3 ms·

Yesterday's top secret radar tech is today's telecom infrastructure. If we send goons to shut down every garage lab, we're hobbling ourselves and hitching our b

Yesterday's top secret radar tech is today's telecom infrastructure. If we send goons to shut down every garage lab, we're hobbling ourselves and hitching our bandwagon to the ossified and crusty companies of yesteryear, the Ciscos and IBMs of the world that have degraded until they are ready to tip over the moment they get any real competition. Better to tip them over ourselves, so that we own the strong replacements, rather than let someone else do it for us and eat our lunch.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
This is also ignoring how the security system allegedly works in the US. It's based on contracts. Before the government will give you classified information, you agree not to share it except under particular terms. It's why the New York Times can publish the Pentagon Papers even though they're classified. They never agreed not to. But now people want to pretend there is some separate "national security" that overrides the First Amendment in cases of excessive government embarrassment even for people who never agreed not to publish whatever they want to. Somebody tell me where in the constitution it says "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech except when the government wants to keep something a secret."
- monocasa 5y ago
  It's not just based on contracts, there's US code that prohibits sharing classified information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 NYT gets away with it because they'd probably get off on a freedom of press defense, but the DoJ doesn't want to turn grey legal theory into case law. It's more useful to leave the possibility open that it won't go that way as a cudgel. But in the general case, national security restrictions to freedom of speech have passed judicial muster.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > It's more useful to leave the possibility open that it won't go that way as a cudgel. In other words, it's plausibly unconstitutional. It's also kind of hilarious that the specific thing you're not allowed to disclose is how cryptosystems work, which is the thing all cryptographers agree doesn't have to be a secret in order to be secure or else your cryptosystem is completely broken and shouldn't be used.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      It's plausibly unconstitutional to go after established newspapers and other clearly press institutions. And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes, and it's not limited to signed contracts for enforcement.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? It's kind of a bizarre distinction in modern society regardless. Speech and press were historically different. Speaking you did in front of a crowd, the press was in print. Today both happen over the internet. Are we supposed to treat it differently based on whether your website contains text or audio/video? Why? > There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes In which case did the Supreme Court say that?
        monocasa 5y ago
        > That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? Because the concurring, but minority opinion is a joint press freedom and speech freedom argument, but the majority of the court didn't agree with the argument, hence it being a minority concurring opinion. > In which case did the Supreme Court say that? For one example of many, Near v Minnesota. "No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."
seoaeu 5y ago
"We're designing telecom infrastructure" is an explanation. I really don't see why my comment is being interpreted as calling for every garage lab to be shut down. Are people disputing that military technology can be misused? That those dabbling in it should be accountable to the rest of society for taking reasonable steps to prevent that from happening? For at least not outright trying to pass it to foreign adversaries who intend to misuse it?

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

This is also ignoring how the security system allegedly works in the US. It's based on contracts. Before the government will give you classified information, you agree not to share it except under particular terms. It's why the New York Times can publish the Pentagon Papers even though they're classified. They never agreed not to. But now people want to pretend there is some separate "national security" that overrides the First Amendment in cases of excessive government embarrassment even for people who never agreed not to publish whatever they want to. Somebody tell me where in the constitution it says "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech except when the government wants to keep something a secret."

monocasa 5y ago
It's not just based on contracts, there's US code that prohibits sharing classified information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 NYT gets away with it because they'd probably get off on a freedom of press defense, but the DoJ doesn't want to turn grey legal theory into case law. It's more useful to leave the possibility open that it won't go that way as a cudgel. But in the general case, national security restrictions to freedom of speech have passed judicial muster.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > It's more useful to leave the possibility open that it won't go that way as a cudgel. In other words, it's plausibly unconstitutional. It's also kind of hilarious that the specific thing you're not allowed to disclose is how cryptosystems work, which is the thing all cryptographers agree doesn't have to be a secret in order to be secure or else your cryptosystem is completely broken and shouldn't be used.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    It's plausibly unconstitutional to go after established newspapers and other clearly press institutions. And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes, and it's not limited to signed contracts for enforcement.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? It's kind of a bizarre distinction in modern society regardless. Speech and press were historically different. Speaking you did in front of a crowd, the press was in print. Today both happen over the internet. Are we supposed to treat it differently based on whether your website contains text or audio/video? Why? > There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes In which case did the Supreme Court say that?
      - monocasa 5y ago
        > That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? Because the concurring, but minority opinion is a joint press freedom and speech freedom argument, but the majority of the court didn't agree with the argument, hence it being a minority concurring opinion. > In which case did the Supreme Court say that? For one example of many, Near v Minnesota. "No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."

seoaeu 5y ago

"We're designing telecom infrastructure" is an explanation. I really don't see why my comment is being interpreted as calling for every garage lab to be shut down. Are people disputing that military technology can be misused? That those dabbling in it should be accountable to the rest of society for taking reasonable steps to prevent that from happening? For at least not outright trying to pass it to foreign adversaries who intend to misuse it?