Lord Blair Calls for Laws To Stop 'Principled' Leaking of State Secrets 395
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the Guardian: "Tougher laws are needed to prevent members of the public from revealing official secrets, former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Blair has said. ... The peer insisted there was material the state had to keep secret, and powers had to be in place to protect it. The intervention comes after police seized what they said were thousands of classified documents from David Miranda – the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been reporting leaks from the former US intelligence officer Edward Snowden. ... He warned there was a 'new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism.' He cited the examples of information leaks related to Manning and WikiLeaks."
Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Exactly.
Terrorists are a sometimes-maybe-sorta threat. Government is much more terrifying because it is always there protecting itself rather than its citizens.
How do we fight this nonsense?
It goes way beyond the role of groups like the EFF... What groups can I support to prevent nonsense like this?
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF is a good start, and maybe the ACLU. All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, "Lord Blair" is a top-ranking policeman, like our head of the FBI, and is not related to the ex-prime minister, AFAIK. In fact, a "lord" cannot be a prime minister. It's his job to beg for police rights to violate privacy, restrict citizens from video taping arrests, and of course punish anyone who would reveal police secrets. This isn't really news worthy. It's like saying the Queen is in favor of constitutional monarchies.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you think this? It is custom that the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Commons, but I don't think there is any legal restriction on it. Perhaps it is the same as the unwritten rule that a Catholic cannot be Prime Minister.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
I understand the point you were trying to make, but British Prime Ministers are all in fact Lords.
Historically, the title "prime minister" was not used (other than as an insult) and instead the most senior elected leader in the UK was known as The First Lord of the Treasury. Whilst that remains today, the title prime minister is widely and popularly used instead.
Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the first elected leader (1905) to popularly use the "prime minister" title.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Informative)
I understand the point you were trying to make, but British Prime Ministers are all in fact Lords.
What?
As far as I know Mr Cameron has no peerage, and therefore no right to vote in the House of Lords.
By tradition, every former prime minister, regardless of their affiliation and the affiliation of whoever is in power, is granted a peerage. They have to wait until they're ejected though.
His job title has "lord" in it, but he's not a lord.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only does Mr Cameron not have a peerage but he wouldn't be allowed to sit in the house of commons if he did have a peerage.
Tony Benn had to fight long and hard to renounce his (hereditary) peerage so he could be an MP.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
For reference, he's the cunt who tried to prevent an investigation into the shooting of an innocent Brazillian electrician in cold blood by his poorly-trained (but apparently the best you've got) underlings who thought he was a middle-eastern terrorist bomber.
Everything this man says about secrets is tainted. He's Captain Coverup.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had mod-points right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
It is also news because it indicates how the People In Power are thinking. And it is disturbing.
So what Lord Blair is saying is, paraphrased:
"Oy, the government's actions are so sleazy that normal people no longer can sit aside and do nothing; they are ethically driven to release this information in hopes of forcing, through an informed populace, change in policy. Obviously then, the problem is people's principles and not the government actions that drove them to that extreme in the first place! We must put laws in place so people can not act on those principles!"
As opposed to:
"Increasingly the citizens of democratically-elected nations are showing their dissatisfaction with government policy through non-violent methods such as releasing classified documents revealing the government's wrong-doing. We should crack down on the government agents who are abusing the trust of those citizens and hold true to the laws and ideals of the nation, which will also cure the symptom of 'principled leaks'."
(which is idealistically what we want them to say)
It is news because people in authority are increasingly willing and vocal about how they want to abuse their authority to hide the fact that they have been abusing the authority. Not only does it indicate a shift in the attitudes of government towards its role in our society but also - by the total lack of diplomatic idiom - their total disregard for what their own citizens think about the situation.
I mean, at least call Snowden or Greenwald traitors so it looks as if they are the bad guys and the government is just fighting the good fight!
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
The uk has experimented with having police involved in CT before (head of MI5) it was a disaster and thats what the official history says.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.
There were reporters that knew the date of the Normandy invasion, D-Day, in World War 2. They didn't reveal it. If they had revealed it, that would have been "telling the truth." It also would have likely turned the invasion into a disaster, and possibly resulted in a different outcome to the war.
