5 ms·

>"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

>"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.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      From the wikipedia link: "This type of poster was part of a general campaign of American propaganda during World War II to advise servicemen and other citizens to avoid careless talk concerning secure information that might be of use to the enemy" This is not at all the same as creating a policy and not explain to the citizen you represent why you are doing it.
      - yellowapple 9y ago
        "From the wikipedia link:" Which one? There were four. (That was rhetorical, by the way, my point being that ignoring three presented sources to nitpick one does not a solid argument make) "This is not at all the same as creating a policy and not explain to the citizen you represent why you are doing it." Sure, but that wasn't what I took to be your question/request, nor does it really make any difference here when evaluating whether or not the United States has a century-long tradition of wanting to keep military/security information confidential. The "logic" here is that the mere act of telling the general public why said policy was created would reveal sensitive information about ongoing security activities (information which - allegedly - is indeed of use to the enemy). I disagree with that logic and its application in this case, but that is the logic, and said logic is - as demonstrated previously - precedented in American military history.

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.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    From the wikipedia link: "This type of poster was part of a general campaign of American propaganda during World War II to advise servicemen and other citizens to avoid careless talk concerning secure information that might be of use to the enemy" This is not at all the same as creating a policy and not explain to the citizen you represent why you are doing it.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      "From the wikipedia link:" Which one? There were four. (That was rhetorical, by the way, my point being that ignoring three presented sources to nitpick one does not a solid argument make) "This is not at all the same as creating a policy and not explain to the citizen you represent why you are doing it." Sure, but that wasn't what I took to be your question/request, nor does it really make any difference here when evaluating whether or not the United States has a century-long tradition of wanting to keep military/security information confidential. The "logic" here is that the mere act of telling the general public why said policy was created would reveal sensitive information about ongoing security activities (information which - allegedly - is indeed of use to the enemy). I disagree with that logic and its application in this case, but that is the logic, and said logic is - as demonstrated previously - precedented in American military history.