A postful of questions

From the readings, what are the ethical, social, and moral issues regarding online censorship? Why would governments limit freedom of speech and how do they go about enforcing these restrictions? Is it ethical or moral for technology companies to follow requests of the host country to suppress freedom of expression? That is, should technology companies comply with censorship requirements of the country they are operating in? Is it ethical or moral for technology companies or developers to provide tools that illegally circumvent such restrictions? Is online censorship a major concern? What role should technology companies play in defending against of enforcing limitations of freedom of speech?

Censorship seems straightforward enough as an ethical issue—censorship is bad, period—but upon further thought it’s more complex and layered than it seems. Because everything that’s uploaded to the internet is practically permanently public, let’s consider the following questions as we unpack the concept of “censorship”:

• Is it ethical for companies to remove dissenting opinions for authoritarian governments?
• Is it ethical for companies to remove information broadcasted by terrorism organizations, or about terrorism organizations?
• Is it ethical for companies to remove discriminatory, provocative, hateful content generated by its users? (read: reddit)
• Is it ethical for companies to remove leaked/stolen personal photos? (read: celebrity nudes on 4chan)
• Is it ethical for companies to remove smearing and slander against an individual? Is “the right to be forgotten” ethical?
• Is it ethical for criminals to claim the right to be forgotten?

Putting these scenarios together, I find the line incredibly difficult to draw. Even if we only consider the situation with terrorism, since the list of terrorist organizations are decided by governments, companies are essentially performing censorship at the request of governments. In situations like Tibet—China considers some Tibetan Buddhist groups terrorism organizations (because of their use of self-immolation), while the U.S. recognizes them as legitimate religious groups—how do we choose?

I want to close with a more personal, intimate scenario. Here’s a question posed by a Notre Dame professor, and I’ve been thinking about it for a while without getting to a conclusion. We’ve all posted things that we later regret—is “regret” a good reason to remove anything from the internet? When things are published on the Internet, who owns them?

Thanks Ann-Marie

A deepening gap

From the readings, how is automation impacting employment? What are the social, political, and economic implications of replacing human labor with automation on a massive scale? Were the Luddites right about technology and jobs? Should we halt development of automation technology or at least temper it to ensure employment of human laborers, or does automation free humans for other endeavors? Is a Universal Basic Income a viable means of addressing the concerns over loss of employment due to mass automation or is it unnecessary? How does society deal with a future with mass automation and lower employment (or is this not really a problem)? Is automation ultimately a good thing or a bad thing for humanity? What are the ethical implications for those who develop and utilize these automation technologies?

It’s been a historical trend that technological advancements eliminate some jobs while creating others, but it’s still a debated issue whether these advancements cause long-term structural unemployment. We’re seeing arguments from both sides of the debate: some think that new technology will inevitably damage the economy by eliminating jobs; others have a more positive outlook, and believe these advancements will ultimately create new markets and new demands, which then generate new jobs. But regardless of who is right, it seems that technological advancement will eliminate more low-skilled jobs: throughout the 20th century, machines and automation generally replaced low-skill jobs, while benefited high-skill workers. In the new era of AI, I believe this trend will continue, and although I’m happy with the macro-scale changes it will bring (higher-level jobs, higher demand for goods, better economy), I’m worried about the micro-scale consequences it brings, specifically the deepening socioeconomic gap for societies, as well as the potential challenge it brings for education.

Douglas Hofstadter postulated in his famous Gödel, Escher, Bach that there are two main ways for an organism to exhibit intelligence: the Mechanical mode, where the organism mechanically applies a set of rules (calculating 1+1=2 by applying the rule), and the Intelligent mode, where the organism “thinks outside of the box” and analyzes the rules themselves (understanding “one apple and another apple together are two apples”). He argues that the main difference between human and machine is that humans exhibit Intelligent-mode intelligence, while machines are only Mechanically intelligent. (Artificial intelligence is an attempt for machines to emulate Intelligent-mode, but they still seem to be confined within a certain system.)

