The Promethian Problem: A Hypothetical - What to Do with "Dangerous Data"?

[CorpGovActivist]

Fans of the Greek myths are no doubt familiar with the story of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus">Prometheus, the Titan who was severely punished for daring to defy Zeus by bringing fire and other forbidden knowledge to mere mortals.

Human history is replete with examples of would-be firebringers being punished by the Establishment of their respective times, for daring to defy the Establishment's control over "dangerous data" not meant for merer mortals.

Which leads me to the following ethical hypothetical:

Pretend that you were privy to "dangerous data" about a leading Democratic candidate. In this hypothetical, you are certain that the GOP has the same data in hand, and you're absolutely certain that the GOP will use it in the general to sway independents.

Is it better to sit on the data, or to air it during the primaries?

- Dave

[MonkeyFunk]

1. You should start thread after thread about it on DU

[CorpGovActivist]

2. Rational, Albeit Lazy, Stone-Throwers...

... live near the quickest brooks, to keep handy an unending supply of the right shaped stones.

Wouldn't want to break a sweat.

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

8. lol

excellent reply.

[CorpGovActivist]

11. My Grandfather Used to Say...

... "watch a rational, lazy man, and you'll likely watch a millionaire in the making."

- Dave

[Fovea]

84. Breathtaking in its essential rightness and understatement

the simian slapdown still resonates across the thread.

[CorpGovActivist]

87. Send It to Bartlett's?

:rofl:

"simian slapdown"?

:rofl: :rofl:

- Dave

[The Magistrate]

3. Much, Sir, Would Depend On the Quality Of the Data

Also of importance would be the signifigance attached to it.

Facts mean nothing in and of themselves; they derive signifigance only from the theoretical framework erected to hold them. It is the soundness of the theory that must be examined most thoroughly. This will, in turn, owe something to the pre-dispositions of the person contriving it.

The utility of such things for political agitation owes much, too, to receptivity among the people it is aimed at. Many things committed individuals consider to be of great importance the mass of people find of little importance.

[CorpGovActivist]

4. Drop the Pebble...

... and see if its mass is sufficient to actually cause a ripple?

- Dave

[EFerrari]

5. I don't know if this speaks directly to your question.

But lately, I've been thinking that it's hard if not impossible to destroy or even suppress information at this moment. Not sure if that's true but, it may be.

That would lead me to believe it's better to air out information before your opposition does.

[CorpGovActivist]

7. The Uncorked Genie, or the Unbound Pandora

Many don't realize that Pandora's Box was one of the punishments unleashed by Zeus in retaliation for Prometheus' defiance.

I tend to agree, as a general principle, with the PR 101 axiom of "break your own bad news before the competition does." But, as with many general principles, there are exceptions.

In this day and age, you're absolutely right about one thing: a single copy of the 1's and 0's that comprise so much of our data is all it takes to bring forbidden fire down from Olympus.

- Dave

[EFerrari]

12. There are too many tracks.

If I type a letter of intent to the ACME real estate company, there are tracks from me to them. I don't have control over them all.

If I'm David Addington and have to respond to CIA requests for step by step instructions, I can't control what CIA does with my responses, let alone, all the places in between that moved my response forward.

It's like being in a multi tiered chess game with Spock.

[CorpGovActivist]

16. "It's like being in a multi tiered chess game with Spock."

I knew I liked you.

:rofl:

- Dave

[EFerrari]

29. But, you see what I mean.

It may not be possible to destroy evidence any more as it might have been, say, during ContraGate. That was just a few years ago.

The fiction of 9/11 never really jelled. The fiction of Iraqi WMD never did either. Sure, both got some buys from a majority, but neither was ever completely accepted, not really. Those fictions lost traction because we still have access to information that isn't yet under control.

The same tech that the cronies try to use on the populace is the vehicle that will expose their machinations. How very fitting, how very Greek. Narcissus drowned, after all, because all he could see was himself and not the depth of the danger before him.

