51–60 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
State secrets should not exist.
That might be a bit strong, but they should be severely limited. They way it is today, frequently it seems like the "Secrets" are really just secrets from the citizenry. When you look at something like the U2 the "enemy" knew more about it than the American people. Same thing today, do you really think the Chinese can't figure out the capabilities of our spy sats? Most of these secrets should have a defined and quite…
But at the same time, it's hard to be positive how much the enemy knows about anything. And you can't always decide "Well they probably know X, so let's tell out citizens." What if the enemy didn't actually know and made critical (or even non-critical) decisions based on bad information? After all, any good enemy is also going to play the counter-intelligence game and try to mislead you on what they do and do not know.
> Same thing today, do you really think the Chinese can't figure out the capabilities of our spy sats?
Some of our satellites? Yes. All of our satellites? No. And I'd bet the same in our situation and trying to figure out theirs.
> Most of these secrets should have a defined and quite short timeframe.
For those not in the know: they do have a time frame ("Secret" is 26 years, "Top Secret" is 52 in the USA). Obviously, those time frames are up for debate as being appropriate or not.
What I don't think people realize of the military and intelligence community is that our biggest enemy in regards to some of this is actually the "average joe" that's working inside. I found that the number of people that miss-classify data, particularly by over classifying it, was staggering. Such as people that by default would set all emails to TS/SCI//ORCON/NOFORN, and then you end up with an invite to lunch with an address for a Chipotle but you can't even print it out because the sender is a moron. It's quite possible than when you hear the government having trouble FOIA'ing docs it's because of crap like that.
From 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…
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 requiring harmful disclosur…
Feels so hopeless.
I was initially going to inquire why someone like Binney, Drake, or Snowden couldn't just testify to the fact that they could retrieve results where the source data obviously was not (or could not have been) collected through one of the PRISM partners. But because of Wikipedia's general transparency, the gov't could just come claim that, say, the IP associated with the edit history was retrieved at the time of the search or something so it doesn't prove bulk collection.
I guess you'd have to have a search that returns data clearly not public like the Wikipedia viewing habits associated with a given selector or set of selectors. E.g., something that necessitates having stored the bulk data at a previous point in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
The ultimate alternative is going to be voting from the rooftops, when we've finally become fed up with the results of their corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. I'm not sure why you're so trusting of the government that is openly admitting they are unwilling to release their secrets, and not only that but the court system is designed to protect this. From what I heard, he tried to go through the proper channels, and was rebuffed. So it's his word against the go…
If you go through the proper whistleblowing channels and get nowhere, it simply means that whatever it is you tried to blow the whistle on, isn't illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional. You humbly recognize that you were wrong, and go back to work. You don't start betraying your country and flee in the arms of the enemy.
When Congress found out about what was happening, they didn’t shut it down; They reauthorized it. Why? They don’t care.
Comey lied to Congress about the NSA and got away with it. If you think the government cares about what’s legal and what’s not, you’re sorely mistaken.
And he didn’t “flee [into] the arms of the enemy.” A simple google search will yield tons of results that state his passport was canceled while he was in Russia on the way somewhere else. Some even include quotes from the US government (who love to lie) stating that it’s true.
State secrets should not exist.
That might be a bit strong, but they should be severely limited. They way it is today, frequently it seems like the "Secrets" are really just secrets from the citizenry. When you look at something like the U2 the "enemy" knew more about it than the American people. Same thing today, do you really think the Chinese can't figure out the capabilities of our spy sats? Most of these secrets should have a defined and quite…
The default state of government is totalitarian dictatorship; democracy is carved out of that rock every time we the people reserve a right for ourselves. Clearly the Judiciary has lost the ability to keep the Executive in check - and no, I don't think we need new laws here. The 4th Amendment is clearly being violated for every American.
What intelligence is, what warfare is, has changed almost beyond recognition since the founding. Ubiquitous, computer mediated relationships, to an intelligence service, are achingly attractive. And yet, such a capability, which is embedded in the basic marble from which better government is carved, should not be used. I would have thought the 4th Amendment was enough, but clearly it is not.
(It is with great sadness I admit that since ~40% of Americans cannot recognize the obvious threat an un-restrained Executive entails, so it seems unlikely that they would recognize this more subtle threat.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The technology to make small, compact, high output thermonuclear weapons isn't out in the open nor is a lot of the technology used to reduce the CEP of ICBM warheads.