Great Britain was in danger of being starved into submission by the German U-Boats in World War 2. The U-Boat menace was brought under control because the Allies were able to break the Enigma code system and r
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with your point that some obvious things should never be revealed publicly (eg. missile codes), a democratic government at peace should by principle minimise its secrecy so as to maximise its accountability to its populace. The fact that we seem to be in a perpetual state of war (even without a credible military threat) speaks volumes about the real politik.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence [stripes.com]
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
The Iraqis had the same luxury under Saddam. Are you saying that you want a ruthless dictator in charge? Or are you saying that the luxury is that the infrastructure hasn't been wrecked by a foreign invasion?
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence [stripes.com]
Have we? Who can say? Without information being open for public scrutiny we have only the police and security services word on this to know if they have in fact kept terrorism under control. With all of the powers in place they seemed to miss a fairly obvious suspect that was involved in the Boston Marathon bombing. Was this an aberration or about par for the course? We just don't know.
By all means keep currently operational information secret but allow review of past operations, both successes and failures. It would increase public support and security. The idea that things have to be kept secret so as not to reveal operational information to terrorists is security through obscurity, such a thing only protects against the ignorant. I suggest that terrorist organisations, rather than individuals, already know how they were caught before and will update their procedures accordingly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"have been effective to date"....yes, numerous cases where the FBI and DHS have found a mentally retarded person, courted them for a time filling their minds with violent thoughts and doctrine, and then arranged for them to take delivery of a paperweight, and then swooping in with SWAT team to "capture the dangerous terrorist", with congratulations and back patting and mutual congratulatory cock sucking all around.
Here's a clue for you, that is a "false flag attack", the Nazis had great luck with that, and
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
If governments want to retain the right to declare things secrets, they should be more choosy about what they classify as secrets. When it turns out that the things they called secrets were corruption, that tends to make the citizenry not trust anything else they've declared secret either.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike your earlier links (about Syria and Iran), this one actually is on topic... But the interesting bit of your link, in my opinion, is not what this unnamed official says (there is zero information in that because it is entirely predictable) I think the more telling quote is from a named source, viz Snowden:
"Anyone in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; they always have an open door as we do. I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are and so forth," he said.
"If I had just wanted to harm the U.S. You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention," he said.
He could be lying about that, I suppose, but it does seem consistent with his actions as far as I can see (which, like all of us, admittedly isn't very far). Also, while I am obviously in no position to know either way... The one person who does, Snowden himself, has indicated that he is seeing stories that did not originate with him, suggesting that these are being planted specifically to be able to say, "look! Real damage due to this whistleblowerleaky traitor"
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
The EFF is a good start, and maybe the ACLU. All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.
Little late for that.....
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Government is much more terrifying because it is always there protecting itself rather than its citizens.
There is no need to be terrified of a government where there is democracy and a public that is well informed of its activities.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were well informed of its activities this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no need to be terrified of a government where there is democracy and a public that is well informed of its activities.
Unless, of coure, the majority of the public doesn't like the minority to which you belong. In many countries, for example, you still can become a criminal for ingesting a substance that the majority doesn't approve of.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless, of coure, the majority of the public doesn't like the minority to which you belong.
Well yes, that's a problem with majoritarian democracy per se, hopefully counterbalanced by a powerful and independent judiciary. We hope to overcome this by the observation that each of us is, in some way, in a minority; and that laws protecting the rights of minorities qua minorities protect us all. Unfortunately, I'm not sure a majority of people see it that way yet.
My intention was actually to highlight how important it is to a functioning democracy what Snowden, Manning, Assange and others have done for us.
The other, imho more pertinent, consideration is an informed majority's willingness to act upon the information. OP asked "How do we fight this nonsense?" Well so long as most of us are locked into party tribalism, and can't consider voting against our tribe and for the tribe we hate even though they may be offering to end this stuff ... not fucking much. But being informed of what is being done in our name is the necessary precondition for any action.
[Y]ou still can become a criminal for ingesting a substance that the majority doesn't approve of.
