Slashdot Mirror
Fed Goes Hunting For Malcontents
snydeq writes "The wake of State Department document leaks to WikiLeaks may have the unhappy rousted from government agencies' 'privileged insiders' ranks, thanks to a recent memo from the US OMB asking agencies to spell out their strategies for minimizing insider risk. 'It's likely that federal contractors and government suppliers will also find themselves responding to this list of questions (PDF) and the central issue of preventing the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and classified materials. In a key section of the memo, the OMB requests information on whether organizations are measuring the "trustworthiness" of their employees and whether they use a psychiatrist or sociologist to measure the unhappiness of an employee as a measure of trustworthiness.'"
It's not like this sort of thing hasn't been tried before. I'm sure it will work about as well now as it did then.
I am officially gone from
Governing systems without implicit trust of the vast majority of its employees are disasters waiting to happen.
I hope they are also going to be looking for ne'er do wells?
Insufficient happiness will be punished by termination.
Maybe they should borrow some of these from the Japanese!
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Soon, if you'd like to keep your job you MUST also like it.
- "They misunderestimated me."
This is going to end badly for us all. Bureaucrats should be hired and fired based on their ability, not some arbitrary reactionary bloodletting done by party hacks.
They are ignoring the real problem. Why did this guy have access to all of that? Why was the data not walled off some? Seems he had the ability to access and download data that was irrelevant for his job and THAT was the issue that made this such a problem.
Depends on what gov job we're talking about and what we mean by 'termination'.
A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating his morning meal.
"I would like to give you this personality test" said the outsider, "because I wish you to be happy."
Drescher took the paper that was offered to him and put it in the toaster, saying "I wish the toaster to be happy, too."
[Insert pithy quote here]
"Malcontents" are bred and created through bad, illegal, immoral or otherwise questionable behavior of players in government industry. That's why we call them "whistle blowers" when the public needs to know. They aren't "whistle blowers" when you seek to get rid of them though... they are malcontents, party-poopers or even "terrorists!"
This is and will be a witch hunt, however. Well meaning people who believe in the function and purpose of our government who haven't yet accepted that there is corruption beyond repair, are now to be pursued, persecuted and ejected from public service to better ensure that their dirty games can continue uninterrupted.
My hope is that the psychiatrist or sociologist comes in, and measures the employees...
Boss: "Are they unhappy?"
Psych: "Yes!"
Boss: "Why?"
Psych: "The problem mainly seems to be dissatisfaction with the government"
Boss: "Ok, let the government know that all we need to do to prevent security breaches and minimize insider risk is to have an open, effective government. Problem solved!"
So, someone who's just had a death in the family is now untrustworthy because they're unhappy?
Are you stupid or did you just deliberately misread the summary? They are not talking about generic unhappiness, they are talking about being unhappy with your job/management. Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets. Conceptually, this is not a bad idea. Whether it is executed in a manner that is sensible is a completely different question.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I am feeling that "higher" trustworthiness means "lower" integrity. That is an awful foul definition of trust, especially in an "open" government.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I'm sure I'd look really happy at my crap-paying government job if a guy named Boris (or Chen or Ahmed) had handed me a big fat sack of cash in return for a few secrets.
[rant mode on]: Just because I'm unhappy, this does not make me untrustworthy. I trade on my experience, work ethic and reputation. I DO NOT violate trust. Not because I think I'm grossly underpaid. Not because I don't agree with my management. Not when I'm having a bad day. Not ever. This is an unrealistic measure that's likely going to unintentionaly bite good people in the ass.[rant mode off]
Tell them what you are searching for and will find a lot of people, specially in places where everyone were happy before knowing that.
I thought the REAL problem was that the government is violating its own laws/treaties, lying to its citizens, etc...
I do agree, though, that going on a witch hunt for people who MIGHT not "go along w/the program" is definitely ignoring the real problem...
OF COURSE the abusers of power in government don't want these people to have a place to speak, or anything substantive to say when they do speak. That's WHY this right is protected!
Who else but the people who are pissed off against you are going to petition for grievances?
And they have a right to do it, and they have a right to KNOW you're screwing them over--so that they CAN call you on your BS.
