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."

Comments

Re:Two points

[dpete4552]

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.

Re:Two points

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.