If we accept this theory, then it seems that a boom of mechanical automation will replace the more mechanical, low-skill jobs. This seems problematic: low-skill jobs are commonly held by people from lower socioeconomic background, since they don’t have access to education that enables high-skill, high-compensation jobs that involve Intelligent-mode, out-of-the-box thinking. With automation eliminating these jobs, it will be problematic to help these displaced people find new jobs that require a different skill set. A universal basic income will at least alleviate this issue—without having to spend long hours on low-skill jobs just so that they earn enough to survive, they may be able to acquire new skills that are necessary for higher-skill, creative jobs.

But what’s more concerning is its impact on education. I couldn’t find enough data to back up my theory, so all of this is going to be a hand-wavy thought experiment: with any technical and scientific advancement, we need to acquire new skills to appreciate and utilize their fruits, so that stretches the duration of education required for the high-skill jobs. Today a college degree is required for most high-skill jobs, which translates to about 16 years of education in total (and we’re 21-22 years old when we enter the workforce). In 1900, the average life expectancy of the world is no more than 40 years, so people naturally wouldn’t need to receive as long as 16 years of education to qualify for then–high-skill jobs. The collective human accumulation of technical knowledge has required more education for anyone to be able to qualify as “high-skill,” so in the future, as we keep accumulating knowledge, we’ll require longer education for anyone working at the cutting edge—people cannot afford college education as of today, so how do we deal with a future where we need, say, 10 years of college before producing any meaningful work? Especially for people at a disadvantage today, the gap is only going to deepen.

All that matters is chance

From the readings, what is the controversy surrounding the H1-B Visa program? What are the arguments for and against the expansion of the program? After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding the program? If you are in favor of expanding the use of H1-B Visa guest workers, explain why it is beneficial for the United States. How would you respond to concerns about lowering of wages or loss of jobs for US citizens? If you are agains the use of H1-B Visa guest workers, explain why it is is not necessary or potentially harmful to the United States. How would you respond to the idea that America is a nation of immigrants and that these guest workers are an effective means of tackling the problem of a tech talent shortage? In either case, discuss whether or not you are concerned with competition due to foreign workers or possibly outsourcing. If you are non-US citizen, discuss how these issues impact you and your future plans as it relates to residency and employment in America.

The H-1B visa system, as of today, is messed up.

The mainstream criticism of the H-1B visa program, that it’s designed for bringing cheap labor to take over American jobs, is misinformed. The current H-1B visa program has a few requirements to ensure companies aren’t recruiting foreign workers as cheap replacement for domestic workers: the job has to require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent experience; the job has to be related to the worker’s field of study; the company has to pay prevailing wage (average wage or above, paid to workers in a specific occupation in a specific location). Theoretically, these requirements would guarantee that H-1B visas are used only to fill highly demanded, highly skilled positions, and would protect American workers from an influx of cheap labor.

But the criticism isn’t completely invalid—the current debate stemmed from actions of a few infamous companies (Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys, for example) that abuse the program and blatantly disregard and work around these requirements, in order to bring temporary, disposable, cheap workers into the US. The fact that Indian foreign nationals composed almost 70% of all H-1B applicants in 2014 is telling: the H-1B system is out-of-date and deeply flawed.

These unlawful practices have some deep impact on legitimate applicants. They have taken up the majority of H-1B applications and raised the number of applications so much, such that the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has to employ a random lottery system to determine which applications to review. Last year, only a third of applications were randomly selected to be reviewed; the rest were sent back and the workers had to keep waiting, many of whom had to leave the U.S. before they had a chance for their application to be reviewed.

If the H-1B visa is designed to attract and retain talents and “specialty workers,” is it reasonable to let chance determine who leaves and who stays?

