

Domestic spying ‘inconsistent with the values of this country’ - tareqak
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/01/former-obama-official-domestic-spying-inconsistent-with-the-values-of-this-country/

======
cobrausn
"We also have an over-classification problem. I don't condone what Ed Snowden
did. He made a commitment to protect classified information. Breaking that
commitment was wrong. However, he did bring to light this classification
problem, which needs to be debated as a society. The problem with over-
classification is you create an inherently closed system. Closed systems are
prone to failure. In fact it's not just technology. Think of the political
system. Closed totalitarian systems are inherently weaker than open
egalitarian systems."

Anyone else seeing the contradiction here?

~~~
cmyr
As someone who has clearly had an S/TS, (and who may want to have one again in
the future) it would probably be (at least) irresponsible of Mr. Finan to
condone the discloser of S/TS material by somebody with a clearance.

~~~
w_t_payne
I do not think that there is any insurmountable contradiction in perceiving
the _act_ of leaking classified information as a serious breach of both
professional ethics; organizational trust and national duty; whilst also
appreciating the opportunity for debate that arises as a consequence of the
leak.

Rhetorical flourishes and occasional emotive rants aside, we are basically all
friends, and friends tell each other when they are doing something bone-
headed. Even if similar bone-headed stuff is normally kept quiet for very very
good reasons indeed.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> national duty

It's difficult to "appreciat[e] the opportunity for debate" without also
acknowledging that there is a legitimate argument to be made that secret mass
surveillance is _wrong_ , in which case a legitimate argument can also be made
that one's national duty to disclose a program of mass surveillance trumps any
professional duty to respect its secrecy.

Indeed, any reasonable legal framework for state secrets will include the
notion than an overwhelming public interest _should_ overrule the expectation
of privacy. See, for example, the Canadian _Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act_ (FIPPA), which includes an _obligation to disclose_
private information to the public if there are reasonable grounds to believe
that there is an overriding public interest in disclosing it.

Again, the problem with Edward Snowden's disclosures is not that he breached
some ethic or etiquette, but rather that such programs as he disclosed should
never have existed in secret in the first place.

~~~
w_t_payne
Vae Victis.

Surveillance is power, and the powerful get to make the laws; and get to
decide what is considered moral and what is not. If absolute loyalty to the
state apparatus is to trump individual judgement and professionalism, then
that is the way that it will be.

As they sow, so they shall reap, however, and we will get exactly the sort of
society that was asked for: Craven and irresponsible.

Of course there will be tears in the end. There always are.

------
stygianguest
Any 'values' that apply only to a certain nationality aren't worth much
anyway.

~~~
jwoah12
How does stating that one country has certain values imply that no other
country has those values?

~~~
ds9
I think what stygianguest meant was that values worthy of respect are not
specific in their applicability according to the nationality of the agent.

For example, if a Russian spy in the NSA revealed some documents, or if a US
spy in Pakistan revealed documents, the author's value judgment against
Snowden would not apply, because it is specific to a home-country actor
breaking rules of the home country.

