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?
(Score: 5, Touché) by turgid on Friday May 26 2017, @09:07PM (1 child)
President Pull-My-Finger just tells the Ruskies himself.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 26 2017, @09:47PM
Toe to toe with the Ruskies! [youtube.com] ;-)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:14PM (2 children)
"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday May 26 2017, @09:22PM (1 child)
Yup, the Home Of The Brave has it backwards.
Gerrymandering and corruption, who gives a [bleep] about the People?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 26 2017, @09:30PM
Home of the sold out, land of the surveillanced? ;-)
(Score: 3, Informative) by shortscreen on Friday May 26 2017, @09:20PM (4 children)
why bother keeping things secret when you can just Baffle 'em With BS and Flood 'em With Fakenews...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 26 2017, @09:43PM (3 children)
All this 3 million illegal votes stuff and we're not even talking about Roswell.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @10:05PM (2 children)
I'll bet they keep those 3 million illegal voters in Area 51!
(Score: 3, Touché) by zocalo on Friday May 26 2017, @10:14PM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @04:10AM
There is no need for that derogatory language.
From now on, please refer to them by their proper term: Undocumented Space Mexicans.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:44PM (3 children)
Sure, you can keep secrets. But to do so you'll need to do what the Russians are doing:
Use paper, use well-tried protocols for protecting said papers, and keep shit off the internet. Restrict where you can carry electronic devices (hint, nowhere near secret papers).
Stop using digital media for real secrets.
Oh, and stop using contractors. Outsourcing your spying network (or its support functions) is just plain stupid, and a recipe for this sort of thing. Finally, compartmentalize data. Manning could never have leaked what he did to Wikileaks if he'd only had access to data relevant to his job.
But of course, all this requires work, costs money, and runs counter to the Republican notion that we should privatize government.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:54PM
Alternatively, use Windows 10 China govt edition [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday May 26 2017, @10:21PM (1 child)
You forgot one step: Only classify what's absolutely necessary.
The sheer volume of crap being classified every single day is enemy number one. I'd take a bet that well over 90% does not need to be classified. Keep the secrets small, and they become a lot more manageable for safe storage and access.
(Score: 2) by migz on Saturday May 27 2017, @07:38AM
Perhaps the 90% needs to be classified, and kept secret, because they shouldn't have been doing that in the first place?
If you want to be a naughty boy, and not get caught. Join something secret and use your power to classify things to hide your crimes.
There probably needs to be more oversight.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @10:23PM
The problem isn't that the government is violating citizens' privacy on a massive scale and creating a situation where democracy is in danger; the problem is with those evil whistleblowers who blow the whistle when the government does something wrong or when the information is valuable to the public. We should all feel sorry for the poor little governments and help them be even more secretive as they violate our rights en masse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @12:09AM
telegraph, telephone and tell
a girlthe President(Score: 2) by GlennC on Saturday May 27 2017, @01:28AM
Next Question.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)
The question is, why in hell must everything be digitized, put into databases, and then hooked up to the web(s)? In theory, the government has it's own digital web(s), but that has an interface with the WWW. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Well, for starters, this whole networking thing is still in it's infancy. Computers, for that matter - still in their infancy. Let's call it 50 (for simplicity) years from the first CPU to today. How much have things changed, in just 5 decades? How much are things going to change in the next decade? This stuff is highly volatile. The newest, bestest, fastest computer you can buy TODAY is going to be obsolete in less than a decade.
The various webs are changing as well. Maybe they change a little slower than the hardware we use on the web, but they are changing. Not very long ago, almost no one used HTTPS - today it is ubiquitous.
So, tell me again - who in hell thinks it's a good idea to trash all of the old, proven protocols, and move to digital? When stuff is on paper, someone has to gain access to the paper, then read it, or steal it for later reading. Digital? It has been demonstrated again and again that some bored school kid in Bangladesh can gain access to top secret digital secrets.
We think we are so clever, and the opposition is so stupid, that we can hide our best stuff out in plain sight, and no one will ever look at it. Clever, or stupid?
