Censorship

[BigRedBuster]

On 1/22/2021 at 10:34 AM, RedDenver said:

 

I gotta admit, I'm torn on this issue.

 

a). I firmly believe that someone should be protected by blowing the whistle on serious abuses of power within the government.

 

But....

 

b). I also firmly believe that the government needs to have the ability to have secrets while working to protect us from danger.  

 

So, I struggle with how you reconcile these things.  Let's say someone believes they are doing the right thing by dumping a bunch of secrets on the internet.  Sure, it causes a whole big mess.  However, it's all true but it doesn't show the abuses the person believes they do. Let's say this dump puts in grave danger certain intelligence assets and their families and it ruins then our ability to collect information in sensitive areas.....which actually puts us in more danger....even though the person believes they were doing the right thing.

 

What should happen to that person?

[Moiraine]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I gotta admit, I'm torn on this issue.

 

a). I firmly believe that someone should be protected by blowing the whistle on serious abuses of power within the government.

 

But....

 

b). I also firmly believe that the government needs to have the ability to have secrets while working to protect us from danger.  

 

So, I struggle with how you reconcile these things.  Let's say someone believes they are doing the right thing by dumping a bunch of secrets on the internet.  Sure, it causes a whole big mess.  However, it's all true but it doesn't show the abuses the person believes they do. Let's say this dump puts in grave danger certain intelligence assets and their families and it ruins then our ability to collect information in sensitive areas.....which actually puts us in more danger....even though the person believes they were doing the right thing.

 

What should happen to that person?

 

 

 

Maybe where we draw the line is who they talked to. If they went straight to Russia, a country with far less privacy and fewer freedoms than we have, to complain about our citizens' privacy being violated and publish it for the world to see, that's different than someone reporting it to the proper authorities within the U.S.

Although, this is Snowden's claim:

 

Snowden has said that he had told multiple employees and two supervisors about his concerns, but the NSA disputes his claim.^[97] Snowden elaborated in January 2014, saying " made tremendous efforts to report these programs to co-workers, supervisors, and anyone with the proper clearance who would listen. The reactions of those I told about the scale of the constitutional violations ranged from deeply concerned to appalled, but no one was willing to risk their jobs, families, and possibly even freedom to go to [sic] through what [Thomas Andrews] Drake did."^[83][98] In March 2014, during testimony to the European Parliament, Snowden wrote that before revealing classified information he had reported "clearly problematic programs" to ten officials, who he said did nothing in response.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

Maybe where we draw the line is who they talked to. If they went straight to Russia, a country with far less privacy and fewer freedoms than we have, to complain about our citizens' privacy being violated and publish it for the world to see, that's different than someone reporting it to the proper authorities within the U.S.

Although, this is Snowden's claim:

Also keep in mind that other whistleblowers were prosecuted for following the rules before Snowden, so he had a lot of evidence he was going down no matter what if he reported. Plus there's a clear discrepancy in what happens for the elite and what happens to the rest.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning

 

[Ulty]

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I gotta admit, I'm torn on this issue.

 

a). I firmly believe that someone should be protected by blowing the whistle on serious abuses of power within the government.

 

But....

 

b). I also firmly believe that the government needs to have the ability to have secrets while working to protect us from danger.  

 

So, I struggle with how you reconcile these things.  Let's say someone believes they are doing the right thing by dumping a bunch of secrets on the internet.  Sure, it causes a whole big mess.  However, it's all true but it doesn't show the abuses the person believes they do. Let's say this dump puts in grave danger certain intelligence assets and their families and it ruins then our ability to collect information in sensitive areas.....which actually puts us in more danger....even though the person believes they were doing the right thing.

 

What should happen to that person?

In my mind, the difference would be that a legitimate whistleblower, acting in good faith, reports their concerns to an appropriate outlet so the information can be vetted and investigated. Dumping information on the internet for all to see does little good, and I don't consider that to be legitimate whistleblowing, unless that person has already tried the appropriate authorities and/or responsible media. Releasing confidential info to the public can be irresponsible and have negative consequences for national security, or a business's ability to operate. But reporting unethical behavior through appropriate channels can and should be protected.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Ulty said:

In my mind, the difference would be that a legitimate whistleblower, acting in good faith, reports their concerns to an appropriate outlet so the information can be vetted and investigated. Dumping information on the internet for all to see does little good, and I don't consider that to be legitimate whistleblowing, unless that person has already tried the appropriate authorities and/or responsible media. Releasing confidential info to the public can be irresponsible and have negative consequences for national security, or a business's ability to operate. But reporting unethical behavior through appropriate channels can and should be protected.

