Hacker News Reader

Comment by mahyarm | Hacker News Reader

Imagine your an accountant for a firm, you realize they are committing unethical accounting practices, some which may be 'legal', some which may be 'not legal'. You feel like they are pretty heinous and they breached the 'trust of the public' by doing so.

In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.

View on HN

Is the answer ever to release all of the firms data about all clients to the public, including ones who have completely legal and legitimate business with the firm? Because that's what Manning did.

How would you know my opinion on it?

Because you stated it was ironic for someone who breached the trust of the military to be talking about trust, which implies that you valued the militaries trust over the trust of people in the military.

It's ironic regardless. Whether I value the military's trust or not doesn't enter into it.

Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics.

She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.

Then I guess it depends on if you view the military doing things that most of the people who they are supposed to protect disagree with, as a violation of trust or not.

I personally don't believe that saying one side followed all the rules when they have the power to make the rules has any weight as a moral argument

Reply on news.ycombinator.com