4 ms·

The corruption of government starts with its secrets. A truly free people don't keep secrets. Somewhere in this grey mass is a line, and that line gets crosse

The corruption of government starts with its secrets. A truly free people don't keep secrets. Somewhere in this grey mass is a line, and that line gets crossed and crossed, over and over again. What secret is worth keeping if its keeping results in oppression, tyranny, inhumanity? Why should those who are given the right to murder, get away with murder - just because it is 'unsafe' to prosecute the murders? The reason, always given, is "[some secret reason]". Well, the saying goes, keep the secret .. or else! Or else .. 'bad things happen'. Yet .. Those who work tirelessly to keep secrets, are themselves the bad things .. happening. What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! It is only when a secret is kept that lines are drawn between two life-forms who would otherwise, ordinarily, be cooperating/communicating to increase their combined potential. Profiting from this - always - is another, third life-form, whose control over the others' secrets will give him two slaves. The answer to your question: Congress, if it were doing its job, would have already read Snowdens' statements into the public record, and there wouldn't be any debate about the criminal proceedings that would then follow: all the tyrants would be frog-marched directly to jail. It may yet .. still .. happen. Let us wait and see.

ForHackernews 13y ago
> A truly free people don't keep secrets. > What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! This is ridiculous hyperbole. There are all kinds of legitimate secrets: trade secrets, private sexual kinks, personal financial or medical records, embarrassing taste in pop songs. I don't understand how you can be angry about privacy violations on the one hand, and arguing for our society being some kind of secretless panopticon on the other.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  The thing you must understand is that I do not actually consider a society with any investment in state secrecy to be actually functioning. Actually, a society ruled by secrets is little more than a mafia, playing charades. But I see you are limiting your viewpoint to 'what is real' and not to 'what could be done differently about the situation'. That's okay with me, to 'keep it real'. But I have no desire to live in a society ruled by its secrets, as the USA (and other sham states) are. If we are to have true freedom, it must include freedom from the liability of having to keep a secret. The USA is almost imploding against the weight of its own secrets; which serve to hide crimes, and little else. Beneath every revelation of a state secret is a crime that was committed - or will be committed - against another human being. A catalog of tools whose sole purpose is the mass-violation of human rights, in hands other than 'the elected officials deemed worthy enough to hold the keys', is a criminal instrument. I do not personally agree that we need to construct such things; it is because of profit from suffering that such things are allowed, in the secret chambers of the American Security Elite.
  - yarou 13y ago
    Ok, here's an experiment for you. Why don't you broadcast every single detail of your life, every minute of it, even the parts you don't want others to see? If you don't, you must be hiding something and be committing crimes against humanity. This is how your argument reads.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      You've cut out an important bit: I am not governing anyone, nor do I hold the right to murder other human beings without repercussion.
      - jdmichal 13y ago
        We don't know that. All we know is that you're keeping secrets.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        Right now, I'm openly sharing something.
        nyrina 13y ago
        But you give us no proof of what you are saying. We need a trusted entity to check what you are saying is true.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        So how about a mother then, raising her child and pregnant with a second. Should she have to reveal every single detail about her life while she has parental custody?
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      I read the parent comment's argument as suggesting that secrets should be inversely proportional to power.
  - 13y ago

ForHackernews 13y ago

> A truly free people don't keep secrets. > What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! This is ridiculous hyperbole. There are all kinds of legitimate secrets: trade secrets, private sexual kinks, personal financial or medical records, embarrassing taste in pop songs. I don't understand how you can be angry about privacy violations on the one hand, and arguing for our society being some kind of secretless panopticon on the other.

fit2rule 13y ago
The thing you must understand is that I do not actually consider a society with any investment in state secrecy to be actually functioning. Actually, a society ruled by secrets is little more than a mafia, playing charades. But I see you are limiting your viewpoint to 'what is real' and not to 'what could be done differently about the situation'. That's okay with me, to 'keep it real'. But I have no desire to live in a society ruled by its secrets, as the USA (and other sham states) are. If we are to have true freedom, it must include freedom from the liability of having to keep a secret. The USA is almost imploding against the weight of its own secrets; which serve to hide crimes, and little else. Beneath every revelation of a state secret is a crime that was committed - or will be committed - against another human being. A catalog of tools whose sole purpose is the mass-violation of human rights, in hands other than 'the elected officials deemed worthy enough to hold the keys', is a criminal instrument. I do not personally agree that we need to construct such things; it is because of profit from suffering that such things are allowed, in the secret chambers of the American Security Elite.
- yarou 13y ago
  Ok, here's an experiment for you. Why don't you broadcast every single detail of your life, every minute of it, even the parts you don't want others to see? If you don't, you must be hiding something and be committing crimes against humanity. This is how your argument reads.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    You've cut out an important bit: I am not governing anyone, nor do I hold the right to murder other human beings without repercussion.
    - jdmichal 13y ago
      We don't know that. All we know is that you're keeping secrets.
      - fit2rule 13y ago
        Right now, I'm openly sharing something.
        nyrina 13y ago
        But you give us no proof of what you are saying. We need a trusted entity to check what you are saying is true.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      So how about a mother then, raising her child and pregnant with a second. Should she have to reveal every single detail about her life while she has parental custody?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    I read the parent comment's argument as suggesting that secrets should be inversely proportional to power.
- 13y ago