However, that adds a third aspect: Verifiability of the leak. However, one piece of sensitive info that could leak would be "we worked on something that was more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than the previously known sample", and I'd expect that to be reasonably well known at a research institute. a) is less clear: They might not even be aware of a lab leak if it was one.
TANK FORCE HACKS MANUALS
The latter is a particularly powerful deterrent if it will hurt the person who shares it even if the leak isn't traced to them.įor the tank manuals a) is likely hundreds of thousands of people, and b) is zero unless the leak is traced to them, and they possibly don't expect much even if it is.įor the lab leak, b) is a strong deterrent - every virologist working on even moderately risky research would face trouble (in the form or stricter restrictions and possibly bans on the category of research) if the theory got confirmed, and for the people working in the Chinese lab, embarrassing the Chinese govt is probably pretty far up on the "mistakes you don't get to make twice" list.
It depends on a) how many people know about it b) how much they have to lose if the information gets out. I support giving clearances to depressed people, and I support sending depressed people who violate their clearance agreements to prison. It is much better to prosecute depressed people who violate their clearance agreements and to continue to permit depressed people to gain clearances than it is deny a clearance from every depressed person. It is cause for revoking a clearance from a person who seeks mental health assistance. If depression is an excuse for disclosing classified information, then depression is cause for denying a person a clearance. But the idea that depression excuses disclosure of classified information. I only speak for myself, and I no longer have a clearance.
The point I am trying to make is: if is ideological then consequences will be readily accepted, otherwise it just common crime.Īs a formerly alone, depressed, underappreciated TS clearance holder who nobody cared about, there was never a moment in my life where telling classified information to the public ever seemed like anything other than a first class ticket to a tremendous amount of misery. Whether that public or non-violent is a component or not it doesn't matter. Morality being more subjective( you may agree violence is justified someone else will not) most popular commentators try to stick to non-violent and public conditions to make their case stronger and widely supported. It boils down does common(yours) morality allow deceit or violence under this situation. There are similar arguments for revolutionary and violent variations as well.
It is not really required under many definitions.Įllmann states that covert lawbreaking is just valid way of expressing your morality ( ideology ) as public disobedience. I am talking about the conventionally held definition of Civil Disobedience, non-violent and public are generally accepted qualifiers. Money, Ideology and Ego are voluntary, Coercion is forced is the idea i believe. Coercion in the context of leak (MI CE) usually is understood as unwilling participant who is being blackmailed to leak. King actually frames civil disobedience as the expression of highest respect for the law.Īll behavior is motivated by either seeking gratification/pleasure or for avoiding pain, however such a reductive mental model is not useful work with in this context. Thoreau's seminal essay or Gandhi or King's(and many others) writings talk about the topic in length. Even when refusing to follow a specific law you still follow the Law, the point is that you willingly accept the consequence of your (in)action as per that law, i.e. If refusing to obey laws for ideological reasons they are doing some form of civil disobedience, that is still obeying the "law".
0 kommentar(er)
