Slashdot Mirror
Lord Blair Calls for Laws To Stop 'Principled' Leaking of State Secrets
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the Guardian: "Tougher laws are needed to prevent members of the public from revealing official secrets, former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Blair has said. ... The peer insisted there was material the state had to keep secret, and powers had to be in place to protect it. The intervention comes after police seized what they said were thousands of classified documents from David Miranda – the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been reporting leaks from the former US intelligence officer Edward Snowden. ... He warned there was a 'new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism.' He cited the examples of information leaks related to Manning and WikiLeaks."
No thanks, I'm more afraid of the Government than Terrorists.
To hide their dirty work, to keep secret the things that would outrage the public if they knew. This has got nothing to do with enabling or even potentially enabling terrorism. Only protecting the established status quo which some perceive to be at risk of the serfs are properly informed.
"Maybe the real state secret is that spies aren't very good at their jobs and don't know very much about the world."
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So they're hoping to redefine this in a way to ensure that future Mannings / Snowdens face harsher consequences for exposing criminal behavior. They couldn't get Manning seated in the electric chair, so let's make the definition of leaking == aiding the enemy even when there is no intent.
So the new political calculus: Intentionally kill innocent civilians, get a promotion, expose those illegal killings, get hunted down like a rabid dog. Yep, it all adds up!
Flying your jet into a building: Terrorism
Blowing up yourself in a marketplace: Terrorism
Leaking information about government crimes: Terrorism
Google "where to buy a pressure cooker": Terrorism
Picking your nose: Terrorism
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
This is just getting ridiculous. I am not used to politicans from the UK making no sense, even Thatcher was usually coherent.
But this... is just plain absurd.
Basically corrupt conservative 'er' exploiters governments, are looking to implement laws to hide corruption at all levels of government. Of course never to forget sheer incompetence. So basically it's all about creating a raft of laws to bury corruption and incompetence in government under national security.
You know what's really funny about this, this is exactly what corporations try to do with NDA's. Of course who is doing the corrupting of governments, why it's the multi-national corporations, where else do you think the incompetent corrupt fuckers in government got the idea from. Expose the corruption in government and you'll expose the corporations behind it. Hmm, not so funny after all.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
As opposed to the laws created to intentionally hide criminals and corruption?
How is the Official Secrets Act not adequate to cover this?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
A state secret is something that needs to be secret in order to protect the lives of the citizens of that state (yeah, I know that's not how the law/precedent words it, but that's the fundamental idea of it). These are not state secrets. These are coverups of illegal activity that are labeled as "state secrets" in order to perpetuate the cover-up and not get power-abusers in trouble.
conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism
like, say, building roads?
Good people do not have a need for rules. They have integrity -- they know what they stand for, and they know their right from their wrong. If a law gets in the way of that, it's a bad law.
I wonder why he needs so many rules...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If the government wants to pass ineffectual laws that have no hope at stopping what they are aimed at, then how about passing a law that punishes those that are supposed to be protecting our "secret" data? Why could a low level analyst working for a contractor in Hawaii have so much unfettered access to classified data that he could download thousands of documents and walk the data out of the facility with no one being aware.
There are plenty of ways that this could have been prevented with better access controls and auditing -- even the server admins shouldn't be able to bypass the audit system, and the audit system should have raised alarms when it saw so many docs being downloaded.
It adds cost and complexity to the system (like it means that an agent can't follow up leads on his own, but has to submit a request for access to records, while documenting why the data is needed), but it not only helps keep the secret data away from whistle blowers and curious agents that want to look up their ex-gf's, but also against foreign spies that have infiltrated the agency.
There should be a very small set of fine grained categories under which government data can be kept secret. Secrecy for government programs, and the content of said programs needs to be white listed, and the list of categories needs to be public.
If we are going to have a secret court, I want to at least know there is such a court, or know that some system with the authority to create it exists so I can object if appropriate. Every secret should classified under one (or more) of the categories in the white list, and each category should have some eventual schedule for disclosure and process for oversight.
There needs to be a public system for adding and removing categories (via laws from congress I guess).
This is a democracy: if the people don't know what the government is doing, how can it possibly work in the people's favor?
In the USA, you have to surmise that somebody is an elitist douche who fancies himself to be God. In the UK, they do us the courtesy of labeling themselves, "Lord".
Generally, leaks by the public happen not because such individuals wish to do harm, but because they feel it is in the public's interest to know such information. Therefore, in order to stop such leaks from occurring, it is the government's responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner so as to permit accountability and oversight by those who presumably elected them.
