This coming Wednesday, we will be discussing the idea behind the use of spies and undercover policemen to protect our society.
The occupation of spies and undercover agents, by definition, is based on deception. Their work requires them to lie about their true identity when interacting with others.
If we normally do not trust lairs in our daily lives, (are we to trust them when they said they lie to us before but they are now telling us the truth?) why should we trust spies to tell us what they have found out when they by definition, found that information by lying about their identity?
Worst still, how can anyone trust double agents?
Is it just our own vanity to think that spies will lie to others but not to us?
As a country, we punish our corporations for bribing officials in other countries in trying to get contracts there. It is no defense to say that it is how business is done in those countries, we cannot let our corporations use local morals as an excuse.
So what is the justification for having spies and undercover agents? Is it because that our enemies, (the bad guys), do not always play by the rules and that we are too naive to think that we should play nice while others don't obey the rules?
How is this different from corporations saying that companies from other countries do not play by our lily white rules either? Why is there one rule for government and law enforcement but another rule for corporations?
Then there is the question of how far spies and undercover agents can go beyond the law in achieving their goals. Can they murder someone like a Bin Laden who had declared war on the US? What about someone like the previous Libyan leader who seemed like a tyrant but have not declared war and have not been tried?
Can utilitarian arguments of saving many lives by killing a certain person be used as a reason for spies to kill this person?
What about lessor transgressions like theft, kidnapping, wiretapping without a warrant?
Who is watching the spies and what code of ethics do they use to decide whether certain actions should be taken? I don't ever remember seeing a code of ethics for spies.
We also hear about countries trading captured spies. Does this not sounded like mafia and underworld dealings? How can the rest of the law abiding society reconcile this while imposing jail terms for their citizens for doing some of these same acts?
Necessity seems like a weak argument as most convicted criminals can likely come up with their argument of why they have to commit the crime in order to support their family, to preserve their lives, etc.
In the end, we seem to reconcile quite well that spies and undercover agents are a necessary thing. There is even a private investigation business supported by private citizens and corporations.
What limits should these private investigators go by?
Do the existence and acceptance of spies and undercover agents undermine trust in our society?
Who owns the information collected by these undercover agents? the client paying for the agents services or the target that the agent was spying on?
Where does privacy come into this?
Bring your ideas to the cafe on Wednesday and let's see if we can shine some light on this dark topic.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Meeting on privacy versus transparency
We just finished the discussion this evening about transparency in our government and businesses.
While I started the discussion about the public's need for transparency in a democratic system versus the politician's right to privacy, we quickly got pass the often juicy sex scandals and moved to what the public is entitled to know about politicians' discussions with business and other interest groups.
Bob is leery of politicians playing golf with business people as he sees that is where back room deals are arranged with no public record. He would not trust politicians that play golf with business and interest groups.
Dan thought that we cannot get into restricting the politicians from seeing, meeting, and discussing matters with people. We will shut down all other communications as well as the possible backroom deals.
Mano said that all discussions between politicians and interest groups needs to be recorded. It need not be disclosed right away as there are all kinds of reasons for discussions to be confidential. However, these records should be there to be available for disclosure later on either to restricted third parties such as commissions or to the general public.
Joseph is concerned that all these need for transparency is going to use up a lot of tax dollars and he can see tax dollars being better used elsewhere.
Shula did not like the "yellow press" churning out sex scandals and sleazy looking possible side interest of politicians. These are just to sell papers and create sensationalism.
However, it is precisely because it is too costly to closely monitor all politician and public servants with tax dollars that the media becomes the guerrilla warfare approach to exposing scandals under the name of protecting the public's interest.
Rafi mentioned the example of a NASA scientist using Canadian science air craft to study snow. When a reporter asked for information through the access of information act, it was found that a whole team of public servants had worked on it to make sure that proper information was disclosed without embarrassment to the government. There was way more people working on the disclosure of the information than there is the one NASA person doing the science experiment. A real example of how transparency is costing us real government money.
