4 ms·
Your comment shows why some more open-ness would be great for everyone. Working in secret means nobody will know of the genuine successes, only the allegedly pr
by willstrafach 9y ago
Your comment shows why some more open-ness would be great for everyone. Working in secret means nobody will know of the genuine successes, only the allegedly problematic aspects which leak out.
It might not be simple, but I am sure that it would be possible to remove classified details from certain “wins” (whether counterterror, counterproliferation, or other) and let the public know what their tax dollars are going toward.
- civility 9y agoWhy are they "genuine successes", but only "alleged problems"? I think you're giving them credit for alleged successes and ignoring the genuine problems.
- willstrafach 9y agoI used this phrase: > allegedly problematic aspects which leak out Due to the problematic aspects being judged solely by the journalists publishing the leak. For example, the business records collection on Verizon metadata was something The Guardian saw as problematic and worth exposing, and I agree on it being problematic, so I was glad to see it fixed in 2015 (They now must ask the ISP for information in a more targeted manner instead of getting it all and self-regulating targets). On the other hand, Spiegel alleged that TAO and CNE-related activities are problematic. I disagree with that and did not see any point in those releases. Hopefully that makes more sense, I did not mean to imply anything with my phrasing.