Re:Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance
by Nadya on Friday May 22, 2015 @08:17PM
(#9591503)
A chef of a wealthy businessman helped steal leftover scraps and give them to me. I used the food to feed a starving child on the streets. The food was going to be tossed into the trash, so there is no negative impact towards the wealthy businessman by my stealing of it. It is a victim-less crime. The chef and I are breaking the law. Should we go to jail for what we are doing? Is what we are doing 'wrong'?
In your world of absolutes - yes. The chef and I would go to jail or be fined for theft and the child may starve to death. All over food that otherwise would have been trash. That doesn't seem logical or moral on any level.
To allow for my lazy analogy, let's pretend we asked the wealthy businessman if we could donate any scraps to an orphanage and he was a Scrooge and said no.
>If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wrong, man.
That sounds like something the mafia might say of a rat. "Dude, I trusted you. WTF? Why would you tell about our drug smuggling to the police?" The important thing about Snowden's whistleblowing is that they were violating the law.
>The world would descend into chaos pretty quickly if we all decided to start reviewing and passing judgement on the data that we're in charge of, instead of just making sure that it goes where it's supposed to go without incident.
"Absolutely no questions asked" is a dangerous policy and once again smells of a criminal ring. "Don't ask what's in the package. Just get it to where it needs to be." What if someone is paid to transfer a trojan to your computer. Should they simply move the payload without questioning what it is or why or the legality of it?
>We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us.
The system is constantly revised, outdated laws are thrown out. Some laws are reworded. Laws are a reflection of the values of a society. These values can and do change. If it is the popular opinion that Snowden did the right thing then he did the right thing. That's that.
In your world of absolutes - yes. The chef and I would go to jail or be fined for theft and the child may starve to death. All over food that otherwise would have been trash. That doesn't seem logical or moral on any level.
To allow for my lazy analogy, let's pretend we asked the wealthy businessman if we could donate any scraps to an orphanage and he was a Scrooge and said no.
>If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wrong, man.
That sounds like something the mafia might say of a rat. "Dude, I trusted you. WTF? Why would you tell about our drug smuggling to the police?" The important thing about Snowden's whistleblowing is that they were violating the law.
>The world would descend into chaos pretty quickly if we all decided to start reviewing and passing judgement on the data that we're in charge of, instead of just making sure that it goes where it's supposed to go without incident.
"Absolutely no questions asked" is a dangerous policy and once again smells of a criminal ring. "Don't ask what's in the package. Just get it to where it needs to be." What if someone is paid to transfer a trojan to your computer. Should they simply move the payload without questioning what it is or why or the legality of it?
>We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us.
The system is constantly revised, outdated laws are thrown out. Some laws are reworded. Laws are a reflection of the values of a society. These values can and do change. If it is the popular opinion that Snowden did the right thing then he did the right thing. That's that.