3 ms·

Against some kind of pervasive secret program involving many people: The odds of a single Googler on any team being a "whistleblower" are far higher than the od

• rdl 13y ago
  "Top Secret" doesn't mean very much (either positively or negatively). It's being read into very specific special access programs which matter. Those can have populations from like 2 to thousands. I actually think the whole the USG handles classified information and clearances is broken -- it keeps too much secret from the public or businesses which could use it, AND fails to effectively keep essential-to-keep-secret stuff secret. It's borderline OK in operational DoD units other than NSA/intel/etc. (like, keeping maps and such secret), but other than that, it's horrible. Unlike the 1980s, they now have laughable internal security, where a contractor in the provinces gets superuser access (unlogged!) to the point where he can exfiltrate mad data, tamper with things, etc. There are commercial organizations who do a vastly better job with their secrets. I'm torn between wanting to fix this all by making technical controls much stronger, background checks more effective, etc., and wanting to let it collapse (because 90% of what is classified is overclassified, and a lot of the mission is either unnecessary or immoral, both in the general Eisenhower "every dollar spent on bombs is theft from humanity" and in the specific sense of violating civil liberties.