Bob said that the police is an example of lack of transparency in government. It is difficult to get information out of the police and he found that "complains" to the police are routinely discarded unless it is submitted as a "formal complaint" in which case they then have to handle it according to set rules.
This shows the discrepancy between what the public expect of the system and how the system can work around rules set for it.
The discussion then move to the ethics of Wiki Leaks claiming that government should have no secrets. No one is ready for that extreme position of transparency and the discussion move to the conditions for whistle blowing.
Was it ethical to leak the Pentagon Papers showing the real state of the Vietnam War? Are people bound by confidentiality agreements guilty of breaking that agreement when they see harm being done by not disclosing the confidential information?
It is certainly right to disclose confidential information that include fraud. But what if the actions are legal but will harm others? How much harm does it take to whistle blow?
Being ethically right and legally right seems to be at odds here.
Shula sees the main difference between government and business in that we need transparency in government to judge politicians whereas most business leaders have the same interest as their shareholders, namely to increase the value of the company.
In any case, publicly traded companies have their rules of information disclosure to the general public.
I tend to agree with Mano that it is not necessary for politicians to disclose everything but their discussions all needed to be recorded for transparency sake. The fact that a record exists ensures that politicians are operating on the possibility of a bright light being shone on what they have done.
The problem is that how would we know if everything is properly recorded? Politicians talk and meet people everywhere and all the time. It is still up to them to not discuss things "off the record".
We have the theory, but the practice can be a chasm away.
While I started the discussion about the public's need for transparency in a democratic system versus the politician's right to privacy, we quickly got pass the often juicy sex scandals and moved to what the public is entitled to know about politicians' discussions with business and other interest groups.
Bob is leery of politicians playing golf with business people as he sees that is where back room deals are arranged with no public record. He would not trust politicians that play golf with business and interest groups.
Dan thought that we cannot get into restricting the politicians from seeing, meeting, and discussing matters with people. We will shut down all other communications as well as the possible backroom deals.
Mano said that all discussions between politicians and interest groups needs to be recorded. It need not be disclosed right away as there are all kinds of reasons for discussions to be confidential. However, these records should be there to be available for disclosure later on either to restricted third parties such as commissions or to the general public.
Joseph is concerned that all these need for transparency is going to use up a lot of tax dollars and he can see tax dollars being better used elsewhere.
Shula did not like the "yellow press" churning out sex scandals and sleazy looking possible side interest of politicians. These are just to sell papers and create sensationalism.
However, it is precisely because it is too costly to closely monitor all politician and public servants with tax dollars that the media becomes the guerrilla warfare approach to exposing scandals under the name of protecting the public's interest.
Rafi mentioned the example of a NASA scientist using Canadian science air craft to study snow. When a reporter asked for information through the access of information act, it was found that a whole team of public servants had worked on it to make sure that proper information was disclosed without embarrassment to the government. There was way more people working on the disclosure of the information than there is the one NASA person doing the science experiment. A real example of how transparency is costing us real government money.
Bob said that the police is an example of lack of transparency in government. It is difficult to get information out of the police and he found that "complains" to the police are routinely discarded unless it is submitted as a "formal complaint" in which case they then have to handle it according to set rules.
This shows the discrepancy between what the public expect of the system and how the system can work around rules set for it.
The discussion then move to the ethics of Wiki Leaks claiming that government should have no secrets. No one is ready for that extreme position of transparency and the discussion move to the conditions for whistle blowing.
Was it ethical to leak the Pentagon Papers showing the real state of the Vietnam War? Are people bound by confidentiality agreements guilty of breaking that agreement when they see harm being done by not disclosing the confidential information?
It is certainly right to disclose confidential information that include fraud. But what if the actions are legal but will harm others? How much harm does it take to whistle blow?
Being ethically right and legally right seems to be at odds here.
Shula sees the main difference between government and business in that we need transparency in government to judge politicians whereas most business leaders have the same interest as their shareholders, namely to increase the value of the company.
