SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If millions of people know something, can it really be considered a secret anymore? That’s one of the questions at the heart of an ongoing debate in Washington about how much, and which, documents to classify in the age of Wikileaks, iPhones, and Edward Snowden.
That challenge, underscored by Mr. Snowden’s leaks of details exposing the National Security Agency’s top-secret surveillance programs, has given transparency experts new hope that they can help intelligence agencies take advantage of new thinking around classification to ensure that what needs to be secret stays secret.
“The calculation has changed recently, because a single individual, either out of negligence or malice or some other motive, can disclose whole libraries of records,” says Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “That’s something the government has not yet figured out how to deter or prevent.”
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:01PM (14 children)
Secrets are for "private" individuals conducting private business.
The Government has secrets, because it is engaged in "private" business, which it shouldn't be.
If there is to be a government, its sole purpose should be to enforce the "private" contracts to which "private" individuals have agreed, and even then a Government is not necessary—contract negotation and enforcement, and dispute resolution, are all just services, and should evolve in the economy along with all the other services.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:16PM (1 child)
So......what you're saying is that government is a violently imposed contract?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:37PM
That's when the troll should realize that his shtick has jumped the shark: when others start trolling his trolls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:16PM (2 children)
Why should "private" individuals keeping secrets? If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 26 2017, @09:52PM (1 child)
That has been found to be rubbish by most security experts. It's not if you think it's alright or if the written law says you have been a good citizen. But if the largest power in the country identifies an opportunity to gain something from your misfortune. And this will be done regardless of any law in practice.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday May 26 2017, @11:22PM
"whoosh" ....
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Disagree) by DrkShadow on Friday May 26 2017, @09:29PM (4 children)
Imagine you're in a trade situation, trying to get the best deal for your people, and the other side is doing the same. Would you want to give the other side all the info on what you're _capable_ of providing, especially when you won't necessarily get the same back from them?
Suppose you're the president. Would you want the secret service giving away all the contingency plans for an attack on you, all of the locations where they'll post watchers around a public event, and all the manuals on how to deal with situations?
People talk about security by obscurity like it's not a valid thing. Well, then, make your password less obscure -- give it to me! Lets see how you fare!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @11:23PM (2 children)
As OP clearly said: 'The Government has secrets, because it is engaged in "private" business, which it shouldn't be.'
Just as there is separation of church and state, there should probably also be a separation of business and state; as the OP suggests, if there must be a government, its role in society should be to ensure that contracts are enforced.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Saturday May 27 2017, @07:33PM
(I assume from the context that you mean its only role should be contract enforcement. Apols if not.)
How to make this point in a way that SoylentNews readers are likely to understand at a deep level? — Ah yes:
Isn't it surprising how few small-government advocates are running a microkernel OS???
[sig redacted]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:33PM
That's the microkernel model of government. Everybody still wants the monolithic kernel.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:19AM
"Would you want to give the other side all the info on what you're _capable_ of providing,"
Maybe there should be a "not" included in that question. Few negotiations attempt to hide what your capable of doing. Hiding what you're NOT capable of doing is usually hidden. Take Microsoft, for example. They are not capable of producing a truly secure operating system, and they don't want you to understand that fact.
Take automakers, as another example. They aren't capable of building a very fast, very powerful sports car that is also economical. But, they are constantly trying to pass off something shiny as a sports car.
For the most part, negotiators WANT the other side to think that my side is capable of much more than we really are capable of.
Also, take note of AC's comment on separation of business and state. We are in a situation, today, where the government will screw us all over, to help Big Business to make a little more profit. Net neutrality, anyone?
(Score: 2) by idiot_king on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:26AM (1 child)
No individual is truly "private" except for hermits.
The government needs to shield itself from outsiders in the same manner you don't live in a crystal glass house nor publish your bank account to your friends (unless you have no sense of decency, which is not uncommon for SN regulars).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @03:27AM
As usual.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:41AM
“The calculation has changed recently, because a single individual, either out of negligence or malice or some other motive, can disclose whole libraries of records,” says Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “That’s something the government has not yet figured out how to deter or prevent.”
That's a lie. The solution is right here: https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com] (click "learn more" or click the down arrow at the bottom of the page repeatedly)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday May 29 2017, @05:52PM
So I guess the CIA should open their books for public scrutiny, right? And police departments should publish lists of their undercover agents?
Ugh. I'm terrible at ignoring trolls. I really have to wonder if SoylentNews would be better off without ACs. It's awfully rare for them to post anything of value.
Which muppet gave this nonsense +1 Insightful?