I appreciate the sentiment, and it’s a catchy slogan, but I have to refute the idea.
If someone breaks into a home and takes nothing- but notices illegal drugs or an illegal “high flow toilet” or some other “crime,” and reports it- only a system of criminals would punish them?
I think not. Wether we weigh the “good” deed when considering punishment for the “bad” or we don’t, HOW crime is uncovered matters.
There are people who say that if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide and don’t need privacy- without privacy after all there would be far less crime.
We all use the bathroom, shower etc and that’s not wrong- but most of us would want privacy at some times right?
To protect that privacy, we can’t simply say the ends justify the means. If a hacker broke in to your computer and read your emails and viewed your files and history, would they find crime? Would they see things you might not want others to see?
The concept of vigilante Justice appeals to us.
Free from “red tape” and able to reach those people who the system “can’t touch” but we KNOW are in the wrong. The problem is the innocent people who get caught up in that. For every criminal caught through “any means”,
Without process or procedure what is there to protect innocent people from a system that has become criminal or motivated by emotion over evidence?
Good results can come from bad deeds- but does that mean we should say only the results matter, that we don’t need to protect against abuse only punish it after harm is done?
If that were the case why are attempted murder or threats even crimes? Why have building codes- why not just punish builders when people get hurt? The HOW is very important, and the principle of self accountability in society demands we be held for our actions and not just what we meant to do or what the results were.
Personally I don’t think the question matters much. Being a criminal simply means a person broke a law, most people are criminals. There are tens of thousands of “everyday” crimes and “socially accepted” drug and substance crimes and related crimes you can commit even if you aren’t partaking but are present as well as IP and technology crimes…. So being a “criminal” isn’t really so relevant- our lives are full of criminals.
To me the question is more: “how do we handle this?” And “what changes do we make going forward?”
The Snowden issue is complicated by a veil of secrecy- he can’t even be given a proper public trial or fully defend against the changes because simply defining what if any specific harm he caused would require divulging more sensitive information. There are legitimate needs for blankets of secrecy, but those systems are often used to hide wrong doings since the nature of such secrets means they can’t see the light of day- people abuse the system to conceal crimes
So I do have to ask the question- if he can’t be given the information that is even required to defend himself- how can he be prosecuted? There are no other examples in our justice system of cases where civilians can be accused of a crime and prosecuted and the prosecuted can say: “we can’t really give you evidence or explain the crime or even the harm- you have to take our word…”
Men who live by secrets must keep their secrets. Legal precedent exists- a pattent is a public document that tells the world exactly how your idea works- but protects it against use. Things which can’t be patented or aren’t served by patents well are “trade secrets,” they aren’t legally protected in the same way against use, their protection is that you keep them secret. If you want to keep secrets I feel there is a level of accountability that the one who wants the secret kept is responsible for making it stay that way- in this case- the government had a secret and they didn’t do a god job keeping it.
They can and have sought and won civil compensation for the breach of contract and privileged information- but their legal ground and precedent for things like invoking an espionage act are dicey and slippery slopes.
Snowden committed crimes and admits to them.
Should he be punished and what punishment suits the crime?
Those questions are more important to me. Intent factors in to punishment but isn’t the sole factor- manslaughter exists where there wasn’t intent but negligence for example, and drunk driving doesn’t require intent because it is inherently dangerous.
Do I blame him for running? I think in his shoes any smart person probably would.
Was it a crime to run? Yes.
So I mean- the issue of criminality is only a small and relatively insignificant piece of the puzzle. Ultimately he made a choice and bears a level of personal accountability for that choice.
He is essentially exiled and restricted in where he is safe in the world. He has suffered a good deal for his choice- at this point whatever the future holds for him legally- we can say that whatever if any harm he has done to intelligence gathering or asset safety or the United States- no punishment we could inflict would undo or “repay” that; and even a complete pardon or dismissal of charges wouldn’t take back or make up for the suffering and hardship he has suffered.
Lol. That gets an upvote from me.
The long detailed version is above, the short version is this:
Is he? Yes. No. Maybe. Criminality is relative as are things like punishment. Last I knew he was living in Russia, and Russia hasn’t jailed or punished him, so it doesn’t seem he is a criminal there. In the United States he is a wanted criminal, but not convicted in trial.
Wether an individual believes he is a criminal or did wrong or should be punished at all or what if any action should be taken against him is subjective as well.
when the government wants whistle blowers against businesses and will offer immunity and protection, except when the whisle is against the government, then it's a crime.