;)

[CorpGovActivist]

35. "How very fitting, how very Greek."

Amen!

As citizens, we all get to watch this morality play unfold, too.

To borrow a phrase: "How very fitting, how very Greek."

: )

Warmest holiday wishes,

- Dave

[EFerrari]

48. Back atcha, Dave, to you and to yours and great good success

to your work.

[CorpGovActivist]

49. Fortune Favors the Bold...

... as the World War I Flying Ace proves.

; )

Warmest back to you and yours!

- Dave

[The Magistrate]

58. Except When It Cuts Them Off At the Knees, Sir

"There are bold pilots and there are old pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots."

[CorpGovActivist]

59. Paralyzing Fear vs. Prudent Caution

The former contributes to the further decay of the Republic. The latter could well help restore it.

- Dave

[The Magistrate]

60. Covering All Bets Of Evens Or Better, Sir....

[CorpGovActivist]

61. Meet Me in Vegas ... Two-Day Winner Buys Final Dinner

; )

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

17. Like a Lie...

it grows larger than it's former self.

[EFerrari]

20. Right. But also, it's just not possible any more to shred something

and have it disappear.

The fingerprints go to too many places that can be mined for information.

The violation of our privacy goes both ways. THEY have no privacy, either!

[CorpGovActivist]

25. Even Attempts to Scrub or Remove the Data...

... leave behind tracks nowadays, and the cover-up is almost always worse than the data being concealed.

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

26. If so, Is it a Violation of Privacy

when a whistle blower blows it's whistle?

[EFerrari]

30. A whistleblower is performing a public service.

So, no. That wouldn't be a violation of privacy because the acts being outted have implications for the public good.

[fascisthunter]

31. That's What I Refer to

interesting topic. Me likes....

[CorpGovActivist]

36. Implications for the Public Good

That's a significant factor for this hypothetical: is the public better served by earlier disclosure during the primaries, or by later disclosure during the general (assuming the candidate in question is the nominee)?

- Dave

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Bring it, methinks.

After all, would we be better off knowing it or not knowing it and the candidate gets into office and revisits their behavior?

[CorpGovActivist]

9. "would we be better off knowing it or not knowing it"

That's the crux of the matter, to be sure. Frankly, in this hypothetical, I'm less concerned about whether or not the concealing candidate learns something, and much more concerned with the common weal.

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

10. Air it ALL

those who don't want to deal with it are of no concern, nor should they be.

[CorpGovActivist]

15. I Personally Cannot Take a Consequences Be Damned...

... approach, but my innate sense regarding such a hypothetical is to air it, and let the chips fall.

- Dave

[The Magistrate]

18. Consequences Of An Action, Sir, Are Always An Important Comsideration

People who do not take possible outcomes into account generally end up considerably the worse for wear....

[fascisthunter]

21. I'd Say That's Why This Country of Ours is so Messed Up

consideration is always going to be subjective to those in closest proximity to the fall-out.

[CorpGovActivist]

42. Well, Whistleblowers Routinely Prove That...

... the "consideration" given to those personally proximate consequences doesn't always prevent the airing of the data anyway.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

22. Wouldn't Be the Horns...

... of a dilemma in such a hypothetical without that critical element to consider.

: )

- Dave

[bemildred]

13. I see no ethical problem, unless it is whether one should work to make it public.

And that would depend on the nature of the information. If it is the sort of thing that OUGHT to disqualify one from public office, then you OUGHT to work make it public. Otherwise, it depends on how much you enjoy media catfights.

[CorpGovActivist]

19. In This Hypothetical...

... trusted GOP journalists already have the data, under embargo, and are honing stories under the assumption that the candidate in question will be the Dem nominee.

So, for the ?protagonist? of this hypothetical, the choice is whether to place same said data in the hands of progressive journalists in the primary instead.

