5 ms·

There's a balance. Complete transparency and access to all information (ie, Julian Assange's stance) is extreme. If we gave away all of our secrets, we wouldn't

There's a balance. Complete transparency and access to all information (ie, Julian Assange's stance) is extreme. If we gave away all of our secrets, we wouldn't have an advantage over our country's enemies.

psadauskas 13y ago
This may be extremely naive of me, but I really hope that within my lifetime those notions ("our county", "country's enemies") well have ended. The imperialistic nationalism of Europe culminated in WW1&2, and now they mostly get along. Maybe the rest of the world can, too, in the next 50 years (without another cataclysmic war).
- if_by_whisky 13y ago
  Is that to say that nationalism among EU member states is a thing of the past? I'm skeptical that EU citizens are collectively so enlightened.
  - psadauskas 13y ago
    The national pride is still there, sure, but the circumstances that brought about two world wars are not. I just mean that (generalizing) the French don't view the Germans the same way Americans view the Middle East.
- sigzero 13y ago
  I can pretty much guarantee that it will never happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.
dllthomas 13y ago
"If we gave away all of our secrets, we wouldn't have an advantage over our country's enemies." I am not sure that's the case. If we credibly give away all our secrets then we have the advantage that we are viewed as trustworthy - popular support can mean a lot. Sort of like the theory that we developed a moral intuition because being a "good person" is sometimes the most effective way of convincing people you're a "good person". Whether this advantage could actually be realized, and whether its magnitude is actually greater than that realized by keeping secrets, and whether the difference is important and worth the other costs, are all very much up for debate though.
drcube 13y ago
What secrets are you talking about? Particulars don't need to be known (troop locations, battle plans, weapons capabilities/vulnerabilities, list of undercover agents in the field, specific espionage and surveillance techniques, etc), but the fact that it is happening at all should be well known and open for public comment. Otherwise "consent of the governed" is thrown out the window.
mtgx 13y ago
I'm actually hoping for a lot more Wikileaks-transparency to happen in the future. Governments need to be a lot more transparent, whether they like it or not.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I'm actually much more a fan of the approach being used this time around. The wikileaks approach put all the cards on the table. Those in government responsible for any transgressions could quickly assess their position and start spinning the story. With this new whistle blowing approach, those responsible must tread far closer to the truth when explaining their actions lest they be revealed as frauds and liars by the leakers.
alexqgb 13y ago
You've gotten Assange's position wrong. What he actually believes is that transparency should scale with power, so that the more powerful an organization is, the more transparent it should become, while privacy should be reserved for those who lack such strength.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  This is in direct conflict with human nature. As people, governments, institutions, or organizations grow more powerful, they tend to have more enemies. As such, the need to protect their financial and other interests becomes key to their survival. You think Bill Gates should be more transparent with his wealth? Do you think JP Morgan Chase be more transparent about future financial opportunities its pursuing? Do you think China should be more transparent with their economy? Yeah, it would be great if it would happen, but it won't. Human nature is just too strong for people to willing give up their secrets. Besides, Assange's hate of the US is well documented. For him, it was more of a personal crusade, then trying to create more transparency.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    I'm not arguing the merits of the position. I'm simply reiterating Assange's stated belief. Whether of not you agree has no bearing on the fact that tmandarano got it wrong.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Security through obscurity?

psadauskas 13y ago

This may be extremely naive of me, but I really hope that within my lifetime those notions ("our county", "country's enemies") well have ended. The imperialistic nationalism of Europe culminated in WW1&2, and now they mostly get along. Maybe the rest of the world can, too, in the next 50 years (without another cataclysmic war).

if_by_whisky 13y ago
Is that to say that nationalism among EU member states is a thing of the past? I'm skeptical that EU citizens are collectively so enlightened.
- psadauskas 13y ago
  The national pride is still there, sure, but the circumstances that brought about two world wars are not. I just mean that (generalizing) the French don't view the Germans the same way Americans view the Middle East.
sigzero 13y ago
I can pretty much guarantee that it will never happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.

dllthomas 13y ago

"If we gave away all of our secrets, we wouldn't have an advantage over our country's enemies." I am not sure that's the case. If we credibly give away all our secrets then we have the advantage that we are viewed as trustworthy - popular support can mean a lot. Sort of like the theory that we developed a moral intuition because being a "good person" is sometimes the most effective way of convincing people you're a "good person". Whether this advantage could actually be realized, and whether its magnitude is actually greater than that realized by keeping secrets, and whether the difference is important and worth the other costs, are all very much up for debate though.

drcube 13y ago

What secrets are you talking about? Particulars don't need to be known (troop locations, battle plans, weapons capabilities/vulnerabilities, list of undercover agents in the field, specific espionage and surveillance techniques, etc), but the fact that it is happening at all should be well known and open for public comment. Otherwise "consent of the governed" is thrown out the window.

mtgx 13y ago

I'm actually hoping for a lot more Wikileaks-transparency to happen in the future. Governments need to be a lot more transparent, whether they like it or not.

malandrew 13y ago
I'm actually much more a fan of the approach being used this time around. The wikileaks approach put all the cards on the table. Those in government responsible for any transgressions could quickly assess their position and start spinning the story. With this new whistle blowing approach, those responsible must tread far closer to the truth when explaining their actions lest they be revealed as frauds and liars by the leakers.

alexqgb 13y ago

You've gotten Assange's position wrong. What he actually believes is that transparency should scale with power, so that the more powerful an organization is, the more transparent it should become, while privacy should be reserved for those who lack such strength.

at-fates-hands 13y ago
This is in direct conflict with human nature. As people, governments, institutions, or organizations grow more powerful, they tend to have more enemies. As such, the need to protect their financial and other interests becomes key to their survival. You think Bill Gates should be more transparent with his wealth? Do you think JP Morgan Chase be more transparent about future financial opportunities its pursuing? Do you think China should be more transparent with their economy? Yeah, it would be great if it would happen, but it won't. Human nature is just too strong for people to willing give up their secrets. Besides, Assange's hate of the US is well documented. For him, it was more of a personal crusade, then trying to create more transparency.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  I'm not arguing the merits of the position. I'm simply reiterating Assange's stated belief. Whether of not you agree has no bearing on the fact that tmandarano got it wrong.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Security through obscurity?