Well that's not really a minority issue. That's because you are foolish enough to ingest a substance that is dangerous to you and that we have to intervene for your own good. Which is obviously best achieved by relieving you of your freedom and locking you in a confined space with HiV infested serial rapists ... no wait.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually no. That may be the official narrative, but for the most part the drug restrictions create problems far worse than they solve. There are a few drugs which seem to promote violent behavior - alcohol springs directly to mind, and some of the stuff that caught on as legal alternatives to cocaine and opium. Beyond that though most problems are directly associated with the cost of acquisition, in which case driving the product onto the black market is quite possibly the worst thing you can do for society. Most addicts could do odd jobs or beg to buy their fix if it was legal, just look at the hard-core alcoholics. But if their fix costs 10x or more as much on the black market that's no longer an option and they are forced to turn to theft to feed their addiction. Since even possession is illegal they don't even have the option of getting help escaping their addiction without risking ending up in prison alongside real criminals. (Finishing school I've heard it called).
Meanwhile that lucrative black market is funding violent gangs all fighting for a bigger piece of the pie - since their market is illegal anyway there's limited incentive to "fight" via price or quality when gunfire is considerably cheaper. Not in lives of course, but lives are cheap - there's always more kids willing to fill the lower ranks in an attempt to escape the ghetto. And that violence comes at an extremely high cost for society - militant gangs require a militant police force to confront them, and that's expensive both financially and in terms of civil liberties. Just look at Mexico - the gangs have grown to the point that the police are completely outclassed, and government corruption by gang interests is endemic.
I see how an illegal drug trade helps violent gangs, oppressive governments, private prisons, and corrupt officials. The one thing I don't see is how it helps society.
Re: (Score:3)
> There is no need to be terrified of a government where there is democracy and a public that is well informed of its activities.
So you feel that Manning's and Snowden's behavior fostered a well justified fear of the US government, because of the illegal activities they exposed? Especially behavior that was illegal both in US law and was vioaltions of UN treaties which the US signed?
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but that's basically what I'm getting at, yes. But is should NOT foster fear, it should foster outrage!
Manning and Snowden exposed to the public activities, for which there was generally little excuse to invoke state secrecy, (which must in a democratic polity be an exception and not the norm). For instance, it may be that meta-data collection is a necessary protection of the population against terrorism. And the contents of such collected data would necessarily be c
Re: (Score:3)
Very few Americans know their history.. A lot remember the revisionist rewrites.. But very few know the histories that were written at the time..
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Informative)
Next /. poll:
Who are you most afraid of?
-Terrorists
-My government
-The voices in my head
-CowboyNeal
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
Missing option: Answering this poll
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Missing option: The general public, because one thing is if the government can chip away my privacy through defective democracy but what would be even worse is a government with the people at its back saying "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear". I'm really starting to think privacy peaked 1991-2001 as the Cold War has ended and nobody saw terrorists around every corner and in every bush, since then it's been going downhill at an alarming pace.
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're stuck in dogma, it is possible to be terrified of one branch of the government and be happy with another. For instance:
Department of Health: good
Department of Homeland security: bad
Department of Motor Vehicles: meh
Are three assessments that can coexist in one sane person without their brain exploding. Slapping a label like "Fascist" or "Socialist" on the whole mess is a good alternative for thinking for yourself but in the end not very constructive.
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true in the US at least.
A US citizen is more likely to be murdered by the government than by terrorists and it's been that way for decades.
In fact, more US soldiers have died from suicide than from enemy fire over the entire course of the war.
When questioned, the number one reason enemy combatants give for attacking us, is that we killed a family member of theirs.
The US built Iran's nuclear reactor, not Russia. The US built North Korea's nuclear reactor, not China. The CIA trained Osama to fight the USSR. The Pentagon supplied Saddam to fight Iran while the CIA supplied Iran to fight Iraq. It turns out even the USSR was propped up by endless loans and food supplies from the US - from the 70s - long before Reagan's Evil Empire speech, he knew they were a paper mache devil.
Does a global global anti-government organization even exist or is it all a fabrication ala Stakeknife and Operation Northwoods?
