Hacker News Reader

Comment by betterunix | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com