Privacy and the State

[french frank]

Not quite. What I think that it boils down to is that those in authority believe that the authority vested in them entitles them to do as they please with impunity as and when they consider that it suits them to do so and that, in reality, there are no such people as "lesser mortals" because laws are made by governments that consist of people who are supposed to be subject to those laws just as are the rest of us who are not in government.

It depends what you understand by "it". I meant scotty's argument. Sorry I was not clear.

A Catholic priest refusing to divulge information gleaned in the confessional is a most obvious example.

That is according to canon law. According to civil law there are certain crimes that must be reported. A question of 'higher authority' taking precedence, 'irrespective of the circumstances'?

[Frances_iom]

Leaving the predictably sillier comments aside ...

An oath (or promise) of secrecy is morally binding. ...

my understanding is that his formal commitment was the 'uphold the constitution' - there is a major agument that much of NSA has done is actually unconstitional thus the whistleblowing

[Pabmusic]

You finsh your excellent points with " To that extent he is a threat to any government."...

Perhaps I should have said "To that extent, governments will probably be wary of him".

[Spitfire brings back happy memories.]

[ahinton]

It depends what you understand by "it". I meant scotty's argument. Sorry I was not clear.

OK - fair comment.

According to civil law there are certain crimes that must be reported. A question of 'higher authority' taking precedence, 'irrespective of the circumstances'?

The law is the law and those who make it are and should be seen to be as subject to it as those who pay them to do it.

[ahinton]

my understanding is that his formal commitment was the 'uphold the constitution' - there is a major agument that much of NSA has done is actually unconstitional thus the whistleblowing

Indeed. NSA, CIA, FBI and all other offices of the US government are supposedly as subject to the law as all of those citizens that they are charged to protect and, if any of them in US can be proved to have acted unconstitutionally, they should be as subject to legal scrutiny and prosecution as anyone else. One of the reasons why this is sometimes not the case is because some people tend to be more inclined to allow them to get away with unconstitutional acts as the culprits are thus enable to hide behind the fact that they represent organisations rather than themselves as individuals; another, which exacerbates the consequences of the first, is an all too widespread blind faith in governments that is presumably based on the fact that, as the citizens pay to put them in office, they must somehow be infallible and trustworthy.

[amateur51]

Perhaps I should have said "To that extent, governments will probably be wary of him".

[Spitfire brings back happy memories.]

[on sale at a reasonable price in Wood Green Wetherspoons, Pabs]

[amateur51]

Indeed. NSA, CIA, FBI and all other offices of the US government are supposedly as subject to the law as all of those citizens that they are charged to protect and, if any of them in US can be proved to have acted unconstitutionally, they should be as subject to legal scrutiny and prosecution as anyone else. One of the reasons why this is sometimes not the case is because some people tend to be more inclined to allow them to get away with unconstitutional acts as the culprits are thus enable to hide behind the fact that they represent organisations rather than themselves as individuals; another, which exacerbates the consequences of the first, is an all too widespread blind faith in governments that is presumably based on the fact that, as the citizens pay to put them in office, they must somehow be infallible and trustworthy.

Is there not also a public mindset exemplified by scotty and Mr Pee on this Board that says "If the powers-that-be have to break our laws to protect us then there must be a good reason for it and I'm glad that they do!"?

[ahinton]

Is there not also a public mindset exemplified by scotty and Mr Pee on this Board that says "If the powers-that-be have to break our laws to protect us then there must be a good reason for it and I'm glad that they do!"?

There certainly appears to be but, as I hope that I indicated earlier, such a mindset seems to me to be quite alarmingly widespread rather than being confined to those who seem to think about matters in general as those two members do; it is a mindset that, in my view, is potentially far more dangerous than is realised by the majority of those who adhere to it and, indeed, it can be taken as tacit endorsement of the undermining of and interference with .the rule of law

[scottycelt]

Not sure I agree entirely, Ams. Snowden is being feted (by some) as a sort of Robin Hood/White Knight character; it sounds almost as if it's out of 1066 And All That (Wikileaks is a Good Thing). Well, there's another side to it. All governments, I am sure, have many things they wish to keep secret; no-one but the ultra-naive would be surprised by that. Many are even more ruthless than the Americans (or perhaps more competent than them) at keeping their secrets secure.

