2 ms·

>"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 fro

>"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

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.