Definition

[_canpakes]

So predictable. All I have to do is read what FOX News says on day 1 to know what you're going to repeat on day 2.

speaking of predictable,
your typical attack the messenger because you have no substance on the message. I wonder why you always have such a lopsided approach these days?

‘No substance on the message’ is certainly the problem with the OP.

[_honorentheos]

The OP says something about the worldview subbie represents here on the board. Most of us understand English well enough to understand that being a spy involves subterfuge while being an informant is simply stating a person passed on information with no judgment regarding the means used to acquire that information.

But in subbie's worldview, the means of acquiring information is not important. What's important in subbie's worldview is somewhat akin to sport. If one shares information that could do damage to a particular team in the sport that is subbie's view of politics, that is what matters and is seen as a play that moves the ball in the direction of the other teams goal. Therefore, whether a person is a spy or just someone who came by information through transparent and honest means does not differentiate them from one another enough to overcome the fact the information shared could serve the purposes of team liberals.

ETA: I honestly think subbie is best understood as having deep, negative feelings towards this concept of liberals he holds. And this takes the place of having positive political views in his case. By positive views, I don't mean ones I personally view as leading to beneficial outcomes. Rather, I mean positive in terms of views that are for something. I don't think subbie holds strong feelings in favor of much including Donald Trump's presidency. But he holds very strong emotional views against his definition of liberals.

[_subgenius]

The OP says something about the worldview subbie represents here on the board. Most of us understand English well enough to understand that being a spy involves subterfuge while being an informant is simply stating a person passed on information with no judgment regarding the means used to acquire that information.

you say you understand English "well enough" and then prove otherwise.
Subterfuge is simply deceit and a CI (note the relevance of adding "confidential" in the OP and to the FBI) and a spy both use deceit, ego the "confidential" nature of both roles. Spy clearly has a more romantic implication and might be more used in the international arena while CI seems to be a more localized moniker often associated with law enforcement and not political maneuvering.
Perhaps you are confusing "whistleblower" because you would like to impose some sort of politicized morality here?

[_honorentheos]

All confidential implies is protection of a person's identity. Being an informant, confidential or otherwise, makes no judgment regarding how a person comes by information that they chose to share or their motives in acquiring that information.

Again, you are interested in this because of the sport you've made of politics. Trying to make spy v. informant a question of target (foreign v. domestic) is still improperly lumping informant in with spy, and you are clearly doing it because you are focusing on an outcome or the recipient of information rather than on what the terms imply regarding the method of acquiring information.

[_canpakes]

you say you understand English "well enough" and then prove otherwise.
Subterfuge is simply deceit and a CI (note the relevance of adding "confidential" in the OP and to the FBI) and a spy both use deceit, ego the "confidential" nature of both roles. Spy clearly has a more romantic implication and might be more used in the international arena while CI seems to be a more localized moniker often associated with law enforcement and not political maneuvering.
Perhaps you are confusing "whistleblower" because you would like to impose some sort of politicized morality here?

You seem to be unable to tell us what makes the incident in question be morally wrong, in this situation.

Hair fire, indeed.

[_honorentheos]

How does this become a question of ethics at all based on broad questions as to the difference between a spy and a confidential informant? Spying isn't inherently unethical. Becoming an informant for law enforcement is not inherently unethical. Law enforcement keeping an informant's identity confidential is not inherently unethical. subbie is making this into sport because he has a deep loathing for some vague concept he calls liberalism and will engage in all sorts of disingenuous argument in the name of combating this ultimate evil but that's the only question of morality I see involved and its based on subbie's BS worldview.

[_canpakes]

[_subgenius]

All confidential implies is protection of a person's identity. Being an informant, confidential or otherwise, makes no judgment regarding how a person comes by information that they chose to share or their motives in acquiring that information.

Again, you are interested in this because of the sport you've made of politics. Trying to make spy v. informant a question of target (foreign v. domestic) is still improperly lumping informant in with spy, and you are clearly doing it because you are focusing on an outcome or the recipient of information rather than on what the terms imply regarding the method of acquiring information.

protecting identity? (a.k.a. spoiler alert)
enough said there.

but to clarify, a spy and a CI can both use the same methods to acquire and distribute information.

[_canpakes]

but to clarify, a spy and a CI can both use the same methods to acquire and distribute information.

that's a very nice - but basically meaningless - statement, not much more useful than saying the word, orange, is both a fruit and a color.

Still don’t have a point in all this, do you?

[_subgenius]

but to clarify, a spy and a CI can both use the same methods to acquire and distribute information.

that's a very nice - but basically meaningless - statement, not much more useful than saying the word, orange, is both a fruit and a color.

Still don’t have a point in all this, do you?

Pretty sure that "the point" was glaring in the OP via a basic question...ya know, that question you have since avoided....was the question confusing you?