions of one man's character or the legal definitions of whistle blowing and civil disobedience is 100% missing the issue and failing to have the much more important conversation about the supra-legal and self-interested intelligence apparatus fyi hth
Right. I am of a mind that Snowden is a shithead who broke the law.
I am also of a mind that what the intelligence community is doing is straight up disgusting.
Also, Scimitars.
Is?
The intelligence apparatus has always and will probably always be disgusting
override367 on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited March 2015
So, I am to understand that rather than eat both kinds of tacos, the fact which they are ostensibly celebrating, they took the small girl outside, gathered the rest of the townsfolk and then had a "hoist the small child over our heads celebration"?
I don't buy it. If they were so excited about the tacos they would have done that rather than head outside. Yet, if they weren't that excited hey have no reason for the celebration.
Whole lotta Lawful Neutrals all up in this thread.
Almost no one has a problem with government surveillance that follows the rule of law and due process. The justification for complaining about Snowden's revelations is that the government was improperly searching people's information outside the law. In order to forward his argument that the policies were outside the law (which is frankly not well supported, as FISA courts and metadata requests went to the SCOTUS 40 years ago and have been repeatedly upheld) he unquestionably broke the law and his oath.
The policies and goals a government should enact are a matter of opinion. Whether or not it should act lawfully is not. That's why whistleblowing is a thing
So he went over the head of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the President of the United States, directly to the American People.
Unorthodox, but I'll allow it.
This is not particularly coherent considering the NSA is not included in that organizational chart. The NSA is not part of the DoD proper.
Its also the equivalent of telling a cop "I pay your salary!"
Director of National Intelligence is on the chart.
And it's more akin to telling the cop "I'm going to tell people about this and they will be more able to make an informed choice in the next election".
Saying the American people are above the President, and therefore have the right to know any and all classified information is being willfully naive. You're only saying it because you agree with Snowden's sentiment. If he had revealed the names of every rape victim ever protected by a shield law, you likely would argue differently.
No, that is almost the rote definition of civil disobedience.
People do sit ins at the capital, and when the cops come with the handcuffs they allow themselves to be arrested, preferably on camera, just because they were protesting the wages of teachers being cut / unions being dissolved.
Civil disobedience as a form of protest against injustice isn't breaking the law and then fleeing from the cops.
Again, Lawful Neutrals.
Getting arrested doesn't change the legitimacy of the complaint. It only affects how you get to be perceived as a martyr, dependent upon the the media being compliant with your point.
The problem of the NSA harvesting huge amounts of data with no public oversight is not made any more or less legitimate by whether Snowden spends the rest of his life in a cell without a door.
I kind of want to go in the Snowden thread, but that is one of the rare topics where I don't even understand the position the other side takes, so I should probably steer clear. I literally do not think you can think he is a whistleblower unless you don't understand what a whistleblower is.
uh huh
I usually see both sides. That is distinct from when I say I don't understand something because I actuelly lack knowledge of it.
Snowden just isn't a whistleblower, by definition. It's a legal concept. He does not satisfy it under any applicable test.
Could the reason for that be mostly semantics to do with the fact that he's tattling on the structure that sets that very definition?
Not rhetorical
He was not. NSA is distinct from the DOJ. DOL protects whistleblowers. So the correct action as a whisteblower is to go up the chain of command. If you are not heard all the way up, then you go to DOJ. Of course, he stole the data in the first place and whistleblower rules would not protect him from that because it was theft and that was illegal, but that he feared prosecution for a felony he committed doesn't somehow make him a whistleblower.
I have probably a decent grasp on the NSA and DOJ being different entities, but they're largely part of the same machine. It seems to me there's a fairly unified front at the federal level in favor of the ridiculous amount of fucked up surveillance that's been happening for the last 10 years. Not that a vast conspiracy or centralized corruption is at work or anything, but that it makes a lot of people's jobs easier and the people who might otherwise A: think that it is a massive overstep not worth the dubiously purported safety, and/or B: Could at least reasonably agree it's not a necessity, are motivated by a fucked up political climate that dissuades people from taking a step back from the war on terror.
Basically, while you are most assuredly right in that he's not technically a whistleblower, I don't have a lot of faith that a bona fide whistleblower could get an inch of traction in this climate. I would not be surprised to find that someone making that move would as likely land quietly in a supermax as on the front page of The Guardian.
1 - Hypothetical self-interest is not sufficient justification for violation of the law. That's a fundamental concept in Civil Disobedience.
2 - Whistleblowing covers revelation of violations of law. The vast majority of what Snowden revealed was not a violation of the law, just what he thought was the correct policy. Even the subset of activities he identified that were in violation of the law were so vague as to make actions to bring wrongdoers to justice or rectify policies impossible. "Some" people were listening to things without authority. "Some" justifications were fabricated.
