5 ms·

> It's possible that national security to be more important than free speech. There is no national security without free speech. There might be oligarch secur

> It's possible that national security to be more important than free speech. There is no national security without free speech. There might be oligarch security, but not security for the people.

themitigating 4y ago
So troop movements should be public?
- linuxftw 4y ago
  Definitely. If you're not fighting an unpopular war far overseas somewhere it's not really a problem.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    What about a popular war where a country invaded the US. What about the locations of nuclear weapons?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If the government can't keep its locations secret, that should be on them. Limiting their employees/military from blabbing the secrets is a separate issue.
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      Who's going to invade the US? Much easier to buy the politicians like how it currently works. This would also require several years of naval and long range bombardments to even be a possibility. Just a non-factor if the planet looks anything like it does today. > What about the locations of nuclear weapons? Security through obscurity. I'm sure some of the US's adversaries know where at least some nuclear weapons are located, and it seems to have not been a problem so far. What's everybody so scared of? The US could cut its military by 75% overnight and little would change for the US itself. So-call 'allies' overseas might have to start footing their own bill for defense or attempt to make peace with their neighbors, but for the US nothing changes.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        Why are you picking apart my hypothetical examples ? Is it your argument there is no reason ever for the government to censor information?
        linuxftw 4y ago
        I don't believe the government has any legitimate power that an individual does not have.
        muaytimbo 4y ago
        well said.
        notch656a 4y ago
        If everyone (or no one) has legitimate power of violent aggression, it's pretty much impossible to run a democracy as the minority would either have legitimate use of force to stop the majority, or the majority would have no legitimate use of force to impose their vote on the minority. Now I'm in agreement with you.... but the logical conclusion is basically some form of anarchism.
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      >What about the locations of nuclear weapons? You mean Montana and North and South Dakota? You can't really hide a silo location from satellites. This was the impetus behind the MX missile program back in the 80's or whenever, it was going to create a huge chain of silos that missiles were constantly shifted around between so the Soviets couldn't know where they were and couldn't target them.
- anon291 4y ago
  You should not be prosecuted for announcing troop movement data that you've lawfully acquired. If you burglarized an American government facility or hacked into a computer system or committed fraud to trick someone or drugged/tortured a government agent, you should be prosecuted for that. But if an agent leaves information somewhere, you read it, and publish it? No, you should not.
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    And that in fact is how the law works, with of course a couple of fringe cases [0]. If you're walking down the street and stumble over a folder of TS/SCI/SAP material, you can publish it all you want. The only time you have a duty to protect classified material is if you signed a non-disclosure agreement. [0] exceptions: nuclear secrets as outlined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the identities of intelligence officers acting clandestinely. The former is a wreck of a law (how would Grandma Smith know a document marked S/RD is special, plus there's the whole 'Born Secret' bit), and the latter hasn't been tried out that much in court.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - themitigating 4y ago
    But you are now limiting your original argument

> It's possible that national security to be more important than free speech. There is no national security without free speech. There might be oligarch security, but not security for the people.

themitigating 4y ago

So troop movements should be public?

linuxftw 4y ago
Definitely. If you're not fighting an unpopular war far overseas somewhere it's not really a problem.
- themitigating 4y ago
  What about a popular war where a country invaded the US. What about the locations of nuclear weapons?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If the government can't keep its locations secret, that should be on them. Limiting their employees/military from blabbing the secrets is a separate issue.
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    Who's going to invade the US? Much easier to buy the politicians like how it currently works. This would also require several years of naval and long range bombardments to even be a possibility. Just a non-factor if the planet looks anything like it does today. > What about the locations of nuclear weapons? Security through obscurity. I'm sure some of the US's adversaries know where at least some nuclear weapons are located, and it seems to have not been a problem so far. What's everybody so scared of? The US could cut its military by 75% overnight and little would change for the US itself. So-call 'allies' overseas might have to start footing their own bill for defense or attempt to make peace with their neighbors, but for the US nothing changes.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Why are you picking apart my hypothetical examples ? Is it your argument there is no reason ever for the government to censor information?
      - linuxftw 4y ago
        I don't believe the government has any legitimate power that an individual does not have.
        muaytimbo 4y ago
        well said.
        notch656a 4y ago
        If everyone (or no one) has legitimate power of violent aggression, it's pretty much impossible to run a democracy as the minority would either have legitimate use of force to stop the majority, or the majority would have no legitimate use of force to impose their vote on the minority. Now I'm in agreement with you.... but the logical conclusion is basically some form of anarchism.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >What about the locations of nuclear weapons? You mean Montana and North and South Dakota? You can't really hide a silo location from satellites. This was the impetus behind the MX missile program back in the 80's or whenever, it was going to create a huge chain of silos that missiles were constantly shifted around between so the Soviets couldn't know where they were and couldn't target them.
anon291 4y ago
You should not be prosecuted for announcing troop movement data that you've lawfully acquired. If you burglarized an American government facility or hacked into a computer system or committed fraud to trick someone or drugged/tortured a government agent, you should be prosecuted for that. But if an agent leaves information somewhere, you read it, and publish it? No, you should not.
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
  And that in fact is how the law works, with of course a couple of fringe cases [0]. If you're walking down the street and stumble over a folder of TS/SCI/SAP material, you can publish it all you want. The only time you have a duty to protect classified material is if you signed a non-disclosure agreement. [0] exceptions: nuclear secrets as outlined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the identities of intelligence officers acting clandestinely. The former is a wreck of a law (how would Grandma Smith know a document marked S/RD is special, plus there's the whole 'Born Secret' bit), and the latter hasn't been tried out that much in court.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- themitigating 4y ago
  But you are now limiting your original argument