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not on the side of the US government, but I will politely disagree with this statement. Yes, there is corruption (currently I'm thinking more about police here). However, I am over 50 years old and I have yet to run into a situation dealing with the government (at any level) where I actually had to pay bribes to get them to do their jobs.
Yes, eternal vigilance is good, but stating things in a hyperbolic manner out of frustration weakens your reputation for the next go around. But stay vigilant! I like that. :-)
Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
That they do not do petty corruption is one thing, but what is lobbying exactly if not a nice term for legalized corruption. The ability of individuals or corporations to pressure the government into changing laws by the sheer strength of the mighty dollar has nothing to do with democracy, justice or any other moral guidelines a government should have.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not on the side of the US government, but I will politely disagree with this statement. Yes, there is corruption (currently I'm thinking more about police here). However, I am over 50 years old and I have yet to run into a situation dealing with the government (at any level) where I actually had to pay bribes to get them to do their jobs.
Not true! Corporate America pays some very handsome bribes in order to have their bidding done. Your petty needs are easy to meet, at least insofar as it makes you feel like you are being adequately served.
Re: (Score:2)
Just take his quotes and replace the word 'terrorist' with 'voter' as required and it will be decoded for you.
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
You are arrogantly assuming they give two shits about your opinion on the matter or are even asking. They are not.
Notice that the reaction around the world to being caught out on spying has been to...
- shut the CIA declassification department
- Make the illegal spying legal (e.g. NZ)
- Make it clear whistle blowing is not ok and hunt whistle blowers and call them criminals
- torture existing whistle blowers
- Lie about the extent of spying in THEIR country while condemning it in others (e.g. europe)
Face it. The noose has tightened. The sheep are in the fields blissfully unaware for the most part.
Its the new world phenom! Its trending baby! Yeah!
Re: (Score:3)
No thanks, I'm more afraid of the Government than Terrorists.
Of course you are, just look at the statistics: Number of people killed by terrorists each year vs. number of people killed by governments each year.
It is like comparing marijuana to cigarettes.
Laws to protect the rich and powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
To hide their dirty work, to keep secret the things that would outrage the public if they knew. This has got nothing to do with enabling or even potentially enabling terrorism. Only protecting the established status quo which some perceive to be at risk of the serfs are properly informed.
Re: (Score:3)
How many more truly mundane leaks do we need before the tin foil hat wearing crowd says "fuck it" and goes back to UFO sightings?
I do not believe the recent leaks to be mundane, but clear examples of the government's willingness to engage in behaviors that violate fundamental liberties.
BUGGER (Score:5, Insightful)
"Maybe the real state secret is that spies aren't very good at their jobs and don't know very much about the world." [bbc.co.uk]
Re:All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that that one's not good, but it really has little to do with the current discussion. You might be thinking of The Power of Nightmares [wikipedia.org], perhaps?
Definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're hoping to redefine this in a way to ensure that future Mannings / Snowdens face harsher consequences for exposing criminal behavior. They couldn't get Manning seated in the electric chair, so let's make the definition of leaking == aiding the enemy even when there is no intent.
So the new political calculus: Intentionally kill innocent civilians, get a promotion, expose those illegal killings, get hunted down like a rabid dog. Yep, it all adds up!
Re:Definitions (Score:4, Interesting)
Just let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
Blowing up yourself in a marketplace: Terrorism
Leaking information about government crimes: Terrorism
Google "where to buy a pressure cooker": Terrorism
Picking your nose: Terrorism
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous! Picking your nose is unsightly, but hardly terrorism. OTOH, what the HELL, do you want that PRESSURE COOKER FOR! HUH?!
Re: (Score:2)
(Ok, I don't actually can anything, but I've been known to help my mom with the canning since I was a little kid.)
Re:Just let me get this straight (Score:5, Funny)
Well then you won't mind if we bring your mom in for questioning, will you?
Re: (Score:3)
Picking your nose: Terrorism
Oblig. Futurama: at least there's precedent for the last one [youtube.com].
