Where do we draw the line between what should be kept secret and what should not? Who has the authority to make that judgement?
I'm somewhat torn on this issue. On the one hand, the government is supposedly a giant organization that is meant to serve and protect its citizens and all others who enter its borders. We provide and allow the government to do what it is meant to do, and so we should expect the government to answer to us. Like Rym, I do feel like the government in recent times has been trying harder than ever to keep things secret from everyone, probably in response to the way communications has ramped up in the last 30 years. In my gut, I want the government to be honest and put everything out there.
But, on the other hand, I do also understand why some things are made secrets. Last year, that is Jan 2009 on, with a little bit of 2010 thrown in, I worked on defense systems for international partners. I had (and probably technically still do have) secret clearance (which is second only to top secret). I've seen a bunch of what the US Government considers to be classified documents. And you know what? I know why they are classified. I think it's perfectly reasonable that they are classified. If they fell into the wrong hands, it could severely hurt either us or our allies. For example, one of our clients was South Korea. I think given the current situation, it could really suck for them if North Korea managed to see how their newest monitoring system was built.
I think that as a good compromise, it would be nice if the government was more willing to release documents well after their relevancy has passed. I do still encourage reporters and whistleblowers to do what they do, cause someone does need to keep the government in check. And the only one who can do that is us.
But no. It's just good old "I scratch your back, you scratch mine!"
Maybe, but I'm going to reserve judgment until I read the papers. Just because you ask the US government for something doesn't mean you're going to get it.
This could just as readily be a PR move; they're distancing themselves from Wikileaks because it's controversial and unpopular for the majority of their business.
It's pretty simple. Visa and Mastercard were afraid of a new consolidated card payment scheme in Russia, and the draft legislation made sure no foreign companies could be involved. The two companies asked the US government to have a word about it.
"The Russian media reported this week that the objections of Visa and MasterCard had now been "allayed". The head of Russia's finance ministry, Sergei Barsukov, said the law had been "re-worked" to take into account the concerns of "foreign operators". There would be no extra restrictions on foreign money transfers, he promised, with transactions taking place in a "simple format"."
Job sorted, it seems! Again, before I read this cable, I presumed there was nothing more going on than you, or maybe not much more. But this is quite a big deal.
And I don't mind the US government trying to influence laws in Russia to help out US businesses. Not on any fundamental level. But the secrecy, and now the mixing of business interests with the systematic clampdown on free speech, open internet and journalism leave a very, very sour taste in my mouth.
Though, I gotta say, Julian, one of your key points - The Gillard government (Australia) is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn’t want the truth revealed - well, Duh. I Take it you've been paying attention to the news, or at least visiting us occasionally, some time in the last 5 years or so?
More interesting, they said that the freeze will be lifted if no specific legal challenges are raised against Wikileaks.
My guess? The US phoned them and helpfully suggested they freeze the account. They're trying to buy time to come up with something specific to charge Assange and Wikileaks with that has a chance of holding up in a court. This implies that it is not clear what laws have actually been broken by anyone other than the original leaker.
The brief way to put it - we have an R18+ rating, but no games currently under it(It's only a few days old) And old games previously refused classification won't be automatically reclassified, nor games already classified, however, RC and Already classified games are able to resubmit for classification, and could be possibly classified R18+ - however, how many publishers/developers will apply for resubmission remains to be seen.
I've asked this question a couple times, but those who are so vehemently pro-wikileaks have yet to answer. Where do we draw the line between what should be kept secret and what should not? Who has the authority to make that judgement?
The government had that authority for a long time, and as an entity it abused that power. Too much was classified and kept secret. Classification was used just to cover up mistakes an embarrassing, or even worse, to mislead the american public (we are supposed to be the ones "in charge" after all). When that happens for decades, I think someone else deserves a shot at the job don't you?
It all comes down to this for me: If we don't know what's really going on, how can we make any informed decisions when election time comes? If we don't know what's going on in Iraq, how would we decide if we support the war or not?
the american public (we are supposed to be the ones "in charge" after all).
No you're not. That's the whole point of a republic. There's an element of control by proxy, but it leaves leaders open to do what they think best even if you disagree with it. The electoral system was made to favor rich white landowners, not "the public." We've certainly romanticized it, but admit it: The Constitution allows you a very small, almost meaningless fraction of control over what actually happens in government.
