3 ms·

I don't think it's acceptable either, but really it's an impossible question from either direction. Consider the alternative ruling; all covert surveillance at

by lukev 13y ago

I don't think it's acceptable either, but really it's an impossible question from either direction. Consider the alternative ruling; all covert surveillance at all including (including legitimate, warranted intelligence collection) would become impossible. Classification itself would only be a matter of nobody bothering to ask. Of course, such total transparency is a viable philosophical viewpoint, but unfortunately it's not really on the table in any of the current discussions.

betterunix 13y ago
"Of course, such total transparency is a viable philosophical viewpoint, but unfortunately it's not really on the table in any of the current discussions." That speaks more to the current political environment than to the validity of transparency or secrecy. We should be very concerned that we have gotten to the point where surveillance and intelligence collection are considered to be more important than the ability of the people to hold the government accountable for its actions via the court system.
- igravious 13y ago
  Question. At what mythical point in time could the people reasonably hold their government accountable for its actions via the court system? I perhaps never got this particular prelapsarian memo as I may have been indisposed at the time.
- quantumpotato_ 13y ago
  Yes. HN, please keep the discussion going strong. So glad to see the NSA's surveillance hasn't died off the front page.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  This argument keeps coming up on HN lately. Either the HN echo chamber is in full effect, or just the age of people posting not aware of history...but secrecy has been alive and well and around long before 80% of the people on this website were born. Recent reference: The Cold War. I'm sure older references can be brought up if needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(TV_series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(TV_series)
grey-area 13y ago
Specific and limited investigations should be secret for a given length of time or until they are complete, and can't obviously be disclosed during the investigation, that is quite normal. Just as the identity of witnesses is sometimes protected during a trial. However methods and the extent of programmes should never be secret, even if that means investigations are less effective. Otherwise so much can be secret that no-one truly knows what is being done in our name, and there are no practical limits on the power of those who manage the secrets. All this is quite well established in other areas of police-work and prosecution. We have specific, individual warrants with normal judicial oversight for a reason, and broad general warrants giving carte blanche to follow certain rules in collecting data simply shouldn't be allowed, because there's too much scope for abuse. So I think there is a third way in the middle between making all investigations completely open, and allowing secrecy to consume every operation of government.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  This is exactly how FISA worked from its inception in 1978 to 2001 and the USAPATRIOT Act, when all these legal shenanigans first started. The idea is that while the investigation is ongoing, of course it's going to be classified. When the subject is finally arrested and taken to court, or when the investigation was over, then the wire-tapping became unclassified as a matter of governmental record (as it should be imo). What the government has been trying to argue or promote is the idea of a NEVER ENDING investigation, such that from the moment these systems are in place and turned on, subjects are "investigated" probably for the rest of their lives. This is the TIA/Carnivore system that was hastily put aside due to massive public outrage, but the promoters of this new omnipresent surveillance state simply went back and developed their shaky legal framework to justify it instead. Do not believe them, none of this is legal, prudent, or necessary. It exists to create an omnipresent surveillance state in which guilt is assumed and most of us will never be truly free.
bobwaycott 13y ago
As a student of critical social theory, the fact that it is a viable philosophical and practical viewpoint means it should be on the table for discussion. We get absolutely nowhere by only considering the already approved options set before us as citizens. Making qualitative change requires considering all viable options.

by lukev 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago

"Of course, such total transparency is a viable philosophical viewpoint, but unfortunately it's not really on the table in any of the current discussions." That speaks more to the current political environment than to the validity of transparency or secrecy. We should be very concerned that we have gotten to the point where surveillance and intelligence collection are considered to be more important than the ability of the people to hold the government accountable for its actions via the court system.

igravious 13y ago
Question. At what mythical point in time could the people reasonably hold their government accountable for its actions via the court system? I perhaps never got this particular prelapsarian memo as I may have been indisposed at the time.
quantumpotato_ 13y ago
Yes. HN, please keep the discussion going strong. So glad to see the NSA's surveillance hasn't died off the front page.
res0nat0r 13y ago
This argument keeps coming up on HN lately. Either the HN echo chamber is in full effect, or just the age of people posting not aware of history...but secrecy has been alive and well and around long before 80% of the people on this website were born. Recent reference: The Cold War. I'm sure older references can be brought up if needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(TV_series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(TV_series)

grey-area 13y ago

Specific and limited investigations should be secret for a given length of time or until they are complete, and can't obviously be disclosed during the investigation, that is quite normal. Just as the identity of witnesses is sometimes protected during a trial. However methods and the extent of programmes should never be secret, even if that means investigations are less effective. Otherwise so much can be secret that no-one truly knows what is being done in our name, and there are no practical limits on the power of those who manage the secrets. All this is quite well established in other areas of police-work and prosecution. We have specific, individual warrants with normal judicial oversight for a reason, and broad general warrants giving carte blanche to follow certain rules in collecting data simply shouldn't be allowed, because there's too much scope for abuse. So I think there is a third way in the middle between making all investigations completely open, and allowing secrecy to consume every operation of government.

wavefunction 13y ago
This is exactly how FISA worked from its inception in 1978 to 2001 and the USAPATRIOT Act, when all these legal shenanigans first started. The idea is that while the investigation is ongoing, of course it's going to be classified. When the subject is finally arrested and taken to court, or when the investigation was over, then the wire-tapping became unclassified as a matter of governmental record (as it should be imo). What the government has been trying to argue or promote is the idea of a NEVER ENDING investigation, such that from the moment these systems are in place and turned on, subjects are "investigated" probably for the rest of their lives. This is the TIA/Carnivore system that was hastily put aside due to massive public outrage, but the promoters of this new omnipresent surveillance state simply went back and developed their shaky legal framework to justify it instead. Do not believe them, none of this is legal, prudent, or necessary. It exists to create an omnipresent surveillance state in which guilt is assumed and most of us will never be truly free.

bobwaycott 13y ago

As a student of critical social theory, the fact that it is a viable philosophical and practical viewpoint means it should be on the table for discussion. We get absolutely nowhere by only considering the already approved options set before us as citizens. Making qualitative change requires considering all viable options.