Re:Just let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just let me get this straight (Score:4, Funny)
Obsession with Scotty Dogs: Terrierism
Re: (Score:3)
Flying your jet into a building: Terrorism
Blowing up yourself in a marketplace: Terrorism
Leaking information about government crimes: Terrorism
Google "where to buy a pressure cooker": Terrorism
Picking your nose: Terrorism
You can now add to that list thanks to DoD training materials obtained through an FOIA request from Judicial Watch.
"The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide was obtained by Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act Request. It was acquired from the Air Force but originated from the Pentagon.
"This document deserves a careful examination by military leadership," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News. "Congress needs to conduct better oversight and figure out what t
Oh good lord (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
This is just getting ridiculous. I am not used to politicans from the UK making no sense, even Thatcher was usually coherent.
But this... is just plain absurd.
Re:Oh good lord (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
There are, but don't worry, the things that aren't covered by terrorism are covered under 'think of the children!'
Re: (Score:3)
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
Don't forget that, as head of the London Metropolitan Police, Lord Blair presided over an organisation that did things like the killing of Ian Tomlinson [theguardian.com], the smearing of the family of Stephen Lawrence [theguardian.com], and the killing of John Charles de Menezes [theguardian.com].
No wonder he's in favour of laws that would keep those kinds of skeletons firmly in the closet.
Protection of Corruption Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically corrupt conservative 'er' exploiters governments, are looking to implement laws to hide corruption at all levels of government. Of course never to forget sheer incompetence. So basically it's all about creating a raft of laws to bury corruption and incompetence in government under national security.
You know what's really funny about this, this is exactly what corporations try to do with NDA's. Of course who is doing the corrupting of governments, why it's the multi-national corporations, where else do you think the incompetent corrupt fuckers in government got the idea from. Expose the corruption in government and you'll expose the corporations behind it. Hmm, not so funny after all.
Re: (Score:3)
So your logic is...
Government is corrupt -> corporations own the government -> corporations are corrupt
Did you miss the steps where politicians are elected to run the government and corporations are owned and run by people?
I counter with
Governments are made of people -> people are corrupt
Corporations are made of people -> people are corrupt
So yeah, it's cute that you rather naively think everything boils down to corporations being evil (you do know corrupt governments existed before corporations
Re:Protection of Corruption Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't vote for the corrupt president of my country, Spain, but he's there anyway. Blaming voters means you are also blaming me, but I didn't vote for the thievering retard running the place.
Besides, in this country it's not unlikely to see dead men voting for the winning party. I once found my late grandfather listed in such a list. So what's the real value of a vote?
Re:Protection of Corruption Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporations are corrupt. Democratic governments are not 'made up' they are elected. The electorate votes for those person they believe will represent them. This belief is based upon the information provide to, not just any information by the dominant most repeated information. The information channel has been corrupted by corrupt corporations and money defines what information is the most repeated and the truth full ness of that information is not a measure of it's value, the only measure is how much is spent spreading and repeating it. So corrupt individuals get elected and this is paid for by corrupt corporations.
Just because some people are corrupt does not make all people corrupt. Just because psychopaths know they are corrupt, does not mean that self image is validly applied to others no matter how psychopaths view others. Reality check, not all people are the same, some are born psychopaths.
It's cute that psychopaths still think the old lies hold. I know psychopaths view every else to be corrupt as themselves, will at least they routinely express that but reality is psychopaths recognise each other and scheme and plot together but only for as long as it advantages them both.
Honestly and if course logically, yes normal people will routinely work together for the common good, the evidence of that is staring you in the face (they must be in by far the majority, else the society collapses). I also know that psychopaths specifically and narcissists less so, do not. They are destructive parasites that will destroy society to favour themselves, psychopaths far more than narcissist. I don't think I need to give a hint of the kind of person who sees everyone as being as greedy and selfish as them self, do I?
As opposed to? (Score:3)
Official Secrets Act? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is the Official Secrets Act [wikipedia.org] not adequate to cover this?
Re: (Score:3)
Seal the court for a lazy blogger linking to the documents? Seal the court for some paid worker doing real "journalism" quoting the documents? Seal the court for an author collecting 20-30 years of open/historic/released gov paper but putting it together in a coherent way that
Not state secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
A state secret is something that needs to be secret in order to protect the lives of the citizens of that state (yeah, I know that's not how the law/precedent words it, but that's the fundamental idea of it). These are not state secrets. These are coverups of illegal activity that are labeled as "state secrets" in order to perpetuate the cover-up and not get power-abusers in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it but ... This!
