4 ms·

* > I think any reasonable person would agree that there is information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. * Such as? Why should the state have a

by madaxe 13y ago

* > I think any reasonable person would agree that there is information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. * Such as? Why should the state have a higher expectation of privacy than its citizens, if it's representative of them?

jasonwocky 13y ago
Names of undercover agents infiltrating criminal organizations, to start?
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  Ah yes, because that's been so ethically done and the current levels of oversight are entirely sufficient. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policing-faces-tighter-regulation http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policin... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10139126/Whos-keeping-tabs-on-the-undercover-cops.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1013912... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-po...
- madaxe 13y ago
  You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest groups? You see, the thing is, as soon as you say "well, clearly X needs to be secret", you open the avenue for all of the unintended, unforeseen uses of said secrecy. The only solution, as far as the state is concerned, is to have no secrets. Undercover police/intelligence work would be obviated by not defining economic and social systems which engender the kind of behaviour that mandates such in the first place.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest group Yes. And when they leave, abandoning the infant child that they had with a member of the protest group. Yes, that happened.
- king_jester 13y ago
  Fundamentally, gov't policy at various levels allows organized crime to exist via things like the war on drugs. Indeed, it can be argued that undercover police of any kind is undesirable and that gov't policy should not facilitate large scale organized crime.

by madaxe 13y ago

jasonwocky 13y ago

Names of undercover agents infiltrating criminal organizations, to start?

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
Ah yes, because that's been so ethically done and the current levels of oversight are entirely sufficient. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policing-faces-tighter-regulation http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policin... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10139126/Whos-keeping-tabs-on-the-undercover-cops.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1013912... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-po...
madaxe 13y ago
You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest groups? You see, the thing is, as soon as you say "well, clearly X needs to be secret", you open the avenue for all of the unintended, unforeseen uses of said secrecy. The only solution, as far as the state is concerned, is to have no secrets. Undercover police/intelligence work would be obviated by not defining economic and social systems which engender the kind of behaviour that mandates such in the first place.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest group Yes. And when they leave, abandoning the infant child that they had with a member of the protest group. Yes, that happened.
king_jester 13y ago
Fundamentally, gov't policy at various levels allows organized crime to exist via things like the war on drugs. Indeed, it can be argued that undercover police of any kind is undesirable and that gov't policy should not facilitate large scale organized crime.