- Dave

[bemildred]

23. I don't make ethical judgements based on what political operatives might do.

I have other criteria for that.

[CorpGovActivist]

37. Not a Political Operative...

... in this hypothetical, simply a citizen whose birth certificate bears no "second-class" endorsements.

- Dave

[bemildred]

50. Not you, the guys you mention in your argument. nt

[CorpGovActivist]

52. Gotcha!

Yeah, the "operatives" are often too clever by half for their own - and more importantly, their candidate's (and even more importantly, the collective) good.

- Dave

[bemildred]

64. I'm just saying that what these hypothetical operatives might do is

not something I would consider in deciding what my ethical position was as far as what to do with any information I might have. The nature of the information and my own feelings about (potentially) getting into a public media spectacle are all that I would consider.

[CorpGovActivist]

65. The Data in This Hypothetical...

... will eclipse the question of who leaked it.

- Dave

[bemildred]

66. Yes, no doubt the grateful public will award me a lifetime of free cookies. nt

[CorpGovActivist]

67. May They Also Have the Decency to Leave You in Peace to Eat Them! n/t

[annabanana]

14. Bring it to the private attention of the candidate in question...

let them know where you got it and let them decide how to "handle" it.

A smart candidate will go for early disclosure...

[CorpGovActivist]

24. Add One More Element to the Hypothetical...

... the campaign in question is well aware.

- Dave

[annabanana]

27. ah. Then it depends on the data. . .

And my own level of dismay at what the data reveals..

[CorpGovActivist]

38. Therein Lies the Power of Primary Documents...

... the light they shed is refracted through each person's personal prisms, but no filters before each personal prism.

- Dave

[Perry Logan]

28. Make up an even worse story and spread it around, thus defusing the bombshell.

Of course I'm joking. No one should ever do such a thing.

[bemildred]

32. Now there's a man who knows politics.

"Make the fucker deny it!"

[CorpGovActivist]

47. Now There's a Man...

... who could be Mark Penn throwing a Hail Mary distraction pass, and actually breaking a sweat.

- Dave

[bemildred]

51. Yeah, but I was talking about the poster I responded to. nt

[CorpGovActivist]

53. Yup, I Was Too...

... in a playful way.

- Dave

[bemildred]

62. He was joking, your average Rove-wannabee would be serious about it. nt

[CorpGovActivist]

63. Yup, That Thin Line between Satire and Operational Imperative...

... is the blind spot for Rovish types.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

39. In This Hypothetical...

... the campaign in question has terrible writers and a stilted leading actor.

- Dave

[lurky]

33. Do it already! (Hypothetically)

I've about had it with the keeping of secrets for the "common weal".

If the RW has it, they are just waiting for the most devastating time to drop it.

If the candidate knows about this and doesn't have the common sense to preemptively address it on his/her own terms, then I have to wonder about the viability of said candidate, as well as whose best interest they actually have in mind.

Nobody but the RW is well served by a political bomb getting dropped on a Democrat after the primaries or even after the convention.

As far as personal repercussions for releasing the data -- be careful, obviously, but also keep in mind that Daniel Ellsberg is still doing OK, and his release was presumably much more dangerous than the hypothetical under discussion.

[CorpGovActivist]

40. Agreed on Many Points

"I've about had it with the keeping of secrets for the 'common weal'."

There is a deadline past which it is no longer viable or useful in this hypothetical, but that deadline is not immediately imminent.

"If the RW has it, they are just waiting for the most devastating time to drop it."

Precise reading of the hypothetical, and spot on the money, methinks.

"If the candidate knows about this and doesn't have the common sense to preemptively address it on his/her own terms, then I have to wonder about the viability of said candidate, as well as whose best interest they actually have in mind."

Couldn't have framed the hypothetical better myself.

"Nobody but the RW is well served by a political bomb getting dropped on a Democrat after the primaries or even after the convention."

Again, precisely masterful reading of the hypothetical.