I'd therefore be surprised if governments were queueing up to welcome Snowden, with or without threats from the US. His track record of leaking secrets to the general public is quite good. To that extent he is a threat to any government.

[I doubt I'll get a pint for this, but I'm dieting anyway.]

You'd certainly get at least a couple of pints from myself and such a kindly gesture is highly unlikely to ruin your dietary planning, Pab. :winkeye:

The evidence that you are absolutely correct is overwhelming. The list of countries swiftly rejecting Mr Snowden's request for asylum appears to be growing by the day.

Thankfully, governments throughout the world ... whether of the Left, Right or Centre ... are not quite as stupid and naive as we sometimes tend to imagine. They can be understandably highly suspicious and distrustful of the Mr Snowdens of this world.

Of course, there may yet turn out to be one, I suppose. There often is ...

[french frank]

Thankfully, governments throughout the world ... whether of the Left, Right or Centre ... are not quite as stupid and naive as we sometimes tend to imagine. They can be understandably highly suspicious and distrustful of the Mr Snowdens of this world.

Why do you put their non-acceptance down to suspicion and distrust of Edward Snowden? Isn't it more likely to be straightforward inter nation diplomacy? It's unlikely he would be applying for employment in their secret services, is it?

[ahinton]

The evidence that you are absolutely correct is overwhelming. The list of countries swiftly rejecting Mr Snowden's request for asylum appears to be growing by the day.

There is indeed, but have you asked yourself why that might be and come up with some kind of answer that might take on board the possibility of fear of US reprisals? No, I thought not.

Thankfully, governments throughout the world ... whether of the Left, Right or Centre ... are not quite as stupid and naive as we sometimes tend to imagine.

Why "thankfully"? And on what grounds do you conclude this in any case?

They can be understandably highly suspicious and distrustful of the Mr Snowdens of this world.

I'm certainly with you on that, although the fact that any government that might risk being exposed for acting against the tenets of its own constitution would "be understandably highly suspicions and distrustful" of whoever is doing the exposing should surely be plainly obvious!

Of course, there may yet turn out to be one, I suppose. There often is ...

It is worth remembering that, whilst 21 is not a small number of countries in this context, the remainder of the world's nations appear not yet even to have been asked and, according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23145887, of those 21, Austria, Brazil, Finland, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland have declined, the application to Russia has been withdrawn, those to Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands and Nicaragua are pending and those to France and Venezuela are as yet unconfirmed.

[ahinton]

Why do you put their non-acceptance down to suspicion and distrust of Edward Snowden? Isn't it more likely to be straightforward inter nation diplomacy? It's unlikely he would be applying for employment in their secret services, is it?

Of course the rejections have been on diplomatic grounds and of course Mr Snowden would not be seeking such employment, as you state but, to date, as I have indicated to scotty, only nine countries have so far turned down his application for political asylum, one such application has been withdrawn by Mr Snowden himself, nine more are pending and two more have yet to be confirmed, which seems to me to add up to a very small proportion of the world as a whole, given that http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworl..._the_world.htm states that, "since South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011, there are now 195 independent sovereign states in the world (including disputed but defacto independent Taiwan), plus about 60 dependent areas, and 5 disputed territories, like Kosovo".

In a recent statement to Wikileaks, Mr Snowden "thanked "friends new and old" for his continued liberty", adding that "on Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case, yet now it is being reported that, after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions. This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten not me but those who would come after me". He added that the White House was "using citizenship as a weapon" and had denied him the right to seek asylum by revoking his passport, "leaving him a stateless person" and stopping him from "exercising a basic human right... the right to seek asylum"; he further observed that "in the end, the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake - we are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless - no, the Obama administration is afraid of you - it is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised - and it should be. I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many."

I think that, given the immense risk to he knew and knows that he is subjecting himself by acting as he has done and is doing, that "so many" deserve to return him that compliment.

I wonder sometimes if scotty is against whistleblowing full stop or whether it's only selected instances thereof, such as this one.

I should say once again that, although this thread has quite understandably latched onto the Snowden case and run with it, its topic remains the wider one of "Privacy and the State" and the gravity of the Snowden case ought not to persuade us to put to one side the other aspects of government and other snooping about which we should all continue to be as vigilant as we can be and greatly concerned in any case.