In short, if you don't want leaks of "sensitive" information, then don't do business in a way that creates such secrets to begin with. We aren't talking about corporate espionage, or nuclear missile launch codes. We are talking about actions at the behest of some government entity that purports to serve the public, but that same public has not even the slightest degree of oversight with respect to determining whether such actions are in fact legitimate.
To talk about needing more laws and more restrictions to hide government secrets in the name of "security" is the height of sophistry and hubris. It is Machiavellian and Orwellian reasoning, and it is the very thing that achieves what the actual terrorists intend. No sovereign nation will be brought to its knees by the direct loss of life and safety through sporadic murders, bombings, and violent mayhem. Nations fall for two reasons: conquest by another nation's military, or because the governments that rule over its citizens become so egregiously corrupt that a revolution occurs from within. The essential aim of terrorism is to achieve such a collapse through the latter means, because terrorists are aware that they lack the resources to do the former. It makes no difference whether the draconian behavior of a government is well-intentioned. The loss of basic democratic freedoms, in any form, is a win for terrorists.
wikileaks is right the best secrets are no secrets
Just checking to make sure I understand...
Government abuses anti-terror law to detain/interrogate someone who was not suspected of terrorism.
Government then seeks more powers to "protect" people from "principled" leaks that "help" scary terrorists.
There is some sort of change that comes with so many people using networked communications... Sure there are a lot of fools and people running their mouth more than their brains myself especially. I can't shake the feeling on balance the cat is out of the bag and government pushback against accountability and transparency is ultimatly a loosing proposition.
At the very time trust and legitimacy in western governments is low they are only handicapping themselves by validating the need to reign in existing overeach by going on the offensive.
Would they work better than the current laws that are supposed to stop that? Oh, you're talking about suppressing press freedoms? Yeah, the colonies got a bit touchy about that a while back. Now that they've been embarrassed a couple times, their leaders might be more amenable to it. I don't know if it's really worth probably looking like their... what do they call it again? "President"? His sock puppet over the subject. Feel free to run it up the flag and see who salutes, though. If it doesn't look like it's going to take, we can always bury the idea under a manufactured cricket controversy!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Send "Lord" Blair to gitmo.
I suggest there be a law to remove Lord Blair's Peerage. if Lord Blair is so adamant that " there was a 'new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism.'", then I'd like to introduce Lord Blair to the concept known as the Streisand Effect and the point that the internet is like a pool--once information is in there, it's in there*. It seems clear then that any action to highlight any "conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism" would itself be "conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism". Ergo, Lord Blair is calling for a law to make his own acts illegal. It only stands to reason he would consider himself not worthy of his Peerage, and if he cannot or will not revoke his Peerage, a law should be written to do so. And yes, I'm rather serious.
*Technically, this is not absolutely true. But coupled with the Streisand Effect, it's almost certainly true. The real caveat is that the information may not be available on a web site, may not be available 24/7, and it may be password protected or otherwise not publicly available. The last part is the real kicker, of course, since that's the very current rub of the insurance file. It's also one reason why I can only imagine that free speech is the next largest target of people like Lord Blair, as certainly any word or phrase (or hash/known algorithm of said word or phrase) could be the password. To grant any person arrested who might know a password for a "time bomb" like an insurance file free speech would allow "sleepers" to undermine, well, the whole twisted system that Lord Blair seemingly supports. And the sad truth, I think, is free speech rights in the west for hundreds of years have shown us that the truth when exposed rarely has the damaging effect imagined, not only in the "bad" that Lord Blair would like to quiet but also in the "good" that would revoke privileges to people clearly unworthy of their position.
So, no good deed goes unpunished. But the principled ones will continue on. And that's why we would call them hero, not Lord.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Well Yes and No.
No - I don't agree that the subject matter that has been actually leaked was right for governments to have done in the first place. eg: The deliberate killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. That is wrong.
Yes - I do agree that leaking information is harmful to government and beneficial to enemies, because the enemies can use what the government did wrong as a recruiting tool to gain support against them. With all the negativity against governments having all this data, I would say that it is working pretty well for the enemies of the government.
Note - Being an enemy of the government doesn't necessarily mean you have done anything wrong, it just mean that you don't agree with the governments actions. For example, the EFF is an enemy of the government, even though they are not doing anything wrong.
TL;DR - Governments should stop doing things wrong instead of hiding what they do wrong, because it is what they do in the first place that was leaked which is aiding the 'enemy' (anyone who disagrees with the government) recruit other people against the government (anyone who supports Leaking of coverups), rather than the act of leaking in itself.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
2) Brave men and women who fight in wars and give their lives for their country.