"As far as personal repercussions for releasing the data -- be careful, obviously, but also keep in mind that Daniel Ellsberg is still doing OK, and his release was presumably much more dangerous than the hypothetical under discussion."

Add one more element: having received death threats in the past over BushCo. secrets (and having worked with the DOJ and FBI regarding same), the hypothetical person privy to this data isn't exactly worried about retaliation.

- Dave

[Fovea]

34. Is it possible in your scenario

to contact the candidate?

[CorpGovActivist]

41. Yes, As Well As Senior Members...

... of his/her staff with whom the hypothetical person privy to the data has worked in the past.

- Dave

[Fovea]

72. In the nominal case

I would strongly consider a heads up to t he staff.

I admit that extenuating circumstances of which I am not aware might
make that advice sub-optimal, such as the manner in which the information was aquired.

Just offering the suggestion that it might be a useful approach.

[CorpGovActivist]

75. Assume for the Purposes of the Hypothetical that "No Controlling Legal Authority"...

... could find fault with the dotted i's and crossed t's of the legality of how it was acquired.

- Dave

[Fovea]

80. Then we come back to teh initial dilemma

Do you go to the Pol first, or the media?

I guess it boils down to your level of respect for the pol, and/or the process.

I think all things being equal, I would try the direct approach first.

[CorpGovActivist]

81. If I Had a Time Machine, I'd Visit the ...

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire">Byzantine Empire's Court as one of my Top Ten Time Trips, to see if the Empress and her courtiers were truly as dysfunctional as history records.

Absent that, a "trip" to the Clinton Control Center - armed with a big ball of twine and a pocketful of breadcrumbs - is a close approximation, I suppose.

Removing tongue from cheek, I think it's fair to say they're on official notice.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

43. People forget that most whistleblowers do not seek the spotlight, but have it thrust upon them...

So in the end it this hypothetical plays with the dynamic of what the whistleblower should give up in exchange for the benefit of his/her fellow man?

The bottom line is that information that could promote the common good 'should' be passed on to those who can best use it to accomplish that common good.

However, it is understandable (if not acceptable) if the potential whisteblower decides not to take on the mantel of such heavy responsibility if others are in possession of the same information.

I hope whatever the information is that it will not be used by Republicans to damage our country's ability to right the severely listing ship of state left us by the Bush ADministration.

We can only hope...

[CorpGovActivist]

44. Fire: Benevolent and Malevolent

"People forget that most whistleblowers do not seek the spotlight, but have it thrust upon them."

Very, very true.

"So in the end ... this hypothetical plays with the dynamic of what the whistleblower should give up in exchange for the benefit of his/her fellow man?"

Not necessarily, but assume in this hypothetical that there have been thinly-veiled threats about what might befall the ?protagonist? should the data be brought to light.

"The bottom line is that information that could promote the common good 'should' be passed on to those who can best use it to accomplish that common good."

Fire is such an apt metaphor for data in our age. A single, carefully nursed ember can be smuggled out under the very noses of the "gods," and smuggled out under the very cover of darkness created by the gods' own fear. The closed system is self-defeating.

"However, it is understandable (if not acceptable) if the potential whisteblower decides not to take on the mantel of such heavy responsibility if others are in possession of the same information."

Again, fire is an apt metaphor. Benevolently shared, it lights homes, heats hearths, cleanses and purifies, and warms bellies. Malevolently shared, it burns homes, destroys hearths, and ravages.

But even benevolently shared, it can be put to malevolent uses. So for the potential firebringer, it's less about the personal consequences, as it is about squaring up to the potential for secondary and tertiary effects (a.k.a., unintended consequences), over which s/he would have less and less control, but for which s/he may feel responsible.

"I hope whatever the information is that it will not be used by Republicans to damage our country's ability to right the severely listing ship of state left us by the Bush ADministration."

