Week_12+-+Lundberg+and+Moore

__**Week 12 - Lundberg and Moore.**__

__**Cody Witko:**__

In Moore’s conclusion he writes that he supports the actions of Wikileaks but in a narrower fashion that recognizes its down side and possibilities for harm. “It is only a mater of time before the disclosure of some state secret leads to an agent being discovered and killed…my current thinking about the Wikileaks movement is that it is a necessary evil. If governments and corporations want to have privacy and security in sensitive information, then they would do well to offer these same protections to ordinary citizens.” (152-153). He continues to write that Wikileaks takes the form of one of the “wrongs” in the “two wrong” system. This claim seems to then accuse the government (or corporations I suppose) as the second wrong. Yet this idea feels faulty to me. The government, in its ideal, is implemented in order to further the general will and well being of the population. The many examples where the government does in fact commit wrongs stems from incongruence with the general will. So it seems to me that the government it self is not a wrong, but rather those individual will amidst the government that create these wrongs. Furthermore I don’t find the fundamental ideal of Wikileaks as a wrong either. Wikileaks seems to act as a necessary part of government which should further the general will (presumably by causing transparency in government).

So what is this wrong or evil that is so prevalent in our system? What we have is competitive forces of individual wills (or smaller group wills like political agendas and corporate goals) that use secrets and power in order to further specific ends. If there are wrong doings within the confines of the government it is not the institution of the government itself that constitute “wrongs” but those who abuse power. Wikileaks then may have the same instances of abuse, but the institution and its idea goals do not exist as a “wrong” in my mind.

   [[ima
 * Ben Gearheard**

Adam D. Moore takes an example by James Stacey Taylor, and expands it for the “just trust us” argument. “Suppose technology has advanced to the point where miniaturized robots roam everywhere, recording everything. Not only do they record everything you say or do from numerous angles, but they also record your very thoughts. This entire vast amount of information is uploaded to an ever-growing database. Taylor argues that ‘rather than opposing such an expansion of surveillance technology, its use should be encouraged—and not only in the public realm’” (p.144-45)

This is taking “just trust us” to the extreme- and I agree with Moore’s reasons that it fails. I think that it assumes that government cannot err in its actions, given the maximum amount of information available; and this assumption isn’t legitimate given certain facts about human behavior and cognitive biases.

I think the extreme example also fails because it sets up a system unbelievably valuable to groups outside of the government. I imagine that all the information collected would be sought after relentlessly by individuals seeking to make a buck off of knowing what other people are thinking. Would the system be prone to hackers and thus create a real security risk to the people the government ‘genuinely’ intends to protect? Psychological researchers might see value in this trove of mental data, but even then the cost to privacy is too great compared to potential for the perversion of this science by business interests and psychologists greedy for patents.

How could the idea that this database //should// be used be justified? Some ideas: a) the system in every case would have to provide greater benefit than cost; b) the government would have to submit to the same level of surveillance and scrutiny that it makes its citizens submit to; c) all its actions would have to be completely publicly accountable at every step. But even if these few considerations are met, wouldn’t such a database still create an uncontrollable security threat, especially from outside its jurisdiction?

Unless we live in a global utopia, the government having such a database is a really bad idea (understatement)

Moore seems to want to constantly “turn the tables” on the pro-government-surveillance-in-the-name-of-security folk with regards to Wikileaks. This ends up reading as “look at the nonsense that conservatives say, isn’t it contradictory?” On 145, Moore says, “It is also interesting to consider how the ‘just trust us’ view looks in light of the WikiLeaks movement. I doubt that any government or corporation would find such a view compelling if the tables were turned. … Moreover, why should government or corporation complain if they have nothing to hide?” (145). While it is worth pointing out such inconsistencies in thought, there is a major difference in the two cases. In the first case, of government surveillance and erosion of the privacy of individuals, it is active surveillance (spying) on individuals. These individuals have almost zero power with regards to the functioning of the state; yes, they can break laws and so disrupt things for a time, but there are the courts for going after such people. In the other case, of the press (wikileaks) reporting on government and corporate secrets, we have a body with some amount of power (the press) reporting (not spying) on secrets from bodies with incredible power for corruption and no good. Furthermore, the body being reported (not spied) on has enormous power to influence or change legislation to their benefit, thereby putting the perpetrators of injustices outside the realm of the law. And we see this consistently. Where are the indictments on bankers and traders that led to the financial collapse? Where are the indictments on Bush administration officials for the use of torture, indefinite detention, and starting an unnecessary war on false pretences? Why is the Obama administration allowed to kill US citizens abroad absent due process? What are the legal grounds for the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen? We don’t know, we’re only told that it’d be too costly for national security to even confirm that a drone program exists. This is the kind of stuff that governments and corporations are allowed to do. They can completely flout the law and cover up all evidence against their actions. The power difference between the two cases is enormous. So, with regards to Wikileaks, we don’t need to employ “just trust them” or “nothing to hide” arguments to support the practice of reporting on government secrets. Does, as Moore seems to want to do, the argument for or against Wikileaks need to come down to a competition between secrecy and security? Is there a better way to conceive of this problem? What are the relevant differences in the cases? Do Rousseauian conceptions of providing a check on government power provide all the argument we need? .
 * Brendan O'Donnell**