1 and 2 are the same people, viewed at different angles for different purposes. I find it sad that people who are expected to give their lives for their country if need be are not deemed worthy of knowing more about the inner workings of their country. Instead they are spied upon and, under a magnifying glass, treated as insignificant. We should all have the right to understand the inner workings of our country and take part in shaping its security and its future.
Knowing anywhere that the NSA is looking is a security risk.
Now that we know facebook can lower your credit score, some of us may change our behavior.
The same theory applies to the credit score of a terrorist.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter may have been considered secure through obscurity, TMI for the NSA to sift and sort through.
Some valuable information could have been obtained through social media, but we really do not know.
Wait let met get this straigt. You want to take half of my salary (yes all the taxes you pay together). An not tell me what you do with it.
In a democratic society you work for me! You better tell me what you do with my money !
The only reason to keep something secret is because you are doing something illegal either from international law or local law.
Why do you want to monitor everything I do ? I'm not a child I'm supposed to be free !!!
With democracy come responsibility, to hide things from me is wrong. Yes we understand that we want to hide some information from criminals but I'm not a criminal !
Why do you change incent until proven guilty into guilty purely by being part of society. Keeping things things secret is the easy way out. Like when you are a child and you hide things from your parents because you are guilty.
If you want to hide stuff do not come and moan at me when you get caugh out. Take responsibility and CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOUR
What is being seen in recent days, more openly than before, is not government "corruption". Corruption implies that the system is being manipulated to function other than intended. All talk of government corruption, or incompetence, or the inefficiency of the state, these views all spring from a misunderstanding of intent. If one assumes, for example, not that the state is an organization which exists to protect the members of society, both collectively and individually, from the actions of predatory, amoral people, but rather that the state exists as the enabler of the wildest dreams of the most predatory and amoral among us, then every action undertaken by every modern goverment makes perfect sense. It is not "corruption" we need fear from government, it is the possibility of government actually acheiving its true purpose which we should find deeply disturbing.
It's sad that the British and the Americans spent 40 years and billions if not trillions defeating the Soviet Union and now that it is gone they are rushing to become what they once fought against. The FBI, CIA, NSA and the DEA should just get it over with, stop pretending and merge & rename themselves the Stasi. The really sad part is the average American, if they even notice at all, will start chanting "USA! USA!" I think it was Ambrose "Bitter" Bierce once said that the Americans will get the government they deserve.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
Fuck this asshole "Lord Blair" and his fascist bullshit. Good men
died in WWII so shit like this could not happen, and now scum
like this Blair character want to make it happen anyway.
If the ghosts of soldiers who died fighting Germany in WWII could
live again, they would bayonet this scumbag and then consider they
had done good and necessary work.
I thought that they were weeding the weak-minded out of the House of Lords.
I wonder when 1984 will become a forbidden book. It is, after all, a terrorism guidebook in disguise!
Since when have terrorists needed government documents to blow people up?
Blair is talking out of his ass here.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It doesn't sound very good when a "Lord," proposes further restricting individual rights.
Don't think I'll be swearing fealty to that guy anytime soon.
The governments are the ones aiding the terrorists. They are the ones running secret campaigns outside the realms of democracy with no oversight, no accountability, and it's the people in whose name they are doing it who suffer the reprecussions of terrorism. Really, stop overthrowing governments, aiding in assassinations, toturing people, and causing havoc throughtout the world. And mostly, stop lying about it. What you are doing is illegal and immoral.
..is paved with good intentions.
Is it just me, or is it getting hotter and hotter every year?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
As Matt Damon said, there should be a referendum to ask people if they want to trade civil liberties for security. I really think that a vast majority will choose the former.
Tougher laws are needed to prevent members of the political class from classifying secrets that, were they exposed, would embarrass members of the political class.
Not that that one's not good, but it really has little to do with the current discussion. You might be thinking of The Power of Nightmares , perhaps?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Maybe I'm just sensitized to these kinds of headlines, but it sure seems like many, many officials in the US and UK governments will go to their graves without every having realized they were on the wrong side of history.
To be fair, those same officials would probably think the same of me. Or they would, if they gave a rat's ass about what ordinary people like myself think. The treatment of Snowden and Manning leads me to believe they have no interest in the opinion of hoi polloi. On the contrary, our officials seem little put out that they should have to answer to the unwashed masses.