In this hypothetical, count on the GOP to use the secret fire for maximum partisan gain. Truly, this much is a foregone conclusion within the confines of this hypothetical.

"We can only hope..."

*chuckle*

Pronoun trouble invades your response. Some of us may be required to act.

- Dave

[porphyrian]

45. It depends on the probable consequences.

It's important to consider every possible angle.

[CorpGovActivist]

46. Very True

See #44 above.

Secondary and tertiary effects (a.k.a., "unintended consequences") are important considerations in this hypothetical.

- Dave

[tekisui]

54. Air it early.

The Candidate in this hypothetical should have scrubbed up already, especially if it is a show stopper. Now, we are facing a nasty General Election. The Earlier the Better.

[CorpGovActivist]

55. The Greek Chorus ...

... was one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_chorus">greatest innovations given to humankind.

"The Candidate in this hypothetical should have scrubbed up already,"

In this hypothetical, it would be a bit like Lady MacBeth trying to scrub out the damn'd spot. The data in question - and its implications - are indelible.

"Now, we are facing a nasty General Election."

We are indeed.

"The Earlier the Better."

There are well-reasoned arguments in favor of waiting as late as until right after New Hampshire, in this hypothetical. There are equally well-reasoned arguments in favor of waiting no later than two days before Iowa.

- Dave

[tekisui]

56. Air it earlier.

The people casting votes in Iowa and NH should be allowed to make their decision without future regret. In this hypothetical, the change in balance would be significant enough to warrant early and full disclosure. Let's have a clean Primary from start to finish. If the damaging data is held for even one vote, the process will be tainted and the outcome suspect.

[CorpGovActivist]

57. Clear, Concise, Compelling ...

... and it synchs up with a bedrock sense of fairness.

: )

Good advice; thank you.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

73. I am mystified by the disclosure dates of 'after N.H.' or 'no later than 2 days before Iowa'....

And is this information the same that Blogslut raised?

If this is a 'killer issue' for a candidate, then it should be aired BEFORE IOWA. IF it is NOT a 'killer issue' then more consideration should be given before deciding what to do.

I don't get the 'right after N.H.' timeframe. IF it is serious enough to affect primary voting, then that disclosure date would make little sense.

I certainly would not trust to luck that the Repub journalists would act responsibly.

[CorpGovActivist]

74. LOL - I Got a Christmas Wish - BHJ, Mystified!

BHJ, first things first: warmest heartfelt wishes to you and yours for a winter holiday season filled with every joy, and the resources and good health to bring about your fondest wishes.

"is this information the same that Blogslut raised?"

I don't think so. Remember, it's a hypothetical.

; )

And even if it weren't a hypothetical, I don't think it touches on the same topic.

"If this is a 'killer issue' for a candidate, then it should be aired BEFORE IOWA."

I've heard strong and compelling arguments along that very line, with some very sound supporting pillars.

"IF it is NOT a 'killer issue' then more consideration should be given before deciding what to do."

For the purposes of this hypothetical, let's say that it would likely be "serious pause-giving data, especially for independents and progressives."

"I don't get the 'right after N.H.' timeframe."

It's an unabashedly tactical argument, rather than a principle-based one. Or, to be charitable, the principle in question is: use it as a last resort, to derail the inevitability train at the last possible moment.

The argument goes something like this: (1) wait to see how Iowa and New Hampshire turn out; (2) if the candidate affected by the "dangerous data" has suffered a self-inflicted meltdown anyway, there's no harm in holding off on releasing the data until later OR if said candidate is looking "inevitable" after NH, using the data right after NH would be the last possible moment to use it effectively.

"IF it is serious enough to affect primary voting, then that disclosure date would make little sense."

Depends on how black your hat really is, I suppose.

; )

If your birth certificate read Karl Christian Rove, it might make a Sithish sort of sense.

"I certainly would not trust to luck that the Repub journalists would act responsibly."

In this hypothetical, I think it is assured they would use it the moment that the delegate count was locked up for the candidate in question.