No you're not. That's the whole point of a republic. There's an element of control by proxy, but it leaves leaders open to do what they think best even if you disagree with it. The electoral system was made to favor rich white landowners, not "the public." We've certainly romanticized it, but admit it: The Constitution allows you a very small, almost meaningless fraction of control over what actually happens in government.
the american public (we are supposed to be the ones "in charge" after all).
No you're not. That's the whole point of a republic. There's an element of control by proxy, but it leaves leaders open to do what they think best even if you disagree with it. The electoral system was made to favor rich white landowners, not "the public." We've certainly romanticized it, but admit it: The Constitution allows you a very small, almost meaningless fraction of control over what actually happens in government.
The premise of the constitution is that we, the people, give up certain rights to the government in order to provide for the greater good. These rights WE grant TO the government. The government works on the CONSENT of the GOVERNED. To that end, we are able to decide who will make the decisions for us.
Would you agree that we cannot make proper decisions about re-electing an incumbent if we are kept in the dark about what they've done in our name? If you agree with that premise, then it follows that while the government should be able to classify and keep secret items that directly relate to national security/lives of informants, etc., they [i]should not[/i] be classifying anything just because it is embarrassing or will prevent them from being re-elected or tank their agenda.
So, as a result of the above reasoning, I'm in favor of those non-essential secrets being revealed, as a more informed public should be able to make better decisions about whether we want to stay in this war, who we want to re-elect, what we want our tax money spent on, etc. Since I am in favor of those non-essential secrets being revealed, I'm in favor of a group like Wikileaks existing. It gives government bureaucrats with a conscience someplace to reveal these non-essential secrets so people can make such informed decisions. It's for government whistle-blowing.
Consent of the governed is a nice theory. It makes us all warm and tingly inside. It makes us feel empowered and gives a sense of great civic duty.
The problem is that voting was originally intended to be a restricted freedom -- one only for the elite class. Over time, that barrier has been chipped away until everybody has the right to vote. But the system has inherent problems:
A) The television generation doesn't read newspapers. Very few people are actually educated enough to cast a ballot.
Those who do cast ballots tend to do so based upon prejudices, a lack of education, and unjustified biases. Look at the right-wing emotional response during the mid-terms this November. Exit poll interviews showed the electorate is largely comprised of people who vote entirely based on hunches and indoctrination rather than reason. Watch some YouTube interviews. Right-wingers love to spout opinions, but when asked why they feel the way they do, they can't connect the two concepts.
C) Most of the information upon which people base their votes is misinformation. The entire point of campaign season is not to inform, but to muddle the exchange of information about politicians until the field has become so muddied that voters are overloaded with conflicting data. Then, they have no choice but to align along party axes based on gut feelings.
D) Choice is an illusion. Name the last viable third party national candidate. The only reason Ross Perot was a factor in 1988 election was because he bought his way to the top. Otherwise, the two-party system is in place to choose your leaders for you. The caucuses are big ring circuses. You do not have a substantive say in who the parties finally put forward as their candidates; you only have the choice between two shit sandwiches. And as Trey Parker and Matt Stone so famously said, the lesser of two shit sandwiches is still a shit sandwich. Or something like that. They might have said something about a douche. I can't remember.
The point is that our beloved "consent of the governed" is water-thin. It's a thin veneer that exists only superficially. Enjoy.
A) The television generation doesn't read newspapers. Very few people are actually educated enough to cast a ballot.
To make matters worse, we can't have tests to determine who can and can not vote. They did it in the south as a means of racist discrimination, and it was found blatantly unconstitutional. Because of that, it is now impossible to bring it back in a way that is purely and honestly just intellectual discrimination.
So, gentlemen, is the only option to break it open and then topple it down? Is democracy dead?
To be cliche, democracy sucks. It's just less sucky than any other system. I always forget the exact term that he used in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, but the purest form of government would be a form of regulated anarchy proposed by Professor Bernardo de la Paz.
Nope, because everything else is worse. It's basically a really really slow crash and burn where everything else is a very quick crash and burn. Sure, there's a chance of awesome with a truly enlightened despot or some such, but it never lasts long enough.
Despite all this bullshit, we have food, bread, circuses, etc. And even with all this shit that pisses people off every day, we're going to have them for some good long time to come.
Democracy was never a good idea anyhow. Tyranny of the majority and so forth. Imagine what the US would be like today if absolutely every yahoo actually got their say. The noise we have right now drowns out rational discourse and kills informed decision-making.
What we have isn't perfect, not by any stretch, but the problems can be fixed. Once all the old people die, anyhow.
