9 ms·

Would you say that governments should have no secrets? I think the issue is more nuanced than it first seems to most people.

snprbob86 16y ago
While government secrets can be useful, I think that the lack of secrets is far less damaging than entrusting the government with determining what may or may not be kept secret. So, yes. I do say that governments should have no secrets.
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  No secrets? None? Seriously?
  - snprbob86 16y ago
    Seriously. Think about this: Let's say we gave the government permission to keep EXACTLY ONE secret. They could change their mind about what that one thing is at anytime. In order for them to choose a new secret, all things must be kept secret by default (otherwise, the Streisand Effect holds). A grace period must be allowed for the government to review the new things before deciding whether they want to publish that new information or change their choice of one secret, publishing the old secret. Since everything is secret by default, they could just not tell us about the new information. They could cheat to keep TWO secrets. If one secret leaked, they could easily say "Oh well, that was our one secret! Damn." and we'd have no way to prove that they weren't keeping another secret. The only way to prevent bad secrets is to disallow all secrets. We must systematically uncover sources of secrets and shine a spotlight on them. In the event that a secret is uncovered, there must be immediate and stern repercussions.
    - lotharbot 16y ago
      > "The only way to prevent bad secrets is to disallow all secrets." There is no way to prevent bad secrets. Bad secrets will remain secret as long as everyone who knows about them is dedicated to keeping them secret, regardless of what's legal or required, or what sort of repercussions you threaten.
      - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
        I wish I could up-vote this more than once. Making everything officially open in no way will make everything actually open.
  - delackner 16y ago
    Do a cost-benefit analysis then. Cost: several spectacularly costly (lives and dollars) wars. Benefit: some profitable industrial espionage? I'll let someone else fill in the blanks for the benefits, but I don't think anything really compares to the cost of getting us into countless wars and 'low intensity conflicts' around the world, all the way back to the invasion of Cuba and even earlier. So many wars, each time started by lying to the american public.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >So, yes. I do say that governments should have no secrets. Missile launch codes?
  - charlesattlan 16y ago
    I am hearing this example too often. It is far from an intelligent response and reminds me of the meta contrarian [1]. An equally flippent and useless retort would be here: fragme69. There's the launch code; what use is it to you? It might take the next level of insight to point out the "danger" of Wikileaks, but further reflexion brings you back to the initial gut feeling: THIS CAN BE NOTHING BUT A GOOD THING? So what if even 100 informants get murdered? If these leaks prevents the invasion of Iran (note: Saudi Arabia are agitating for this [2]), then tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians will be saved. People are really laying into wikileaks. Do not forget that they are just the messenger. A near boy has been held without trail for 8 months I think now, and for what? To risk his life by highlighting fraud and corruption, only for people to be still to stupid or too embedded in the system to realise. If Wikileaks had a cache of embarrassing Chinese data, you wouldn't be able to hear anything above the "Amerkah Fuckyeah". You live in a democractic society (probably), enjoy the freedom of information, then realise you actually live in a kleptocracy and the US is a pathological state. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metacontrarianism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable...
    - defen 16y ago
      Instead of missile launch codes, how about "knowledge of how to built a nuclear weapon"? That was a pretty big deal in WWII/Cold War. Sure it's probably not useful to any particular individual, but it was certainly useful to the Soviet Union. State secrets aren't just being kept from individual actors.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      >It is far from an intelligent response and reminds me of the meta contrarian [1]. Talk about forcing a response. You're petitio principii is showing please put some pants on. Shouting "this can be nothing but a good thing" [wake up sheeple!] and claiming that this is blatantly obvious to anyone of modest intelligence doesn't make it true. Only if it's an obvious answer and I were reacting to that would it make this "meta-contrarian". >There's the launch code; what use is it to you? With no secrets I know where the bases are, all the computer schematics, all the cable connections whether or not remote launch is enabled, where to dig to jack into cables, which satellites to tap, what the guard rotations are on bases, what the secret service have found out about military personnel that foreign powers might use to blackmail them, etc., etc.. To me, now, those codes are useless - so is the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb though as I don't have the resources to act on it. There are plenty of people who do have the resources and who would be interested in holding America to ransom using their own nuclear arsenal. IMO to consider that this sort of information isn't harmful to the security of a country