If you specifically select against malcontents, you're not protecting yourself against security risks. You're abridging a fundamental right.
Here's the text if you don't feel like looking it up. It's not like anybody got killed so you could have it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Obviously the summary (and the story) use the word "unhappy" to make it seem (more?) unreasonable than it is, as usual.
They are not talking about generic unhappiness, they are talking about being unhappy with your job/management.
So, complaining about your boss might get you fired? Now there's a recipe for mismanagement waiting to happen.
There's a demotivational poster in there somewhere...
More HSPD12 crap. I went though a more invasive background check for a "position of public trust" than friends that got "secret" clearances. And everything I work on is public domain except for some private information from my contractor company.
If my government(USA) starts treating everyone like criminals they are going to start acting like criminals. Or is that to hard of a concept to understand for congress and the administration.
Funny to see how the US government is reacting to the Cablegate events in all the wrong ways. Instead of taking the opportunity to show the American people that it is a democratic government, and demonstrate for a change some measure of honesty and willingness to take a stand for people's freedom and rights, it simply makes it clearer by the minute what its intent is: grab the power, keep the power, perpetuate that situation and screw those who oppose it.
By these actions, this government, like those of most other countries, is making itself the enemy of the people. This may be a bleak world, but that's the only one we've got.
Put out a memo requiring everybody to smile all day in the office, on pain of being fired.
Morale will skyrocket.
I'm sure the employees would be much happier, and less likely to leak - wait - what would be there to leak if they stopped doing those first 2 things?
This isn't an attempt to get rid of people before they leak stuff like Bradley Manning, this is simply an attempt to reduce the bureaucracy! I mean think about it, have you ever seen a happy bureaucrat? No, they're all miserable and depressed. This is actually just a way to reduce manpower and costs without Congress having to lose face by making huge budget costs! People always complain the government is too big and bloated, and wastes too much money, but when the government does something about it, they still complain!
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
After all, a gramme is better than a damn.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
When they really want you to quit, they'll make you a Windows sysadmin.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Essentially the question they're asking is "is contracting you a security risk?" Now what company head in his sane mind would answer yes?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, it is. It means that someone who is unhappy will simply hide his opinions, which of course gives him more reasons to be unhappy: "I'll be fired if I don't toe the party line! I'm being oppressed!" And of course he's quite right, whether his original problem had any basis in reality or not. This means that not only does this not solve the problem, but will actually make it worse, as well as puts a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
Yet another bright idea from our brave leaders worthy of a Dilbert Award.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets.
No, someone dumb enough to express their unhappiness with government policies to their boss the government, most likely does not pose a serious security risk.
The guys who find our government reprehensible enough to want to do something about, and have the savvy to actually accomplish something on the scale of Manning, will keep their heads down, smile, and give all the "right" answers to any tests of their cheerfulness and loyalty.
It's simply finding out who is not happy. Thegovernment trusts a large majority of ti's employees, and a vast majority of the employees trust there employeer.
And group of people goes through this, whether sits a corporation or a government agency. Something happens, the organization responds, things get better, then something happens.
It's jsut part of have a lot of humans working together.
Usually, the government does it far more reasonably and productive then corporation.
Naturally the government is actually many branches, many agency and many people. So there will be exceptions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, basically. People who are depressed may act out their depression, generally in (self-)destructive ways. Doing something that can get you fired certainly qualifies.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Hopefully, yes. Then they will have even more reason to be malcontent, but no more illusions about fixing the system from within. It's a win-win, see?
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
What happens when those petitions go unheeded?
What happens when the opposed policy is praised by other governments and people in high regard?
What happens when an already-disgruntled government employee with access to confidential documents sees one too many things go against them?
There's no infringement on free speech here. Any government employee can express any opinion they like about the government. That's never been in question. Instead, government employees who might be a security risk get moved away from confidential information, just like any sane person would move a pyromaniac away from flammable items. It's not an infringement of a perceived right to "say or do anything, anywhere, anytime, with no consequences". It's common sense.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
No, he iosn't qute right. they don't put some guy on the floor to remove anyone who questions 'the party line' whatever the hell that is.