Comments
But, on the other hand, I do also understand why some things are made secrets. Last year, that is Jan 2009 on, with a little bit of 2010 thrown in, I worked on defense systems for international partners. I had (and probably technically still do have) secret clearance (which is second only to top secret). I've seen a bunch of what the US Government considers to be classified documents. And you know what? I know why they are classified. I think it's perfectly reasonable that they are classified. If they fell into the wrong hands, it could severely hurt either us or our allies. For example, one of our clients was South Korea. I think given the current situation, it could really suck for them if North Korea managed to see how their newest monitoring system was built.
I think that as a good compromise, it would be nice if the government was more willing to release documents well after their relevancy has passed. I do still encourage reporters and whistleblowers to do what they do, cause someone does need to keep the government in check. And the only one who can do that is us.
"The Russian media reported this week that the objections of Visa and MasterCard had now been "allayed". The head of Russia's finance ministry, Sergei Barsukov, said the law had been "re-worked" to take into account the concerns of "foreign operators". There would be no extra restrictions on foreign money transfers, he promised, with transactions taking place in a "simple format"."
Job sorted, it seems! Again, before I read this cable, I presumed there was nothing more going on than you, or maybe not much more. But this is quite a big deal.
And I don't mind the US government trying to influence laws in Russia to help out US businesses. Not on any fundamental level. But the secrecy, and now the mixing of business interests with the systematic clampdown on free speech, open internet and journalism leave a very, very sour taste in my mouth.
Though, I gotta say, Julian, one of your key points - The Gillard government (Australia) is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn’t want the truth revealed - well, Duh. I Take it you've been paying attention to the news, or at least visiting us occasionally, some time in the last 5 years or so?
More interesting, they said that the freeze will be lifted if no specific legal challenges are raised against Wikileaks.
My guess? The US phoned them and helpfully suggested they freeze the account. They're trying to buy time to come up with something specific to charge Assange and Wikileaks with that has a chance of holding up in a court. This implies that it is not clear what laws have actually been broken by anyone other than the original leaker.
It all comes down to this for me: If we don't know what's really going on, how can we make any informed decisions when election time comes? If we don't know what's going on in Iraq, how would we decide if we support the war or not?
Would you agree that we cannot make proper decisions about re-electing an incumbent if we are kept in the dark about what they've done in our name? If you agree with that premise, then it follows that while the government should be able to classify and keep secret items that directly relate to national security/lives of informants, etc., they [i]should not[/i] be classifying anything just because it is embarrassing or will prevent them from being re-elected or tank their agenda.
So, as a result of the above reasoning, I'm in favor of those non-essential secrets being revealed, as a more informed public should be able to make better decisions about whether we want to stay in this war, who we want to re-elect, what we want our tax money spent on, etc. Since I am in favor of those non-essential secrets being revealed, I'm in favor of a group like Wikileaks existing. It gives government bureaucrats with a conscience someplace to reveal these non-essential secrets so people can make such informed decisions. It's for government whistle-blowing.
The problem is that voting was originally intended to be a restricted freedom -- one only for the elite class. Over time, that barrier has been chipped away until everybody has the right to vote. But the system has inherent problems:
A) The television generation doesn't read newspapers. Very few people are actually educated enough to cast a ballot.
C) Most of the information upon which people base their votes is misinformation. The entire point of campaign season is not to inform, but to muddle the exchange of information about politicians until the field has become so muddied that voters are overloaded with conflicting data. Then, they have no choice but to align along party axes based on gut feelings.
D) Choice is an illusion. Name the last viable third party national candidate. The only reason Ross Perot was a factor in 1988 election was because he bought his way to the top. Otherwise, the two-party system is in place to choose your leaders for you. The caucuses are big ring circuses. You do not have a substantive say in who the parties finally put forward as their candidates; you only have the choice between two shit sandwiches. And as Trey Parker and Matt Stone so famously said, the lesser of two shit sandwiches is still a shit sandwich. Or something like that. They might have said something about a douche. I can't remember.
The point is that our beloved "consent of the governed" is water-thin. It's a thin veneer that exists only superficially. Enjoy.
Despite all this bullshit, we have food, bread, circuses, etc. And even with all this shit that pisses people off every day, we're going to have them for some good long time to come.
I'm sure real estate on Bikini Atoll is pretty cheap.
What we have isn't perfect, not by any stretch, but the problems can be fixed. Once all the old people die, anyhow.