Privacy and the State

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Considering that you have no idea to which 'views' I refer by the vague word 'often' you are a little hasty in your considered opinion. In my view.

Ah, so nothing to do with the present discussion then, and the views of those opposing you? Yeah, that'll be right.

[french frank]

Ah, so nothing to do with the present discussion then, and the views of those opposing you? Yeah, that'll be right.

As may be seen from my previous post, I was making some general comments about people disagreeing, fairly consistently, with others. That is not to say that you, personally, are 'people', or 'others. I am/was generalising. As I'm sure, on looking at the context, you now realise. I give you credit for it.

[french frank]

Snowden joined American Intelligence. He broke a promise not to divulge internal secrets. He did just that and therefore betrayed the organisation he joined and his colleagues. He went to a politically-sympathetic press 'in the public interest' and then fled to Putin's Russia seeking political asylum.

As a simple statement of fact that is likely to be true, other than in your use of quotes round 'in the public interest', betraying your own prejudice. You doubt his principles.

Let me give you an analogous scenario. I know someone, quite well; part of the reason being that he lives in Bristol. He is possibly a few years older than Edward Snowden, perhaps early thirties. He's a civil servant. Working in Cheltenham.

Now, suppose that he discovered that in his work he was required to carry out duties which he believed to be wrong and that he felt that, since these activities were illegal, this should be publicised. Does he:

a) Just carry on with the job anyway?

b) Say, hang it! I promised to say nothing but I'll get out of this hellhole and find another job?

c) Do what he thought was right in the first place - blow the gaff?

Where would your priorities lie?

[Richard Barrett]

Back to dictionaries ...

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that I was actually quoting a well-known piece of twentieth-century literature whose dystopian vision of thought control and surveillance seems to be coming more true all the time, with the connivance of complacent attitudes such as yours - "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". Who is it who decides what "doing something wrong" is, in this context? For example there have been times in British history where being a Roman Catholic has been defined as "doing something wrong", which you presumably don't think is the case. The concept of "enemy of the state" can be and has been redefined many times to suit the priorities and fears of the ruling class. You can never be sure that it won't some time include you, or your friends or relatives, or people you otherwise care about.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Surely, in your book there is also:
d) Discuss the issue with his immediate (inhumane) superior.

[Frances_iom]

...
Snowden joined American Intelligence. He broke a promise not to divulge internal secrets.
...

since he could have had no idea what the internal secrets were prior to joining and could only act on assumption that NSA was acting fully within the constitution of the USA (which I understand all gov employees are bound to uphold) his initial promise was inherently conditional, thus on finding his initial assumption that the actions of his employer were in accord with the constitition was incorrect his promise was no longer binding.
A similar argument applies in the EU that EULAs that take away your legal rights are inherently non-enforceable - thus you can argue that finding his emplyer was acting unconstitionally (as it seems has been agreed by all observers) and knowing that the Obama admin acts against whistleblowers only just below the level of Stalinist Soviet Union I think he did about the only thing that might bring some oversight to the obviously out of control NSA and its UK poodle

[scottycelt]

As a simple statement of fact that is likely to be true, other than in your use of quotes round 'in the public interest', betraying your own prejudice. You doubt his principles.

Let me give you an analogous scenario. I know someone, quite well; part of the reason being that he lives in Bristol. He is possibly a few years older than Edward Snowden, perhaps early thirties. He's a civil servant. Working in Cheltenham.

Now, suppose that he discovered that in his work he was required to carry out duties which he believed to be wrong and that he felt that, since these activities were illegal, this should be publicised. Does he:

a) Just carry on with the job anyway?

b) Say, hang it! I promised to say nothing but I'll get out of this hellhole and find another job?

c) Do what he thought was right in the first place - blow the gaff?

Where would your priorities lie?