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday May 27 2017, @10:47AM
In addition to indirectly connecting repositories of secrets to enemy networks, the most computerized nations are in conflict with the least computerized nations and are under continuous atack. This is about as sane as a shin kicking contest [wikipedia.org] where contestants kick their own shins.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by idiot_king on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:52AM (1 child)
1. Throughout history, governments can be construed as a type of counterweight to the power of small groups (and, in a sense, "individuals," though not strictly speaking): the more stable the society, the less strict the government control, and vice-versa (this is a moot point but bears reminder nonetheless).
2. The American Republic, along with every other government on Earth, has undergone the most dramatic technical advancements and changes in the past 2 centuries which has tipped the scales, arguably, in the favor of near-mob rule with the current trend of social media. Immediately the Athenian Democracy comes to mind, with its slow decline from centralized power to actual Democracy (for land-owning men) collapsing into a singularity of despotism and tyranny. The Roman Republic suffers the same fate. (Eastern governments for the most part are unexamined here for their propensity to be, up until the 1800s essentially, run by single rulers of any sort including Emperors, Shoguns, Caliphs, Sultans, and so on).
3. The tidal wave of information produced by the Information Age offers a peculiar problem unforeseen and unpredictable by any of our predecessors: Drowning in seas of "knowledge." Virtually anyone now has access to limitless amounts of information. Sources like Wikileaks thus ride said tidal wave as a counterbalance to "restore" power to the "individual" (whatever that means) and can be seen as an aggressor group to the current holders of power (obviously).
4. A) The propensity for humans to use newly discovered technology for domination of others instead of collaboration with others is particularly high. Nuclear energy was explicitly sought after in competition with other global powers at the time, not used for plentiful energy to free us from fossil fuels. Iron smithing was first used for ceremonial items followed by spears and swords, not first used for developing a sturdier plow or wheel. (One imagines what the first use of fire must have been)
B) The appropriate response of the US Government, according to history, would be to flood the "information ecosystem" with nothing but rubbish to completely distort public opinion and break down social trust and immobilize the public psyche; if they pursued this to its ends, they would then provide a glimmering beacon of solid ground (via propaganda) which provides an escape from the endless torrent of "non-truths." This has already been demonstrated with the "Panama Papers" and, mind you, the endless torrent of stories calling into question the validity of Wikileaks and other sources. The media attacking Donald Trump every time he gets out of bed may be the second item mentioned here, the "glimmering beacon," i.e., the truth is to question the President's every move.
This is just pure conjecture and I am probably connecting dots that do not actually exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @06:01AM
Of course, ironsmithing was used to create all sorts of tools besides implements of war or religion.
Of course, nuclear power was sought not just for weaponry, but also for energy; that's why the world's nuclear plants are so ancient and decrepit—they were one of the first things built.
Forget Fake News; you suffer from Fake History.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @03:01AM
All their dirty laundry in public view, and 97% of them are still reelected, with their fans digging in their heels. As for failure to contain the war, we only have ourselves to blame for electing abject psychopaths into high office over the last several decades. Under present circumstances Trump will cruise through 2020. And he's going to have a hell of a TV show afterwards.
Keeping secrets? Who the fuck cares? Just run a good scam. That's what powers world finance.
As for more war, I would advise that you run for the hills. Uruguay might be the hip place while the world burns.
Our demise is our own doing. Sad...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @07:14PM
I think a tactic that's become increasingly prevalent is pure unadulterated mudslinging. In modern elections it's more and more just attacking the other candidate. There's no need focus on your own ideas or traits. Just attack the other candidate. Instead of there being any actual views or ideology, it's mostly just a sporting game where two sides rabidly support "their" team. The interesting thing is that while I think this has been effective, it could to a degree begin to explain the sharp increases in leaks. I think any sense of a national identity in America is falling apart and we're becoming more and more of a divided country of more self centered individuals. As a result of this people are happy to leak anything and everything that might damage who they see as the opposition - even if it amounts to throwing molotov cocktails at each other on a wooden ship.