Shouldn't we be doing more to discuss the nature of classified material that was exposed by the press, rather than just whether the "free press" is a good thing? Isn't there a continuum between reporting on e.g. D-Day invasion plans two days before and a judge who accepted cash to issue an injunction to stop vote counting in a contested election? And wouldn't the press be guilty of treason for the former, but fourth-branch status for the latter?
Why shouldn't we know about our own governments spying on us? Why shouldn't we be informed about how our government is governing?
The US Constitution, at least, was written in remembrance of the privations of an occupying army. The country was founded on the belief that the people are sovereign. If the people are to be sovereign, then they need to know what the government is doing. This is why we have freedom of the press, etc., and why this right is more important than any short-term goal.
The governments of the US and UK are acting like occupying armies. They disregard the rule of law, act arbitrarily, arrogantly, and without accountability. Fixing this is more important than any marginal security the NSA's secrecy provides. It's probably worth more than everything the NSA provides altogether.
It's been said here on HN, that if the anti-surveillance crowd were really serious, and constituted a good chunk of the voting public, then they would get organized like: Pro-Lifers, the Pro-Choice, Pro Gun, Civil Rights, etc. But it sounds like you are saying that your adversaries are agencies who by definition must act in secret, and there is no amount of political advocacy that can engage them on their level. It's only through some type of hacker-war, which you analogize to the revolution, that your concerns can be addressed?
I wasn't advocating a revolution, I think we can fix this inside the system we have. But I think that because we do have the means to allow us to fix it, like freedom of the press.
This episode bothers me in a different way than most violations of basic human rights. Because the violation is around privacy/secrecy, the violating entities have to attack the very means we have set up to correct violations. It's like a virus that attacks the immune system, something to be taken more seriously than the actual damage done, because it destroys the ecosystem's ability to correct other violations.
In any case, I was simply encouraging you to actually say something, rather than just say what sorts of things we should say, and then demonstrating what I meant.
I don't see any progress toward fixing this from within the system. Snowden and WikiLeaks are more analogous to an exiled resistance group than to people trying to work within the system. MLK stayed right here and got arrested and murdered.
Surveillance won't be a major political issue unless it tangibly affects a lot of people in a negative way. That's just not happening now. Most people don't care. But there are other things they do care about because they feel the effects.
I have no problem with allowances given to intelligence agencies at a time of war, however I do not recall that the UK or USA have declared war on anyone, let alone anyone whom the information pertains too.
Following the admission of the CIA and MI5 involvement in the 1953 military coup in Iran, and this has already been known/suspected but the war really wasn't on terrorism.
In the past the definition of public interest was much clearer because nationality was such a defining factor in how you would be treated. A friendly German in Britain during the war was still locked up even if they were no threat. Civilians were killed because they lived in a particular country rather than the ideology they supported. Identity is much more globalized and more diverse than in the past, and it is unreasonable to tie people down to a single national interest. The press need to consider what is in the public interest for the whole world.
I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't see how a more globally integrated society can be used as an argument to exempt members of the press, who are physically located in a nation, from being subject to the laws of that nation. We still manage to have international trade despite the fact that each nation has their own laws regarding money and trade, so a news organization (or reporter), like a business (or individual), can relocate itself to a country more favorable to its agenda.
There is a big difference between being concerned, advocating for, and helping those in other nations, yet still being a citizen of your nation, and imagining yourself as a global citizen who is above the laws of any one nation.
Agree 100%. Ironically terrorists give exactly the same "public interest" defense for their actions; appealing to a higher power than national interest. Personally I like the approach that Google adopts of having an overriding ethos, but also respecting local laws. The risk is that government will not be able to tell the difference between a noble ethos and a perverted terrorist one. I don't know what the solution to that is. Ignoring human rights is not the solution.
Yes. We absolutely should. But I personally think the actions by the state (completely ignoring due process and right to trial prior to the acquisition and destruction of a private entity's property) are even more treasonous.