OK....so, you have someone like Snowden who, supposedly, tried the appropriate channels and didn't think he was being taken seriously.  So, he goes another route that was extreme.  Who then decides if he's a hero or a criminal who harmed our national security?

[Ulty]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK....so, you have someone like Snowden who, supposedly, tried the appropriate channels and didn't think he was being taken seriously.  So, he goes another route that was extreme.  Who then decides if he's a hero or a criminal who harmed our national security?

I honestly don't know (which kind of makes my previous post useless). In Snowden's case, was there ever any actual evidence produced that he took his concerns upward through his chain of command before he did what he did?

 

I guess my personal opinion is that he harmed our country's national security interests and is not a hero, although I understand where his heart was at. But I admit to not knowing all of the details of the Snowden case. It is a complex case, and probably one that will be studied for a long, long time.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Ulty said:

I guess my personal opinion is that he harmed our country's national security interests and is not a hero, although I understand where his heart was at. But I admit to not knowing all of the details of the Snowden case. It is a complex case, and probably one that will be studied for a long, long time.

This is where I'm at with this.  I firmly believe he thought he was doing the right and moral thing.  But, sometimes when we THINK we are, we aren't.

[Ulty]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is where I'm at with this.  I firmly believe he thought he was doing the right and moral thing.  But, sometimes when we THINK we are, we aren't.

I agree.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

I honestly don't know (which kind of makes my previous post useless). In Snowden's case, was there ever any actual evidence produced that he took his concerns upward through his chain of command before he did what he did?

 

I guess my personal opinion is that he harmed our country's national security interests and is not a hero, although I understand where his heart was at. But I admit to not knowing all of the details of the Snowden case. It is a complex case, and probably one that will be studied for a long, long time.

 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is where I'm at with this.  I firmly believe he thought he was doing the right and moral thing.  But, sometimes when we THINK we are, we aren't.

A lot of reasons to think the NSA has not provided all the evidence about whether Snowden brought up his concerns. This is a long article but goes into the details and the timeline:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-his-concerns

 

And Snowden revealed that the NSA was gathering intel on American citizens, which NSA Brennan had lied about under oath to Congress. That seems like a pretty big thing to consider.

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

And Snowden revealed that the NSA was gathering intel on American citizens, which NSA Brennan had lied about under oath to Congress. That seems like a pretty big thing to consider

This^^^^^

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

A lot of reasons to think the NSA has not provided all the evidence about whether Snowden brought up his concerns. This is a long article but goes into the details and the timeline:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-his-concerns

 

And Snowden revealed that the NSA was gathering intel on American citizens, which NSA Brennan had lied about under oath to Congress. That seems like a pretty big thing to consider.

I know the example being discussed is Snowden.  But, I'm not talking about Snowden specifically.  I'm more thinking about anyone who believes they need to become a whistle blower in the future.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I know the example being discussed is Snowden.  But, I'm not talking about Snowden specifically.  I'm more thinking about anyone who believes they need to become a whistle blower in the future.

Gotcha.

 

There definitely needs to be better whistleblower protections and an elimination of the tiered system that protects the powerful and punishes the rest.

[Notre Dame Joe]

On 1/25/2021 at 2:21 PM, BigRedBuster said:

I gotta admit, I'm torn on this issue.

 

a). I firmly believe that someone should be protected by blowing the whistle on serious abuses of power within the government.

 

But....

 

b). I also firmly believe that the government needs to have the ability to have secrets while working to protect us from danger.  

 

So, I struggle with how you reconcile these things.  Let's say someone believes they are doing the right thing by dumping a bunch of secrets on the internet.  Sure, it causes a whole big mess.  However, it's all true but it doesn't show the abuses the person believes they do. Let's say this dump puts in grave danger certain intelligence assets and their families and it ruins then our ability to collect information in sensitive areas.....which actually puts us in more danger....even though the person believes they were doing the right thing.

 

What should happen to that person?

If only the US Constitution addressed whether these persons have freedom print what they think.

 

 

My Pillow Guy purged by Silicon Valley Stalinists.

 

[teachercd]

Of course the NSA was gathering intel on Americans and of course they lied about it.

 

 

[knapplc]

10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

If only the US Constitution addressed whether these persons have freedom print what they think.

 

 

My Pillow Guy purged by Silicon Valley Stalinists.

 

 

(because it'll be funny)

 

What part of the Constitution do you think plays a role in this situation?