Edward Snowden: American Hero

[tnmarktx]

I agree, and, read my extended edit.

Spot on.

 

[YorkVol]

Your are right. However, when somebody that appears to be even remotely good does get elected, they get bashed by both parties. The sheep bye into it, and say they are just spewing rhetoric. I've seen it happen a lot on this forum alone.

Sure, there is a risk in becoming a public person, especially if you are alone. But, if enough of your fellow good men and women are in office then that bashing will stop.

 

[tnmarktx]

Sure, there is a risk in becoming a public person, especially if you are alone. But, if enough of your fellow good men and women are in office then that bashing will stop.

It will be an uphill battle.

 

[Vol Main]

Link to said classified info? I've asked multiple times. ( different posters)

The only thing I can see he has done is violate ethical rules at the work place.

He hasn't threatened national security even though he was in a position to do so.

At this point, we really do not know what information he exposed. Has he violated the terms of his security clearance? Yes. That is something that people should never do, with the never say never exception requiring very heavy conditions. If the employer was systematically violating the law, does the employee's covenant of secrecy remain valid? If yes, then his clearance virtually obligated him to become a co-conspirator in any crime. Is that a legal procedure? Who is above the law in this country? What about his oath to defend the Constitution? Senator Feinstein alleges that he committed treason. If he only gave aid to the American people and our Constitution, how is that treason? He may have acted too broadly to claim a valid legal defense. Like I already said, we really do not know; it is too early to make such judgments.

This case raises many difficult questions about domestic espionage in the name of national security. Right now, government contractors are spying on us for writing about this subject, here on this message board. How does that stop terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers? It doesn't.

 

[tnmarktx]

At this point, we really do not know what information he exposed. Has he violated the terms of his security clearance? Yes. That is something that people should never do, with the never say never exception requiring very heavy conditions. If the employer was systematically violating the law, does the employee's covenant of secrecy remain valid? If yes, then his clearance virtually obligated him to become a co-conspirator in any crime. Is that a legal procedure? Who is above the law in this country? What about his oath to defend the Constitution? Senator Feinstein alleges that he committed treason. If he only gave aid to the American people and our Constitution, how is that treason? He may have acted too broadly to claim a valid legal defense. Like I already said, we really do not know; it is too early to make such judgments.

This case raises many difficult questions about domestic espionage in the name of national security. Right now, government contractors are spying on us for writing about this subject, here on this message board. How does that stop terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers? It doesn't.

That's laughable, she comes to mind when I think of someone committing treason.

 

[myrobbins7]

I say give the man a nobel peace prize, hell they gave Obama one.

 

[volinbham]

I say give the man a nobel peace prize, hell they gave Obama one.

You're way off man - this guy has already done more than Obama did at the time he was awarded his. The prize is for "hope" not action or accomplishments

 

[lawgator1]

I remain surprised to hear that anyone is surprised that these programs exist. I always assumed that they went on.

 

[rockytop9808]

I remain surprised to hear that anyone is surprised that these programs exist. I always assumed that they went on.

So I guess they're A-OK then, hm?

 

[VolinArizona]

Of course it is extreme. Here is the thing, though: I'd support declassification even at the risk of seven billion lives.

Here's the critical point. Once you start speaking to threats and security, you are speaking in terms of value. And, value theory is quantitative. One can say life is more valuable in two possible ways: there is nothing more valuable than life; or, life is more valuable than liberty but less valuable than something else. Prima facie, both of these assertions look like they may be used to justify slavery, but, upon deeper reflection, only the latter justifies slavery. If I say that life is less valuable than happiness or the common good (or whatever other good you want to substitute) and that life is more valuable than liberty, then I have committed myself (logically) to saying there are some things worth slavery (and, maybe even extermination of lives). This is where you find yourself in this debate.

