Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

No policy secrets. No institutional secrets. No methodological secrets.

Personally identifiable information, with strict oversight by a powerful independent organization tasked with reviewing that information to make sure that is all that is being hidden, and only to the extent required, and only for those who are likely to be victimized if the information is released? Okay.

Temporary secrets regarding the details of wartime movements, and plans for imminent enforcement actions? Acceptable, but strictly time limited - Two years or whenever the event passes, at most. With anything unreleased getting regularly reviewed by an independent third party and insuring it's made public.

Those two exceptions might be acceptable. If it's a question of "we get everything we have now or no secrets at all", though, I'm gonna come down on the side of "no secrets at all".

Not that it matters, since any sort of major drawback in secret-keeping ability seems unlikely.

[mainiac]

I wouldn't call that government secrets, though. I'd call government secrets, things that are kept secret BY the government, FOR the government, to PROTECT the government. Witness protection records fail because those are kept by the government, but not (only) for the government, and not to protect the government.

Well that's not the conventional meaning of secret.  The conventional meaning of secret is information that is known but not disclosed.

So what you are saying is you only think that the government should keep secrets when it does so for good reason.  That's doesn't tell us much about what secrets are legit and what aren't.

I personally favor limitations on government keeping of secrets as determined in laws passed by elected representatives and interpreted by judges with judicial discretion as to what evidence is public and what is closed chambers in their hearings.  It seems to have a pretty good track record although I would say the system seems a little biased in the direction of more stuff being kept secret then should be.  Still the system seems to have many fewer failings then any other system I am aware of.

No policy secrets. No institutional secrets. No methodological secrets.

Personally identifiable information, with strict oversight by a powerful independent organization tasked with reviewing that information to make sure that is all that is being hidden, and only to the extent required, and only for those who are likely to be victimized if the information is released? Okay.

Temporary secrets regarding the details of wartime movements, and plans for imminent enforcement actions? Acceptable, but strictly time limited - Two years or whenever the event passes, at most. With anything unreleased getting regularly reviewed by an independent third party and insuring it's made public.

Those two exceptions might be acceptable. If it's a question of "we get everything we have now or no secrets at all", though, I'm gonna come down on the side of "no secrets at all".

Not that it matters, since any sort of major drawback in secret-keeping ability seems unlikely.

And financially?  What are you going to do about the way you just undermined the FDIC and removed any semblance of stability in the banking system?

How about the giant hole you just blew in the BLS, BEC, etc. ability to track economic behavior?  Are you going to fill the gap with the private sector economic surveys that do the exact same thing or are those going to be banned too?

It's all well and good to make sweeping statements but you have to realize that you are talking about massive, massive changes to organizations you aren't even considering.  You don't kill a law enforcement fly with a nuclear bomb.

[Descan]

No, because as I said, "Step in the right direction."

I don't know the perfect solution.

[mainiac]

Well maybe we could keep the current system but tweak the law with regards to specific abuses that we see or change policies to address any specific systematic problems that can be identified?  It's not as sexy as a change everything approach but it keeps the baby safe from bathwater related injuries.

[Helgoland]

It's not a step in the right direction - it's a step in an even worse one.
And "I don't know the perfect solution" is hardly an excuse for ignoring glaring faults in one's own proposal.

Glyph: I'll latch onto the 'maneuvers during wartime' bit. Releasing such info would give future adversaries deep insights into US military doctrine and procedures, giving them great advantages in future conflicts.
And I think your 'powerful independent organization' is called the judiciary...

[GavJ]

No policy secrets. No institutional secrets. No methodological secrets.

So we should publicize all of our theoretical R&D into conveniently buildable backpack sized nuclear reactors etc., and put it online for Iran to download at their leisure? That's not "imminent action" after all. It was cold war technology.

Next, as just an off the cuff non military example, you're also going to HUGELY stifle creative lawmaking by making all committee meetings etc. public record. If I'm a congressman, I might spitball a bunch of great ideas knowing that we will compromise in the end to something that looks respectable and in line with my platform by the time it goes public, but if I know my constituents can hear everything, then I can only stonewall and make scripted platform-hard-line comments, and nothing ever gets anywhere. This isn't helping anybody.

And I don't even know what an "institutional secret" IS, much less clear and unambiguously applicable to any situation. Please define (all of) the terms better?

Personally identifiable information, with strict oversight by a powerful independent organization tasked with reviewing that information to make sure that is all that is being hidden, and only to the extent required, and only for those who are likely to be victimized if the information is released? Okay.

No. ALL personally identifiable information of civilians, period.

1) Letting some contractor decide on a whim who is going to be victimized is preposterous. Nobody has any idea who is going to be victimized. For all you know, my mother's maiden name is the one piece of information that some identity thief for whatever reason can't seem to figure out in their database, and releasing it screws me over completely.

2) NOR is "victimization" even the only point in the first place. I simply have a right to my privacy for its own sake, victim or not.

[Descan]

It's not a step in the right direction - it's a step in an even worse one.
And "I don't know the perfect solution" is hardly an excuse for ignoring glaring faults in one's own proposal.

