Hacker News Reader

Comment by thufry | Hacker News Reader

Whistleblowing is a desirable behavior only in certain situations, and the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is one that is made on a case-by-case basis and open to reasonable debate in many cases. Snowden seems to be really treading quite heavily in this grey area with his disclosures of US cyberattacks on Chinese targets.

Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.

View on HN

The distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is pretty clear. Espionage is done covertly for the benefit of a foreign power. Whistleblowing is done overtly and for the benefit of the public. You would have to be using a pretty stretched definition of "espionage" (like the one the US government uses) to think it has anything to do with whistleblowing.

Cut-and-dried espionage isn't a grey area. It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess. If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War? In each case, the answer is not obvious -- the reason that leaking classified information is such a serious crime is that there are extreme, permanent costs to making the "wrong" decision.

> It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess

I think that is what the OP is exhorting you to access for yourself.

I can decide for myself, but by going public, a whistleblower decides for everyone.

> If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War?

Those things aren't being done to the public. Cripes, man.

Something doesn't have to be done to an individual directly for that action to strongly influence that person's life. The Union victory in the Civil War, to this day, influences the average American's life much more than PRISM. All actions with wide-ranging lasting consequences are "done to the public."

Network intrusions in China weren't done against the U.S. public either, but Snowden disclosed that publicly.

Attacks against civilian infrastructure, like hospitals.

"any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII )

If someone does something in your name and with your money that you would be ashamed to do yourself, how is that not an attack on you? Honest question.

Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.

Yes, and? What difference would there be? The civilians in some third world village would have time to run to the hills, and the US would still get to drop their bombs and use their drones, and weapons and arms manufacturers would still get to supply them. They make just as much money wether they blow up empty space or people, after all.

Sure, it would stem the flow of convenient terrorists which provide the pretext for the fireworks, but you could have undercover operatives do that, and since those also have to get paid by tax payers, it would be a net win -- even more money would be magically generated and trickle down to everybody, yay! We would all move from rich to mega rich, so yes, I would want to make that case, absolutely.

> but you could have undercover operatives do that

No, you couldn't.

Even then, it's not like actual "bad guys only" are needed, only the public perception in enough people that they exist. There are many avenues to explore here, think big? You kinda have to; it's a trillion dollar industry, it doesn't take no for an answer.

Yeah, but now we are in the world of fantasy. I really can't speculate there.

Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? Classified information is necessary when dealing with a hostile force that keeps classified information of its own. It's a lot easier to claim that "Information X should be public" than it is to make a blanket claim that "All information should be public."

Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership?

That's kind of the point. When was the last time that actually applied? Cold war, at most.

When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? The strategy is outlined, it's for full spectrum dominance. Not defense, conquest. For that reason I think a more apt comparison would be to compare it to someone who gave out secrets about axis operations.

Whether a certain action would be more like giving out Allied secrets or more like giving out Axis secrets is a matter of opinion and perspective -- by going public, a whistleblower forces his or her own interpretation of the situation onto the entire population.

Yeah, he's such a nasty agressor. Best put him away for espionage, before he can brutalize everyone even more. And to think we even defend that guy! Stockholm Syndrome much, right?

> When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission?

As recently as 1991 or thereabouts.

I would count 2001 myself to dislodge Al Qaeda but I might understand why you wouldn't.

And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.

As recently as 1991 or thereabouts.

1991? You mean Iraq? "It's only a war when two armies fight" -- Bill Hicks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

^ Explain a stunt like that in presence of an actual, credible threat. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Anything else? I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's bully 101 to consider even being looked at the wrong way as an attack, while considering anything defense as long as they are the ones doing it. I also know bullies don't like it when people have sharp bones on which their fists get hurt. But other than that...

You said it yourself; "full spectrum dominance". Why should any military fight another military on even odds if they can bring overwhelming force? Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!

> Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry

But the U.S. did pay reparations. The U.S. should apologize, certainly. But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?

Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.

Why should any military fight another military on even odds if they can bring overwhelming force?

If you defend yourself, the strength of the attacker doesn't matter as much as if they actually are an attacker. You have to defend yourself either way, and yes, of course you use anything you can to your advantage.

But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?

As much as running over a sea mine? If such an incident is an argument for anything, how much bigger a military apparatus would Iran be entitled to just based on that plane being shot down?

Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!

Well, I meant peasants in relation to the US, not to their neighbours.

"Nobody" had a problem when Saddam gassed Kurds while he was an ally -- neither with him being a dictator. It was when he disobeyed that he suddenly was this grave threat to everyone and the whole region. That's what I consider bully logic. It wasn't about peace or innocent life, it was about obedience, and even more innocent lifes were ended just to make that point. Twice, because the first time they somehow turned around after defeating Saddam, like saving a dessert for later.

Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.

I did not intend to call you personally a bully, sorry for not making that more clear. And please don't think I believe most nations don't engage in the same hipocrisy and selective indignation, calling a pin prick suffered a holocaust, and a holocaust dished out a pin prick. But the US is currently very good at it, state of the art if you will. That even this might be offensive to some Americans I would have to accept. Those are the choices violence forces on us, once there has been abuse that has not been acknowledged and cleared up, you can't be friends with the abuser without insulting the abused, and vice versa.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com