On the other hand, if I say there is nothing more valuable than life, then I am saying that life is infinitely valuable. This might look as though it can be used to support slavery, but certainly not slavery merely due to the risk of losing life. This is due to the fact that if life is infinitely valuable, then all threats to life are infinitely risky, and, further, there is no possible way to reduce these risks. Thus, security becomes a means not for life but for other goods.

What are these other goods? If I say personal happiness, it's difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy. If it is difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy, then it is either difficult for me to see how others could be or I must admit that other individuals have desires distinctly different from me. If that is the case, then governments that try to tell individuals how to be happy will always err when providing a general solution, since the desires are particular and distinct. Thus, for happiness and/or the common good (which no longer includes mere physical security)the government must protect and defend choice: i.e., liberty and autonomy, neither of which is protected by keeping information away from individuals, and neither of which can be protected by a non-representative government (unless you believe in benevolent dictatorships).

Talked about this exact thing last night with my buddy. Spot on!

 

[VolinArizona]

At this point, we really do not know what information he exposed. Has he violated the terms of his security clearance? Yes. That is something that people should never do, with the never say never exception requiring very heavy conditions. .

It is my opinion that this should be considered "very heavy conditions."

 

[PKT_VOL]

I do support exposing all government classified information and programs. Further, I support the abolition of "state secrets". Seeking complete transparency would be simply representative government based upon democratic principles.

Wow. What is the point of government without security? How can there be any form of effective security (especially in the 21st century with complete transparency?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Of course it is extreme. Here is the thing, though: I'd support declassification even at the risk of seven billion lives.

Here's the critical point. Once you start speaking to threats and security, you are speaking in terms of value. And, value theory is quantitative. One can say life is more valuable in two possible ways: there is nothing more valuable than life; or, life is more valuable than liberty but less valuable than something else. Prima facie, both of these assertions look like they may be used to justify slavery, but, upon deeper reflection, only the latter justifies slavery. If I say that life is less valuable than happiness or the common good (or whatever other good you want to substitute) and that life is more valuable than liberty, then I have committed myself (logically) to saying there are some things worth slavery (and, maybe even extermination of lives). This is where you find yourself in this debate.

On the other hand, if I say there is nothing more valuable than life, then I am saying that life is infinitely valuable. This might look as though it can be used to support slavery, but certainly not slavery merely due to the risk of losing life. This is due to the fact that if life is infinitely valuable, then all threats to life are infinitely risky, and, further, there is no possible way to reduce these risks. Thus, security becomes a means not for life but for other goods.

What are these other goods? If I say personal happiness, it's difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy. If it is difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy, then it is either difficult for me to see how others could be or I must admit that other individuals have desires distinctly different from me. If that is the case, then governments that try to tell individuals how to be happy will always err when providing a general solution, since the desires are particular and distinct. Thus, for happiness and/or the common good (which no longer includes mere physical security)the government must protect and defend choice: i.e., liberty and autonomy, neither of which is protected by keeping information away from individuals, and neither of which can be protected by a non-representative government (unless you believe in benevolent dictatorships).

1) Giving all threats to life is equal value is ridiculous.

2) Holding life, liberty, and autonomy as aspiring ideals is great. However, lets not act like those ideals fall out of the sky, that everyone values those ideals, or that such ideals will be magically defended from those who do not value those ideals.

3) The bold are not congruent.

 

[therealUT]

Wow. What is the point of government without security? How can there be any form of effective security (especially in the 21st century with complete transparency?

The point of government is not to secure life, but government can provide a certain level of security for liberty and autonomy, or the "pursuit of happiness". Since providing security for life is either meaningless or commits one to supporting slavery on some level, then a government for a people that abhor slavery (which ought to be all humans) ought not focus on securing life but rather on securing what is constitutive of the good life. However, since what constitutes the good life may be different for every person, then the government is reduced to protecting choice and supporting liberty and autonomy. This cannot be done while denying access to information.

 

[therealUT]

1) Giving all threats to life is equal value is ridiculous.

