4 ms·

Radical transparency would be good, so long as it's not exposed to everyone in the world. We often forget the multitude of wickedness in the world, and while th

by zghst 12y ago

Radical transparency would be good, so long as it's not exposed to everyone in the world. We often forget the multitude of wickedness in the world, and while the US government smells, there are actors on the outside that wouldn't hesitate to manipulate/destroy us the moment we free up information. Undoubtedly, the power between the people and the government is unbalanced, but unrestricted transparency is not a one stop solution to the problem.

angersock 12y ago
I'm going to have to go with no. I'm not going to kneel before some spectre of Actors on the Outside (ooooOOOOooohhh). We live in perhaps the finest times of this specie's history, and it's foolish to limit and harm ourselves out of an unspecified anxiety that somebody, somewhere could do something to harm us. We cannot live in fear.
Zigurd 12y ago
That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Let's stipulate all the bad wickedness you would like me to think there is. How much of that has the actual means to threaten the US in any economically or militarily significant way? With radical transparency may find that we're harming ourselves more by overspending on security theater, and that, for all their wickedness, most of those wicked people can't afford a bus ticket to the next town, much less to actually do anything with their wickedness.
- mattlutze 12y ago
  > That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Yes. Your intentions aren't malicious. There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm. It shocks me how many people on this site seem to not understand that sometimes. How is it logical that a few kids in SF building some world-changing piece of software is expected, but a few kids in _____ building a piece of software and whaling a few executives in the DOD, DOJ, DOE and damaging critical national infrastructure is beyond possibility. How how does is it not clear that exposure of an infrastructure of information gathering would eradicate our ability to do anything but read newspapers about what's going on in the rest of the world? Yes we need better or different protection against domestic spying. As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen. We need a continuation of the values and knowledge development that our current tech-centric generations hold. When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - toothbrush 12y ago
    > As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen. I think you underestimate them; i would say they are full well aware of exactly the implications, and that it seems to them like their wet dreams are coming true. > When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with. I'm sorry, but i think this ship has already sailed. Or do you believe that currently a majority of "young people" do in fact "care about how their tech works"?
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    > There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm. Come off it, and stop watching "24" reruns. The risk you face, I face, everyone faces, is practically nil. We all know the numbers. You have no need to pay more attention to terrorism than you pay to lightning, or slipping in the bathtub. Moreover, this is true in places that don't have an HSA, an NSA, a CIA, or an FBI. There is no difference in outcome regarding terrorism in Latvia where they all they can afford is to deploy an anti-terrorism potato, or in Alabama, where you have camo'ed citizens armed-up and waiting for ISIS to invade.
    - mattlutze 12y ago
      I think you underestimate how large a target the US makes itself in the world, and what it would mean to do what you're suggesting. And, 24 was rubbish, if it's any consolation.

by zghst 12y ago

angersock 12y ago

I'm going to have to go with no. I'm not going to kneel before some spectre of Actors on the Outside (ooooOOOOooohhh). We live in perhaps the finest times of this specie's history, and it's foolish to limit and harm ourselves out of an unspecified anxiety that somebody, somewhere could do something to harm us. We cannot live in fear.

Zigurd 12y ago

That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Let's stipulate all the bad wickedness you would like me to think there is. How much of that has the actual means to threaten the US in any economically or militarily significant way? With radical transparency may find that we're harming ourselves more by overspending on security theater, and that, for all their wickedness, most of those wicked people can't afford a bus ticket to the next town, much less to actually do anything with their wickedness.

mattlutze 12y ago
> That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Yes. Your intentions aren't malicious. There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm. It shocks me how many people on this site seem to not understand that sometimes. How is it logical that a few kids in SF building some world-changing piece of software is expected, but a few kids in _____ building a piece of software and whaling a few executives in the DOD, DOJ, DOE and damaging critical national infrastructure is beyond possibility. How how does is it not clear that exposure of an infrastructure of information gathering would eradicate our ability to do anything but read newspapers about what's going on in the rest of the world? Yes we need better or different protection against domestic spying. As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen. We need a continuation of the values and knowledge development that our current tech-centric generations hold. When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- toothbrush 12y ago
  > As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen. I think you underestimate them; i would say they are full well aware of exactly the implications, and that it seems to them like their wet dreams are coming true. > When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with. I'm sorry, but i think this ship has already sailed. Or do you believe that currently a majority of "young people" do in fact "care about how their tech works"?
- Zigurd 12y ago
  > There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm. Come off it, and stop watching "24" reruns. The risk you face, I face, everyone faces, is practically nil. We all know the numbers. You have no need to pay more attention to terrorism than you pay to lightning, or slipping in the bathtub. Moreover, this is true in places that don't have an HSA, an NSA, a CIA, or an FBI. There is no difference in outcome regarding terrorism in Latvia where they all they can afford is to deploy an anti-terrorism potato, or in Alabama, where you have camo'ed citizens armed-up and waiting for ISIS to invade.
  - mattlutze 12y ago
    I think you underestimate how large a target the US makes itself in the world, and what it would mean to do what you're suggesting. And, 24 was rubbish, if it's any consolation.