- Dave

[Buzz Clik]

68. Didn't we do this already? Last week?

blogslut, I believe, posed the same dilemma.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2509110

My advice to her was similar to monkeyfunk's reply to you.

This whole thing reminds me of my great aunt's most annoying habit of saying, "Well, I could say something, but I won't."

Well, Auntie, either say it or don't.

[CorpGovActivist]

69. Going to the Movies ...

... do you walk out of the theater the moment that you detect a derivative plot device, drawn from a story you already know? And as you do, do you loudly complain to those around you that you've already seen this story before?

- Dave

[Buzz Clik]

70. Good luck with your dilemma.

[CorpGovActivist]

71. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! n/t

[treestar]

76. This is what I honestly think the right wing does

They make something up, knowing that the talk about it alone will leave most people with a bad taste in their mouths. Even the denial of it will just seem to make it stick.

We never want to lower ourselves to their level. Well, we don't have to, as they do real things that they can be criticized for - it's just that they aren't so exciting and sexy to the MSM - how are they going to talk about the Decider's contempt for the Constitution when they can talk about some Democrat's sex life? The only answer seems to be in raising the general tone of the American viewing audience, which has proven to be super difficult.

[CorpGovActivist]

77. If the Hiding Entity Were Halliburton...

... and the seeking entity were Waxman's committee, would you feel the same way?

- Dave

[treestar]

85. Presuming the data is true, then air it first

Deprive them of the opportunity to use it.

What if the Democrats got dangerous data on a Republican's sex life? Should we air it like they would? Yet that would be inconsistent with claiming it should not matter. On the other hand, it shows them as inconsistent with their own views - the repukes are the ones that claim it matters.

[CorpGovActivist]

89. The Data Is True...

... in this hypothetical. It's authentic.

Your "converse" points are well-taken.

- Dave

[treestar]

92. Is it about sex or something else personal and irrelevant, or about

something more likely to be relevant to the ability to govern?

[CorpGovActivist]

93. The Latter ...

... it's scurilous only if you think political favors for money is seedy.

- Dave

[treestar]

94. Yeah, it would be best to get it out

And seek such information on repukes, which is likely to be more plentiful.

[CorpGovActivist]

95. Indeed, Airing This Hypothetical Data...

... clears the way to air similar data about the GOP side, and force the eventual GOP nominee to comment on it.

- Dave

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. Air it NOW. n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

79. To Whom and How Widely?

Hypothetically speaking:

1. If an obscure URL already exists, requiring a user account and password to access currently; and

2. If certain trusted journalists have been given such user accounts and passwords to view the "dangerous data" under embargo, so that they may conduct necessary fact-checking in order to file stories; and

3. At the expiration of the embargo date, the password restrictions will be removed, and the data will be open to public view ...

... does that satisfy your demand that the data be released NOW?

Best,

- Dave

[in_cog_ni_to]

82. Yes. That will do. As long as that embargo expires soon.

:)

[CorpGovActivist]

83. I Watch Milk Cartons...

... like a hawk.

; )

- Dave

[L. Coyote]

86. Put it out and watch it be ignored by M$M.

[CorpGovActivist]

91. I Suspect Not n/t

[conspirator]

88. Put the data on youtube. That's the anarchist way of doing it nt

[CorpGovActivist]

90. An Anarchist I Am Not n/t

[LanternWaste]

96. Is the information brought to light to defend or to attack?

Is the information brought to light to defend (good) or to attack (bad)? Everything else is academic at best, as the truth has a way of advertising itself with or without our help.

[CorpGovActivist]

97. To Defend What/Whom? Democracy? n/t

[LanternWaste]

98. The candidate. nt

The candidate.

[CorpGovActivist]

99. The Candidate Who Fails to Serve Democracy ...

... by concealing data that bears on his or her fitness for office is unworthy of defense, in my book.

- Dave