It is sad to think that Obama's legacy as the first black President and as a health care reformer is being overshadowed by the institutionalization of the surveillance state and the persecution of those would challenge it.
BULL SHIT
How about laws that make the government behave in a manner that won't provoke a principled release of state secrets?
Britain was part of the self-appointed judge and jury system that tried war criminals from the ranks of those that lost the second world war. They rejected the plea "I was only following orders," holding the accused to a higher moral law. Now it seems they wish to reject this principal. It was good enough for their enemies, but not good enough for them.
That's him. Obsolete school actually.
Everybody else knows that security-by-obscurity does not work. It may slow some less skilled attackers down but the really dangerous attacker is not affected.
Any state that feels the need to hide important stuff from its own citizens obviously has something to hide, meaning that it gets far too easy to break laws in a systematic manner and keep it from the public. The terrorists cannot use the fact that a US gunship helicopter gunned down a group of unarmed civilians, including journalists, clearly aware that they were unarmed and not any kind of threat. The public on the other hand can use this to prosecute the people responsible, but if it wasn't for the Bradly Manning leaks, these genocidal murderers would have gone free.
If this guy actually thinks the by hiding the ways we protect ourselves, the people under suspicion and so on, we are one up on the terrorists - he's severely mistaken. Any terrorist worth fearing knows all this no matter how hard the government try to hide it. Like any other cold war style stand-off they have people on the inside, just like the government has informants inside the terrorist cells. All the general stuff is well known. Trust me, the relevant people in Al-Queda has known for a long time which weaknesses exist in airport scanners, in the Internet monitoring systems (PRISM?) and so on. Osama Bin Laden for instance used a very simple technique to send and receive emails. Do everything offline and have couriers transport the USB drives with it on foot, bikes, camels whatever that doesn't offer any way of tracking to random Internet cafe's. That kept him effectively hidden for years despite the massive reward on his head. So much for Echelon, PRISM and whatever else they threw at the task of correlating patterns and everything in other to locate him. All these systems failed completely. Bin Laden was in the end betrayed by a servant.
No, government secrecy has only one real purpose and that is to protect those in power from their enemies, which quite obviously include the people who pays their wages. It is a sick system and it needs to be broken down and replaced by transparency and open control. Sure, there are a few things that needs to be kept secret but not the massive amounts they hide today. Any wrong-doings for instance must be made public right away, possibly redacted slightly in order to protect assets not involved. A conservative guess would be that 98% of the stuff currently classified shouldn't be, and from the recent leaks it is obvious that among all this we'll find countless incidents where laws have been seriously broken mostly because they knew they could get away with it because of the secrecy.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
It might not be completely pointless. Radicalised childen are likely to recruit their existing friends. It's not a lot to go on but it is an independent variable.
Suppose 1 person in a million is terrorists, and a friend of a terrorist is 10% more likely to be a terrorist than a general member of the public. That's not a lot to go on by itself, that means there's a 1 in 910000 chance that they're a terrorist rather than 1 in a million. But get enough independent variables - 100 or so, all of which point towards terrorism, and you reduce the suspects down to a few thousand most likely terrorists. This is a small enough number that more direct intelligence can be gathered on them.
Whether they should be doing this is another matter but if there's a correlation, even if we don't know the reason, between certain behaviour, then this can provide information.
"lord" Tony Blair had an eighty-year-old man roughly handled and thrown out of the Labour party conference for heckling him, by police, citing the "anti-terrorism act" as just cause.
The man is the worst kind of self-serving, money-grabbing blow-hard, seeking only to cover his own backside. He is shaking in his boots that someone will leak the truth about his foreknowledge of the total absence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq before he green-lit British forces going in.
He's a lawyer. Making up laws to cover himself AND provide a revenue stream. I call that motive.
Yeah, and if I sell 100 grams of fertilizer to someone, that has the potential of aiding terrorism because that person might be buying 100 grams from thousands of people to build a big bomb. Does that mean there should be a law against that? This whole "aiding terrorism" argument is so made up, it makes me physically sick... to be quoting "Friends": "congratulations, you have found the world's thinnest argument".
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand you have people who view it as their moral duty to pass on confidential / classified information that clearly shows breaches of the law to the proper authorities. On the other hand, you have the current scatter-gun approach where huge swathes of data is released, some of it unrelated, with the likelihood that at some point in the future something unrelated to the original subject of the disclosure is going to get into enemy hands with very real and devastating consequences.
