4 ms·

The university did exactly what it should do. The fault lies entirely with the author: he had absolutely no right to disclose information whose disclosure will

by zeveb 11y ago

The university did exactly what it should do. The fault lies entirely with the author: he had absolutely no right to disclose information whose disclosure will cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States (he has not, apparently, signed an NDA, so his behaviour may not be illegal; that it is legal does not make it right). Top Secret information is not something to be used to make one seem wittier than one is; it's not something to display as a gag. It's a deadly serious matter. Yes, I'm aware that a lot of folks are concerned about over-classification (that's a legitimate concern, but perhaps overblown; few in the public are aware that over-classification is as contrary to policy as under-classification). That's not really relevant, though: over-classified or not, that information is…still classified. And I'm aware that many folks are concerned about the legality of certain programmes. They have every right to be concerned, but absolutely no right to examine those programmes for themselves, nor to disclose information about those programmes to unauthorised parties. A few seconds' thought will indicate why: sure, you may be a patriotic American justly concerned for your Constitutional rights, and if you examined a programme's details and found it to be legal, you'd never reveal it; but some other person may be an agent of a foreign state, and not care one but about whether something is legal or not, and immediately disclose it regardless. In the real world, secrets are necessary, and the essential thing about secrets is that they be…secret. One has to trust those who are authorised to examine the legality of such programmes. And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. And of course one must also be humble enough to admit that one might be wrong about issues of legality, constitutionality and morality. Speaking of humility: > By way of example, I mentioned that the NSA, CIA, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence “have steadfastly refused to give me a secure channel to communicate with them” about the Snowden leaks. Who does this guy think he is?!? The Queen of England has steadfastly refused to send a courier to exchange secret keys with me so that she and I can discuss Battlestar Galactica—or at least, I imagine she would if I were so full of myself that I importuned her to do so. It's simply, literally, none of his business. This guy disclosed information he literally had no right to disclose; he expects that people should be glad to discuss with him things which are literally none of his business; and he finds it remarkable that people who do have the right to work with that kind of information are doing what they are required to do?

mindslight 11y ago
> And I'm aware that many folks are concerned about the legality of certain programmes. They have every right to be concerned, but absolutely no right to examine those programmes for themselves, nor to disclose information about those programmes to unauthorised parties. A few seconds' thought will indicate why: sure, you may be a patriotic American justly concerned for your Constitutional rights, and if you examined a programme's details and found it to be legal, you'd never reveal it; but some other person may be an agent of a foreign state, and not care one but about whether something is legal or not, and immediately disclose it regardless. In the real world, secrets are necessary, and the essential thing about secrets is that they be…secret. One has to trust those who are authorised to examine the legality of such programmes. And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. And of course one must also be humble enough to admit that one might be wrong about issues of legality, constitutionality and morality Poe's law.
- zeveb 11y ago
  How the hell is this a case of Poe's Law? It's an even-handed treatment of a contentious subject. I recognise that there are legitimate concerns, but that not everyone may be permitted to determine to his satisfaction whether those concerns are correct or not. I recognise that folks must be trusted, but also that they must be held accountable. Where's the crazy, nigh-parodic fundamentalism in that?
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Assertions the above passage makes (please correct if I've misconstrued): 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government 2. People don't have a right to speak freely about what has been made public 3. People must trust auditors who work in secret 4. Humble yourself so you can never declare right from wrong (and therefore only believe whoever is in power) I guess the comment could be considered even-handed, just in a narrow artificial context that basically guarantees a specific conclusion. That context seems similar to how someone would think if they officially handled classified information, a role which would clearly make them a fundamentalist.

by zeveb 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

> And I'm aware that many folks are concerned about the legality of certain programmes. They have every right to be concerned, but absolutely no right to examine those programmes for themselves, nor to disclose information about those programmes to unauthorised parties. A few seconds' thought will indicate why: sure, you may be a patriotic American justly concerned for your Constitutional rights, and if you examined a programme's details and found it to be legal, you'd never reveal it; but some other person may be an agent of a foreign state, and not care one but about whether something is legal or not, and immediately disclose it regardless. In the real world, secrets are necessary, and the essential thing about secrets is that they be…secret. One has to trust those who are authorised to examine the legality of such programmes. And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. And of course one must also be humble enough to admit that one might be wrong about issues of legality, constitutionality and morality Poe's law.

zeveb 11y ago
How the hell is this a case of Poe's Law? It's an even-handed treatment of a contentious subject. I recognise that there are legitimate concerns, but that not everyone may be permitted to determine to his satisfaction whether those concerns are correct or not. I recognise that folks must be trusted, but also that they must be held accountable. Where's the crazy, nigh-parodic fundamentalism in that?
- mindslight 11y ago
  Assertions the above passage makes (please correct if I've misconstrued): 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government 2. People don't have a right to speak freely about what has been made public 3. People must trust auditors who work in secret 4. Humble yourself so you can never declare right from wrong (and therefore only believe whoever is in power) I guess the comment could be considered even-handed, just in a narrow artificial context that basically guarantees a specific conclusion. That context seems similar to how someone would think if they officially handled classified information, a role which would clearly make them a fundamentalist.