2) Holding life, liberty, and autonomy as aspiring ideals is great. However, lets not act like those ideals fall out of the sky, that everyone values those ideals, or that such ideals will be magically defended from those who do not value those ideals.

3) The bold are not congruent.

1. Not ridiculous; mathematically sound. Remember, probability is not synonymous with risk. If life is infinitely valuable, then all threats are infinitely risky, so long as the probability is > 0. If you do not believe life is infinitely valuable, that is fine. I offered an argument to address that as well.

2. You've just proven my point as to why the government ought to protect choice, liberty, and autonomy.

3. Of course they are congruent. I support declassification. 7 billion lives are at risk regardless. Thus, I would support declassification even at the risk of 7 billion lives (hell, since I would do it at the risk of an infinite number or lives, 7 billion is included).

 

[notabed22]

Of course it is extreme. Here is the thing, though: I'd support declassification even at the risk of seven billion lives.

Here's the critical point. Once you start speaking to threats and security, you are speaking in terms of value. And, value theory is quantitative. One can say life is more valuable in two possible ways: there is nothing more valuable than life; or, life is more valuable than liberty but less valuable than something else. Prima facie, both of these assertions look like they may be used to justify slavery, but, upon deeper reflection, only the latter justifies slavery. If I say that life is less valuable than happiness or the common good (or whatever other good you want to substitute) and that life is more valuable than liberty, then I have committed myself (logically) to saying there are some things worth slavery (and, maybe even extermination of lives). This is where you find yourself in this debate.

On the other hand, if I say there is nothing more valuable than life, then I am saying that life is infinitely valuable. This might look as though it can be used to support slavery, but certainly not slavery merely due to the risk of losing life. This is due to the fact that if life is infinitely valuable, then all threats to life are infinitely risky, and, further, there is no possible way to reduce these risks. Thus, security becomes a means not for life but for other goods.

What are these other goods? If I say personal happiness, it's difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy. If it is difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy, then it is either difficult for me to see how others could be or I must admit that other individuals have desires distinctly different from me. If that is the case, then governments that try to tell individuals how to be happy will always err when providing a general solution, since the desires are particular and distinct. Thus, for happiness and/or the common good (which no longer includes mere physical security)the government must protect and defend choice: i.e., liberty and autonomy, neither of which is protected by keeping information away from individuals, and neither of which can be protected by a non-representative government (unless you believe in benevolent dictatorships).

Out of curiosity, therealUT, what did I say is "more valuable" than life? If I am advocating a balance between freedom of speech/liberty and national security, it would seem that I value life, in that sense alone, over everything else. This would place me in your former category and, thus, not justify slavery by your standard.

Conversely, by your willingness to sacrifice billions of lives in the name of liberty, you are placing the value of liberty above the value of life.

 

[therealUT]

Out of curiosity, therealUT, what did I say is "more valuable" than life? If I am advocating a balance between freedom of speech/liberty and national security, it would seem that I value life, in that sense alone, over everything else. This would place me in your former category and, thus, not justify slavery by your standard.

Conversely, by your willingness to sacrifice billions of lives in the name of liberty, you are placing the value of liberty above the value of life.

You must not know how to read.

If you value life over and above everything else, then, by default, you are placing an infinite value on life (unless you are saying that a combination of other goods is more valuable than life, but in that case you are not valuing life above everything else; aside from removing life from the value game and making it the valuator, which is not a move allowed if one is speaking of risks, then I've exhausted the possibilities). And, if you are placing an infinite value on life, then all threats are infinitely risky. So, unless you feel as though you can eliminate all threats to life (I dare you to try), then you are in no way decreasing risk (merely decreasing probability). That is mathematically and logically valid whether you like it or not.

Further, if we want to take the step and evaluate PRISM, here you have a program that at best is going to stop amateurs. So, we are sacrificing our liberty and privacy for minor threats, not major existential national security crises.