However, both of these things are trumped by something Mr Blair just doesn't seem to get - if you ask people to keep secrets they find unconscionable, they won't stay secret for very much longer. I'm also greatly concerned that Mr Blair considers insider whistleblowers to be a "new" threat.
Dear Lord Blair,
Fuck you!
Sincerely,
Your Mother
Lord Blair: I am your lord.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
Lord Blair: You don't vote for lords.
Woman: Well how'd you become lord then?
Lord Blair: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Blair, was to carry Secrets. THAT is why I am your lord.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He warned there was a 'new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism.' "
I don't know who we should be more concerned about actual terroriss or guys like Lord Blair? It seems that he has the potential to do much more harm to society. Next thing you know he'll probably want tougher laws on who can have sex because that too is conduct which is likely or capable of facilitating terrorism by producing future terrorists.
I'm sure the Stasi would have said exactly the same.
These days, I think you'd actually find that a disturbingly large chunk of the population doesn't know what civil liberties are if they included a question with that vote requesting a definition.
The next dangerous part is everyone know what the word security means, but not whether propositions actually increase security.
Get the 51%+ of a voting population in that vote and no matter how shrewd the remaining 49%- is, it is not going to help. I don't mean with regards to presidential elections either, as far FAR less people know what is even going on in congressional or senatorial elections. Since the late 90s we've begun riding the near-critical retardation mass in the population to becoming Idiocracy.
Since she announced it the Guardian has respected Chelsea Manning's wishes to be referred to by her new forename: the cited article seems to have slipped through the net !
(The Slashdot summary sits on the fence by quietly dropping her old forename from it's quote of the linked article !)
U.S great country
It's just starting here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?printable=truetPage=all
If you just give us all your money, you can get your kids back...else...foster homes.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
"I suggest that terrorist organisations, rather than individuals, already know how they were caught before and will update their procedures accordingly."
this is one of the things that's cracked me up/pissed me off the most about this whole NSA debacle!
Snowden is supposedly SIMULTANEOUSLY:
A. damaging national security
B. wrong
C. lying
D. BUT not telling anyone anything they didn't already know...
at least "D" is true (though in typical govt fashion the last of the four positions they tried floating).
if I'm Al Zawahiri I'm falling out of my chair laughing at the Snowden "leaks"/NSA's tap dance but I _DAMN_ sure took notes on all the material that's come out about how they found OBL (particularly that compound was an RF black hole)...
And by "terrorism" he means anything that strikes terror in the hearts of an entrenched, arrogant, lazy, overpaid, and incompetent political power structure, like free elections, free press, limited government, and low taxes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
'Unprincipled Leaking' will still be protected.
If government doesn't want "principled" leaking of state secrets, then perhaps it should act in such a way that leaking them isn't the principled thing to do?
Unfortunately for both him and us, the information that helps citizen decide if their government is working in their interest or corrupt, or working at all and the information that outside forces need to evaluate possible holes in the governments security efforts can overlap quite a bit.
So yes, many leaks that are in the interest of the public will also serve the evil terrorist-pedophile-foreigner-evildoers (interesting idea: Take a publication from the height of the Cold War and replace "communist" with "terrorist" - my guess is you could publish a good part of them with that change today and nobody would notice they were written 30 years ago).
Anyways - there are two lessons here that politicians have not and never will understand, because few people who work outside the security industry do, even if you repeat it to them a hundred times:
One, security through obscurity isn't security. There are some secrets that really are secrets - almost always, they are very specific details, such as names, dates and locations. Anything that is not such a specific detail very likely falls under obscurity, and not security. If terrorists are aided by knowing that you monitor all Internet traffic, then frankly, they were idiots before and your security sucks badly if that knowledge makes such a difference.
Two, security or accountability, pick one. Only a totalitarian government can keep secrets, a democracy is accountable to its citizen. So either you turn the country into a tryranny, or you tell your citzen what the fuck you're doing with their taxpayer money.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Blair has already demonstrated that he's both.
... and by that defintion I'd be possibly potentially in my minds eye aiding terrorism.
In other words, if the government doesn't like what you are doing, they can accuse you of helping terrorists with your actions. Revealing illegal government actions? You are weakening the government which helps terrorists. Protesting government actions you disagree with? You are sympathizing with terrorists. Whispering to a co-worker how you don't like Public Official X? Terrorist talk!!!!
Now everyone get perfectly in line and stay there. The government is here to help you (stay in line).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
"Lord Blair" can kiss my American ass. Maybe if the US and UK governments weren't engaged in illegal activity that is disgustingly immoral, the people wouldn't have to take action and humiliate them at every corner.
