3 ms·

Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thou

Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational discussion. Oh wait you just voted down because you disagreed.

Alex63 17y ago
Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal, is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of classification in general and weakens the trust of citizens. In such a case, it might be desirable to post such information, if one could be sure that doing so did not jeopardize people's safety, etc. Maybe there should be a special court where such materials could be examined and a determination made as to whether they had been appropriately classified, with the onus being on the government to prove that the classification was warranted.
- stan_rogers 17y ago
  The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do what is right despite those consequences, that is the agent of change. So, yes, the laws in place ought to be enforced, and if they are wrong, let the law be changed. Laws should not invite or be subject to invite arbitrary application, and in this case the matter under consideration is the very nature of what can be classified and what actually constitutes national security.
  - crosvenir 17y ago
    Yes, exactly. I feel I have been very bad at saying that the content should never have been classified to begin with (though due to the nature of how it was gathered it must be), and that it is the protection of our communication security which is of much greater importance in this case.
- crosvenir 17y ago
  Totally agree with you on all points. Good suggestions too. This instance is a little different because they hacked a DoD communication encryption algorithm. Even if this was used to cover up something, how much other data has been sent using this method. Was the hack specific to the key used or will it work regardless? Will the hack be release in addition to the video? It's pretty easy for our enemies to set up scanners in the field and capture streams of data to analyze later. If the hack is generic enough and the method was used enough I can see how this could be potentially VERY bad. That being said, I think we're using very simple encryption on our UAVs video feeds. So it's probably the equivalent of locking the front door and not as big a deal as I've made it out to be.
vcrash 17y ago
You may be downvoted because you seem to imply, at least to my eyes, that they shouldn't be permitted to break the encryption on any alleged videos.
- crosvenir 17y ago
  Well, that IS what I believe. But regardless to what I believe, it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information. The ramifications of doing so with respect to hacking the encryption algorithm could possibly cause far greater damage that the release of the video itself (provided it showed something ACTUALLY classified, not this cover up stuff). The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion. What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
  - Qz 17y ago
    The kind the founding fathers envisioned, as stated by Thomas Jefferson: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
  - DougBTX 17y ago
    If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion Where the "going away" part would hopefully be against the law too.
  - Tuna-Fish 17y ago

Alex63 17y ago

Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal, is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of classification in general and weakens the trust of citizens. In such a case, it might be desirable to post such information, if one could be sure that doing so did not jeopardize people's safety, etc. Maybe there should be a special court where such materials could be examined and a determination made as to whether they had been appropriately classified, with the onus being on the government to prove that the classification was warranted.

stan_rogers 17y ago
The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do what is right despite those consequences, that is the agent of change. So, yes, the laws in place ought to be enforced, and if they are wrong, let the law be changed. Laws should not invite or be subject to invite arbitrary application, and in this case the matter under consideration is the very nature of what can be classified and what actually constitutes national security.
- crosvenir 17y ago
  Yes, exactly. I feel I have been very bad at saying that the content should never have been classified to begin with (though due to the nature of how it was gathered it must be), and that it is the protection of our communication security which is of much greater importance in this case.
crosvenir 17y ago
Totally agree with you on all points. Good suggestions too. This instance is a little different because they hacked a DoD communication encryption algorithm. Even if this was used to cover up something, how much other data has been sent using this method. Was the hack specific to the key used or will it work regardless? Will the hack be release in addition to the video? It's pretty easy for our enemies to set up scanners in the field and capture streams of data to analyze later. If the hack is generic enough and the method was used enough I can see how this could be potentially VERY bad. That being said, I think we're using very simple encryption on our UAVs video feeds. So it's probably the equivalent of locking the front door and not as big a deal as I've made it out to be.

vcrash 17y ago

You may be downvoted because you seem to imply, at least to my eyes, that they shouldn't be permitted to break the encryption on any alleged videos.

crosvenir 17y ago
Well, that IS what I believe. But regardless to what I believe, it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information. The ramifications of doing so with respect to hacking the encryption algorithm could possibly cause far greater damage that the release of the video itself (provided it showed something ACTUALLY classified, not this cover up stuff). The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion. What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
- Qz 17y ago
  The kind the founding fathers envisioned, as stated by Thomas Jefferson: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- DougBTX 17y ago
  If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion Where the "going away" part would hopefully be against the law too.
- Tuna-Fish 17y ago