is naive in the extreme. Yes, if no one in the world were greedy or lusted for power then there would be no need for the final remaining human to keep secrets from himself. How about a tamer example: if the government can't keep secrets then anyone can log in to Obama's email account and send an email that appears to be from him. Suddenly no government entity can be authenticated online. Iris scan, well yeah but the output of the scanner is public knowledge and the signing key is too. At the very least I hope you can concede "well of course some secrets have to be allowed". Now define the boundaries. To me, your response sounds like the knee-jerk reaction of a rebelling teenager. Do you think that Iran's closest neighbours want them to be invaded because they doubt that Iran will use nuclear weapons? Your 100 informants getting murdered sits well with you? If it does it can only be because whilst you see that as saving thousands of Iranians you don't consider the billions that would most likely die if Iran initiate WWIII.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Are you fully willing to accept the consequences of this policy? Please keep in mind that, had the Allied governments followed your principle during the Second World War, the Axis powers would have easily won. Edit: Hell, let's just take this at the lowest levels, too: this kind of policy means everyone's medical and tax records become public, there would be no Witness Protection Program, and routine criminal justice might end up being impossible. Let's not even go into the fact that this would prevent the government from using RSA, even for benign purposes such as authentication or something.
  - perokreco 16y ago
    In Norway, tax records are actually public, you can search through them online.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "I think that the lack of secrets is far less damaging than entrusting the government with determining what may or may not be kept secret." I'll go along with this IMHO naive utopian view, but you're still forgetting that holding the US government to a no-secrets rule means the USA has no secrets while everyone else does. This sounds like a real winning combination for becoming the world's greatest defenseless sitting duck.
nickpinkston 16y ago
I'd say making it fully legal to publish this content (a la WikiLeaks now), but allowing the government to punish those who leak it originally is probably the best approach. Then we'd have leakers releasing either trivial things that wouldn't be detected easily, or huge ones that really matter and are worth getting imprisoned for. I remember Fareed Zakaria talking about how transparency hurts good governance - basically using a tyranny of the majority / anti-democratic type of argument. I think the example of ancient Greece having more war under democracy than "tyranny". However, if everyone did see all the info we had on us, and the dirt on everyone else as well, perhaps it would lead to more outrage universally / less war. Then again, there'd be ALOT more gov't PsyOps going on to decisive the public.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  > allowing the government to punish those who leak it originally Then you won't have any leaks. Problem solved! Of course, you won't have any information other than what the government tells you, but them's the breaks...
  - nickpinkston 16y ago
    Untrue. As noted, leaks are already quite punishable and yet they happen all the time (as we're seeing now). The issue is one of focus: The government can't track down all the leaks - impossible. However, the government needs to spend its resources keeping the "real/important" secret stuff under-wraps and opening up the rest(via low-level leaks). A system like I proposed would lead to a better allocation of intelligence/security resources by the government and increased transparency for us - without removing all barriers to secrecy, which is highly unrealistic.
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Except that whistleblowing is widely protected legally. Where do you distinguish between leaking and whistleblowing? Is it leaking if the government is involved? Or where there's public interest? Who decides what's in the public interest? The government? And which public - just the US? or are Afghanis covered too? It's much safer IMO to have blanket protection for leaking/whistleblowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
antipaganda 16y ago
Wikileaks edits its releases to avoid harming human sources of intel, sir. Put away your strawman.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Trusting wikileaks to do this reliably is about as sensible as trusting governments to only keep secrets when strictly necessary. Both sound excessively trusting.
  - antipaganda 16y ago
    That's why they work with journalists, relevant experts and, when possible, the governments involved to filter out sensitive names. They seem to be doing the best they can, and so far they haven't been called out on it.
metachris 16y ago
I hope leaks like these help change the way the governments handle the identities of their informants. In particular, if an informant is guaranteed anonymity, the identity should not be disclosed in any communication within governments itself.
jbooth 16y ago
Do you think governments should produce enough secrets per day to fill a library? (made up statistic). That's a lot closer to the truth than governments having no secrets.. yes, there's probably at least 1 secret worth keeping at any given time, but don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out :) We're talking degrees, here.