To paint the picture more clearly, here’s a sketch of my own application process. After I graduate this May, I have around 30 months of remaining employment authorization that comes with my student (F-1) visa, thanks to my STEM degree; during these 30 months, my company will apply for an H-1B visa for me on every April 1st, so I have 2 chances to apply for H-1B before I have to leave the U.S.; assuming the same number of applications as last year, my application has a 30% chance of being reviewed (and most likely approved), so I have roughly a 50% chance of getting the visa (or I have to leave). And after I receive the H-1B visa, if I want to apply for permanent residency or citizenship in the U.S., I’ll have to wait for another 5 to 7 years, due to the sheer number of applicants. It’s a pure waiting game.

The USCIS doesn’t care whether I’m good at what I do, whether I am employed by one of the most sought-after companies, whether I’m a top graduate of a top college, or whether I speak fluent English. All that matters is chance.

I’m in favor of expanding the H-1B visa program (there is a bipartisan bill that raises the cap of H-1B workers, that’s slowly moving through the congress), but more importantly, I want to see an improvement in the application and review process, such that chance doesn’t determine who stays and who leaves. But given the chaotic political landscape in the U.S., maybe the current system actually helps me in some sense. If the political divide furthers among the U.S. population, moving somewhere else is an attractive option too.

 

Missing the target

Is encryption a fundamental right? Should citizens of the US be allowed to have a technology that completely locks out the government? How important of an issue is encryption to you? Does it affect who you support politically? financially? socially? Should it? In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, who will win? Are you resigned to a particular future or will you fight for it?

The right to encryption is as much a fundamental right as the right to privacy, and possibly much more. Do we truly have privacy when we can’t encrypt our data, so no one else can access them? Especially in a time when all our data and personal exchanges are logged on our devices, when our devices can be easily unlocked and decrypted by the government or other people and organizations, a lot is at stake.

In authoritarian regimes, our freedom of speech and freedom of thought could be compromised; when dealing with hackers, our rights to properties is at risk; even in the U.S., the fifth amendment right that citizens have, that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, is in danger. If citizens don’t have a means to keep data truly to themselves only, if the U.S. government one day exerts more executive power than today, or if some authoritarian figure is elected president (see pre-WWII Germany), everyone’s rights will be in jeopardy.

The future looks even bleaker if we consider other parties that may exploit a lack of encryption. In a world where anyone performing a man-in-the-middle attack can change contents of any communications, what can we believe?

And as we discuss the right to encryption, stripping encryption from consumer devices doesn’t boost national security either. For organized extremist organizations, even with backdoors to all devices, there are other approaches for them to secure their own communications. The existence of non-centralized encryption methods, peer-to-peer PGP encryption of emails and distributed bridge relays, show that any attempt to control encryption is futile. Encryption is not a threat to national security; external enemies are. The ongoing battle around encryption is the government missing its target.

So the lack of education on the subject of encryption from the government is shocking, as is a general disrespect of expertise on this matter from the government’s end. There’s no question whether something with such widespread, looming consequences should affect one’s political alignment; why wouldn’t it?

Why wouldn’t anyone fight these misinformed attempts?

Copyright

From the readings, what exactly the DMCA say about piracy? What provisions does it have for dealing with infringement? What exactly are the safe-harbor provisions? Is it ethical or moral for users to download or share copyrighted material? What if they already own a version in another format? What if they were just “sampling” or “testing” the material? Have you participated in the sharing of copyrighted material? If so, how did you justify your actions (or did you not care)? Moreover, why do you think so many people (regardless of whether or not you do) engage in this behavior even though it is against the law? Does the emergence of streaming services such as Netflix or Spotify address the problem of piracy, or will are these services not sufficient? Is piracy a solvable problem? Is it a real problem?

The DMCA doesn’t directly legally define or outline the issue of piracy (that’s covered in the U.S. Code, title 17); instead, it outlines the “safe harbor” provision, protecting online service providers from copyright-infringing materials shared by their users, given they promptly block access to these materials when copyright holders notify them of the infringement. This seems like an effective provision and has been widely implemented by all major content providers, and although there’s some concern over companies using copyright to censor speech, it seems to have worked well overall. There are some borderline cases where the user’s original work could be in jeopardy, but because of the myriad of sharing websites, the user can always find one that is willing to defend their work.

