4 ms·

The reason why that information is not disclosed is not because they don't want their citizens to know. They don't want others to know; that's when it would act

The reason why that information is not disclosed is not because they don't want their citizens to know. They don't want others to know; that's when it would actually compromise the security.

bogomipz 9y ago
Yes that's the official "war on terror" party line you are parroting - "we can't tell you for your own good." Please provide one single example where communication and sharing of information with one's fellow citizens made them less safe.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  "Loose Lips Sink Ships" In other words: this sort of logic is by no means unprecedented in American history, for the simple reason that gathering information from the general public of a nation is a basic and common element of espionage against that nation. Whether or not such espionage is actually useful is a different story, but especially in this day and age of ubiquitous near-instantaneous and effectively-permanent public (or at least less-than-private) communication, there's every reason to believe that there are "enemy spies" among the general population, and therefore that the less information the general population receives, the less information the enemy can gather (at least through that particular avenue). I feel that this current instance of information-concealment is excessive, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that the likes of ISIS are collecting information from the American public, and thus not unreasonable to want to limit the information going out to the public in order to prevent hostile agents from obtaining that information.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"In other words: this sort of logic is by no means unprecedented in American history, for the simple reason that gathering information from the general public of a nation is a basic and common element of espionage against that nation" Please way what the precedent is then if this is not unprecedented in American history. >"... there's every reason to believe that there are "enemy spies" among the general population, and therefore that the less information the general population receives, the less information the enemy can gather (at least through that particular avenue" That statement is absurd - "keep all the citizens in the dark just in case one of them is a terrorist!"
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      "That statement is absurd - 'keep all the citizens in the dark just in case one of them is a terrorist!'" I don't disagree. That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2. This is really nothing new. If the threat is credible, then limiting the dissemination of information is not unreasonable. I don't believe the threat to be credible, but I'm no national security expert.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        >"That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2" Please provide examples of this tradition. What threats were kept from the American public during the first and since the first two world wars?
        yellowapple 9y ago
        I mean, there's the instance that I quoted in my very first comment in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships Granted, that specific instance was more centered on making sure the American public doesn't inadvertently spread information to America's enemies, but the U.S. Office of War Information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...) was in fact known to withhold information for "public safety", and the Office of Censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship) was literally created for this exact purpose of preventing the public (and therefore - in theory - the enemy) from obtaining information that might in any way benefit the enemy (even weather forecasts!). The Committee on Public Information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...) had a similar policy of withholding information that the enemy might find useful. The situation with the laptop ban is much different from these, of course, which is why - like I said before - I agree with you that withholding information in this case is excessive and unnecessary for public safety.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  Any time that when that information falls into the hands of attackers and enabled them to make more effective plans. I do not know if this is that case, but there is a class of information that when made public reduces safety. The problem is not with telling any one individual, you or I would probably do little with the information, but once "everyone" knows it potential attackers could use the information. If it were something like the times or flights we suspected the terrorists would attack and they got that information I hope you can see how that would make things worse. I think the real solution is valid oversight, not this FISA non-sense we have now. Actually, I don't know if its non-sense because its so secret I can't tell if its doing its job or not, so I must presume its not.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"Any time that when that information falls into the hands of attackers and enabled them to make more effective plans." You mean like announcing a laptop ban from flight originating in 10 predominantly Muslim countries? Do you think terrorists don't pay attention to the news? >"I do not know if this is that case, but there is a class of information that when made public reduces safety." Please provide an example of this.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      This story has several examples! Anything that lets and attacker work around security precautions is that kind of information. Right now the list of airports and countries is a physical security vulnerability because an attacker can just go to a different airport than one on the list. I wish physical security were like digital security. When securing a server I can publish exactly how I did it and if it is good then the server is secure unless some gets physical access... With physical access the description of the system is a weakness. Unlike packets against a firewall any real wall can be beaten down with enough force, so letting your enemy know how thick your wall is or how many men guard it is a security vulnerability all on its because then they know what goal they need to reach. Uncertainty is poor computer security tool because most attacks are free, physical attacks have a cost. So attackers won't do them unless they think the odds of success justify the costs. If they don't know if they can beat down the wall they probably won't try unless they are desperate. Physical security is all about economics or manpower, either way it is about making attacks too expensive to be worthwhile. Just describing the boundaries to be secured makes it easier, and therefor cheaper to plan an attack. This is very unlike computer which is about finding and fixing flaws. A computer system without flaws cannot be attacked over a network, it must be attacked physically (or socially engineered which can be considered a physical attack here). For any physical attack there is some amount of money or manpower that can take the objective.
sqeaky 9y ago
That is a perfectly valid reason in isolation. The problem with that in aggregate is that we don't know when the government or abusing its power. When is the government telling the truth or not and what policies lead to these decisions. This is compounded by the feeble attempts we have made at performing oversight on this resulting in things that looks like failures such as the whole FISA court system. I don't know if FISA is a failure or not in terms of respecting the interests of Americans, because their trials are secret and that is a failure to protect the interests of Americans.