These governments do not have the divine right to exist. When they become criminal organizations and treat their own people and criminals and enemies, it's time for them to go. Especially here in the US where they are supposed to represent the will of the people, not their sponsors' agendas. They are supposed to represent us, not "rule" us. We are not subjects. PERIOD.
Instead, what we have now are whackjobs like this who masturbate about Big Brother while reading 1984 like it's some kind of manual on how to run a country. These vermin need to be put in their place. Preferably prison or stuffed in their own black sites and tortured.
Unless you consider revolution "terrorism", there is nothing that would aid terrorists all that much that's been leaked. It just gives the terrorists a chance to laugh at your hypocrisy.
When items are classified as "secret" just because they are embarrassing, it makes it easy for people to rationalize away the need for secrecy. And there are a few justifiable reasons for having a secret.
Much as the Rule of Holes is "If you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging", the Rule of Secrets should be "If you're doing embarrassing things you feel the need to keep secret, first stop doing them."
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
A state secret is something that needs to be secret in order to protect the lives of the citizens of that state
But politicians are citizens too and these secrets often protect their political lives so its almost the same right? Sarcasm aside there are other things which should be 'protected' e.g. the frank and honest opinions of diplomats about the foreign governments they deal with. It's hard to see how these will protect lives. Perhaps the level for being allowed to reveal 'secrets' should be evidence of a crime and/or deliberately misleading the public. This actually used to be in the UK official secrets act as the "public interest" defence but that was removed in 1989.
Everything should be made public, this does 2 things it forces the "State" to act and repair or protect items, the second is it stems corruption so efficiently the cities wouldn't know what to do with all the extra money.
Anyone stating they need to keep secrets is the enemy.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
and others. This is the true reason they seek power to silence the people.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I thought the British government outlawed principled action decades ago during the Macmillan administration.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Well first off let me start by Saying, I can tell by your Comment's you are all Aware of what this Arse is Doing.But what struck me as Funny is they do the Same tactics in America, FEAR is their best Friend. I noticed He Said ( 'new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism.' ) So People Must Trust What you say, is LIKELY to or Capable of Facilitating TERRORISM? Mr. Blair? first off we are not Children Sir, And we are Aware of your Illusion of trying to make up new Laws to protect all your Secrets, And using fear to Manipulate the People, So that you Can establish A tighter Security for all the things you do wrong. Well Sir Guess what , I am aware of the Fact that you sir are a Dying Breed. You Can't Scare people any more. You want us to believe that you are a Psychic, to think that you know what might happen , And in fact the People know the real Terrorist is the Government's, And their Lust for Resources, Power and Money. > Hows that for An AMERICAN W/ a 9th grade Education. Power to the People!!!!! I wish you the Best from America. KEEP UP THE FIGHT
Yep. Watched that one a while back. Pretty sure I followed a link someone posted on /., don't recall now who it might have been or which discussion, so let me express my thanks here.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
This man does not understand that the state has no rights - only the people have rights. The influence this authoritarian has on government needs to be severely curtailed. What a pity then we can't vote him out.
From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions people can take to help change the situation.
Have more ideas? Reply below & I'll add them to the list
Links worthy of attention:
Suggestion #1:
If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.
Let your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage those you know to do the same.
If enough people let their representatives know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.
Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,especially if it is on corporate letterhead.
Suggestion #2:
Take back what's ours through technology and educated practices.
Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity.
Also, Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed to be!
Suggestion #4:
What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.
Suggestion #5:
Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will always lead to the mess we have now. The only contribution towards politics I've made in years was to fund Approval Voting video. It's the best compromise for a replacement system. Work to get it allowed at your Town or City level, then we can take it higher.
Suggestion #6:
[Paraphrasing]: Start a social perception that working for evil is evil. Possibly connect this to religious beliefs, but in general shun people who have worked for the system as promoting evil (both in hiring and socially).
The post:
1) this kind of sht is morally wrong
2) thus, working for this kind of sht is morally wrong
3) thus, anybody who works for this kind of sht is going to hell, for
whatever your value of 'hell'.
4) you might say that 'i need the money from this gig', but
5) anybody who works for this kind of sht is feeding their kids but is
at the same time fscking over the kids' future bigtime. Your kids will
not forgive you for being the AC IRL.
From this, it should easily emerge that everybody should just stop working for this sht. No workers, no NSA. There needs to emerge a culture and a movement to encourage it. Shame the spineless coward who works for the Man! Shun him or tell him what he does is evil and his country hates him for it. Spread the word!