Whistleblowing doesn't cover revelation of classified activities you think are bad, just ones that are illegal.
1 - Realistic danger to your person is perfectly fine justification for violation of the law
2 - The reason a lot of the shit the NSA gets up to is legal is because we made into law an act we didn't fuckin read, and they ran with it as fast as they could before anyone could call a goddamn do-over.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally justified in the same way that something being illegal doesn't make it morally wrong.
That being said, I'm not saying Snowden has made all correct and excellent decisions, but he's doing a whole lot better than the NSA and Congress are doing with this now multiple-decade-effecting Orwellian shit show.
But do you agree that he is not a whistleblower, or?
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
No, that is almost the rote definition of civil disobedience.
People do sit ins at the capital, and when the cops come with the handcuffs they allow themselves to be arrested, preferably on camera, just because they were protesting the wages of teachers being cut / unions being dissolved.
Civil disobedience as a form of protest against injustice isn't breaking the law and then fleeing from the cops.
Again, Lawful Neutrals.
Getting arrested doesn't change the legitimacy of the complaint. It only affects how you get to be perceived as a martyr, dependent upon the the media being compliant with your point.
The problem of the NSA harvesting huge amounts of data with no public oversight is not made any more or less legitimate by whether Snowden spends the rest of his life in a cell without a door.
The whole point of civil disobedience is to intentionally and openly break the law so that the unjustness of the law is revealed when you are punished for it. You are literally not engaged in civil disobedience if you run around committing crimes and escaping the police. You are just a criminal. Possibly a terrorist, depending on the crimes.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I love that the panther's name is pronounced Guinevere, but spelled Guenhwyvar.
I also love that Wulfgar was supposed to be the star of the series and the first book focused really heavy on him, but the fandom LOVED the CG drow supporting character so much that RAS pivoted.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
So he went over the head of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the President of the United States, directly to the American People.
Unorthodox, but I'll allow it.
This is not particularly coherent considering the NSA is not included in that organizational chart. The NSA is not part of the DoD proper.
Its also the equivalent of telling a cop "I pay your salary!"
Director of National Intelligence is on the chart.
And it's more akin to telling the cop "I'm going to tell people about this and they will be more able to make an informed choice in the next election".
No, he's not. That's the Director of Intelligence. He has several organizations that report to him the most notable would be the DIA. But that position only covers the various military intelligence organizations. The DNI is a civilian position that represents the rest of the Intelligence community to the NSC.
+1
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I love that the panther's name is pronounced Guinevere, but spelled Guenhwyvar.
I also love that Wulfgar was supposed to be the star of the series and the first book focused really heavy on him, but the fandom LOVED the CG drow supporting character so much that RAS pivoted.
I love that the panther's name is pronounced Guinevere, but spelled Guenhwyvar.
I also love that Wulfgar was supposed to be the star of the series and the first book focused really heavy on him, but the fandom LOVED the CG drow supporting character so much that RAS pivoted.
Wulfgar was boring tho
should've stayed dead
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+1
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
Whole lotta Lawful Neutrals all up in this thread.
I'm cool with civil disobedience. But part of that is accepting punishment so that people see how unfair it is that the law demanded you be punished for your actions. If you flee justice you don't get to pull the civil disobedience card.
Doing this in the way you describe, do you think we'd have heard of him at all? And if we did, would he have access to the evidence to back up his claims?
I love that the panther's name is pronounced Guinevere, but spelled Guenhwyvar.
I also love that Wulfgar was supposed to be the star of the series and the first book focused really heavy on him, but the fandom LOVED the CG drow supporting character so much that RAS pivoted.
Wulfgar was boring tho
should've stayed dead
I do give RAS some props for just how damaged Wulfgar was when he came back.
This was not a comic book "nobody stays dead everyone is fine" moment here. Last book I read (which is admittedly still many years ago) Wulfgar was still PTSD as fuck.
One of the more uncomfortable moments in fluff fantasy I ever read was when Cattie Brie and Wulfgar tried getting back together, and a moment of physical intimacy went REALLY wrong.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I'm not going to work tomorrow because the forecast is SNOWDEN DAY!
0
Options
cptruggedI think it has something to do with free will.Registered Userregular
I love that the panther's name is pronounced Guinevere, but spelled Guenhwyvar.
I also love that Wulfgar was supposed to be the star of the series and the first book focused really heavy on him, but the fandom LOVED the CG drow supporting character so much that RAS pivoted.
I had never read the books. But knew the hype so I read the Homeland trilogy first. It was really really good. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would.
But holy cow, going from that to The Crystal Shard was so jarring that I couldn't get all the way through it. Not only because of the sudden change in Drizzt's character, but the fact that the book was so obviously one of Salvatore's early works and it showed.