snprbob86 16y ago

While government secrets can be useful, I think that the lack of secrets is far less damaging than entrusting the government with determining what may or may not be kept secret. So, yes. I do say that governments should have no secrets.

waterlesscloud 16y ago
No secrets? None? Seriously?
- snprbob86 16y ago
  Seriously. Think about this: Let's say we gave the government permission to keep EXACTLY ONE secret. They could change their mind about what that one thing is at anytime. In order for them to choose a new secret, all things must be kept secret by default (otherwise, the Streisand Effect holds). A grace period must be allowed for the government to review the new things before deciding whether they want to publish that new information or change their choice of one secret, publishing the old secret. Since everything is secret by default, they could just not tell us about the new information. They could cheat to keep TWO secrets. If one secret leaked, they could easily say "Oh well, that was our one secret! Damn." and we'd have no way to prove that they weren't keeping another secret. The only way to prevent bad secrets is to disallow all secrets. We must systematically uncover sources of secrets and shine a spotlight on them. In the event that a secret is uncovered, there must be immediate and stern repercussions.
  - lotharbot 16y ago
    > "The only way to prevent bad secrets is to disallow all secrets." There is no way to prevent bad secrets. Bad secrets will remain secret as long as everyone who knows about them is dedicated to keeping them secret, regardless of what's legal or required, or what sort of repercussions you threaten.
    - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
      I wish I could up-vote this more than once. Making everything officially open in no way will make everything actually open.
- delackner 16y ago
  Do a cost-benefit analysis then. Cost: several spectacularly costly (lives and dollars) wars. Benefit: some profitable industrial espionage? I'll let someone else fill in the blanks for the benefits, but I don't think anything really compares to the cost of getting us into countless wars and 'low intensity conflicts' around the world, all the way back to the invasion of Cuba and even earlier. So many wars, each time started by lying to the american public.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>So, yes. I do say that governments should have no secrets. Missile launch codes?
- charlesattlan 16y ago
  I am hearing this example too often. It is far from an intelligent response and reminds me of the meta contrarian [1]. An equally flippent and useless retort would be here: fragme69. There's the launch code; what use is it to you? It might take the next level of insight to point out the "danger" of Wikileaks, but further reflexion brings you back to the initial gut feeling: THIS CAN BE NOTHING BUT A GOOD THING? So what if even 100 informants get murdered? If these leaks prevents the invasion of Iran (note: Saudi Arabia are agitating for this [2]), then tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians will be saved. People are really laying into wikileaks. Do not forget that they are just the messenger. A near boy has been held without trail for 8 months I think now, and for what? To risk his life by highlighting fraud and corruption, only for people to be still to stupid or too embedded in the system to realise. If Wikileaks had a cache of embarrassing Chinese data, you wouldn't be able to hear anything above the "Amerkah Fuckyeah". You live in a democractic society (probably), enjoy the freedom of information, then realise you actually live in a kleptocracy and the US is a pathological state. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metacontrarianism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable...
  - defen 16y ago
    Instead of missile launch codes, how about "knowledge of how to built a nuclear weapon"? That was a pretty big deal in WWII/Cold War. Sure it's probably not useful to any particular individual, but it was certainly useful to the Soviet Union. State secrets aren't just being kept from individual actors.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >It is far from an intelligent response and reminds me of the meta contrarian [1]. Talk about forcing a response. You're petitio principii is showing please put some pants on. Shouting "this can be nothing but a good thing" [wake up sheeple!] and claiming that this is blatantly obvious to anyone of modest intelligence doesn't make it true. Only if it's an obvious answer and I were reacting to that would it make this "meta-contrarian". >There's the launch code; what use is it to you? With no secrets I know where the bases are, all the computer schematics, all the cable connections whether or not remote launch is enabled, where to dig to jack into cables, which satellites to tap, what the guard rotations are on bases, what the secret service have found out about military personnel that foreign powers might use to blackmail them, etc., etc.. To me, now, those codes are useless - so is the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb though as I don't have the resources to act on it. There are plenty of people who do have the resources and who would be interested in holding America to ransom using their own nuclear arsenal. IMO to consider that this sort of information isn't harmful to the security of a country is naive in the extreme. Yes, if no one in the world were greedy or lusted for power then there would be no need for the final remaining human to keep secrets from himself. How about a tamer example: if the government can't keep secrets then anyone can log in to Obama's email account and send an email that appears to be from him. Suddenly no government entity can be authenticated online. Iris scan, well yeah but the output of the scanner is public knowledge and the signing key is too. At the very least I hope you can concede "well of course some secrets have to be allowed". Now define the boundaries. To me, your response sounds like the knee-jerk reaction of a rebelling teenager. Do you think that Iran's closest neighbours want them to be invaded because they doubt that Iran will use nuclear weapons? Your 100 informants getting murdered sits well with you? If it does it can only be because whilst you see that as saving thousands of Iranians you don't consider the billions that would most likely die if Iran initiate WWIII.
philwelch 16y ago
Are you fully willing to accept the consequences of this policy? Please keep in mind that, had the Allied governments followed your principle during the Second World War, the Axis powers would have easily won. Edit: Hell, let's just take this at the lowest levels, too: this kind of policy means everyone's medical and tax records become public, there would be no Witness Protection Program, and routine criminal justice might end up being impossible. Let's not even go into the fact that this would prevent the government from using RSA, even for benign purposes such as authentication or something.
- perokreco 16y ago
  In Norway, tax records are actually public, you can search through them online.
potatolicious 16y ago
> "I think that the lack of secrets is far less damaging than entrusting the government with determining what may or may not be kept secret." I'll go along with this IMHO naive utopian view, but you're still forgetting that holding the US government to a no-secrets rule means the USA has no secrets while everyone else does. This sounds like a real winning combination for becoming the world's greatest defenseless sitting duck.

