3 ms·

Every time a new Gov gets in it feels like they roll this crap out. Those in the top of the power tree really seem to dislike the idea that anyone not them can

Every time a new Gov gets in it feels like they roll this crap out. Those in the top of the power tree really seem to dislike the idea that anyone not them can keep secrets from them. Its exhausting as it never seems to be a well thought out, technically or philosophically sound argument. Are we doomed to never have technically competent leadership?

indigochill 4y ago
> Are we doomed to never have technically competent leadership? Arguably it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with philosophy of government. It makes some sense that people in government optimize for government's needs and wouldn't it be great (from the government's perspective) if the government could have an eye in everything so it could try to be everywhere at once? Of course that's antithetical to a free country, but from a pragmatic rather than principled view from the top it's not as apparent that the country _should_ be free, especially once the US changed from a federation (power largely in the hands of the states with the federal government mostly focused on legitimately cross-state issues) to a nation (power largely in the hands of the federal government)
eternalban 4y ago
> Those in the top of the power tree really seem to dislike the idea that anyone not them can keep secrets from them. Just so we're on the same page, the "top" are the people we elect and the others are bureaucrats, technocrats, and a "community" of spies. Is that correct? - This pattern can be understood from different povs. A point of view rarely discussed is this: democracies and secret services are incompatible when currents of power are maintained by secrets. Why can't we do something along the line of zero knowledge protocols in e.g. open Senate hearings? Is it truly impossible to have both full accountability and effective intelligence services?

indigochill 4y ago

> Are we doomed to never have technically competent leadership? Arguably it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with philosophy of government. It makes some sense that people in government optimize for government's needs and wouldn't it be great (from the government's perspective) if the government could have an eye in everything so it could try to be everywhere at once? Of course that's antithetical to a free country, but from a pragmatic rather than principled view from the top it's not as apparent that the country _should_ be free, especially once the US changed from a federation (power largely in the hands of the states with the federal government mostly focused on legitimately cross-state issues) to a nation (power largely in the hands of the federal government)

eternalban 4y ago

> Those in the top of the power tree really seem to dislike the idea that anyone not them can keep secrets from them. Just so we're on the same page, the "top" are the people we elect and the others are bureaucrats, technocrats, and a "community" of spies. Is that correct? - This pattern can be understood from different povs. A point of view rarely discussed is this: democracies and secret services are incompatible when currents of power are maintained by secrets. Why can't we do something along the line of zero knowledge protocols in e.g. open Senate hearings? Is it truly impossible to have both full accountability and effective intelligence services?