4 ms·

So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guar

by cdot2 2y ago

So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?

morkalork 2y ago
It's just a side channel signal that they are self-aware of making unpopular decisions?
- cdot2 2y ago
  Or that they're aware that there are threats against their safety.
  - Retric 2y ago
    And they they’re aware Or implies it’s not both. The Supreme Court has long made unpopular opinions, but it’s recently lost the impression of impartiality. These things are inherently linked.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Who exactly wouldn't be aware of that, no matter which way the decision went?
inetknght 2y ago
> Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court? How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent? While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details should be made available after-the-fact via FOIA. Eg, "what were security details on suchandsuch date", with say a 3-month minimum past-time limit. Of course, it can be difficult to learn from problems 3 months ago, but that difficulty must be balanced with "oh crap there's a problem we have to quietly fix before someone's hurt"
- dooglius 2y ago
  Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it.
  - inetknght 2y ago
    > Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it. Public certainly can request information via FOIA, but US government has many different security classifications and timeframes. Your mileage may vary but I would argue that yes, the public does have that kind of access, even if timeframes might be decades instead of days or months.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by cdot2 2y ago

So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?

morkalork 2y ago

It's just a side channel signal that they are self-aware of making unpopular decisions?

cdot2 2y ago
Or that they're aware that there are threats against their safety.
- Retric 2y ago
  And they they’re aware Or implies it’s not both. The Supreme Court has long made unpopular opinions, but it’s recently lost the impression of impartiality. These things are inherently linked.
pessimizer 2y ago
Who exactly wouldn't be aware of that, no matter which way the decision went?

inetknght 2y ago

> Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court? How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent? While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details should be made available after-the-fact via FOIA. Eg, "what were security details on suchandsuch date", with say a 3-month minimum past-time limit. Of course, it can be difficult to learn from problems 3 months ago, but that difficulty must be balanced with "oh crap there's a problem we have to quietly fix before someone's hurt"

dooglius 2y ago
Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it.
- inetknght 2y ago
  > Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it. Public certainly can request information via FOIA, but US government has many different security classifications and timeframes. Your mileage may vary but I would argue that yes, the public does have that kind of access, even if timeframes might be decades instead of days or months.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]