5 ms·

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. --JFK

balding_n_tired 16y ago
See: Bay of Pigs, the unfortunate matter of the Diem family; etc.
- KonaB 16y ago
  How dare you allude to what someone actually did?! Don't you know that Americans like appearance more than content? Seriously now: I upvoted you, and I wish I could upvote you twice. This myth that JFK was a saint has to die. He handled the Cuban Missile Crisis quite well, but he also escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and had Diem executed (one of the greatest mistakes the U.S. ever made in Indochina). The fact that you're being downvoted for countering an admittedly pretty (yet meaningless) quote with facts is surprising. I thought HN'ers were truth-seekers, not flag-waving retards.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- david927 16y ago
  Or just see: Allen Dulles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Welsh_Dulles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Welsh_Dulles
- Charuru 16y ago
  I don't think this is the same thing. You're conflating a bureaucracy and expenditure problem with the CIA. I mean it's hard to say which one is the bigger problem, but they're very clearly 2 different issues. The problem with pointed out by the article is that there's a closed community within the security apparatus that has grown so big and extensive that it's difficult for the government to control, and could give us a situation where the tail wags the dog. Greater transparency there could be helpful. On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    >On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts. Whether the CIA is a net benefit to society is debatable.
    - kiujhygtfhyj 16y ago
      >On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts Names of agents in foreign countries secret = yes. Existence of the CIA, the number of agents, the cost of operations, illegal operations, agents that have committed criminal offenses = no
- rbanffy 16y ago
  You are confusing the fallible person who delivered the speech with the principles a country was founded upon. And, BTW, Ngô Ðình Diêm's family name was Ngô, not Diêm.
  - balding_n_tired 16y ago
    I stand corrected on the family name. One can appeal, with Abraham Lincoln, to the better angels of our nature, but it is as well to be realistic about the worse ones.
Ardit20 16y ago
I am not sure. I think I would like the red button to be kept very secret.
- bmm6o 16y ago
  What does this even mean? The existence of the button? If you're talking about "secret codes" for using it, that's just an implementation of an authentication/authorization scheme.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    The quote and the circumstances in which the quote was made, seems to be advocating a complete ban in regards to secrets from our government. I was pointing out that there are very good reasons at times for keeping certain things secret, such as the "red button" which rather than being a code, is the so called button which send off all the nukes. I know that we as a society, civilisation even, are very adverse to secrets, especially from our government, and rightly so, but secrets in practice are necessary at times. It is their motive which is highly objected to and frankly we do not know what the motive of the secret activities in the United states are. As I posted in another comment, apparently only 0.30% of the people of the United States are involved in such highly secret activities. That seems rather fare to me.
    - bmm6o 16y ago
      > I was pointing out that there are very good reasons at times for keeping certain things secret, such as the "red button" [...]. I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're suggesting. What would it mean for the "red button" to be secret? Do you consider it to be secret today? Why or why not?
      - hugh3 16y ago
        I assume that the OP was using "red button" as a synecdoche (wow, I finally found a use for that word) for the entire procedure by which the US nuclear arsenal is launched. Which may or may not involve an actual red button at some point. (If I were designing the system, it damn well would.) Now, I assume that launching a nuclear missile is more difficult than ringing up NORAD and saying "Hi, this is the Preisdent, the launch code is XD8-3342-9982", but let's not take that chance, shall we? (Man, I hope I didn't just guess a real launch code. That would be difficult to explain to the nice men in suits.)
thebigshane 16y ago
That all sounds very nice, but secrets are important. Without getting into Personal and Financial information, military secrets are essential to military operations. Security by obfuscation is never the best way to go but security WITH obfuscation is a very successful and practical approach to keep an edge over others. This edge helps us remain free and open (open in as many areas as practically possible).
- david927 16y ago
  There's a big difference between saying 'no secrets ever' and a situation where secrets are the norm. Those in power will always have the urge to increase secrecy, but it increases their power. We, the people, have to be always diligent to fight against secrecy, because to do so is to fight for democracy itself.
  - thebigshane 16y ago
    I agree that we should also be vigilant/diligent to preserve democracy, but that's not contradictory to secrecy being A norm in sensitive political or military circles. Although it is natural to doubt the sincerity of the checks and balances and oversight over these secrets, the fact is, they do exist. And they are pretty damn successful. Sure we have an occasional overstepping of secrecy but nothing that bad either.

balding_n_tired 16y ago

See: Bay of Pigs, the unfortunate matter of the Diem family; etc.