I find it interesting that Moore thinks of Wikileaks as turning the tables on the government and championing a "level playing field". Although this will be the beneficial outcome in many cases, to be sure, is Wikileaks really the hero we've been waiting for? Moore admits: "Critics of the Wikileaks movement note that the unleashing of government secrets will lead to a body count. I would agree. It is only a matter of time before the disclosure of some state secret leads to an agent being discovered and killed" (page 152). On the next page he refers to Wikileaks as a "necessary evil". He makes me think of a little scrawny kid who hires one bully to fight off another bully. However, what's to keep either bully from beating up the scrawny kid when the opportunity arises? Are we safer in our security or our privacy by having two thugs instead of one?
 * Susan Thomas**

When addressing the notion of “security trumps” view, Moore writes on page 147, “In fact, one could argue that security only gets its value derivatively based on what it is protecting. On this view, security would be an instrumental value—something used to promote intrinsic values.” There are a couple of things to note here. First, intuitively and prima facia, I think this claim seems reasonable. There are certain things I personally believe are secrets, and I have various motives for keeping this and that secret. Because of this secret holding, my secrets are in some way valuable. Granted, government secrets are different in nature than individual secrets, I think there is still application with this line of thought. Second and more importantly, taking the notion of the intrinsic value of secrets, one ought to be critical to this claim. Although, I think the claim sounds reasonable at the onset, a question permeates its strength: If a secret is intrinsically valuable on the basis of it being a secret—then what happens to the value of the secret upon being exposed? Does the secret, now given its transparency and exposure, lose the value that it may have previously possessed? Applying this notion to Wikileaks, and some of secrets that they have exposed, which arguably haven’t //damaged// U.S foreign policy (as quoted by Secretary Gates) do the secrets lose their value on the basis of being exposed? I think that the answer is, in a way, they do. And I think because of the answer being ‘yes’ on the loss of value, there is a direct correlation with the response to Wikileaks given the embarrassment the U. S government experienced. Having secrets exposed makes one accountable for said secrets. If they (the secrets) loose value on the basis of exposure, then justification is required for secret keeping in the first place. Therefore, it seems that claiming secrets are intrinsically valuable (in this case at least) is a temporary deceptive front on the justification of secret keeping.
 * Bryce Blankenship**

**Tim Johnson** I find myself interested in Moore's definitions of 'privacy' and 'security' offered on page 142. Privacy, he tells us, is the "right to control access to and uses of bodies, locations, and information," while security "affords individuals control over their lives, projects, and property." Am I wrong to suggest that these two definitions are more alike than they are different? 'Property' seems to include within its bounds both locations and information, and, at least on one philosopher's view, bodies; even if 'property' so-called ought not include one's own body, 'lives' clearly does. Given, then, that the definition of 'security' offered by Moore seems to cover all the aspects of his definition of 'privacy,' where is the difference between the two? Is privacy simply the square to security's rectangle, or is the relationship not so specialized? While it is intuitively the case that privacy and security are in tension, I do not believe that Moore has made sufficiently clear the distinction between the two; perhaps this project is left to us, the readers?