nickpinkston 16y ago

I'd say making it fully legal to publish this content (a la WikiLeaks now), but allowing the government to punish those who leak it originally is probably the best approach. Then we'd have leakers releasing either trivial things that wouldn't be detected easily, or huge ones that really matter and are worth getting imprisoned for. I remember Fareed Zakaria talking about how transparency hurts good governance - basically using a tyranny of the majority / anti-democratic type of argument. I think the example of ancient Greece having more war under democracy than "tyranny". However, if everyone did see all the info we had on us, and the dirt on everyone else as well, perhaps it would lead to more outrage universally / less war. Then again, there'd be ALOT more gov't PsyOps going on to decisive the public.

anthonyb 16y ago
> allowing the government to punish those who leak it originally Then you won't have any leaks. Problem solved! Of course, you won't have any information other than what the government tells you, but them's the breaks...
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  Untrue. As noted, leaks are already quite punishable and yet they happen all the time (as we're seeing now). The issue is one of focus: The government can't track down all the leaks - impossible. However, the government needs to spend its resources keeping the "real/important" secret stuff under-wraps and opening up the rest(via low-level leaks). A system like I proposed would lead to a better allocation of intelligence/security resources by the government and increased transparency for us - without removing all barriers to secrecy, which is highly unrealistic.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Except that whistleblowing is widely protected legally. Where do you distinguish between leaking and whistleblowing? Is it leaking if the government is involved? Or where there's public interest? Who decides what's in the public interest? The government? And which public - just the US? or are Afghanis covered too? It's much safer IMO to have blanket protection for leaking/whistleblowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

antipaganda 16y ago

Wikileaks edits its releases to avoid harming human sources of intel, sir. Put away your strawman.

hugh3 16y ago
Trusting wikileaks to do this reliably is about as sensible as trusting governments to only keep secrets when strictly necessary. Both sound excessively trusting.
- antipaganda 16y ago
  That's why they work with journalists, relevant experts and, when possible, the governments involved to filter out sensitive names. They seem to be doing the best they can, and so far they haven't been called out on it.

metachris 16y ago

I hope leaks like these help change the way the governments handle the identities of their informants. In particular, if an informant is guaranteed anonymity, the identity should not be disclosed in any communication within governments itself.

jbooth 16y ago

Do you think governments should produce enough secrets per day to fill a library? (made up statistic). That's a lot closer to the truth than governments having no secrets.. yes, there's probably at least 1 secret worth keeping at any given time, but don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out :) We're talking degrees, here.