5 ms·

How about a middle ground where information private to the government is allowed but there is no NSA or CIA, or at least no intelligence operations beyond keepi

by md224 13y ago

How about a middle ground where information private to the government is allowed but there is no NSA or CIA, or at least no intelligence operations beyond keeping an eye on the military movements of other countries? Honest question: What danger would that put us in? My instinct says a moderate amount, but I guess none of us know for sure, which makes it a little scary to imagine.

sneak 13y ago
Honest follow-up question: How much danger would it need to put us in for you to think it's a bad idea? What if what they're not telling us is that FISA collection orders and analysis has kept people from nuking Manhattan a half-dozen times?
- betterunix 13y ago
  So because there might be bad people, somewhere, planning to do bad things, we should just let the government run wild and do whatever it wants? What if the government claimed that they needed to put cameras in everyone's livingroom, because by doing so they could stop a major terrorist attack? The problem with your argument is that it basically allows the government to do anything it wants, and then claim that there is secret information that proves that what they are doing is necessary to save lives. In my view, there is a need for government secrets. Diplomatic cables need to be secret. The names and locations of informants and spies need to be kept secret (I will not deny the need for such agents). During times of war, the locations and planned movements of troops must be kept secret. On the other hand, the existence of diplomats, the existence of spies, and the existence of the military absolutely should not be kept secret.
  - sneak 13y ago
    > So because there might be bad people, somewhere, planning to do bad things, we should just let the government run wild and do whatever it wants? Whoa, you've just gone all straw-man on me. Stop presuming and just answer my question. Somewhere between "nothing happens" and "vaporizes the whole planet" is a consequence that makes the loss of privacy an acceptable option. Where is it? I didn't make an argument one way or the other.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  >How much danger would it need to put us in for you to think it's a bad idea? There is no number high enough to make me think getting rid of government secrecy is a bad idea. The reason is that there are other methods to deal with these kinds of problems. If other countries want to nuke us, it's probably a better idea to find out why they want to nuke us then to become a police state. >What if what they're not telling us is that FISA collection orders and analysis has kept people from nuking Manhattan a half-dozen times? What if they've also kept the big fight between Godzilla and King Kong from us? This is nonsense, they have not stopped anything like that. Pretty much everything terrorists have actually tried to do, they've succeed (or were foiled by their own incompetence). The cases where the government actually managed to "stop" a terror attack were very clear cases of entrapment. If they're actually out there like Jason Bourne saving the US in the last second all the time, why would they chose to show us clear cases of entrapment as their success stories? But if you really believe they're keeping us safe, then I'd like to give you a great offer on my anti-Godzilla rock. Godzilla has not so much as inconvenienced me on the way to work since I have this rock. I'm willing to make you a great deal on it, $1B. That's less than you're paying for the other charade.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    If other countries want to nuke us, it's probably a better idea to find out why they want to nuke us What will your next step be, when you learn that the answer to your question is "Religion"?
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      I'm confident that that will not be the answer. That and "hate us for our freedoms" are popular for war mongers because there is apparently no solution besides continuing to bomb them. But is it possible they have legitimate grievancences? Is it possible that they're human beings who are pissed off about something we're doing or have done? The saddest part is, we appear to have learned literally nothing since our handling of native Americans. It's disgusting.
      - 13y ago
flyinRyan 13y ago
There is no middle ground. As soon as you give the government the right to secrets (and even if you don't!) they're going to use it to build things like NSA and hide them from you.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  This is a bizarre claim when phrased as an absolute: Eisenhower should have published the Normandy invasion plans?
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    This is different and you know it. The Normandy invasion is one specific operation of one specific group. Cops doing a raid would be a similar thing. In both cases, their activities are isolated to that one specific area and they only need be secret for a relatively short period of time. Contrast this with things like NSA: no end date, literally global scope, etc. Surely you can see how these things are different.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      So intelligence services in general are out?
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Yes probably. Anything that can't be held accountable publicly is just begging for abuse. Governments draw dangerous people to want to work for them so they will be creating illegal secret structures in any case. We shouldn't be making it even easier for them.