But the issue here isn't just them. They are running full on with in the scope of laws and precedent outlined in the post 9/11 world thanks to Congress and Bush the Lesser which has continued through Obama.
Snowden was an idiot. What he released wasn't effective on the policy debate. Hell the overstep debate was already going. Look at the CIA hacking the Senate. Which is well outside the law.
The real issue here is the population is meh on it. They feel the loss of privacy is worth the possible protection it provides. A lot of the ideas of big data and analytics have come out of the last 15 years are partially because of giant data collection such as this. Congress is the ones who should be stepping in and setting new policies and restructuring the system to catch up with the reality. Which requires a popular outcry or lots of corporate anger your pick.
Neither is happening with stuff like Snowden.
I might dislike the intelligence industry even though I tangentially work in it. Doesn't mean I believe Snowden and his actions should be lionized.
my feelings about snowden can be summed up as "Hah hah your guy stole all your secrets" and I think he's dumb and the american intelligence community dumber
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I would name my scimitars "Sharpy" and "Sharpy 2"
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Almost no one has a problem with government surveillance that follows the rule of law and due process. The justification for complaining about Snowden's revelations is that the government was improperly searching people's information outside the law. In order to forward his argument that the policies were outside the law (which is frankly not well supported, as FISA courts and metadata requests went to the SCOTUS 40 years ago and have been repeatedly upheld) he unquestionably broke the law and his oath.
The policies and goals a government should enact are a matter of opinion. Whether or not it should act lawfully is not. That's why whistleblowing is a thing
No, this is what you do not get.
The justification for complaining about Snowden's revelations is that they were improperly searching people's information inside the law, because they are an arm of the governmental construct that makes it.
And whistleblowing having legal protections is a recursive argument to begin with:
"Why do we need to create this whistleblowing status?"
"Because often the individuals blowing whistles have far less power than those they are blowing whistles against. They face serious, often legal, repercussions for acting ethically."
"That seems fair. What circumstances do we want to protect whistleblowers in?"
"Well, when they speak out against corporations performing something illegal."
"What if they speak out against us performing something unethical, legally."
"I don't know about that; let's not include that in our legal definition of whistleblower."
"Yeah, that way anyone speaking out against us doing something unethical, legally, does not have protection from a far greater power than themselves, which is to our benefit."
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Whole lotta Lawful Neutrals all up in this thread.
I'm cool with civil disobedience. But part of that is accepting punishment so that people see how unfair it is that the law demanded you be punished for your actions. If you flee justice you don't get to pull the civil disobedience card.
Doing this in the way you describe, do you think we'd have heard of him at all? And if we did, would he have access to the evidence to back up his claims?
Well, what he could have done if he wanted to just engage in straight up civil disobedience is steal the data, release it, and then submit to arrest. Much more principled than literally fleeing the US government's ability to extradite him.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I remember murdering Drizzt in BG2, but never having read the books I had no idea what the deal was
it did take like 9 reloads to successfully off that jackass
what
how
i murdered him in BG1 but he was nigh invincible in BG2
made every saving throw known to man
insta-gibbed anyone in one round
dude idk It was a long time ago, I don't even remember what class I was
I did kill that fucker tho, you can't keep the gear you get unfortunately
override I played that game 15 years ago and I can tell you my party makeup and that after 20 attempts the best I ever managed was to kill the little Halfling shit (regis?)
my condolences on the early onset Alzheimer's
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Posts
That was the problem when Cthulu ran in 2008, every Republican who saw one of his campaign ads went utterly mad
ill do u in the snowden thred
None of our discussions are important.
Right. I am of a mind that Snowden is a shithead who broke the law.
I am also of a mind that what the intelligence community is doing is straight up disgusting.
Also, Scimitars.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
This nerd doesn't even know the names of the scimitars.
It should read.
Icingdeath!
Twinkle!
*twirls*
You are the fakest of nerdsharks.
my body is ready
He may have a birth song though.
Damn fallen angels.
it did take like 9 reloads to successfully off that jackass
ah yes twinkle
truly a fearsome name for such a deadly weapon
1 - Realistic danger to your person is perfectly fine justification for violation of the law
2 - The reason a lot of the shit the NSA gets up to is legal is because we made into law an act we didn't fuckin read, and they ran with it as fast as they could before anyone could call a goddamn do-over.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally justified in the same way that something being illegal doesn't make it morally wrong.
That being said, I'm not saying Snowden has made all correct and excellent decisions, but he's doing a whole lot better than the NSA and Congress are doing with this now multiple-decade-effecting Orwellian shit show.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Is?
The intelligence apparatus has always and will probably always be disgusting
I don't buy it. If they were so excited about the tacos they would have done that rather than head outside. Yet, if they weren't that excited hey have no reason for the celebration.
Just had a break. Went and grabbed some hummus and pretzels.
I feel a bit better.