In any case, publicly traded companies have their rules of information disclosure to the general public.
I tend to agree with Mano that it is not necessary for politicians to disclose everything but their discussions all needed to be recorded for transparency sake. The fact that a record exists ensures that politicians are operating on the possibility of a bright light being shone on what they have done.
The problem is that how would we know if everything is properly recorded? Politicians talk and meet people everywhere and all the time. It is still up to them to not discuss things "off the record".
We have the theory, but the practice can be a chasm away.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
25-Apr-12 Privacy vs. transparency
This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing the balancing act between respecting the privacy of individuals versus the other people's need to know in order to have transparency for the democratic process.
For public figures like politicians and celebrities, there seems to be great interest from the public to know how these public figures conduct their private lives. Whether it is sex scandals, divorces, or any other type of "juicy" gossip, becomes sensation news and profitable for the news business.
Some justify this curiosity (bordering on voyeurism) on the public's need to know in order to judge a politician's conduct. After all, if they transgress in private life, they are likely to do the same in their politics.
Thus, President Kennedy's extra-marital affairs, while well protected by the media of the day, would have destroyed his reputation by today's media practices.
Were we well served by a media then that decided that the president's extra-marital affairs were off limits for media coverage or would we be better off with more transparency to know more about President Kennedy as a person?
Would the standoff against the Soviet Union in the Cuba missile crisis have been the same with a president that did not have as much respect from his people?
It is often justified by the media that lost of privacy is the price of being a celebrity, that people know that full well before entering the arena.
What makes this so? Is this just a way of justifying mass hysteria? Does the fact that a lot of people want to know make it a legitimate reason to know?
On the other side of the argument, there is a legitimate need for transparency in a democratic society where citizens need information to form opinions of their public service to decide at the next election whether to continue to support or to replace their elected politicians.
Should it be up to the politicians themselves to decide what is private and what the public should know? It certainly seem like a conflict of interest.
Should the public be able to know everything and decide which part is relevant? Should the politicians not be entitled to any privacy at all?
Then there are the lessons learned from Wiki-leaks. Should government diplomatic confidential documents be made public? Should the government have no secrets at all? Or is it possible to perform any diplomacy and negotiations without any cover of confidentiality?
Would transparent government have any spies? Should they?
Let's hear your ideas on Wednesday!
For public figures like politicians and celebrities, there seems to be great interest from the public to know how these public figures conduct their private lives. Whether it is sex scandals, divorces, or any other type of "juicy" gossip, becomes sensation news and profitable for the news business.
Some justify this curiosity (bordering on voyeurism) on the public's need to know in order to judge a politician's conduct. After all, if they transgress in private life, they are likely to do the same in their politics.
Thus, President Kennedy's extra-marital affairs, while well protected by the media of the day, would have destroyed his reputation by today's media practices.
Were we well served by a media then that decided that the president's extra-marital affairs were off limits for media coverage or would we be better off with more transparency to know more about President Kennedy as a person?
Would the standoff against the Soviet Union in the Cuba missile crisis have been the same with a president that did not have as much respect from his people?
It is often justified by the media that lost of privacy is the price of being a celebrity, that people know that full well before entering the arena.
What makes this so? Is this just a way of justifying mass hysteria? Does the fact that a lot of people want to know make it a legitimate reason to know?
On the other side of the argument, there is a legitimate need for transparency in a democratic society where citizens need information to form opinions of their public service to decide at the next election whether to continue to support or to replace their elected politicians.
Should it be up to the politicians themselves to decide what is private and what the public should know? It certainly seem like a conflict of interest.
Should the public be able to know everything and decide which part is relevant? Should the politicians not be entitled to any privacy at all?
Then there are the lessons learned from Wiki-leaks. Should government diplomatic confidential documents be made public? Should the government have no secrets at all? Or is it possible to perform any diplomacy and negotiations without any cover of confidentiality?
Would transparent government have any spies? Should they?
Let's hear your ideas on Wednesday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)