Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of Information Act vs Homeland Security
psyki writes "Should vulnerabilities in our public infrastructure be handled like vulnerabilities in computer security? Wired has an interesting article about the state of the Freedom of Information Act, particularly how it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain documents from reluctant agencies in the security-conscious post-Sept 11 era. What really made me think, however, was this line: "While keeping information about security vulnerabilities out of terrorists' hands is a legitimate goal, McMasters believes the government is taking secrecy a step too far. In the end, he said, communities would be safer and better able to plan for their own protection if they were aware of potential security holes in power plants, airport terminals or other facilities.". Sounds an awful lot like the raging debate in the computer security community regarding publicizing vulnerabilities."
I would rather have my civil liberties. And stealing music has nothing to do with them. Just some propaganda bullshit thrown in to make a persons civil liberties seem unimportant or even bad. You are also trying to say that we either have civil liberties or security, which is bullshit as well. Even if that choice had to be made, which it doesn't, I'd rather have the blood of my countrymen on my hands than lack liberty, at least I would know that they died for a country worth dying for.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Which is more important, liberty or security? Men far wiser than we have been debating that question for generations. The closest thing we have to an answer is, "Neither. Or maybe both. It depends."
Fortunately, while we know of no single right answer to that dilemma, we do know of several that are wrong. And blindly repeating that old saw is one of the wrong ones.
For the fallacy inherent in that oft-quoted aphorism* is that though there can be security without liberty-- totalitarian dictatorships are notably secure-- there can be no liberty without security.
But if you want to take, for sake of argument, the quote attributed to Franklin at face value, at least get it right. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." We're not talking about a little temporary safety. We're talking about permanent security on a grand scale, directly affecting hundreds of millions of people.
It is wise to be cognizant of your liberties and to defend them when they are challenged.. But it is the acme of foolishness to deny that we must sometimes give up a little temporary liberty to obtain essential safety.
--
* In point of fact, it appears that Benjamin Franklin never wrote nor said it. The line appears in the 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania, a work which was published anonymously. The work has been attributed to Franklin, but there seems to be no evidence that it was actually his work.
I write in my journal
I'll use your own words here
"If someone publishes that there is a security breach that allows terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons from the U.S. government, there is very little likelihood that letting YOU know about it will help the problem be fixed faster"
Yet if they didn't publish it there would be NO chance of you working to fix the problem and the terorrests would get thier nukes and use them without you even knowing how they managed to blow up your city.
If the problem is the curruption of the government the people need to know. They need to know so they can work to impeach, remove and imprison the bastard who has put the profit of selling nukes to terrorests over the lives of the people he has sworn to protect.
The fact is the government should NOT be allowed to hide any fact it sees fit from your views, if you give them the ability to work in secret there is no way for you to spot, let alone fight against, curruption. Curruption is a dangerous thing and no one is immune to it. We would like to beleave those sworn to protect us are above the usual folly of human nature but they are not and as it has before been said "every one has thier price."
Where do we draw the line should be the question. How much information should we allow the government to hide away from the eyes of the people? Look towards what they want and you will see a long list of curruption developing regulations. The fact they want to make it impossable to find out information on a corperate head that might be transfereing enviromently toxic chemicals from A to B under the possablility it could be used for terrorism.
I ask you, what has happened more.. a spill or a hyjacking? Also the freedom of information does NOT make one relax security in any way, meaning even though they have to tell you they are moving the stuff it doesn't mean they have to with hold security while moving the stuff. Definly if they beleave there is a risk of it being targeted, they can easily up security to the breach without needing the secrecy.
This works for the nuke plant one too. They don't need to disclose all the information then sit back and let anyone enter as they see fit, they could easily add more security till the problem is fixed.
But on the other hand I beleave there is such information that should be with held from the general public. Insteed a group should be formed, one that can be monatored and watched but doesn't need to diclose its findings to the public. They could review so called 'security risk' documents to see if they are real risks or just the government covering up its own curruption without the risk of such information falling into the hands of terrorests
-Jinx dragon, just passing through.