Although it’s illegal and unethical to download and share copyrighted material, it is not illegal to make copies of copyrighted material that a user legally owns, given that usage of the copies adheres to the user’s rights to the original (so it’s okay to copy CDs or scan books for personal use). I’m unsure whether “downloading” counts as “making a copy,” but I tend to believe that because the uploader is surely not making fair use of the copyrighted material, downloading it isn’t ethical either. Other acts of downloading copyrighted material are even less justifiable, since the user didn’t have rights to the original to begin with.

Personally, I have downloaded copyrighted books and music before, when I was in China. (Disclaimer: I’m now buying paperback books from Amazon and paying for Apple Music.) In China, the issue of copyright had never really occurred to me—we didn’t have a lot of access to new music and unabridged, contemporary English-language books, so for people like me who want materials in English, we’re almost encouraged to look online and download books. But when people have access, the only justification is price, and free is a good price, especially when it’s hard to catch these violations of the law.

Streaming services like Netflix and Spotify does help eliminate piracy in its traditional sense (where people download illegally shared files from the internet), but they bring another layer of problem: what if my friend pays for the rights to stream movies and songs, and I use my friend’s account to access these services? These companies seem to be okay with it, but does account sharing count as a form of piracy? I guess it doesn’t hurt the copyright owner as these streaming companies pay them per stream, but it’s a legal gray area that still needs to be defined.

The human factor

From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents? In your opinion, should patents be granted at all? Are they really necessary or beneficial for society? Do the promote innovation or do they hinder it? Explain. Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain. Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain.

I happen to have taken a lecture class on patent law, so stuff I say here without attribution come from my notes. Let’s establish the definitions first: legally, a patent is a right to exclude others from using the patentee’s invention for a limited period of time (20 years in the U.S.), in exchange for detailed public disclosure to add to the collective public knowledge—when the patent expires, anyone can use the invention described in the patent, benefiting from the inventor’s brainpower. There are a few major types of patents: machines, methods, designs (and interestingly, plants), and patents about software are usually patents about methods. The U.S. patent law excludes abstract ideas—theories and algorithms are not patentable—software patents are usually framed as “a method for doing something.” The patent office requires patents to be very narrow, encompassing only the novelty in the invention, defined painstakingly in detail, so the patentee can’t prosecute other people when their invention is only tangentially related to a product. Patents can also be “designed around”—companies can design products specifically so they are similar to a patent but don’t fit its description—which is morally questionable, but it helps deliver the patented inventions to more people.

Normally, the patent system helps us tremendously—it incentivizes inventors to publish their new inventions, so that everyone else can benefit from the invention. Take Apple as an example—Apple designed and patented “slide-to-unlock” when people had to punch in a passcode to unlock phones (the patent is still in effect in the U.S.), greatly improving the usability of the iPhone. After the Apple patent, multiple companies learned from Apple’s patent and developed similar techniques for unlocking their phones using gestures, and ultimately it’s the users who benefited from the general idea of gesture-to-unlock. Had the patent system not been in place, Apple, or any other company, may not be incentivized to invest in R&D, knowing that their inventions would be appropriated. (I should note that this is not the case for Tesla, since their goal is to get as many people into the electric car field as possible, not to protect themselves against nonexistent competitors.)

But patent trolls clearly show that there’s a weak link in the system, which is the human factor in the process of granting a patent. There are no committees or panels that review patent applications and make decisions—that would be too time-consuming and costly—usually, one patent examiner who specialize in a specific technical field is assigned a patent application, and they work closely with the applicant’s patent agent to revise and decide on the application. When the examiner is not authorized to sign decisions, other senior examiners may review the decisions. Under the current system, we’re relying solely on a handful of examiners to differentiate legitimate patent applications from applications filed by patent trolls. It’s difficult, because it’s hard to tell the difference between trolls and research facilities that make no products but only license their patents. It’s also not really part of the examiners’ job—the more important aspect of their job is to search for prior art, understand the novel technical details, limit the scope of applications, and clarify any ambiguous language.