Metadata collection is not hard to foil. It just takes patience and awareness. As I understand these programs, they filter communications for key phrases, words, etc. and flag those communications with said phrases for review. Further, the individuals sending said flagged communications might be flagged and monitored for a certain period of time. The thing is, though, if you are able to avoid being flagged initially, you avoid the entire metadata program review.

So, you come up with easy codes. Easy, being the key word. They do not have to be sophisticated, since they are only being processed through a filter, not through human eyes. Hell, you could even send your emails to your associates telling them what the code will be and most likely this will get by the filter and will never be flagged. And, codes are easy. One could easily just build off a Black Horse and a quadratic alphabet and tell his associates to run a macro program on excel that will both code and decode the communication. If one feels as though that is too risky, hell they could just translate their entire message into binary code, since the filter is not going to pick up the binary code of the binary code.

So, if PRISM is stopping anyone it is stopping individuals that are already amateurs and sloppy. Individuals that would probably either not do a lot of damage or get caught anyway since they are jackasses.

As for the threats that one might feel they really need to worry about, those threats are only going to be foiled if said individuals and cells are already specifically targeted. But, if that is the case, then the PRISM program is unnecessary.

 

[FLVOL_79]

You must not know how to read.

She doesn't

 

[notabed22]

You must not know how to read.

If you value life over and above everything else, then, by default, you are placing an infinite value on life (unless you are saying that a combination of other goods is more valuable than life, but in that case you are not valuing life above everything else; aside from removing life from the value game and making it the valuator, which is not a move allowed if one is speaking of risks, then I've exhausted the possibilities). And, if you are placing an infinite value on life, then all threats are infinitely risky. So, unless you feel as though you can eliminate all threats to life (I dare you to try), then you are in no way decreasing risk (merely decreasing probability). That is mathematically and logically valid whether you like it or not.

Except, you know, for the unfortunate detail that life is neither a math problem nor a logic game. Eliminating or decreasing a single risk eliminates or decreases its likelihood of posing a threat to life. Or, as you phrases it, its probability.

No rational person would ever completely give up on the notion of classified information/state secrets because of the mathematical and logical validity of risk.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The point of government is not to secure life, but government can provide a certain level of security for liberty and autonomy, or the "pursuit of happiness". Since providing security for life is either meaningless or commits one to supporting slavery on some level, then a government for a people that abhor slavery (which ought to be all humans) ought not focus on securing life but rather on securing what is constitutive of the good life. However, since what constitutes the good life may be different for every person, then the government is reduced to protecting choice and supporting liberty and autonomy. This cannot be done while denying access to information.

The bold is absurd. The purpose of government is not to secure life but to provide a certain level of security for liberty and autonomy? The state of nature entails supreme liberty and autonomy. Submitting one's self to a government is the act of giving up a little of that supreme liberty and autonomy for some security for their life, security for their new lower level of liberty (after giving some up for the government), and security for their new lower level of autonomy.

 

[Weezy]

New Study Sounds Alarm About Distracted Driving

Last year, more than 3,000 deaths were linked to distracted driving accidents according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Safety, guys.

 

[therealUT]

Except, you know, for the unfortunate detail that life is neither a math problem nor a logic game. Eliminating or decreasing a single risk eliminates or decreases its likelihood of posing a threat to life. Or, as you phrases it, its probability.

No rational person would ever completely give up on the notion of classified information/state secrets because of the mathematical and logical validity of risk.

So, because you do not like the consequences of math and logic, you just opt to abandon then?

As I stated earlier, if you are speaking if risk, you are speaking of value and that is quantitative. If you think life is non quantitative, then it is not a value. If that is the case, then there can be probability but no risk. If there is no risk, then why should I care?

 

[YorkVol]

Of course it is extreme. Here is the thing, though: I'd support declassification even at the risk of seven billion lives.