They work to find a solution. Maybe is just an incorrect perception? Maybe there in an actual issue in management that needs addressing. maybe a policy is bad. Maybe the person is really disgruntled?
I've seen this sort ogf thing in action. Both in the public and private sector. Usually the private sector it turns into a witch hunt, in the public sector people actually get listened to and change is made.
Yes, Yes, I can list exception to this, I am talk about a large majority of the time.
Disclaimer: I currently work for a city government. I have also worked private sector.
I have to say, I have been able to express myself more freely then I ever could in most corporations.
I have literal told a elected city official precisely why they are wrong about something. They listened, understood and changed policy. Latter they thanked me. Try doing the with most C*O. You're likely to be ignored and released for some dept. 'cut backs' next qtr.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's been renamed for political correctness reasons. It's called the voluntary 2 minute we-love-our-country session now. We'll recite the oath during it. Tests are conducted in schools as we speak.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Governing systems without implicit trust of the vast majority of its employees are disasters waiting to happen.
The question is how vast? If they have the trust of (all - 1) of their employees leaks will happen.
#5: So fire service will refuse to protect their house, police will refuse to defend them, they cannot get driving license, they cannot access the courts, children/parents cannot access life-critical Medicare/Medicaid. Sounds pretty Stalinist to me.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
an article will come up in /,. abuot something I know fairly well. This is one of those times.
It's a stark reminder that you're mostly a bunch of ignoramuses that spout off about crap you know nothing about.
What the majority of posters think this is, it's effectiveness, and out come would be laughable if those ideas didn't spread ignorance about the US government; which despite it's flaws is one of the best governments in the world.
It treats the peple it works for well, it works to protect the rights of it's people, and has almost no corruption.
Its not perfect, and of course there are exception, but look at the whole and it's pretty good. We can do better, and we will.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have worked with people who are the type they are looking for (or at least the type they should be looking for). They are a cancer in the workplace. One place I worked, the entire department this person worked in was depressing to be around. They always viewed every management initiative in the worst possible light. The person quit for another job, within a month the department was much more upbeat and had a positive attitude. If nothing else, getting this person to not poison the waters for everyone else would be a positive thing.
This should not be aimed at people who have legitimate issues with management which they take through the appropriate channels (which certainly should exist), but at those people who view everything said and done by upper management as bad. Now, whether it will actually be implemented this way is another question. If it is implemented properly than the person who says "I'll be fired if I don't toe the party line! I'm being oppresse!" is exactly the ones who this should be targeting. Of course, if it isn't implemented correctly, they will quickly lose many of their good people.
I do not have a lot of faith in the government implementing it correctly, but that doesn't mean that the idea is inherently bad.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
With respect to the current set of leaks, allegedly via Bradley Manning, I entirely agree. Even if one had an appropriate court and perfect witnesses, who would be prosecuted for the things revealed? Diplomats lie. Other diplomats know that. The Manning leaks are merely gossip, on an international rather than local scale.
This differs sharply from the earlier leaks of helicopters allegedly shooting down civilians. That could, in a perfect world, lead to trials for war crimes. In an imperfect world, they can at least be tried by public opinion.
The Manning leaks have severely damaged Wikileaks in my view. What they /were/ doing was revealing information in the public interest. What they /are/ doing is revealing information that the public is interested in, which is not at all the same thing. And Assange has become a publicity whore.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
http://www.despair.com/demotivation.html
I recommend we start a fund to send those plaques to any department even thinking about implementing this.
This is not a plan to root out the spies, this is a plan to weed out those who over time come to decide they are going to release secrets in order to get payback for a perceived slight or to force the government to change policies.
My impression of Manning (which is not based on much, I was not interested enough to read many articles which talked about his motivations) is that he was the sort who expressed general dissatisfaction with the world and then realized he was in a position to get some of his own back.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
enough said.
"What's the point of going abroad, if you're just another tourist..."
[quote]Whether it is executed in a manner that is sensible is a completely different question.[/quote]
That's the key problem. I really don't have faith that the currently available methods of determining trustworthiness are reliable.
I expect that once Twitter hands over user data to the US regarding followers of WikiLeaks that a lot of us will be barred entry from the country. I don't especially care, but it could inconvenience many.
