491–500 of 510 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's a better and non-naive view? Bonus points if you can explain why it's impossible to develop and sell a link encryptor running OS software.
Will any explanation do? Sounds like you are limiting your scope to super narrow boundaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re assuming that anyone in the government cares about what she was surfacing. That’s why whistleblowers go to the press, because the power structures that be don’t care.
Yeah, I don't really accept that kind of logic. That's the kind of stuff that says Jan 6 is okay because the government is that untrustable. In Snowden's case, sure, but in Manning's case her testimony also highlights that intel analysts had been building a case against the helicopter crew for a while.
I respect your stance as well, but disagree that it's always the best. A messy situation like the Manning stuff had numerous avenues of approach and none were great.
The only difference between a leaker and whistleblower is whether you agree with their motives and reasoning. It’s basically the same difference as between a revolutionary and insurgent or terrorist, or a partisan and rebel. The parallel goes even further because it’s essentially a sacrificial asymmetric resistance from within that is impossible to fully prevent. We definitely need to remember that character assassin…
Well that depends. A lot of times "leakers" have no motives with respect to ethics, or weak ones. Like people who leak features for products for fun, or to thumb their nose at their employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no Ok, well a lot of people care about warrants. You can feel free to not care! But a lot of other people care about warrants. Therefore, it is good that this stuff was exposed, according to the people who care about warrants.
> Ok, well a lot of people care about warrants. Including me. > Therefore, it is good that this stuff was exposed, according to the people who care about warrants. Once again, no country in the world requires its intelligence agencies to get a warrant to surveil a foreigner outside its borders who has information relevant to national security. This is both legal and something we all expect, and we already knew this b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He first went to Hong Kong, then like Korea (we’re not sure), then Russia. It’s a little suspicious eh? I thought the american people deserved to know the things he released… But it might have been less innocent than one guy being a whistleblower. Other peer powers accommodated him in their interests.
>He first went to Hong Kong, then like Korea (we’re not sure), then Russia. What? He went to Hong Kong, then got a flight to Ecuador via Russia. He chose Russia as layover location because Hong Kong has a limited amount of flights and he ruled that the one least likely to arrest him en route. There was no "we're not sure."
I can understand that someone may have thought I was intentionally saying something wrong.
The truth is: I did not know/remember exactly, and thought we were having a conversation about a controversial issue. Facts are most appreciated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it. What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I…
here is a list of things you think matter here, but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak: - whether you agree with the killing - whether it is 2 or 2 million - what their profession is - whether they are civilians - whether you personally think they're corrupt - what you personally have a problem with literally none of your ab…
I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available.
Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the ire of many who have written books and debating this topic at great depth and length.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
here is a list of things you think matter here, but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak: - whether you agree with the killing - whether it is 2 or 2 million - what their profession is - whether they are civilians - whether you personally think they're corrupt - what you personally have a problem with literally none of your ab…
The purpose of the comment section is to elucidate ideas. It's not for playing stupid one-upping games. I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available. Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the i…
sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 people being killed by an intelligence leak. QED.
any other stupid 1-upping games, to avoid the fact that the claim has been proven true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of the comment section is to elucidate ideas. It's not for playing stupid one-upping games. I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available. Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the i…
as it turns out, no "stronger" evidence is needed of >1 people of any type being killed as a result of an intelligence leak, since very good examples were already presented sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 pe…
Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them.
Sources?
Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability.
Assange's "US Army manual for Guantanamo prison camp" leak. Who knows how much further abuse that prevented from happening?
Assange's "Video of US helicopter fire killing civilians in Iraq"
And so on, and so on. You could actually say in this case that there are "tons of cases troughout history" and I'm presenting several to you that had a large impact. Where are your tons of cases with large impact? We're still waiting.
There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm. Prove otherwise if you can, but careful because if you attempt it you're also proving to me that you don't believe in truth.
Another question I have is, why are you more concerned by the potential deaths caused by a leak than by the deaths the leak is exposing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as it turns out, no "stronger" evidence is needed of >1 people of any type being killed as a result of an intelligence leak, since very good examples were already presented sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 pe…
Your claim being true (even tho your "tons of evidence" amounts to 1 weak case so far) or not, the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one. Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. Sources? Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability.…
maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything
> There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm
same here as above: that's irrelevant to the below question
> the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one.
the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is the rest of your post repeats, for at least the third time, nothing but irrelevant, mostly emotional opinions, distracting from the topic at hand:
Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?
Yes. QED.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person living in Sweden, it seems that my most immediate concern is USA. They are the ones that can ask the swedish government to make up some BS accusations to arrest me and eventually ship me to USA where I will be tortured.
As a person living in Sweden, I think your (and my) immediate concern should be the Swedish government. It's a weak, spineless, and outdated institution that only worked for a few decades because it relied on the homogeneity of the population's opinions (and the unwillingness of those opposed to voice their opinions) to make decisions based on a fake idea of common sense. Assange is just one example, merely an outlie…
Uuuh??? They are the ones talking about taking away citizenship from people (with dual citizenship I hope, otherwise it's against human rights), exactly to be able to deport even swedish citizens.
At this point becoming a citizen would become completely meaningless.
And they got voted in power, so I guess they have support from the majority of people.