4 ms·

I don't think anybody here is advocating for thoughtlessly dumping all state secrets in the open. The thing is, when given the power to eavesdrop into anyone's

I don't think anybody here is advocating for thoughtlessly dumping all state secrets in the open. The thing is, when given the power to eavesdrop into anyone's life without consequences, it takes a rather uncommon kind of person to do what Snowden did in order to make the public aware of what is going on. Because the most common behaviour when receiving that power would be to exploit and abuse it, regardless of whether we are talking about an individual, an institution, or a whole government. So I am not worried about Snowden, I'm worried about the thousands of his ex-colleagues who are still sitting on their desks every day.

jordigh 11y ago
> I don't think anybody here is advocating for thoughtlessly dumping all state secrets in the open. I am. Why should a state have secrets? Rulers ought to be in power under the consent of the ruled. If the ruled don't even know what the rulers are doing, how can we be giving them consent for something we don't know about?
- philwelch 11y ago
  Because the state can't function without keeping some secrets, particularly in times of crisis or peril.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Times of crisis and peril is pretty much the entire history of the US. The US has been in constant war since its creation. This is not a good reason to be having secrets.
    - philwelch 11y ago
      A "zero secrets policy" is still not tenable. There are enough legitimate government uses for secrets. For example: * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. Under questioning, a suspect independently corroborates these details, which he would not have known unless he was the perpetrator. The prosecution now has a stronger case. * Three high-ranking members of ISIS are in fact CIA informants. They meet their CIA contact biweekly in a falafel shop in Mosul. The identities of the informants, their contact, and the falafel shop are all state secrets. * A defense contractor is building a secret weapon that is decades ahead of competing powers. The design and specifications of this weapon are state secrets. * The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly. * The military is performing operations somewhere in the world. Their exact order of battle and battle plan are secret. * The military is planning an amphibious assault on Beachhead B. Using a ruse, they convince the enemy that they are instead landing at Beachhead A. There are reasonable and good-intentioned debates to be had about state secrets, but to say there is never a legitimate purpose for them is the practical equivalent of anarchism.
      - jordigh 11y ago
        > * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. This isn't exactly the same as the government itself having secrets, but a secret police can generate a lot of problems, as you're doubtlessly aware. > * The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly. These are not government secrets either. The secrecy is for people who are being served by the government, not for employees of the state. > * Three high-ranking members of ISIS are in fact CIA informants > * A defense contractor is building a secret weapon that is decades ahead of competing powers. > * The military is performing operations somewhere in the world. > * The military is planning an amphibious assault on Beachhead B. These are militaristic problems created by having a state in constant war to begin with. These are webs of lies that have to be perpetuated due to initial lying. As an outsider, it's really amazing how blind US citizens are to their own country's incessant war-mongering. They breed war with lies and have to maintain that war with lies.
        philwelch 11y ago
        So are you a pacifist, then?
        jordigh 11y ago
        I'm not sure. Maybe. But I certainly don't believe the US's warmongering is defensive.
        philwelch 11y ago
        I never said that it was, but as recently as the 1940's, the US had a clear-cut moral imperative to engage in war, and that required the US government to hold secrets. (For instance, in my analogy of the amphibious assault, Beachhead B was Normandy and Beachhead A was Pas-de-Calais.) If your theory of government doesn't allow for all the good things the US government has done in the past century, it's not a credible theory of government.

jordigh 11y ago

> I don't think anybody here is advocating for thoughtlessly dumping all state secrets in the open. I am. Why should a state have secrets? Rulers ought to be in power under the consent of the ruled. If the ruled don't even know what the rulers are doing, how can we be giving them consent for something we don't know about?

philwelch 11y ago
Because the state can't function without keeping some secrets, particularly in times of crisis or peril.
- jordigh 11y ago
  Times of crisis and peril is pretty much the entire history of the US. The US has been in constant war since its creation. This is not a good reason to be having secrets.
  - philwelch 11y ago
    A "zero secrets policy" is still not tenable. There are enough legitimate government uses for secrets. For example: * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. Under questioning, a suspect independently corroborates these details, which he would not have known unless he was the perpetrator. The prosecution now has a stronger case. * Three high-ranking members of ISIS are in fact CIA informants. They meet their CIA contact biweekly in a falafel shop in Mosul. The identities of the informants, their contact, and the falafel shop are all state secrets. * A defense contractor is building a secret weapon that is decades ahead of competing powers. The design and specifications of this weapon are state secrets. * The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly. * The military is performing operations somewhere in the world. Their exact order of battle and battle plan are secret. * The military is planning an amphibious assault on Beachhead B. Using a ruse, they convince the enemy that they are instead landing at Beachhead A. There are reasonable and good-intentioned debates to be had about state secrets, but to say there is never a legitimate purpose for them is the practical equivalent of anarchism.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      > * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. This isn't exactly the same as the government itself having secrets, but a secret police can generate a lot of problems, as you're doubtlessly aware. > * The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly. These are not government secrets either. The secrecy is for people who are being served by the government, not for employees of the state. > * Three high-ranking members of ISIS are in fact CIA informants > * A defense contractor is building a secret weapon that is decades ahead of competing powers. > * The military is performing operations somewhere in the world. > * The military is planning an amphibious assault on Beachhead B. These are militaristic problems created by having a state in constant war to begin with. These are webs of lies that have to be perpetuated due to initial lying. As an outsider, it's really amazing how blind US citizens are to their own country's incessant war-mongering. They breed war with lies and have to maintain that war with lies.
      - philwelch 11y ago
        So are you a pacifist, then?
        jordigh 11y ago
        I'm not sure. Maybe. But I certainly don't believe the US's warmongering is defensive.
        philwelch 11y ago
        I never said that it was, but as recently as the 1940's, the US had a clear-cut moral imperative to engage in war, and that required the US government to hold secrets. (For instance, in my analogy of the amphibious assault, Beachhead B was Normandy and Beachhead A was Pas-de-Calais.) If your theory of government doesn't allow for all the good things the US government has done in the past century, it's not a credible theory of government.