I tend to think the USPTO should employ more patent examiners, and require multiple examiners review each application to dispel illegitimate applications, but today, the current system may be the best we can have for now. We’re moving in the right direction, however. Europe has less of a patent troll problem because the loser of patent lawsuits pays attorney fees for both sides, and the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in 2014 which allows similar schemes to happen in the U.S.. Before we eliminate human greediness altogether, the patent system is doing a decent job of protecting us against ourselves.

No taste whatsoever

From the readings and in your experience, what ethical concerns (if any) do you have with online advertising? How is it performed and what methods are utilized to aggregate and analyze information? Considering the Internet meme that If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold: What protections should companies provide over user data? Who owns that data and who controls it? Should companies be able to sell that data to third parties? Should they share the information with the government when requested? Do find online advertising too invasive or tolerable? Do you use things like NoScript or Adblock? Why or why not? Is it ethical to use these tools?

I recently heard We Know What You Did on Reply All, where the inventor of online popup ad discussed its history and apologized for the unpredicted advertising chaos that ensued. Online advertising has accompanied the entire history of the world wide web as a solution to the free service that many websites provided, and by now it’s almost the business plan for every popular internet company: provide free contents and generate revenue through ads. Since we’re enjoying the free service provided by all the internet companies, it’s hard to argue against the point of view, that we should watch ads online.

But I confess: as I’m writing this blog post, I’m currently using uBlock to block unwanted online ads, and Ghostery to block trackers. I have whitelisted a few websites on which ads don’t distract me, but for the most part, I hate online advertising.

I have no problem watching ads, though. I’m fascinated by the advertising industry (and I wanted to work in it for a long while), and I don’t click “skip” on interesting YouTube ads. Ads themselves are not the problem—many people subscribe to magazines like GQ and Vogue, which are packed with hundreds of pages of fashion ads; even more people watch the Super Bowl, many just for the ads.

I’m not against companies learning about me (as long as they’re not personally identifiable) if the ads they push to me are relevant, well-designed, and not distracting. I whitelist websites for this exact reason—some websites accept only high-quality ads that are relevant to their contents, and I’m happy to see them flourish. But when websites shove total garbage in my face, I don’t think they can blame me for using ad and tracker blockers.

The root problem with online ads is that they have no taste whatsoever. Traditional print and TV ads are instruments for educating desire; online ads are tools to make money. They’re an afterthought, a damage control mechanism, an utterly undesigned stew of greed. And to compensate for this lack of design, companies try to collect data about the users and “tailor” the ads to their interest, while in reality, these tailored ads rarely interest me either. It’s only creepy when I added a headphone to my cart on Amazon some day, and the next day an ad about the same headphone popped up on my Facebook timeline. No thought went into the creation of these ads; online ad platforms are developed to maximize exposure, rather than to stimulate interest.

You know what else works this way, by maximizing exposure rather than curating content? Emails from Nigerian princes.

It’s an international affair

From the readings and in your opiniong, should technology companies implement backdoors in their products for the benefit of the government? Are companies like Apple ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users or are they ethically responsible for helping to prevent violent or harmful activities that their platforms may enable? How are these two conflicting goals to be balanced in a world of free-flowing communication and extreme terrorism?

If you are against government backdoors, how do you response to concerns of national security? Isn’t save lives or protecting our nation worth a little less individual privacy. How do you counter the argument: If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear?

The argument to unlock the iPhone in the San Bernardino case is clever. The FBI requested a very narrow court order, asking Apple to modify iOS and install the modified software on one specific device. According to the request, Apple doesn’t need to directly crack the code; and aside from the one copy Apple provides the FBI, they could and should keep the software from being released in public.