Re: (Score:2)
Those laws are also meant to never allow crimes to go unreported. However in regard to constitutional challenges secrecy acts do run into severe trouble with regard to free speech.
Look at the Manning case, free speech is protected under the constitution and the constitution takes precedence over all laws created 'under' it. The US constitution also demands the separation of powers and the Judiciary has strict control of the courts. The Manning case was tried by the military under control of the executive
Re: (Score:2)
Your put (exposed) on special pay, protected from any retaliation and your boss has to listen for "real" with your lawyer and outside departments "helping".
Even if you win, you have lost your next job/advancment, are at the mercy of ex staff or contractors.
Any anything found to be naughty is just laundered via another section/department/base/contractor. The public knows nothing and all internal errors might get clean up and
facilitating (Score:5, Funny)
conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism
like, say, building roads?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of flight schools myself. Those definitely should be banned, as they directly helped the 9/11 attackers.
Principles? Illegal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good people do not have a need for rules. They have integrity -- they know what they stand for, and they know their right from their wrong. If a law gets in the way of that, it's a bad law.
I wonder why he needs so many rules...
Punish the source (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government wants to pass ineffectual laws that have no hope at stopping what they are aimed at, then how about passing a law that punishes those that are supposed to be protecting our "secret" data? Why could a low level analyst working for a contractor in Hawaii have so much unfettered access to classified data that he could download thousands of documents and walk the data out of the facility with no one being aware.
There are plenty of ways that this could have been prevented with better access controls and auditing -- even the server admins shouldn't be able to bypass the audit system, and the audit system should have raised alarms when it saw so many docs being downloaded.
It adds cost and complexity to the system (like it means that an agent can't follow up leads on his own, but has to submit a request for access to records, while documenting why the data is needed), but it not only helps keep the secret data away from whistle blowers and curious agents that want to look up their ex-gf's, but also against foreign spies that have infiltrated the agency.
Re: (Score:3)
The US gov needed languages and computer experts fast, you had a super aggressive, politically connected contractor lobby and a lot of new mil/gov financing waiting.
Access controls and auditing would slow down real world cloud efforts (read profits).
The US gov did not want to block new firms with say a cleared boss and staff waiting for "final" clearance not been able t
And I call for laws against secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a very small set of fine grained categories under which government data can be kept secret. Secrecy for government programs, and the content of said programs needs to be white listed, and the list of categories needs to be public.
If we are going to have a secret court, I want to at least know there is such a court, or know that some system with the authority to create it exists so I can object if appropriate. Every secret should classified under one (or more) of the categories in the white list, and each category should have some eventual schedule for disclosure and process for oversight.
There needs to be a public system for adding and removing categories (via laws from congress I guess).
This is a democracy: if the people don't know what the government is doing, how can it possibly work in the people's favor?
This is what I like about the UK (Score:5, Funny)
In the USA, you have to surmise that somebody is an elitist douche who fancies himself to be God. In the UK, they do us the courtesy of labeling themselves, "Lord".
Leaks happen for a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, leaks by the public happen not because such individuals wish to do harm, but because they feel it is in the public's interest to know such information. Therefore, in order to stop such leaks from occurring, it is the government's responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner so as to permit accountability and oversight by those who presumably elected them.
In short, if you don't want leaks of "sensitive" information, then don't do business in a way that creates such secrets to begin with. We aren't talking about corporate espionage, or nuclear missile launch codes. We are talking about actions at the behest of some government entity that purports to serve the public, but that same public has not even the slightest degree of oversight with respect to determining whether such actions are in fact legitimate.
