State secrets should not exist.
So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?
Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
11–20 of 141 posts
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#12State secrets should not exist.
So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?
Why not? What are you going to do with them?
It requires nation-state level resources to even attempt to build them. Even states dedicated to developing them against the wishes of the international community (i.e. North Korea) have been barely successful.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#13State secrets should not exist.
So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?
1. Nukes shouldn't even be a thing anymore, we should have disarmed long ago.
2. You say this as if any rando could build a nuke in their garage if they just had the plans.
3. You say this as if any large enough private weapons contractor couldn't figure out how to build a nuke.
So yes. They should.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#14From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
The public who cares about this have no say in all of the other seats of the house.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#15State secrets should not exist.
So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?
I mean, they are?
http://alexwellerstein.com/atomic_patents/
Atomic bombs are literally 1940s technology; it's not that hard to figure out even if the weren't already published.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#16From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
Why is this comment being downvoted?
What alternatives are there other than achieving meaningful representation in government e.g. Congress?
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#17Does doing something seriously evil necessarily imply secrecy?
I am thinking it might but I am not exactly sure why I think this.
Ae there examples of evil things (known to be evil at their time) done in a widely public way?
On the other hand, the converse is not true; this is far more straighforward: something secret is not necessarily evil
In any case I have decided that I have to be EXTRA SUPER cautious that I am not complicity engaging in evil behavior whenever someone asks me to keep something secret.
I don't think that secrecy is quite the same as privacy (not sure as to why), they are just very similar.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#18State secrets should not exist.
How large of a group of people should be able to have secrets? (although I agree, I'm trying to understand this more objectively)