[scottycelt]

Why do you put their non-acceptance down to suspicion and distrust of Edward Snowden? Isn't it more likely to be straightforward inter nation diplomacy? It's unlikely he would be applying for employment in their secret services, is it?

I think Pab summed it up perfectly. I cannot really put it any better than he did. Of course diplomacy and good relations between nations play a significant part here but, as I suggested right at the beginning, Mr Snowden, whether we think he is right or wrong, has clearly demonstrated he is not a man to be trusted by the very action he has taken. Other counties may have a lot more dodgy things to hide than the US which can be sold to newspapers without any need for dishonest snoopers like Mr Snowden to join their secret services to discover. Has anybody even asked how much the Guardian paid Mr Snowden for his somewhat less-than-startling 'revelations'? Presumably he didn't do all of this for no monetary reward?

It seems reasonable to assume that this will not have escaped governments throughout the world as well as armchair political amateurs like myself!

[ahinton]

Of course diplomacy and good relations between nations play a significant part here

I am relieved that you do at least accept that in principle.

but, as I suggested right at the beginning, Mr Snowden, whether we think he is right or wrong, has clearly demonstrated he is not a man to be trusted by the very action he has taken.

Assuming you to mean that he cannot be trusted by reason of the very action [that] he has taken, on what grounds do you claim this an on whose behalf? in other words, who is it that, in your view, has no reason to trust him other than the authorities in the country whose activities he is exposing?

Other counties

Herefordshire, perhaps? (especially as I live there for the time being!). No - clearly you mean "countries", but...

may have a lot more dodgy things to hide than the US which can be sold to newspapers without any need for dishonest snoopers like Mr Snowden to join their secret services to discover.

Er - wait a moment; "sold to newspapers" by whom and how? How can anyone sell such information to newspapaers without having done something along the lines that Mr Snowden has done in order to ascertain facts about certain governmental activity that could be so sold?

Has anybody even asked how much the Guardian paid Mr Snowden for his somewhat less-than-startling 'revelations'? Presumably he didn't do all of this for no monetary reward?

As neither you nor I have any idea as to the correct answer to this, I can only ask why you would appear to assume that Mr Snowden might have offered the information (that is now already publicised well beyond the offices of The Guardian and to which that newspaper therefore has and can claim no deal of agreed exclusivity) to that particular newspaper for any sum of money when no such sum (or at least none that The Guardian could possibly hope to afford) could hope to compensate Mr Snowden for the possible consequences of the invidious position in which he has knowingly and courageously placed himself?

It seems reasonable to assume that this will not have escaped governments throughout the world as well as armchair political amateurs like myself!

It might seem reasonable to you, scotty but, since none of those governments has yet made any comments about it, it is arguably well less than reasonable to the rest of us!

[scottycelt]

There is indeed, but have you asked yourself why that might be and come up with some kind of answer that might take on board the possibility of fear of US reprisals? No, I thought not.

Are you answering your own questions on my behalf now, ahinton ... ? :laugh:

My actual answer is contained in my last response to ff.

Why "thankfully"? And on what grounds do you conclude this in any case?

a) I assume you, like me, would tend to prefer a situation where governments around the world were not particularly 'naive' and 'stupid' ... ?
b) The information I've gleaned from news channels from all over the world, ahinton. For a genuine attempt at impartiality I would particularly recommend Al Jazeera.

I'm certainly with you on that, although the fact that any government that might risk being exposed for acting against the tenets of its own constitution would "be understandably highly suspicions and distrustful" of whoever is doing the exposing should surely be plainly obvious!

Precisely. Which is excactly what I've been saying and you appear to have been arguing against all along?

It is worth remembering that, whilst 21 is not a small number of countries in this context, the remainder of the world's nations appear not yet even to have been asked and, according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23145887, of those 21, Austria, Brazil, Finland, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland have declined, the application to Russia has been withdrawn, those to Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands and Nicaragua are pending and those to France and Venezuela are as yet unconfirmed.

Yes, ahinton, I'm sure you are absolutely right that Mr Snowden didn't apply to every known nation on the planet for political asylum. As yet no country on the same planet has come forward to grant him his wish. However, as I say, there may well be one who may do, eventually.

Nevertheless, our hero whistle-blower is not exactly spoilt for choice at the moment is he ... ?