"Critics of the WikiLeaks movement note that unleashing government secrets will lead to a body count. I would agree. [...] But on the other hand, those of us who have been relatively powerless to control or demand information have lived with this threat for years. The cases of governments, corporations, and criminals using information obtained from various data banks to kill or control average citizens are too numerous to count. While I agree that 'two wrongs don't make a right,' I would stress what this phrase acknowledges. There are TWO wrongs. Perhaps with the leveling of the playing field, so to speak, we will find better ways to promote accountability and privacy. [...] The WikiLeaks movement [...] is a necessary evil. If governments and corporations want to have privacy and security to sensitive information, then they would do well to offer these same protections to ordinary citizens. My fear is that what we will get are more domestic and international legal instruments designed to protect the current power structures. Those who can control and demand information while avoiding accountability by withholding secrets will write the rules to their advantage." (153)
 * Beth Ropski**

While this is a rather long quote from the Moore piece, it really struck me as a clear and defined way to state the issues in government in relation to WikiLeaks. Most of me wants to agree with Moore completely, but a little part is skeptical. Like we've talked about in class, there's and issue with certain citizens gaining certain information about the government. While most of the public is sane, relatively balanced, and not homicidal, there are definitely the few loose screws that aren't and would be at risk for taking this leaked information and using it in treasonous ways. How do we regulate who gets access to this information? How do we keep the information protected wile it is out in the public? Moore stated earlier in this piece that he has worries about political figures in power losing sight of their job in situations of distress and being swayed into accepting bribes or making poor decisions. Even though we elect these people into office, we never really know who they are or what they're like. How then do we create a system that keeps the people in power in line while allowing the public access to information? Does the public have a right to know this information? How does private/individual information differ from private/government information? How would we go about picking who got to read the leaked information?

In Friend or Foe: wiki leaks and the Guardian, Lundberg introduces Assange as believing that information //“even classified or dangerous information, should be available to everyone.”(p.1)// From our discussions in class I think we were all in consensus that “dangerous information” ought not be published based on national security, if for example it lets people know that the ship will be sailing at 5:50 PM whereas knowledge that a ship will be sailing in the future is information that can be published.
 * Aly Lamar**

Based on Assange's relationship with the Guardian newspaper prior to the release of secret US government documents the case poses interesting perspectives about appropriate journalism and decision-making. Prior to this class I may have been just like Deputy Editor Katz's spouse and have asked “//what on earth are you doing, and why on earth are you doing this? You're going to start a war somewhere//.” //(p. 17)// But after examining the freedom of the press and free speech, I would now have to conclude that a Assange is still “friend" over "foe.”

At the beginning of the case study Rusbridger's trusted friend questioned his publication with “//are we serving our interests, by publishing material which weakens the president, who we think is trying to do the right thing?”// While I prefer Obama to the alternative myself, as a journalist - this case study helps illuminate that being a journalist is to be like Rousseau's “eyes of democracy” not a propaganda machine for the political party of your choice. Similarly, all of the questioning that's presented in the case of if publication was the “right” thing to do makes me wonder how Rousseau, or Mills would define “right” versus the journalists in today's media age who are having to deal with a variety of political pressures from losing their jobs to not being a trusted outlet to disappointing a president they support.

In Lunberg’s work, it was stated that: “ The news organizations had three prevailing worries. One was logistical—how should they publish the Afghan reports, all at once or over several days? The second was ethical—how to redact the battlefield reports to protect individuals? The third was legal—would governments, especially the US and UK, try to stop publication altogether? After all, the US government must have learned from Private Manning what was in the documents.
 * Tyler Morrison**


 * Brian Malone **

When reading Moore’s essay one tends to sheath their sword of “security over all other things” and instead raise the shield of “privacy at all costs.” In the central part of his essay on pages 145-47 he gives mention to the “Nothing to Hide” argument, which states that if you are not a criminal then you should not worry that you are being probed and monitored by your government. Leading into the “Nothing to Hide” argument he brings up an argument made by James Stacey Taylor. Taylor’s argument is that in the future we are monitored 24/7 by small robots that are used by the government to watch us and enforce laws by what they see through the monitoring robot’s lens. I am in agreeance with Moore’s scared reaction to Taylor’s blind trust that the robots will only be used justly. I, like Moore fear a government being given to much power and taking away too much of my privacy because I believe everyone has the right to a decent amount of privacy. My father holds the view if “Nothing to Hide” and says that he just doesn’t want to think about it, and I think that is the problem for most of us. We as a people have succumb to the mighty hand of the government that I feel we may be too late to do much if anything to resist the government. Toward the end of the essay (page 151) Moore brings up the Patriot Act and how if circumnavigates constitutional amendment four in that they can for all intents and purposes break into your house warrantless and only later let the home owner know. This is one of the many things that frustrate me when it comes to this act. For I feel that we only let the Patriot act pass because of 9/11, and we did so out of fear. We can’t let fear run our lives and whenever day we die comes to pass there is little we can do to stop it because we probably don’t know it is coming. Therefor we must take Moore’s concluding advice and if we must have heightened security then there needs to be heavy civilian oversight and little breaks into the public’s Privacy.