This seems reasonable enough, and many people believe the FBI, supported by the White House, is requiring this software to protect our safety, to fight an honorable cause, so they think Apple should comply, creating this backdoor to Make America Great. But by asking for this new software with the backdoor, invoking the 1789 All Writs Act, the FBI is effectively compelling Apple to become an extension of law enforcement, simply because the suspect is using software developed by Apple. If it becomes court precedent, it has looming dangerous consequences—because of the ubiquity of software today, any technology company could fall prey to it. In any future case that involves a locked iPhone or an encrypted Gmail inbox, this precedent may apply. “Do we want to accept that courts may compel any software developer, any technology manufacturer, to become a forensic investigator for the government[?]”

Technology companies are ethical in assisting law enforcement by providing data, but such help shouldn’t require compromising their own systems, or undermining the premise of their business.

Furthermore, it’s important to realize that America doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and Apple is not solely an American company. It’s an international affair—other governments in the world, including Russia and China, could require Apple to hand over the same user data to assist their law enforcement, just as the U.S. government could. When the group owning the backdoor has a different interest than our own, how should we respond? When China has access to backdoors to devices owned by American citizens through Lenovo and Huawei, why is the U.S. government, the same group that demanded new “American” backdoors, justified in harshly criticizing those “Chinese” backdoors? Using the same counter-terrorism argument, the Chinese government has passed a law requiring foreign firms to provide secret keys to decrypt data—why is this Chinese law different?

I’m deeply disappointed by the aforementioned Chinese law, and now I’m troubled to imagine the same practice happening all around the world. As a non-American citizen, my direct interest isn’t involved in the San Bernardino case—I can’t find any document regulating American intelligence groups’ spying on me, and it’s been debated whether I have the full set of constitutional rights that American citizens have (although the debate is usually around undocumented immigrants). But if we allow the U.S. government to access this backdoor, it’s easy to imagine that other governments would want the same level of access. It’s terrifying to imagine a world, where I’m subject to the same level of surveillance wherever I go.

The same could be said for any American citizen. In an attempt to make the U.S. safer by weakening Apple’s encryption system, the FBI is in fact handing a vulnerability to everyone interested in undermining the safety of the U.S., “weaken[ing] the privacy of all Americans.”

In general, handing personal data to the government is dangerous, no matter which government is in question. We protect our privacy not because we have secrets to hide from the government, but because we shouldn’t trust the government in the first place. By giving out our data, we become much more vulnerable to intentional or unintentional data leaks, organized governmental wrongdoing, etc.

By giving up data, we’re giving up control.

Play

What were your favorite toys or stories or movies growing up? What lessons did these things provide? Did they reinforce or promote certain gender roles or expectations? What influence did these things have in your life?

How does your proposed idea compare to your childhood favorites? Is it important that toys or stories or movies be inclusive or gender neutral? How important is for children to be exposed to STEM or positive gender roles/expectations at an early age?

(it’s cool that a girl narrated this video; how stereotype-defying)

When I was 4 years old, my father bought me this exact electronic toy set. It was like lego blocks with wires and electronic components in them, and it came with a helpful illustrated booklet with some 50 simple circuit diagrams. I had no idea what AC or DC means, neither did I know how the tiny light bulbs work, but by following the instructions in the booklet, I was able to make a light bulb glow. I was ecstatic.

This set accompanied me for many years, until I moved across the country to live with my mother. By that time, I was able to read some simple circuit diagrams, and could build simple structures like a doorbell without consulting the booklet. I knew that electricity flows from the “plus” side to the “minus” side, and that if you put two bulbs in a row, both of them go dimmer. These knowledge eventually helped me greatly in middle school—in physics class, when my classmates were struggling to understand how those tiny electrons flow through the wires, I was drawing diagrams and designing complex circuits, as my teacher stood in awe.

