Hacker News Reader

Comment by pnathan | Hacker News Reader

Yes, this is what it's chartered to do.

Now, there exists a group of people, of which Assange is one (as far as I can tell), who believe that spying is wrong, and governmental secrecy is wrong. Thus this particular Wikileaks release, and, afaict, a lot of the Wikileaks effort has gone into promulgating that ideological goal. I would note that governmental transparency is pursued by multiple political groups across the US spectrum: police transparency, foreign policy transparency, purchasing transparency, etc. It's not a simple bijective mapping between the thought-movement Assange is with and the goal of governmental transparency; there are profound nuances and deep variances of goal within the broader 'transparency' ideal.

As for me, I am perfectly content to have the spy game played against heads of state; especially if it keeps down total system instability and human suffering.

View on HN

I don't think he believes all spying is always wrong, he believes there is a "non linear effect of leaks on unjust systems of governance".

If there's nothing outrageous about the who/why of your spying, you don't have to worry as much about your staff's desire to whistleblow, or the kind of consequences if they do, so you don't have to adopt dysfunctional internal policies trying to prevent leaks. Assange's job is to make leaking in general as safe and easy as possible, so the "secrecy tax" will disproportionately damage the unjust use of secrecy:

> "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption."

More loosely though he believes in privacy for individuals (a protection for the weak), with transparency for organizations. Spying on states doesn't violate the former, and I imagine in some cases you could argue it aids the latter.

Spying is illegal in most countries, including the United States. If an Italian spy were caught here stealing Obama's communications he would be put in jail for a lengthy term. If an American spy were caught in Italy they would also be arrested and sent to jail. This whole concept that it's OK for my country to spy on others is strange and hypocritical. It is not heroic, legal, or moral, to spy on other countries unless there has been a declaration of war.

No, the most common treatment of a spy acting under diplomatic cover (and that is the most common kind of spy) is simply to tell the purported diplomat that he may no longer stay in the host country, now being persona non grata. All countries around the world agree that they need to spy on one another and need to agree to be spied on by one another to make sure that diplomatic statements through official channels are verifiable. National leaders have to know the intentions of other national leaders--it would be irresponsible not to try to know.

AFTER EDIT: To clarify this point a bit, the world of espionage practice distinguishes "operatives" (nationals-employees of the foreign government, who first of all need a visa status even to be in the host country) from "agents" (nationals of the host country, who often have employment status in some sensitive position in the host country's government or armed forces). Yes, the United States and absolutely every country is harsh in its treatment of its own citizens who act as espionage agents directed by the intelligence operatives of foreign countries. Quite a few of the prisoners in the federal SuperMax prison in Colorado are people like John Walker or Robert Hanssen who were paid by the United States taxpayers to handle secret information with discretion and who were pledged by their terms of employment to not have contacts with foreign intelligence operatives at those operatives' direction. Men like that do hard prison time in any country where their activities are discovered. But the foreign operative usually just ends up expelled from the host country, unless there was something illegal in itself about the foreign operative's presence in the host country.

From the release on the Wikileaks site (https://wikileaks.org/nsa-201602/):

"The US government has signed agreements with the UN that it will not engage in such conduct against the UN--let alone its Secretary General."

There are no rules among nation-states. Any that you believe to exist, exist only at the whim of the most powerful states in the system. The only true international law is the law of the jungle. Many argue otherwise, but the minute that the survival of their freedom or prosperity hangs in the balance, they would unleash the most barbarous terrors on their enemy for a chance of victory.

A nation that doesn't spy on others is irrational and suicidal. Your enemy will not reciprocate your naivete. They will exploit it and enslave you.

A nation that doesn't punish spies (or their masters) caught within its territories is similarly irrational. The fear of death (or imprisonment) makes your enemy cautious and less effective.

The only morality in the international system is the morality of your own victory and what you do with it. In victory, you can spread peace, freedom, and prosperity to your heart's content. In defeat, your ideals are worthless.

> The only true international law is the law of the jungle.

Probably you are thinking of the "survival of the fittest", but that doesn't mean only survival of the fittest country, it also means survival of the fittest alliance of countries. In that sense, cooperation and reciprocal help leads to increased chance of success for a country.

When applying to humans, "the law of the jungle" is just half the story. People who are in groups that cooperate well are more likely to survive, too. Humans are social animals, we cooperate to get things done. Just being the fittest one single man does not necessarily make you more successful.

A better model for survival is ecology, which puts a big emphasis on the complex interdependency of species and individuals.

Or, to make an analogy: even if a cancer cell is the most fit to reproduce in the body, it will soon lead to the demise of its own organism and, as a consequence, live shorter than a regular cooperating cell.

>Now, there exists a group of people, of which Assange is one (as far as I can tell), who believe that spying is wrong, and governmental secrecy is wrong.

Let me tell you how to defend against that, because there will always be some of those people. Spy as little as possible, conceal it as much as you can, don't share your spy info to catch drug dealers, in fact, don't use it to prosecute crime at all, use it to stop real terrorist violence in progress and let some other jokers take the credit, use it to fact check diplomatic shenanigans. Spying and policing have zero business together in a free society.

Why don't we let the US/ UK Rule the world then ? I hope you understand which division NSA belongs to

> [...] a group of people, of which Assange is one (as far as I can tell), who believe that spying is wrong [...]

Obviously he doesn't, because he does what many people would consider spying.

I suggest that he has a more nuanced view that some spying is bad, and that you might want to consider that his support for it depends on how it serves the people.

> It's not a simple bijective mapping between the thought-movement Assange is with and the goal of governmental transparency; there are profound nuances [...]

Well, actually, no there aren't. Lying to bypass limits on your mandate is a crime, if not treason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com