Nevermind then. I really don't care.

[GlyphGryph]

Well maybe we could keep the current system but tweak the law with regards to specific abuses that we see or change policies to address any specific systematic problems that can be identified?  It's not as sexy as a change everything approach but it keeps the baby safe from bathwater related injuries.

Okay, I made a dumb statement. I'm just frustrated because your much more reasonable approach and target seems about as realistically obtainable as my stupid one.

[SalmonGod]

This conversation has gotten ridiculous very quickly, as just about every discussion on this subject seems to do.  The pro-surveillance side of this thing has exploded with strawmen and hyperboles.  This is what I'm seeing right now.

Anti-surveillance side:  Surveillance and government secrecy are being taken to extremes that are not healthy.  Operations like this should not be kept so secret from the public.  Millions of people are caught up in this thing and denied any knowledge as to why, when, or how, with potentially great consequences to those people and the state of our society in general should circumstances shift at all.  This kind of thing tends not to work out well in the long-run, and all previous comparable instances of these things happening are now pointed to as real-world examples of dystopia.

Pro-surveillance side:  THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO THIS SUPPOSED EXTREME YOU REFER TO IS THE OTHER EXTREME WHERE ALL SECRECY IS ABOLISHED FOREVER AND EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD HAS FULL-TIME ACCESS TO EVERY BIT OF GOVERNMENT DATA ABOUT ANYTHING FOREVER.  YOU MUST BE INSANE!  Plus, there are legal processes to these things that keep them within acceptable bounds.  There might be a little corruption here and there, but it's self-correcting.  So you don't need to worry, because I assure you this military-police-surveillance state is nothing like any of the other military-police-surveillance states throughout history.  It's all there to protect you for realz this time.

That is how I would sincerely summarize the tone and content of the arguments I'm seeing.

We (or rather, the USA) don't trust government with such information. Or rather, there are extensive regulations and laws governing its use.

U.S. legislation is supposed to be subject to democratic processes that ensure public will is able to influence it to at least some extent.  How can this apply to legislation that relates to something completely hidden from the public?  How can there be trust that these regulations are designed and executed in good faith?

It's 100% authoritarian stuff.  The essence of it is "We're going to do this thing that gives us potentially absolute power over you.  We're not going to tell you anything about it, even after you find out about it on your own.  You just have to trust us because we say so.  Period."

I can't do that.  Never going to work for me.  Ever.

[FearfulJesuit]

Guys, please don't bicker.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin calls for impeaching the President.

[andrea]

well, Salmongod, to be fair the coversation exploded mostly after somebody stated that governments should not be allowed to have secrets.

The pro surveillance side then replied to that, claiming that there are several downsides to having no secrets at all.

either way, I share your feeling that the current wave of information gathering and utmost secrecy about it has reached unhealthy proportions.

[GavJ]

The pro-surveillance side of this thing has exploded with strawmen and hyperboles.

No, actually, we were responding to specific and concrete suggestions from other members who were saying that the United States should not have any secrets at all. Both of whom seem to have changed their minds, so it's no longer an issue - I think everybody seems to agree now with the same thing you're saying: measured scaling back and greater oversight.

[Rolepgeek]

No policy secrets. No institutional secrets. No methodological secrets.

Next, as just an off the cuff non military example, you're also going to HUGELY stifle creative lawmaking by making all committee meetings etc. public record. If I'm a congressman, I might spitball a bunch of great ideas knowing that we will compromise in the end to something that looks respectable and in line with my platform by the time it goes public, but if I know my constituents can hear everything, then I can only stonewall and make scripted platform-hard-line comments, and nothing ever gets anywhere. This isn't helping anybody.

And we see a rather large part of the problem. Namely, how politics work now, since they only care about getting re-elected, rather than actually doing their jobs effectively and in a manner beneficial to the public.

[Angle]

  Well that certainly got interesting when I wasn't paying attention. And yes, I'll admit I didn't put much effort into that comment- It was more of a "I'm very displeased with this whole situation and would like it all to just go away." than "I have a concrete policy proposition."

But yes, there are additional nuances to the situation. I guess what I really want is to downsize the role of governments- all governments -in human affairs. And yes, we would need to start with the abusive ones, like Iran and such, and would need to implement new institutions to replace them, etc, and it would be a huge project and would probably take several human lifetimes. But it's an idea to consider.

[GavJ]

And we see a rather large part of the problem. Namely, how politics work now, since they only care about getting re-elected, rather than actually doing their jobs effectively and in a manner beneficial to the public.

I don't see that as a significant problem. Good law-making is fairly parallel with getting elected, because you're supposed to fight for the benefit of your constituents. Being re-elected means your record is probably in line with the interests of your constituents. (Not actually, but the reason it isn't is because of campaign financing, not because of motivation to be re-elected itself).

However, politicians still need privacy to negotiate effectively etc. As long as the final bills are helping their constituents, it doesn't matter what they discussed in the meantime.