Why confidential tips to the government may not be confidential after all
Sites that solicit Whistleblowers, and they are surprising numerous looking at the prior post link say that communications are confidential (no encryption) or encrypted but bottom line is that in reality it is a "Trust Us" statement. Maybe be EFTO (encrypted for transmission only) but what does that mean? Actually very little. EFTO but decrypted at the receiving end to be in the clear. Then where does it go? Is the receiver a Honey Pot? Third party agent to whom? The Whom being whomever wants to know who the Whistleblower is and what they are whistling about?
Exactly who has the decryption key for encrypted transmission. Intelligence gathering is simplified when there is a key to the door rather than trying to break it down. That is a truth. Cheaper too as well as being secret.
Breaking secrets is the business of the NSA. Security is its Mission. Security is Protection. What is being protected? Freedom. Conflate Freedom and Liberty and "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".
If the USA goes to war on the (hyped) probability that there is a 1% possibility (pick your own level of comfort probability) that if we do not the consequences would be a mushroom cloud over and American city. (The consequences of going to war are now self evident as well as the reasoning)
Then......
The 1% or low probability that a Whistleblower will damage the security of the USA will receive equal justification for extreme action.
It is the 1% or ?% probability rule. If there is only 1% probability that a suspect is reaching for a gun then there is sufficient justification for a police officer to shoot first. The justification that they felt their life was in danger. It is just a matter of choosing a threshold measure. Or manufacturing one to justify the action either prior to the event or after.
It is a matter of standards and honor. Judgment and morals. Right and wrong. Truth. Truth however is what we believe, not always an absolute because truth is relative when founded on conceptual belief. Is that not true?
We hold ourselves to our standards. Holding to a higher standard is a moral choice. I chose to hold myself to a higher standard of truth and judgment during my career as a navy officer. A belief that I would sacrifice myself to a higher level objective greater good. In hindsight that higher level greater good did not have sufficient probability of being a true greater good to be worth what I would willing choose to do or give.
Those that would give the final measure (or any less than final measure of sacrifice) for truth and justice would do so with a high probability and certitude that what they would give would be justified. I think that those that would call upon or be jeopardized by such selfless action have a substantially lower threshold for their decisions. Despicable when they manufacture justification for their decisions or hide behind false reasoning or absolute reasoning such as there is no alternative. Zero percent possibility of doing or not doing an action.
"Trust Us"
No, I do not trust them to act with the honor, dedication to the principals of our nation to the extent that the citizens of this nation would, in the majority (that is a % basis of action too) act for the common good and principals on which we believe the nation was founded.
I would take the default position on "No Trust" in the matter of Whistleblowing.
I would do what Edward Snowden has done.
In WWII Russian officers ordered their rear guard troops to fire upon their own retreating troops. Those officers were serving a greater good. What motivated and justified their decisions and orders?
Perhaps the same reasoning that the Constitution was not meant to be a suicide pact. That absolutes must be tempered with probabilities, realities, secrecy and deception, suppression if necessary for those that cannot handle the truth?
Probabilities dictate action? Low thresholds of probability justify action when unreasonable fear applies. Recently a cougar was killed in town, the second since January. Only 20 people have been killed by cougars in North America between 1890 and 2011. Maybe true, I only read that. Frequency over time is another matter. A couple of range free kids where taken into custody by police recently for doing what I did almost every day during summer vacation when I was the same age. Cops shoot a person reaching for their ID in a wallet. Shoot them in the back because.......of fear....hate...they deserve it if they run. Running demonstrates a probability of guilt (.005%) that they are killers evading apprehension?
How low can probabilistic decision making go until is becomes the nominal tool for decision making made independent of reality by fear or any of our worst traits rather than premised on our best nature?
Who is betraying whom in this country and why is a serious question that we as citizens must ask and take action as necessary based on what we trust and believe to be true.
There are too many things that are simply and fundamentally wrong in this world. Monetary systems are just one that I focus on. The current system is contrary to the common good. TPP being done in secret and is contrary to the common good of this sovereign nation. My own Congressman who I once believed to be a champion of truth is at the lead in its implementation. It may benefit Oregon, perhaps that is his justification. The rest of the country? Well, special interest always seem to trump common good and we have become a Union of Special Interest.
"A Union of Special Interest".
Pertinent at this anniversary of the end of the civil war as well as Lincoln's assassination.
"A house divided amongst itself cannot stand"
If he were president today I believe he would say:
"A Union of Special Interest cannot stand".
Is that what I hear Elizabeth Warren saying?
"A Union of Special Interest" Wow! That is some paradox.
Fundamentally, a paradox cannot stand on its own two feet.
It just falls flat because it is contradictory!
If we see the contradiction.................
I claim Google bragging rights to be the first to express the phrase in quotes:
"A Union of Special Interest Cannot Stand"
And have a Google search on that phrase return:
"No results found for "a union of special interests cannot stand".
I should send that phrase to Elizabeth!
The phrase is a very subtle play on words and implied paradox as well as double meaning that is recognized by parsing the phrase. The parsing key to the meaning depends on the nature of the entity having "Special Interest".
Special Interest in the political/social definition of the term as defined here
and also defined more broadly at this Wikipedia link.
Or the interpretation of "Special Interest" when the application is the the Pursuit of Happiness that is the special interest of each citizen proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.
Using the former definition a "Union of Special Interests" cannot stand when those Special Interests Entities do not balance on a level social playing field through a three part government responsible to the people for the administration of our form of governance that protects our Union.
Under the latter definition when the special interest entity is the individual citizen each in pursuit of their own "pursuit of happiness" and the big entity called "common good" associated with that pursuit then the phrase should be:
"A Union (USA) of special interests (citizen pursuit of happiness) stands forever". That phrase is a foundation declaration of our independence.
Is that all too subtle to understand?
Looks like writing on the wall to me that is neither rocket science nor shadows on the wall.
I should send that phrase to Elizabeth!
The phrase is a very subtle play on words and implied paradox as well as double meaning that is recognized by parsing the phrase. The parsing key to the meaning depends on the nature of the entity having "Special Interest".
Special Interest in the political/social definition of the term as defined here
and also defined more broadly at this Wikipedia link.
Or the interpretation of "Special Interest" when the application is the the Pursuit of Happiness that is the special interest of each citizen proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.
Using the former definition a "Union of Special Interests" cannot stand when those Special Interests Entities do not balance on a level social playing field through a three part government responsible to the people for the administration of our form of governance that protects our Union.
Under the latter definition when the special interest entity is the individual citizen each in pursuit of their own "pursuit of happiness" and the big entity called "common good" associated with that pursuit then the phrase should be:
"A Union (USA) of special interests (citizen pursuit of happiness) stands forever". That phrase is a foundation declaration of our independence.
Is that all too subtle to understand?
Looks like writing on the wall to me that is neither rocket science nor shadows on the wall.
No comments:
Post a Comment