I put the inverted commas around 'in the public interest' because that itself is a wholly subjective view open to huge debate. You only seem to see 'prejudice' in some (me!) with whom you disagree. You think Snowden deserves praise for his actions. I don't. Both are opinions. I don't see why mine is any more 'prejudiced' than yours! As for 'doubting his principles' I'm simply looking at his actions and forming that opinion. Of course, he could be the most honourable person in the world but the available evidence is not particularly in his favour.

I assume your friend works for GCHQ? If so he knew (presumably) what he was letting himself in for and, if he made a promise not to divulge internal secrets, that promise should be kept. If he finds he cannot go on due to conscience he should quit. Now that Catholicism has inevitably been brought into the discussion by another member there is a similarity here between that and a priest in the confessional required not to divulge information about someone who has admitted to a crime. That is the deal. Sometimes that is not very helpful to the authorities but it is widely understood and respected. A promise is a promise, a confidence is a confidence. Both words become entirely meaningless if broken.

If your young friend doesn't work for GCHQ and strict secrecy isn't required then there isn't really any problem for him in the first place? He can do exactly what he likes and good luck to him!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

since he could have had no idea what the internal secrets were prior to joining and could only act on assumption that NSA was acting fully within the constitution of the USA (which I understand all gov employees are bound to uphold) his initial promise was inherently conditional, thus on finding his initial assumption that the actions of his employer were in accord with the constitition was incorrect his promise was no longer binding.
A similar argument applies in the EU that EULAs that take away your legal rights are inherently non-enforceable - thus you can argue that finding his emplyer was acting unconstitionally (as it seems has been agreed by all observers) and knowing that the Obama admin acts against whistleblowers only just below the level of Stalinist Soviet Union I think he did about the only thing that might bring some oversight to the obviously out of control NSA and its UK poodle

There's a step in that logic "thus on finding his initial assumption that the actions of his employer were in accord with the constitution was incorrect" which assumes that he (both Snowden and Manning) diligently tested that conclusion. Of course, if like FF there's a presumption of institutional inhumanity, then that's easily disposed with.

[french frank]

I put the inverted commas around 'in the public interest' because that itself is a wholly subjective view open to huge debate.

Then there was no need to include it in what you presented as the facts of the case. That was why I questioned it. The fact was that Snowden claimed he acted in the public interest; no need to enclose that in quotes.

As for 'doubting his principles' I'm simply looking at his actions and forming that opinion. Of course, he could be the most honourable person in the world but the available evidence is not particularly in his favour.

That, again, is how it strikes you. To me his actions make perfect sense. Why would you stick around to face the fury of a state that, unlike the UK, still has the death penalty for what it judges to be treason?

I assume your friend works for GCHQ? If so he knew (presumably) what he was letting himself in for

Not a friend. Someone I know. Why should he know that he was letting himself in for becoming a lawbreaker?

and, if he made a promise not to divulge internal secrets, that promise should be kept.

The argument is that you don't know in advance that you're going to be required to break the law. Circumstances alter cases. This is also the difference with the confidentiality of the confessional. It's the point about the difference between people that I was describing earlier. You really don't think there's anything wrong in the state breaking the law if it 'has its reasons'. Other people simply don't accept that.

You say a promise is a promise; I say the law is the law. I would concede (probably unlike you) that there may be circumstances where both should be broken, and it's the general attitude of the individual that decides him to do so in those circumstances. It is not a question of him being right and you being wrong. Nor of him being wrong and you being right. Life ain't that simple.

[Frances_iom]

...Of course, if like FF there's a presumption of institutional inhumanity, then that's easily disposed with.

by time of Snowdon it was obvious - recall the Army's treatment of Manning - even the US admin was forced to accept it was inhumane but they still tried for the death penalty in court - GCHQ know that their actions probably run foul of EU human rights on privacy (see latest leaked memo) - they even got one of their poodles to lecture against the Guardian (another indication that those supposedly having an oversight role are actually agents of those they nominally control)

[Frances_iom]

...Now that Catholicism has inevitably been brought into the discussion by another member there is a similarity here between that and a priest in the confessional required not to divulge information about someone who has admitted to a crime. That is the deal. ...

actually I suspect this is only convention and probably dates from the time Canon law was thought to outrank civil law tho in some countries it may be enshrined in law via some church/state protocol but not in the USA/UK that I'm aware of - the gospel states that the apostles had power to loose sins in heaven not that they had power to loose the rightful consequences on earth.

