171–180 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My girlfriend works for a branch of the Canadian government. All of her emails, meeting minutes, agendas, etc. are all on the public record. Anyone can search/read/whatever them at any time.
Right. But the work of the CSIS is not that accessible. There isn't one blanket rule you can apply to "government".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rode subs for awhile and your question is a fair question. Subs with nuke missiles are an insurance policy. They are a deterrent, insuring no country can attack the U.S. - no matter how successful - and not expect a massive and devastating counter-attack. Run silent, run deep.
That argument is flawed. You can destroy each other, so what? Everybody loses. We know that some countries have their weapons ready to go at the will of a single person or very few. What if that leader becomes crazy or incapable of reasoning? Your subs you't protect you in that scenario. There are so many other ways you can prevent such attacks. Diplomacy, commerce, keeping good relations, etc. The threat of an axe o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My girlfriend works for a branch of the Canadian government. All of her emails, meeting minutes, agendas, etc. are all on the public record. Anyone can search/read/whatever them at any time.
As a Canadian I'm curious where I can search this information.
AFAIK, all local governments do this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know in what twisted stretch of the imagination someone can consider Snowden a traitor, unless he is blatantly lying. He didn't reveal anything that would be bad enough to actually harm anyone's life. And if he's telling us the truth, he did nothing less than a public service service, putting his own life at risk.
If he was a true patriot, he'd have stood his ground and gone to trial. It doesn't seem very American to me to flee the country to avoid the repercussions of breaking the law. Mind you, I support him releasing this information.
46 points in fifteen minutes and not a single comment? This NSA issue is seeming less and less like a discussion topic and more like a echo chamber, despite the rampant lack of information on all sides of the event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately we don't live in a world of ideals. With complete transparency comes little ability for security. Terrorist attempts become more frequent. Crime becomes more rampant and life become more unstable. If you ask a typical American if they are willing to die for their freedom, very few would. They'd rather the security. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just true.
>With complete transparency comes little ability for security. Terrorist attempts become more frequent. Crime becomes more rampant and life become more unstable. I understand how it can seem that way, and I'm not criticizing, but is there any evidence anywhere for these claims?
But I will ask you this. Is open government intelligence something that should be tested?
While I might be wrong with my claims, what's worrisome to most is that I'm not. And opening up intelligence as a test isn't exactly something that can be fixed with the next iteration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rode subs for awhile and your question is a fair question. Subs with nuke missiles are an insurance policy. They are a deterrent, insuring no country can attack the U.S. - no matter how successful - and not expect a massive and devastating counter-attack. Run silent, run deep.
That argument is flawed. You can destroy each other, so what? Everybody loses. We know that some countries have their weapons ready to go at the will of a single person or very few. What if that leader becomes crazy or incapable of reasoning? Your subs you't protect you in that scenario. There are so many other ways you can prevent such attacks. Diplomacy, commerce, keeping good relations, etc. The threat of an axe o…
The problem is you can't always assume that the other guy has good intentions. If they're rational, then mutually assured destruction keeps everyone rational. If they're crazy, then that certainly is a problem, which is why there is enormous effort put into preventing proliferation and containing the capabilities of countries like North Korea and Iran.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rode subs for awhile and your question is a fair question. Subs with nuke missiles are an insurance policy. They are a deterrent, insuring no country can attack the U.S. - no matter how successful - and not expect a massive and devastating counter-attack. Run silent, run deep.
That argument is flawed. You can destroy each other, so what? Everybody loses. We know that some countries have their weapons ready to go at the will of a single person or very few. What if that leader becomes crazy or incapable of reasoning? Your subs you't protect you in that scenario. There are so many other ways you can prevent such attacks. Diplomacy, commerce, keeping good relations, etc. The threat of an axe o…
We don't need an NSA or CIA or any other spy agency. I know I'm an extremist on government secrets, but I think there should be none. Nothing should be outside the reach of a FOIA request. In my ideal world all government officials' documents and emails would be made publicly accesible in real time, they're working for us. Any exception or loophole to transparency gets abused, every time. If that makes it harder to c…
There are an absurd number of things that it makes sense for the government to keep from the public and not divesting that information but keeping the people who have that information accountable is what elections are for. You want to know what officers are working under cover in the police force? Who are informants on terrorist organizations working against the state? The home phone numbers and addresses of all publ…
I don't think that there need to be undercover police officers.
> Who are informants on terrorist organizations working against the state?
I don't think there need to be informants on terrorist organizations.
> The home phone numbers and addresses of all public employees? Their emergency contact numbers? Medical histories relevant to their jobs?
I wouldn't classify (teehee) this as "government secrets." If they're public employees, then obviously their names should be public, but I don't see their personal information as a "government secret."
> crippling the capacity of government to do kinds of work that it has to do does not.
People disagree about which kinds of work have to be done by government.
We don't need an NSA or CIA or any other spy agency. I know I'm an extremist on government secrets, but I think there should be none. Nothing should be outside the reach of a FOIA request. In my ideal world all government officials' documents and emails would be made publicly accesible in real time, they're working for us. Any exception or loophole to transparency gets abused, every time. If that makes it harder to c…
Unfortunately we don't live in a world of ideals. With complete transparency comes little ability for security. Terrorist attempts become more frequent. Crime becomes more rampant and life become more unstable. If you ask a typical American if they are willing to die for their freedom, very few would. They'd rather the security. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just true.