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: 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?
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.