 * randall Gunn **

From Lundberg pg. 13 “ Then on October 24, //New York Times// correspondents John Burns and Raavi Somaiya published a profile of Assange. Titled “WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety,” the piece quoted one critic as saying “he is not in his right mind.” It also said Assange dismissed the reporters’ questions as “cretinous” and “facile.” The front‐page article, which ran the day after release of the Iraq war logs, enraged Assange. He felt the paper had betrayed him. Does the //Times//, he asked rhetorically, employ only ʺjournalists with extremely bad character?””

My question here becomes of what is the true character of a journalist? What makes a good journalist, and what makes for good journalistic behavior? From what I understood in the article, both sides acted with an impulsive, impatient behavior, Assange with his unpredictability and Leigh and Davies of the //Guardian// with their willingness to betray. It appears the motivation for a good story, what initially seemed to draw Assange to the //Guardian// doesn't seem to entirely stick, and as far as I can tell, Leigh and Davies were obviously motivated by something other than public service, such as with their publicity fears over the Assange sex scandals and fear of UK Libel laws. What actually makes good journalistic character? I would think it requires an altruistic service of the public insofar as the release of information by any means; the journalists have the latter idea down, but did they follow what I would see as the first? Or am I wrong in my assumption of what constitutes good journalistic behavior?


 * Emily McCormick**

In Adam Moores, “Privacy, Security, and Government Surveillance” the conclusion he draws is really scary. When he quotes Justice Douglas on page 153, all I can think of is //1984,// “The time may come when no one can be sure whether his words are being recorded for use at some future time; when everyone will fear that his most secret thoughts are no longer his own, but belong to the Government; when the most confidential and intimate conversations are always open to eager, prying ears. When that time comes, privacy, and with it liberty, will be gone.” Since morality can only be described as subjective, when will the government know when to stop listening for immoral discussion among their people? Does privacy equate to freedom? Once there is no privacy left, what will remain?


 * Matthew Baughman **

On page 7 of the Lundberg piece it states - " The news organizations had three prevailing worries. One was logistical—how should they publish the Afghan reports, all at once or over several days? The second was ethical—how to redact the battlefield reports to protect individuals? The third was legal—would governments, especially the US and UK, try to stop publication altogether? After all, the US government must have learned from Private Manning what was in the documents." If these are the three main concerns that influenced journalists, how can we build a framework to protect transparency? If we consider that there aren't really any prior cases to inform their decision how to act how should we rate what they were able to accomplish? For Assange it seems that he will never have another break of this magnitude with Wikileaks because of the extremely high visibility. Yet, the question is can we foresee a pragmatic development in the way journalists are able to leak documents by creating a structure that protects these three conditions? Furthermore are there other conditions that should be satisfied in a framework like Cohens where freedom of speech and press have a vested interest on the international scale?

"The cases of governments, corporations, and criminals using information obtained from various data banks to kill or control average citizens are too numerous to count. While I agree that 'two wrongs don't make a right,' I would stress what this phrase acknowledges. There are two wrongs." Moore 153
 * Ryan Braun**

Moore's personal argument in his paper focuses on the lack of accountability when it comes to artificial entities collecting and using information about invidual people. No one expects criminal organizations to aim for transparency in their actions. At the same time, the United States government doesn't aim for transparency -- and once again, most people I know doesn't expect them to for the same reason the criminal organizations are concerned with: they both have something to hide. Can't the entire "nothing to hide" argument (which is frequently used to defend things like the PATRIOT Act and NDAA) be easily turned on the government? But when it is, we hear phrases like 'state secrets' and 'matter of national security.' Moore considers WikiLeaks to be a "necessary evil." What is evil about forcing a little accountability on the people who are supposed to have our best interests in mind?