It did reinforce the “boys like lego” stereotype that my parents bought this set for me, and that I enjoyed the electronic toy set; but I learned a lot from it, which helped me one way or another in my life. Even today, I still have an obsession over toys—I have an Infinite Tree in my dorm room, and I change its pattern every few days as a creative exercise.

But it’s important for toys to be gender-neutral, because they give all children an opportunity to discover what they like, which may set the course for their future development. Especially with STEM-promoting toys; if these toys are gender-neutral, maybe more girls will be able to gain an understanding of the STEM fields at an early age, which may help solve the gender imbalance in today’s tech world in the long run.

For our project, our industrial designer Meghan took the lead in designing a gorgeous set of toy blocks, “DecoBlocks.” We were extra careful balancing stereotypical gender roles: any child can use the set to build both 3-dimensional structures and 2-dimensional patterns, and the colors we used are largely gender-neutral—both boys and girls will enjoy building with these blocks.

They aren’t as high-tech as my electronic block set, but they appeal to the more creative side of me. I know that by playing with it, I’ll be able to get a better hold of shapes, patterns, and structures, which would benefit both my art/design and engineering sides.

The best part of toys and games is that they educate people subconsciously. When we play, we’re actively engaged and highly sensitive to the information we learned; and even if we fail, we wouldn’t second guess our own abilities. Why isn’t classroom education more like play?

Is there an alternative option?

From the readings, what is your opinion of Chelsea/Bradley Manning‘s decision to leak sensitive information to WikiLeaks and his subsequent sentencing? Is what he did ethical or did he violate his duty? Should he have been protected under the Whistleblower protection laws? Is he a revolutionary hero or a traitor?

Chelsea Manning seemed deeply unhappy. She was lonely, misunderstood, distant from her family, troubled by her Army service, confused by her own identity, and scared of the repercussions of her leaks. She was in desperate need of a friend, a person who would listen. She didn’t seem capable at the time to blow a meaningful whistle.

I’m not an American citizen, nor am I familiar with codes and policies in the U.S. army, so I don’t feel qualified to weigh in on the “hero or traitor” debate; but to me, Manning’s actions were, as said by many, reckless. For example, in “Cablegate“, she leaked over a quarter million diplomatic cables, citing “open diplomacy” as the reason she did it, when in fact, her actions have exposed the U.S. position on many diplomatic issues. Even in her chat log with Adrian Lamo, she has exposed information that shouldn’t go outside of the U.S. army. She has clearly done something wrong.

In general and in principle, I’m all for carefully calculated whistleblowing, where the whistleblower puts the public interest before their own safety, and reveals something disturbing to the public. But in the case of Cablegate, if the public believes that the Department of State and U.S. diplomats are competent and dutiful, why would they be interested in daily trivialities of U.S. foreign policy? Even the documents about Guantanamo Bay, Afghan, and Iraq are too distant to be provoking to the public. Chelsea Manning clearly made an uncalculated move, one that endangers herself without bearing any meaningful, widely-debated fruit. Futile.

Her sentence, on the other hand, was harsh. It seems counterintuitive to charge an American citizen, who has the public interest of the U.S. in mind, with a law that was enacted to combat enemies of the public interest of the U.S. The Espionage Act makes it especially difficult for any American citizen to uncover classified, systematic wrongdoing of government agencies. The ACLU was rightfully worried: “[w]hen a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system.” And the whistleblower protection laws didn’t help either. For the U.S. intelligence community, only when there is a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, will the whistleblowers be protected. This seems dangerous: who could the whistleblowers count on to protect them? They’ll less likely voice their concerns, fearing retaliation.

But the meta question is, if the general public is not interested in some wrongdoing of the government, whose responsibility is it to correct them? If the average American is not worried about the U.S. army hurting or killing innocents in Afghan or Iraq, how do we stop or minimize these casualties? Do we gradually send the message up the ladder, hoping someone higher up with a sense of justice will help? Is there an alternative option?