Here's the critical point. Once you start speaking to threats and security, you are speaking in terms of value. And, value theory is quantitative. One can say life is more valuable in two possible ways: there is nothing more valuable than life; or, life is more valuable than liberty but less valuable than something else. Prima facie, both of these assertions look like they may be used to justify slavery, but, upon deeper reflection, only the latter justifies slavery. If I say that life is less valuable than happiness or the common good (or whatever other good you want to substitute) and that life is more valuable than liberty, then I have committed myself (logically) to saying there are some things worth slavery (and, maybe even extermination of lives). This is where you find yourself in this debate.

On the other hand, if I say there is nothing more valuable than life, then I am saying that life is infinitely valuable. This might look as though it can be used to support slavery, but certainly not slavery merely due to the risk of losing life. This is due to the fact that if life is infinitely valuable, then all threats to life are infinitely risky, and, further, there is no possible way to reduce these risks. Thus, security becomes a means not for life but for other goods.

What are these other goods? If I say personal happiness, it's difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy. If it is difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy, then it is either difficult for me to see how others could be or I must admit that other individuals have desires distinctly different from me. If that is the case, then governments that try to tell individuals how to be happy will always err when providing a general solution, since the desires are particular and distinct. Thus, for happiness and/or the common good (which no longer includes mere physical security)the government must protect and defend choice: i.e., liberty and autonomy, neither of which is protected by keeping information away from individuals, and neither of which can be protected by a non-representative government (unless you believe in benevolent dictatorships).

Reminded me of this quote from one of my favorite political discourses (Starship Troopers):

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119

 

[PKT_VOL]

1. Not ridiculous; mathematically sound. Remember, probability is not synonymous with risk. If life is infinitely valuable, then all threats are infinitely risky, so long as the probability is > 0. If you do not believe life is infinitely valuable, that is fine. I offered an argument to address that as well.

Under this line of thinking, EVERYTHING is a risk. Not only a risk, but of equal risk. That is incredibly short sided.

2. You've just proven my point as to why the government ought to protect choice, liberty, and autonomy.

I have no problem with the government protecting choice, liberty, and autonomy. I just don't understand, especially in the 21st century, how a state can adequately "protect" choice, liberty, and autonomy AND have compete transparency. Something has to give.

3. Of course they are congruent. I support declassification. 7 billion lives are at risk regardless. Thus, I would support declassification even at the risk of 7 billion lives (hell, since I would do it at the risk of an infinite number or lives, 7 billion is included).

Again, you believe all thinks are equally risky. Cray cray.

 

[therealUT]

The bold is absurd. The purpose of government is not to secure life but to provide a certain level of security for liberty and autonomy? The state of nature entails supreme liberty and autonomy. Submitting one's self to a government is the act of giving up a little of that supreme liberty and autonomy for some security for their life, security for their new lower level of liberty (after giving some up for the government), and security for their new lower level of autonomy.

Not absurd in the least.

1. The State of Nature is a fiction.

2. The Hobbesian State of Nature is theoretically flawed.

So, what "State of Nature" theory are you suggesting?

Plenty of social contract theorists, to include Rawls by the way, have absolutely abandoned the state of nature and society for security theses. Instead, building off of Hume's notions of sympathy and empathy (along with modern psychology), these theorists posit that societies are not about securing life but are about providing mutual benefits through division of labor, beneficence, love, etc. Many argue that the threats to life, throughout recorded history, withing society are only ever marginally less than in wars during the same periods. Thus, societies were not offering any great protection for life. What they were offering was something else. This something else is what the Founders of the US actually keyed into, thanks to the help of Locke, Hume, etc.: liberty, pursuit of happiness, not mere security (in fact, trading liberty for security seemed abhorrent to said founders, as it does to me).

Feel free to offer you social contract theory, though (as I've oft requested). Until then, I can only speak to those social contract theories that I know, Rawls being the most theoretically sound of all. Or, you can say that you simply believe in a barebones social contract theory in which it is what is explicitly agreed to; but, then, the US social contract would be the DoI and the Constitution, and what those men said and wrote at the time. Neither of these (Rawls or US contract) support your view that security of life is more important than liberty.