> a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats. I'll separate out digital threats here as evidence you are beyond correct

> a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats. I'll separate out digital threats here as evidence you are beyond correct. 1) Decades of taxpayers funding the hoarding of ~100% of threat data, away from qualified netsec experts, so that it could be reserved to protecting US Gov interests (noting that NatSec typically includes US Gov, Gov partners, major campaign donors and that's about it). 2) One agency head after another sounding klaxons w/o evidence (eg:Digital Pearl Harbor), to influence policy in a way that would ratchet up agency power.