Two serpent-eats-tail views of the Brennan email hack
[ by Charles Cameron — spy vs spy as delicate moral balance ]
.
There are two sentences in When The Hackers Become The Hacked: Why Reading John Brennan’s Emails Feels Wrong, Ali Watkins‘ HuffPo piece a couple of days ago, that feature a neat sense of paradox, and what’s most interesting about them is that they show us two different sides of the coin.
The first [upper panel, below] has a bit of an “ooh, look” feel to it, finding its turning point in the fact that the keeper of secrets has had his own secrets exposed:
while the second [lower panel, above] centers on how it feels “from the inside“.
**
All of which reminds me of the Talmudic distinction between the Israelites’ view, watching as their enemies the Egyptians perish in the Red Sea, and God’s view, seeing the Egyptian plight from the inside as it were, encapsulated in R Johanan‘s phrase:
My creatures are drowning in the sea, and you want to sing songs!
Kudos to Ali Watkins.
October 25th, 2015 at 3:57 pm
I think the lower panel above is incorrect. It’s arguable that Mr. Brennan has implied his consent to the hacking.
October 25th, 2015 at 6:57 pm
Hi, Dave:
.
Could you say more about that?
October 25th, 2015 at 8:31 pm
Okay. I should expand on my comment a bit by noting that when I say “it’s arguable” I’m not necessarily saying “I would argue”.
.
Here’s one tack. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in emails sent via the public Internet. Consequently, there’s nothing wrong with hacking Mr. Brennan’s email.
.
Here’s another. Congress does not have the authority to abrogate the Fourth Amendment and the laws Mr. Brennan purports to be following do just that. The courts don’t have the authority to interpret that away. Consequently, when Mr. Brennan argues, as he does that such violation is necessary for security reasons, he’s really arguing exigent circumstances. Sauce for the goose. If exigent circumstances are a reasonable argument for violating Americans’ rights by Mr. Brennan, they’re a perfectly good reason for violating Mr. Brennan’s rights as well.
.
These aren’t perfect arguments but they’re just off the cuff.