The reason why that information is not disclosed is not because they don't want their citizens to know. They don't want others to know; that's when it would actually compromise the security.

bogomipz 9y ago

Yes that's the official "war on terror" party line you are parroting - "we can't tell you for your own good." Please provide one single example where communication and sharing of information with one's fellow citizens made them less safe.

yellowapple 9y ago
"Loose Lips Sink Ships" In other words: this sort of logic is by no means unprecedented in American history, for the simple reason that gathering information from the general public of a nation is a basic and common element of espionage against that nation. Whether or not such espionage is actually useful is a different story, but especially in this day and age of ubiquitous near-instantaneous and effectively-permanent public (or at least less-than-private) communication, there's every reason to believe that there are "enemy spies" among the general population, and therefore that the less information the general population receives, the less information the enemy can gather (at least through that particular avenue). I feel that this current instance of information-concealment is excessive, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that the likes of ISIS are collecting information from the American public, and thus not unreasonable to want to limit the information going out to the public in order to prevent hostile agents from obtaining that information.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"In other words: this sort of logic is by no means unprecedented in American history, for the simple reason that gathering information from the general public of a nation is a basic and common element of espionage against that nation" Please way what the precedent is then if this is not unprecedented in American history. >"... there's every reason to believe that there are "enemy spies" among the general population, and therefore that the less information the general population receives, the less information the enemy can gather (at least through that particular avenue" That statement is absurd - "keep all the citizens in the dark just in case one of them is a terrorist!"
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    "That statement is absurd - 'keep all the citizens in the dark just in case one of them is a terrorist!'" I don't disagree. That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2. This is really nothing new. If the threat is credible, then limiting the dissemination of information is not unreasonable. I don't believe the threat to be credible, but I'm no national security expert.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2" Please provide examples of this tradition. What threats were kept from the American public during the first and since the first two world wars?
      - yellowapple 9y ago
        I mean, there's the instance that I quoted in my very first comment in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships Granted, that specific instance was more centered on making sure the American public doesn't inadvertently spread information to America's enemies, but the U.S. Office of War Information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...) was in fact known to withhold information for "public safety", and the Office of Censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship) was literally created for this exact purpose of preventing the public (and therefore - in theory - the enemy) from obtaining information that might in any way benefit the enemy (even weather forecasts!). The Committee on Public Information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...) had a similar policy of withholding information that the enemy might find useful. The situation with the laptop ban is much different from these, of course, which is why - like I said before - I agree with you that withholding information in this case is excessive and unnecessary for public safety.
sqeaky 9y ago
Any time that when that information falls into the hands of attackers and enabled them to make more effective plans. I do not know if this is that case, but there is a class of information that when made public reduces safety. The problem is not with telling any one individual, you or I would probably do little with the information, but once "everyone" knows it potential attackers could use the information. If it were something like the times or flights we suspected the terrorists would attack and they got that information I hope you can see how that would make things worse. I think the real solution is valid oversight, not this FISA non-sense we have now. Actually, I don't know if its non-sense because its so secret I can't tell if its doing its job or not, so I must presume its not.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Any time that when that information falls into the hands of attackers and enabled them to make more effective plans." You mean like announcing a laptop ban from flight originating in 10 predominantly Muslim countries? Do you think terrorists don't pay attention to the news? >"I do not know if this is that case, but there is a class of information that when made public reduces safety." Please provide an example of this.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    This story has several examples! Anything that lets and attacker work around security precautions is that kind of information. Right now the list of airports and countries is a physical security vulnerability because an attacker can just go to a different airport than one on the list. I wish physical security were like digital security. When securing a server I can publish exactly how I did it and if it is good then the server is secure unless some gets physical access... With physical access the description of the system is a weakness. Unlike packets against a firewall any real wall can be beaten down with enough force, so letting your enemy know how thick your wall is or how many men guard it is a security vulnerability all on its because then they know what goal they need to reach. Uncertainty is poor computer security tool because most attacks are free, physical attacks have a cost. So attackers won't do them unless they think the odds of success justify the costs. If they don't know if they can beat down the wall they probably won't try unless they are desperate. Physical security is all about economics or manpower, either way it is about making attacks too expensive to be worthwhile. Just describing the boundaries to be secured makes it easier, and therefor cheaper to plan an attack. This is very unlike computer which is about finding and fixing flaws. A computer system without flaws cannot be attacked over a network, it must be attacked physically (or socially engineered which can be considered a physical attack here). For any physical attack there is some amount of money or manpower that can take the objective.

sqeaky 9y ago

That is a perfectly valid reason in isolation. The problem with that in aggregate is that we don't know when the government or abusing its power. When is the government telling the truth or not and what policies lead to these decisions. This is compounded by the feeble attempts we have made at performing oversight on this resulting in things that looks like failures such as the whole FISA court system. I don't know if FISA is a failure or not in terms of respecting the interests of Americans, because their trials are secret and that is a failure to protect the interests of Americans.