Almost no one has a problem with government surveillance that follows the rule of law and due process. The justification for complaining about Snowden's revelations is that the government was improperly searching people's information outside the law. In order to forward his argument that the policies were outside the law (which is frankly not well supported, as FISA courts and metadata requests went to the SCOTUS 40 years ago and have been repeatedly upheld) he unquestionably broke the law and his oath.
The policies and goals a government should enact are a matter of opinion. Whether or not it should act lawfully is not. That's why whistleblowing is a thing
No the Director for Intelligence, J2 is not the Director of National Intelligence.
Saying the American people are above the President, and therefore have the right to know any and all classified information is being willfully naive. You're only saying it because you agree with Snowden's sentiment. If he had revealed the names of every rape victim ever protected by a shield law, you likely would argue differently.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But do you agree that he is not a whistleblower, or?
The whole point of civil disobedience is to intentionally and openly break the law so that the unjustness of the law is revealed when you are punished for it. You are literally not engaged in civil disobedience if you run around committing crimes and escaping the police. You are just a criminal. Possibly a terrorist, depending on the crimes.
I also love that Wulfgar was supposed to be the star of the series and the first book focused really heavy on him, but the fandom LOVED the CG drow supporting character so much that RAS pivoted.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
No, he's not. That's the Director of Intelligence. He has several organizations that report to him the most notable would be the DIA. But that position only covers the various military intelligence organizations. The DNI is a civilian position that represents the rest of the Intelligence community to the NSC.
what
how
i murdered him in BG1 but he was nigh invincible in BG2
made every saving throw known to man
insta-gibbed anyone in one round
Wulfgar was boring tho
ffs casual eddy already told u snowden is husbando material waht the fuk more do u want
as someone whose interest in this discussion is pretty much solely using accurate terms since I don't have a horse in this race
should've stayed dead
Doing this in the way you describe, do you think we'd have heard of him at all? And if we did, would he have access to the evidence to back up his claims?
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
I do give RAS some props for just how damaged Wulfgar was when he came back.
This was not a comic book "nobody stays dead everyone is fine" moment here. Last book I read (which is admittedly still many years ago) Wulfgar was still PTSD as fuck.
One of the more uncomfortable moments in fluff fantasy I ever read was when Cattie Brie and Wulfgar tried getting back together, and a moment of physical intimacy went REALLY wrong.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I had never read the books. But knew the hype so I read the Homeland trilogy first. It was really really good. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would.
But holy cow, going from that to The Crystal Shard was so jarring that I couldn't get all the way through it. Not only because of the sudden change in Drizzt's character, but the fact that the book was so obviously one of Salvatore's early works and it showed.
dude idk It was a long time ago, I don't even remember what class I was
I did kill that fucker tho, you can't keep the gear you get unfortunately
But the issue here isn't just them. They are running full on with in the scope of laws and precedent outlined in the post 9/11 world thanks to Congress and Bush the Lesser which has continued through Obama.
Snowden was an idiot. What he released wasn't effective on the policy debate. Hell the overstep debate was already going. Look at the CIA hacking the Senate. Which is well outside the law.
The real issue here is the population is meh on it. They feel the loss of privacy is worth the possible protection it provides. A lot of the ideas of big data and analytics have come out of the last 15 years are partially because of giant data collection such as this. Congress is the ones who should be stepping in and setting new policies and restructuring the system to catch up with the reality. Which requires a popular outcry or lots of corporate anger your pick.
Neither is happening with stuff like Snowden.
I might dislike the intelligence industry even though I tangentially work in it. Doesn't mean I believe Snowden and his actions should be lionized.
The justification for complaining about Snowden's revelations is that they were improperly searching people's information inside the law, because they are an arm of the governmental construct that makes it.
And whistleblowing having legal protections is a recursive argument to begin with:
"Why do we need to create this whistleblowing status?"
"Because often the individuals blowing whistles have far less power than those they are blowing whistles against. They face serious, often legal, repercussions for acting ethically."
"That seems fair. What circumstances do we want to protect whistleblowers in?"
"Well, when they speak out against corporations performing something illegal."
"What if they speak out against us performing something unethical, legally."
"I don't know about that; let's not include that in our legal definition of whistleblower."
"Yeah, that way anyone speaking out against us doing something unethical, legally, does not have protection from a far greater power than themselves, which is to our benefit."
Well, what he could have done if he wanted to just engage in straight up civil disobedience is steal the data, release it, and then submit to arrest. Much more principled than literally fleeing the US government's ability to extradite him.
JoySucker and ManSlammer
override I played that game 15 years ago and I can tell you my party makeup and that after 20 attempts the best I ever managed was to kill the little Halfling shit (regis?)
my condolences on the early onset Alzheimer's
Hurty and Harmy.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
sharpy 2: the sharpening: this time it's sharper: get sharped bitch!
Tay and Sway.