Oddly there are people who would say "You're paranoid, that wouldn't happen." despite years of people being unable to board airplanes because of a vague list.
This should not be aimed at people who have legitimate issues with management which they take through the appropriate channels (which certainly should exist), but at those people who view everything said and done by upper management as bad.
What if everything done by upper management IS bad? Then this policy ousts the exact people you need to fix the problem.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Those annoying people that won't shut up about the sociopathic executive that runs a routinely over-budget, under-performing department where funds and assets magically disappear, women are sexually harrased; employees are bullied into working 60+ hour, 40 hour work weeks; no one has the authority to actually make decisions about how to do their own job, and where security breaches are frequent, internal, political, petty, and passed off onto scapegoats. Yep, those malcontents are the problem.
I'm sorry; that hit a bit of a sore spot.
Well obviously, otherwise we would not be having this discussion because the Wikileaks incident would not have occured.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
...insensitive clod...
Happiness is mandatory. Trust the Computer!
Your mission, PET-R-GUN, involves a bit of defective work. You and your team of troubleshooters are to locate all of the unhappy employees working in Federal Complex!
Unhappy employees are to be fired On. which basis they're to be fried is up to you.
Note: Any typographical errors in mission briefings are doubtless the result of commie pinko mutant traitors, and certainly not the fault of speech-to-text processing software running on the Computer.
Do you see any typographical errors or potential ambiguities in your mission briefing, PET-R-GUN? (No? Good! You're doing better than your last clone!)
Now carry out your mission, Citizen! Trust the Computer! The Computer is your Friend!
If everything done by upper management in government is bad, the only way to fix it is at the next election. BTW, my impression of this policy is not that they are going to oust these people, merely restrict their access to classified data.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
While not handing out security clearances to every Tom, Dick and Harry is a good start, you also have to ask what makes a malcontent in the first place.
In the end malcontents either crave attention or you bred them. If you want to breed the perfect malcontent just apply the Bobby Kotic method:
I think we definitely have been able to instill the culture, the skepticism and pessimism and fear that you should have in an economy like we are in today. And so, while generally people talk about the recession, we are pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression.
You miss the point (which is actually the focus of the headline).
The violation of rights is demonstrated in the criteria used to exclude people.
Selecting against pyromaniacs when granting access to the gasoline is a false analogy.
A better analogy would be an employer (government or private) preventing anybody from distributing any sort of non-work-related literature while at work. That's permitted.
But the emloyer could NOT specifically prevent people from distributing political literature that was pro-union.
Note again that the violation is not in the prohibition, but in the criteria for selecting what's prohibited.
By selecting against malcontents, you are specifically excluding those who would seek to exercise the right to petition for redress.
The right to petition does not stop at "If the carefully selected lies we choose to present to you piss you off, you can say something. Because we have already prepared glib answers to shut you down, and, really--if we cared what you say about those issues, we wouldn't have let you know in the first place."
The right to petition also includes "You get to see what we're doing and judge for yourself whether you have a grievance."
A completely separate argument "it's an issue of national security" is code for "we've told a different lie to everyone involved. We would be quite embarrassed if you people got together to compare notes." God help us if you actually found out what we do here--you'd be pretty angry about it.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
You don't understand what motivates whistle-blowers. They are not spies paid by a foreign government - they are not paid at all. They are the people protecting your country from the likes of you. Hence you want them executed, though perhaps there is hope that the American populace will see who the true threat is. The scary part is that your ilk probably don't even understand that you are destroying that which you are seeking to defend.
Would anything useful be accomplished by those people even without bread and circuses such as the aforementioned TV program? :P
I have a feeling many people would be sheep anyway, so you might as well let the sheep enjoy themselves.
Those who are not sheep could have the capacity to better handle the experience/impact of the bread and circuses.
P.S. Rihanna doing What's My Name on the Season 7 final did not bother me. At all.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The answer of course is to use this as an excuse to fire anyone you don't like. Dig enough into anyone's past and you will find some reason to fire them that will sound good to the federales. Then you hand over a list and say "we identified all of these security risks and eliminated them, we are shiny and clean!"