[scottycelt]

Then there was no need to include it in what you presented as the facts of the case. That was why I questioned it. The fact was that Snowden claimed he acted in the public interest; no need to enclose that in quotes.

The reason I did include it (and used inverted commas) is because it is presented as fact by Snowden and his supporters. Now that you appear to be correctly reducing it to a mere 'claim' is certainly a step in the right direction.

That, again, is how it strikes you. To me his actions make perfect sense. Why would you stick around to face the fury of a state that, unlike the UK, still has the death penalty for what it judges to be treason?
Not a friend. Someone I know. Why should he know that he was letting himself in for becoming a lawbreaker?
The argument is that you don't know in advance that you're going to be required to break the law. Circumstances alter cases. This is also the difference with the confidentiality of the confessional. It's the point about the difference between people that I was describing earlier. You really don't think there's anything wrong in the state breaking the law if it 'has its reasons'. Other people simply don't accept that.

You say a promise is a promise; I say the law is the law. I would concede (probably unlike you) that there may be circumstances where both should be broken, and it's the general attitude of the individual that decides him to do so in those circumstances. It is not a question of him being right and you being wrong. Nor of him being wrong and you being right. Life ain't that simple.

Well again we appear to have some meeting of minds. In a perfect world I'd agree 100% with you but, sadly, it 'ain't' a perfect world.

It would appear you have as high moral standards over strict observance of the civil law as you claim I have on officially-agreed confidentially between two parties. That's fine, we can simply agree to differ in our priorities here.

However, there is also the clear difference between the State having the right to do what it thinks is necessary to protect its citizens (even if it occasionally means breaking the civil law) and the arbitrary actions of a single unelected individual in deciding what is right for the State!

[ahinton]

If a contract of employment offered by an arm of government might require, or even merely allow, the contracted employee to break any of the laws set by that government, there has to be something wrong with the contract that in its conflict with employment laws; if, however, a court is not empowered by law to interfere with or pronounce against such an employer's right to require, or even merely allow, its employees to break any such laws, then the law is indeed something rather worse than a mere ass.

[french frank]

The reason I did include it (and used inverted commas) is because it is presented as fact by Snowden and his supporters. Now that you appear to be correctly reducing it to a mere 'claim' is certainly a step in the right direction.

No, it's not! I'm not reducing it to a mere claim. I'm saying that if you wish to be purely factual, that how you describe it. You said you were repeating the facts. The facts don't need quotes. I accept the claim as true, you don't. Just don't twist words.

However, there is also the clear difference between the State having the right to do what it thinks is necessary to protect its citizens (even if it occasionally means breaking the civil law) and the arbitrary actions of a single unelected individual in deciding what is right for the State!

A clear difference there may be; it doesn't exclude the possibility of the state being wrong.

[scottycelt]

No, it's not! I'm not reducing it to a mere claim. I'm saying that if you wish to be purely factual, that how you describe it. You said you were repeating the facts. The facts don't need quotes. I accept the claim as true, you don't. Just don't twist words.

I now admit to being totally confused as to what you actually do accept as fact. Read your own posts. I don't need (or wish) to 'twist' anything, it's all there in black and white. I simply take your words at face-value. Make up your mind!

A clear difference there may be; it doesn't exclude the possibility of the state being wrong.

Of course it doesn't exclude that possibility, but I'm glad you now see the difference, though I'm rather wary you might later say you said nothing of the sort!