To talk about needing more laws and more restrictions to hide government secrets in the name of "security" is the height of sophistry and hubris. It is Machiavellian and Orwellian reasoning, and it is the very thing that achieves what the actual terrorists intend. No sovereign nation will be brought to its knees by the direct loss of life and safety through sporadic murders, bombings, and violent mayhem. Nations fall for two reasons: conquest by another nation's military, or because the governments that rule over its citizens become so egregiously corrupt that a revolution occurs from within. The essential aim of terrorism is to achieve such a collapse through the latter means, because terrorists are aware that they lack the resources to do the former. It makes no difference whether the draconian behavior of a government is well-intentioned. The loss of basic democratic freedoms, in any form, is a win for terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
The best staff felt part of a team, could see their work saving lives of spies/mil/informants and their nation.
The need for junta support, death squads and a degree of deniability over assassinations/coups still had to be factored in.
The trick seems to be to off load any "issues" to other groups/departments/mil/contractors and keep the crypto side 'clea
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstand. I make no judgment of the legal or ethical questions surrounding leaks by individuals. I merely stated that in general, the motive for leaking is based in a belief that the public has a right to know such information, as opposed to, for example, a malicious intent to harm the public interest. Whether the individual source of the leak is actually doing the right thing is not something that can be addressed broadly--that depends on the nature of the revealed information.
Furthermore, the
nonsense ! (Score:4, Insightful)
I Dunno LB... (Score:2)
I actually agree with him (Score:2)
Well Yes and No.
No - I don't agree that the subject matter that has been actually leaked was right for governments to have done in the first place. eg: The deliberate killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. That is wrong.
Yes - I do agree that leaking information is harmful to government and beneficial to enemies, because the enemies can use what the government did wrong as a recruiting tool to gain support against them. With all the negativity against governments having all this data, I would say that it is
Re:I actually agree with him (Score:4, Insightful)
Well Yes and No. No - I don't agree that the subject matter that has been actually leaked was right for governments to have done in the first place. eg: The deliberate killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. That is wrong.
Yes - I do agree that leaking information is harmful to government and beneficial to enemies,
but... what if the "enemies" didn't really exist? What if the people of the countries were just like you and me and didn't want to fight us? What if the most secret secret is that the "enemies" are fabrications of the governments, and without any secrets allowed at all they couldn't trick us into fighting each other?
Take Syria for example. The folks on the front line on each side just want peace, and Assad's forces are monitored and fed only state media and kept from communicating with the enemy... Why? If the enemy were evil, wouldn't they still be shouting evil things? Oh, it's to prevent traitors? But if they were traitors they wouldn't be fighting on the front line...
What sort of "wrong things" do you propose the government stop doing? Perhaps their real enemy is you?
BOO! now SHHH! we can't tell you why they're the enemy, that's a secret. [pbs.org]
The dual purpose of common people (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Brave men and women who fight in wars and give their lives for their country.
1 and 2 are the same people, viewed at different angles for different purposes. I find it sad that people who are expected to give their lives for their country if need be are not deemed worthy of knowing more about the inner workings of their country. Instead they are spied upon and, under a magnifying glass, treated as insignificant. We should all have the right to understand the inner workings of our country and take part in shaping its security and its future.
TAX and secrets (Score:2)
Wait let met get this straigt. You want to take half of my salary (yes all the taxes you pay together). An not tell me what you do with it.
In a democratic society you work for me! You better tell me what you do with my money !
The only reason to keep something secret is because you are doing something illegal either from international law or local law.
Why do you want to monitor everything I do ? I'm not a child I'm supposed to be free !!!
With democracy come responsibility, to hide things from me is wrong. Ye
Stop calling it corruption (Score:2)
Sad (Score:3)
It's sad that the British and the Americans spent 40 years and billions if not trillions defeating the Soviet Union and now that it is gone they are rushing to become what they once fought against. The FBI, CIA, NSA and the DEA should just get it over with, stop pretending and merge & rename themselves the Stasi. The really sad part is the average American, if they even notice at all, will start chanting "USA! USA!" I think it was Ambrose "Bitter" Bierce once said that the Americans will get the government they deserve.
House of Lords (Score:2)
I thought that they were weeding the weak-minded out of the House of Lords.
1984 (Score:2)
I wonder when 1984 will become a forbidden book. It is, after all, a terrorism guidebook in disguise!