KonaB 16y ago
How dare you allude to what someone actually did?! Don't you know that Americans like appearance more than content? Seriously now: I upvoted you, and I wish I could upvote you twice. This myth that JFK was a saint has to die. He handled the Cuban Missile Crisis quite well, but he also escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and had Diem executed (one of the greatest mistakes the U.S. ever made in Indochina). The fact that you're being downvoted for countering an admittedly pretty (yet meaningless) quote with facts is surprising. I thought HN'ers were truth-seekers, not flag-waving retards.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
david927 16y ago
Or just see: Allen Dulles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Welsh_Dulles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Welsh_Dulles
Charuru 16y ago
I don't think this is the same thing. You're conflating a bureaucracy and expenditure problem with the CIA. I mean it's hard to say which one is the bigger problem, but they're very clearly 2 different issues. The problem with pointed out by the article is that there's a closed community within the security apparatus that has grown so big and extensive that it's difficult for the government to control, and could give us a situation where the tail wags the dog. Greater transparency there could be helpful. On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts. Whether the CIA is a net benefit to society is debatable.
  - kiujhygtfhyj 16y ago
    >On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts Names of agents in foreign countries secret = yes. Existence of the CIA, the number of agents, the cost of operations, illegal operations, agents that have committed criminal offenses = no
rbanffy 16y ago
You are confusing the fallible person who delivered the speech with the principles a country was founded upon. And, BTW, Ngô Ðình Diêm's family name was Ngô, not Diêm.
- balding_n_tired 16y ago
  I stand corrected on the family name. One can appeal, with Abraham Lincoln, to the better angels of our nature, but it is as well to be realistic about the worse ones.

Ardit20 16y ago

I am not sure. I think I would like the red button to be kept very secret.

bmm6o 16y ago
What does this even mean? The existence of the button? If you're talking about "secret codes" for using it, that's just an implementation of an authentication/authorization scheme.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  The quote and the circumstances in which the quote was made, seems to be advocating a complete ban in regards to secrets from our government. I was pointing out that there are very good reasons at times for keeping certain things secret, such as the "red button" which rather than being a code, is the so called button which send off all the nukes. I know that we as a society, civilisation even, are very adverse to secrets, especially from our government, and rightly so, but secrets in practice are necessary at times. It is their motive which is highly objected to and frankly we do not know what the motive of the secret activities in the United states are. As I posted in another comment, apparently only 0.30% of the people of the United States are involved in such highly secret activities. That seems rather fare to me.
  - bmm6o 16y ago
    > I was pointing out that there are very good reasons at times for keeping certain things secret, such as the "red button" [...]. I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're suggesting. What would it mean for the "red button" to be secret? Do you consider it to be secret today? Why or why not?
    - hugh3 16y ago
      I assume that the OP was using "red button" as a synecdoche (wow, I finally found a use for that word) for the entire procedure by which the US nuclear arsenal is launched. Which may or may not involve an actual red button at some point. (If I were designing the system, it damn well would.) Now, I assume that launching a nuclear missile is more difficult than ringing up NORAD and saying "Hi, this is the Preisdent, the launch code is XD8-3342-9982", but let's not take that chance, shall we? (Man, I hope I didn't just guess a real launch code. That would be difficult to explain to the nice men in suits.)

thebigshane 16y ago

That all sounds very nice, but secrets are important. Without getting into Personal and Financial information, military secrets are essential to military operations. Security by obfuscation is never the best way to go but security WITH obfuscation is a very successful and practical approach to keep an edge over others. This edge helps us remain free and open (open in as many areas as practically possible).

david927 16y ago
There's a big difference between saying 'no secrets ever' and a situation where secrets are the norm. Those in power will always have the urge to increase secrecy, but it increases their power. We, the people, have to be always diligent to fight against secrecy, because to do so is to fight for democracy itself.
- thebigshane 16y ago
  I agree that we should also be vigilant/diligent to preserve democracy, but that's not contradictory to secrecy being A norm in sensitive political or military circles. Although it is natural to doubt the sincerity of the checks and balances and oversight over these secrets, the fact is, they do exist. And they are pretty damn successful. Sure we have an occasional overstepping of secrecy but nothing that bad either.