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
hey, at least he's not spamming some affiliate link...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Was I the only one who had to read the summary's first sentence about four or five times to get that 'unhappy' was being used as a noun and not an adjective? I think the problem was the hyperlink. Had it started with 'rousted' I think I would have been able to parse the sentence much easier.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Who will measure the unhappiness of the psychiatrists and sociologists?
-kgj
And therein lies a big problem. The people who should be discontent* but are not are the ones you want to suspect. Somethings up. They may not be receiving large sacks of cash, but there are other ways to game corrupt or inefficient systems. Every organization needs a certain level of dissatisfaction with the status quo to drive improvements. If its not there, either the corporate (bureaucracy) culture has failed to encourage it, or people are looking out for themselves.
*Those that are smart enough to see the problems and ethical enough to believe that they should be fixed. The morons who sit around with grins on their faces need not apply.
Have gnu, will travel.
Haha, I expected to see a sea of white and hear crickets chirping in this story's comment section...
ducking...running...desperately trying to delete post............
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Oh goody here comes the loyalty tests.
The act of whistleblowing, which is what wikileaks facilitates, is one of the highest forms of patriotism in a democracy: keeping the government answerable to the people requires that the people know what government is up to, *especially* when it's up to no good.
Now, let also find those that are spying on America. The fact is that there are more malcontents who should NOT be granted security clearances. That is an absolute fact.
And we are LOADED with spies. I would guess that most are Chinese.
HOWEVER, what is desperately needed is an overhaul of the system. For example, it is still considered an issue if you are gay. Yet, the majority of ppl that are gay and working for the gov. are happy ppl and do not care one bit if they are gay. These ppl are NOT security risk, and should not be treated as such.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"unhappiness of an employee as a measure of trustworthiness".
Are the employees unhappy because salaries suck?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
If you've got employees that are both disgruntled and too stupid to give the answers the interviewers expect to make them appear happy with their jobs, then they should be fired -- they're not worth paying goo money to.
When I applied for work with the Air Force, I had to answer the question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any other organization with the stated intent of the overthrow of the lawful government of the United State?" which made me wonder, who in their right mind would answer "yes"???
In light of the leaks, an information security review is appropriate. But it is mostly security theater, and serves no useful purpose except to remind people what they should have been doing all along. Since following security procedures is generally at cross purposes with getting real work done, you do need to constantly remind people to follow the non-productive procedures. Case in point: when I worked for the Air Force as a civilian contractor whose security clearance was not yet completed, I was not supposed enter the radome without an escort. What was the first thing my coworkers did? They gave me the combination to the radome door so I could do my job without bothering them.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You have been found guilty of double-plus ungood crimethink. Please report to the Ministry of Love for reeducation.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The 19th Century called. They want their Know-Nothing Party talking points back.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
"Malcontents" are bred and created through bad, illegal, immoral or otherwise questionable behavior of players in government industry.
Actually, I'd disagree. There doesn't actually have to be anything illegal or immoral happening, simply things that conflict with an employee's world view. Hiring gays? That will get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Not hiring gays? That will also get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Quite likely in most government departments you will have employees pissed off on both ends of the spectrum about perceived behaviors of their bosses. That's just one example.
That's why we call them "whistle blowers" when the public needs to know.
True, and we have some pretty decent whistleblower protection laws on the books already.
This is and will be a witch hunt, however. Well meaning people who believe in the function and purpose of our government who haven't yet accepted that there is corruption beyond repair, are now to be pursued, persecuted and ejected from public service to better ensure that their dirty games can continue uninterrupted.
I doubt it will be anything of the sort. Rather, there will probably be some of the usual psych profiles and some touchy-feely meetings where people are encouraged to express themselves but won't because most of us are trained from a young age that it is better to lie to those in authority and hide from them our real selves. Maybe this will do some good and get some people with real problems help and maybe it will weed a few dangerous lunatics out of the ranks of bureaucrats. Mostly, however, I suspect it will be a huge waste of time and money.
If everything done by upper management in government is bad, the only way to fix it is at the next election.