by md224 13y ago

sneak 13y ago

Honest follow-up question: How much danger would it need to put us in for you to think it's a bad idea? What if what they're not telling us is that FISA collection orders and analysis has kept people from nuking Manhattan a half-dozen times?

betterunix 13y ago
So because there might be bad people, somewhere, planning to do bad things, we should just let the government run wild and do whatever it wants? What if the government claimed that they needed to put cameras in everyone's livingroom, because by doing so they could stop a major terrorist attack? The problem with your argument is that it basically allows the government to do anything it wants, and then claim that there is secret information that proves that what they are doing is necessary to save lives. In my view, there is a need for government secrets. Diplomatic cables need to be secret. The names and locations of informants and spies need to be kept secret (I will not deny the need for such agents). During times of war, the locations and planned movements of troops must be kept secret. On the other hand, the existence of diplomats, the existence of spies, and the existence of the military absolutely should not be kept secret.
- sneak 13y ago
  > So because there might be bad people, somewhere, planning to do bad things, we should just let the government run wild and do whatever it wants? Whoa, you've just gone all straw-man on me. Stop presuming and just answer my question. Somewhere between "nothing happens" and "vaporizes the whole planet" is a consequence that makes the loss of privacy an acceptable option. Where is it? I didn't make an argument one way or the other.
flyinRyan 13y ago
>How much danger would it need to put us in for you to think it's a bad idea? There is no number high enough to make me think getting rid of government secrecy is a bad idea. The reason is that there are other methods to deal with these kinds of problems. If other countries want to nuke us, it's probably a better idea to find out why they want to nuke us then to become a police state. >What if what they're not telling us is that FISA collection orders and analysis has kept people from nuking Manhattan a half-dozen times? What if they've also kept the big fight between Godzilla and King Kong from us? This is nonsense, they have not stopped anything like that. Pretty much everything terrorists have actually tried to do, they've succeed (or were foiled by their own incompetence). The cases where the government actually managed to "stop" a terror attack were very clear cases of entrapment. If they're actually out there like Jason Bourne saving the US in the last second all the time, why would they chose to show us clear cases of entrapment as their success stories? But if you really believe they're keeping us safe, then I'd like to give you a great offer on my anti-Godzilla rock. Godzilla has not so much as inconvenienced me on the way to work since I have this rock. I'm willing to make you a great deal on it, $1B. That's less than you're paying for the other charade.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  If other countries want to nuke us, it's probably a better idea to find out why they want to nuke us What will your next step be, when you learn that the answer to your question is "Religion"?
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    I'm confident that that will not be the answer. That and "hate us for our freedoms" are popular for war mongers because there is apparently no solution besides continuing to bomb them. But is it possible they have legitimate grievancences? Is it possible that they're human beings who are pissed off about something we're doing or have done? The saddest part is, we appear to have learned literally nothing since our handling of native Americans. It's disgusting.
    - 13y ago

flyinRyan 13y ago

There is no middle ground. As soon as you give the government the right to secrets (and even if you don't!) they're going to use it to build things like NSA and hide them from you.

twoodfin 13y ago
This is a bizarre claim when phrased as an absolute: Eisenhower should have published the Normandy invasion plans?
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  This is different and you know it. The Normandy invasion is one specific operation of one specific group. Cops doing a raid would be a similar thing. In both cases, their activities are isolated to that one specific area and they only need be secret for a relatively short period of time. Contrast this with things like NSA: no end date, literally global scope, etc. Surely you can see how these things are different.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    So intelligence services in general are out?
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      Yes probably. Anything that can't be held accountable publicly is just begging for abuse. Governments draw dangerous people to want to work for them so they will be creating illegal secret structures in any case. We shouldn't be making it even easier for them.