Re: (Score:2)
Time to Disrobe Some Lords (Score:2)
It doesn't sound very good when a "Lord," proposes further restricting individual rights.
Don't think I'll be swearing fealty to that guy anytime soon.
The real enemies are the governments (Score:2)
THE ROAD TO HELL.. (Score:2)
Is it just me, or is it getting hotter and hotter every year?
Old school (Score:3)
That's him. Obsolete school actually.
Everybody else knows that security-by-obscurity does not work. It may slow some less skilled attackers down but the really dangerous attacker is not affected.
Any state that feels the need to hide important stuff from its own citizens obviously has something to hide, meaning that it gets far too easy to break laws in a systematic manner and keep it from the public. The terrorists cannot use the fact that a US gunship helicopter gunned down a group of unarmed civilians, including journalists, clearly aware that they were unarmed and not any kind of threat. The public on the other hand can use this to prosecute the people responsible, but if it wasn't for the Bradly Manning leaks, these genocidal murderers would have gone free.
If this guy actually thinks the by hiding the ways we protect ourselves, the people under suspicion and so on, we are one up on the terrorists - he's severely mistaken. Any terrorist worth fearing knows all this no matter how hard the government try to hide it. Like any other cold war style stand-off they have people on the inside, just like the government has informants inside the terrorist cells. All the general stuff is well known. Trust me, the relevant people in Al-Queda has known for a long time which weaknesses exist in airport scanners, in the Internet monitoring systems (PRISM?) and so on. Osama Bin Laden for instance used a very simple technique to send and receive emails. Do everything offline and have couriers transport the USB drives with it on foot, bikes, camels whatever that doesn't offer any way of tracking to random Internet cafe's. That kept him effectively hidden for years despite the massive reward on his head. So much for Echelon, PRISM and whatever else they threw at the task of correlating patterns and everything in other to locate him. All these systems failed completely. Bin Laden was in the end betrayed by a servant.
No, government secrecy has only one real purpose and that is to protect those in power from their enemies, which quite obviously include the people who pays their wages. It is a sick system and it needs to be broken down and replaced by transparency and open control. Sure, there are a few things that needs to be kept secret but not the massive amounts they hide today. Any wrong-doings for instance must be made public right away, possibly redacted slightly in order to protect assets not involved. A conservative guess would be that 98% of the stuff currently classified shouldn't be, and from the recent leaks it is obvious that among all this we'll find countless incidents where laws have been seriously broken mostly because they knew they could get away with it because of the secrecy.
dual-use knowledge (Score:3)
Unfortunately for both him and us, the information that helps citizen decide if their government is working in their interest or corrupt, or working at all and the information that outside forces need to evaluate possible holes in the governments security efforts can overlap quite a bit.
So yes, many leaks that are in the interest of the public will also serve the evil terrorist-pedophile-foreigner-evildoers (interesting idea: Take a publication from the height of the Cold War and replace "communist" with "terrorist" - my guess is you could publish a good part of them with that change today and nobody would notice they were written 30 years ago).
Anyways - there are two lessons here that politicians have not and never will understand, because few people who work outside the security industry do, even if you repeat it to them a hundred times:
One, security through obscurity isn't security. There are some secrets that really are secrets - almost always, they are very specific details, such as names, dates and locations. Anything that is not such a specific detail very likely falls under obscurity, and not security. If terrorists are aided by knowing that you monitor all Internet traffic, then frankly, they were idiots before and your security sucks badly if that knowledge makes such a difference.
Two, security or accountability, pick one. Only a totalitarian government can keep secrets, a democracy is accountable to its citizen. So either you turn the country into a tryranny, or you tell your citzen what the fuck you're doing with their taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing anywhere that the NSA is looking is a security risk.
Now that we know facebook can lower your credit score [slashdot.org], some of us may change our behavior.
The same theory applies to the credit score of a terrorist.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter may have been considered secure through obscurity, TMI for the NSA to sift and sort through.
Some valuable information could have been obtained through social media, but we really do not know.
Re:How (Score:4, Insightful)
As Matt Damon said, there should be a referendum to ask people if they want to trade civil liberties for security. I really think that a vast majority will choose the former.