And when *is* the next election for senior-level bureaucrats? :p
Or was that based on the belief that the politicians we elect run the government, rather than the millions of unelected government employees? Something worth thinking about, at least - how much control the people we elect actually have over the government apparatus.
If elected officials do not have the ability to control the actions of senior level bureaucrats, this discussion about government policy is pointless. I believe that elected officials still have the ability to control the actions of the bureaucracy, when they choose to exercise it. Elected officials often choose to allow bureaucrats to funtion without control so as to allow them a certain amount of deniability when those bureaucrats carry out the will of said politicians in ways that the voters do not approve of.
I believe that the Founding Fathers would be horrified at the level of lawmaking that Congress has delegated to unelected bureaucrats. I suspect that the men who composed the Constitution would consider most of our federal regulatory structure to be a violation of the spirit of the Constitution when not an outright violation of what they thought was clearly written.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
When you have a budgetary office asking other government deptartments if they have psychologists evaluating their employees so as to prevent the leakage of government "secrets"..... you know what? you have too many goddamn secrets.
The right to petition is just that: The right to petition. Please point out where in the Constitution every government employee is given the right to publicly release confidential information.
The union analogy is false, because there is no indication that having a union-loving employee will cause any harm. In contrast, allowing disgruntled government employees access to classified material weakens the trust in that classification. Part of the point of diplomatic cables is that nations can communicate without worrying about other nations knowing what was said. Without trust that those communications are secret, communication stops, and diplomacy breaks down.
Of course there are different stories told to everyone, but it's not because the government is intending to lie to the people. The intent is to plan actions before revealing them to other nations. That's why traditionally these materials have been fairly easy for anyone with proper clearance to access. Now it's obvious that can't be the case anymore.
There is definite harm in having security risks accessing secure material. That's why I used the pyromaniac analogy. There is definite harm in giving a pyromaniac unfettered access to flammable materials.
The idea that everyone should have access to everything is naive. Perhaps we should allow 6-year-olds to drive a car and vote? Anything less is discrimination!
Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe it's just the government that can't have secrets. In that case, let's release the complete personal and social history of everyone who enters public office. Why stop there? Let's release all the personal details of every government employee! Everyone should have a right to know how many speeding tickets their mailman has received!
Perhaps that's too personal. Instead, let's just openly publish every detail on how to produce a working nuclear missile!
Where does it stop? Secrecy is a vital part of running a nation, like it or not. Sure, some things are kept secret wrongfully, and there is legal precedent for the limited leaking of classified information for the public good. Widespread releases are not intended for the public good. They're intended to embarrass the United States government, and disrupt normal actions. They're the actions of a disgruntled employee, not a defender of democracy.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Tell the ministry of love what I told the minitrue: That they can make oral love to my rear end.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In "Conspiracy as Government" Julian Assange says his intent is to slow down and confuse the conspirators, so their grip on the population is lessened. Sounds like he's triggered an absolute firestorm of stupidly repetitive documents flying around, confusing the Department of Homeland Security. Being retired, I read the whole thing, which can be summed up as "Be more careful with data, DAMMIT!!" Mission Accomplished, Julian! Hope you survive!
What worries me more is the ones who are happy when they probably ought not to be. They're the ones who will happily stamp the execution forms all week long, then go home to their backyard barbecues on the weekends while the bodies are piled up in mass graves. I'm just sayin'... they should encourage more internal communication and get those malcontents to speak up. Or do the thing where you randomly promote people - which works according to studies. Anything to keep the diversity going. Organizations need to appreciate that a person may be malcontent because (A) they perceive a clear problem and (B) they are powerless to do anything about it or to even speak up. Organizations that oppress their members or demand abstract loyalties are doomed to turn into little Milgram experiments.
-- thinkyhead software and media
To all the Paranoia references.... Remember that the FBI took Steve Jackson Games out for being too subversive... there is no other credible justification... Steve Jackson Games pissed off the powers that be for being a little too effective in publishing games that painted the authorities in a bad light.
Here we are again. With too many secrets in the bag.... and now, as many times before the government has so thoroughly defied the will of the people that it must systematically violate their rights for a time until scapegoats are in place to take the heat....
Wash rinse repeat.