In theory yes. In practice your summation isn’t accurate. The government may protect both corporate and government whistleblowers or it may not. The laws are complex but it depends on how you go about exposing the perceived wrong. Snowden was frustrated because his attempts through official Methods wasn’t seeming to give results. He was probably correct to guess that it was unlikely anyone would actually do anything due to political factors. So he abandoned official channels and decided on his own to release information labeled as national secrets- not just the wrong doing itself, but details which weren’t approved for public release because they could cause harm to people or damage ongoing operations beyond the scope of the wrongs done.
It isn’t illegal to save a life, but you can still be arrested or sued if you decide to “wing it” and abandon established channels and processes to attempt it- deciding you’ll do surgery on an injured person because they don’t have insurance or an ambulance is taking too long might save them, kill them, or damage them for life- but whatever the outcome you might be put in jail and/or sued.
Information labeled secret can be private non government data like how to make a laser guidance system. Anyone working at that company on those systems likely needs security clearance because that technology is labeled a national secret due to its potential.
If you notice your job has been lying to clients about the accuracy of the laser and then publish the specs for the laser online- you have done “good” exposing your companies crime… but you’ve also given away secret defense information and possibly weapons technology to anyone who reads that. That’s bad. Intentions aren’t everything.
If someone breaks into a home and takes nothing- but notices illegal drugs or an illegal “high flow toilet” or some other “crime,” and reports it- only a system of criminals would punish them?
I think not. Wether we weigh the “good” deed when considering punishment for the “bad” or we don’t, HOW crime is uncovered matters.
There are people who say that if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide and don’t need privacy- without privacy after all there would be far less crime.
We all use the bathroom, shower etc and that’s not wrong- but most of us would want privacy at some times right?
To protect that privacy, we can’t simply say the ends justify the means. If a hacker broke in to your computer and read your emails and viewed your files and history, would they find crime? Would they see things you might not want others to see?
The concept of vigilante Justice appeals to us.
Without process or procedure what is there to protect innocent people from a system that has become criminal or motivated by emotion over evidence?
Good results can come from bad deeds- but does that mean we should say only the results matter, that we don’t need to protect against abuse only punish it after harm is done?
If that were the case why are attempted murder or threats even crimes? Why have building codes- why not just punish builders when people get hurt? The HOW is very important, and the principle of self accountability in society demands we be held for our actions and not just what we meant to do or what the results were.
To me the question is more: “how do we handle this?” And “what changes do we make going forward?”
The Snowden issue is complicated by a veil of secrecy- he can’t even be given a proper public trial or fully defend against the changes because simply defining what if any specific harm he caused would require divulging more sensitive information. There are legitimate needs for blankets of secrecy, but those systems are often used to hide wrong doings since the nature of such secrets means they can’t see the light of day- people abuse the system to conceal crimes
Men who live by secrets must keep their secrets. Legal precedent exists- a pattent is a public document that tells the world exactly how your idea works- but protects it against use. Things which can’t be patented or aren’t served by patents well are “trade secrets,” they aren’t legally protected in the same way against use, their protection is that you keep them secret. If you want to keep secrets I feel there is a level of accountability that the one who wants the secret kept is responsible for making it stay that way- in this case- the government had a secret and they didn’t do a god job keeping it.
Snowden committed crimes and admits to them.
Should he be punished and what punishment suits the crime?
Those questions are more important to me. Intent factors in to punishment but isn’t the sole factor- manslaughter exists where there wasn’t intent but negligence for example, and drunk driving doesn’t require intent because it is inherently dangerous.
Do I blame him for running? I think in his shoes any smart person probably would.
Was it a crime to run? Yes.
So I mean- the issue of criminality is only a small and relatively insignificant piece of the puzzle. Ultimately he made a choice and bears a level of personal accountability for that choice.
The long detailed version is above, the short version is this:
Is he? Yes. No. Maybe. Criminality is relative as are things like punishment. Last I knew he was living in Russia, and Russia hasn’t jailed or punished him, so it doesn’t seem he is a criminal there. In the United States he is a wanted criminal, but not convicted in trial.
Wether an individual believes he is a criminal or did wrong or should be punished at all or what if any action should be taken against him is subjective as well.
Information labeled secret can be private non government data like how to make a laser guidance system. Anyone working at that company on those systems likely needs security clearance because that technology is labeled a national secret due to its potential.
If you notice your job has been lying to clients about the accuracy of the laser and then publish the specs for the laser online- you have done “good” exposing your companies crime… but you’ve also given away secret defense information and possibly weapons technology to anyone who reads that. That’s bad. Intentions aren’t everything.