Those rotten bastards, posting info anybody with the same legal status as a reporter (ie - US citizen) could have gotten, publicly.
Microsoft and countless other software companies have proven that security by obscurity works just great. Why not extend that to American national security? All it would take would be scuttling the First Amendment; a small price to pay, for true safety.
Here's American Gladiator. Here's fifty channels of it. Go back to bed, America. - Bill Hicks
Y'know, we could be really super safe if all our national security measures were made known to the general public and terrorist organizations abroad. Do we think we're any better than them? If it's good enough for the top levels of government to know, the public at large should be made aware of it.
The problems with our national security measures are obvious to anybody who cares to do as much investigation as the reporters did. Which excludes the vast majority of Americans . . . but no terrorists organizations that I can think of.
Case in point: the undocumented vulnerability that a plane full of fuel without proper security measures posed, several years back.
Let me repeat myself, lest I be misunderstood: security by obscurity does not work. It only prevents the vulnerable from knowing their plight, and thus having any hope of changing it.
I suppose it all depends on what group you consider vulnerable. If it the American people, what plight are they facing if we keep tabs on terrorist funds and communications. If it is the terrorists, then what do you care aboot their plight?
And if you're not a terrorist, why should you care if the government keeps tabs on every single thing you do, eh? Only a guilty person could object to being wiretapped and databased, and if they complain, that proves it.
And if you're not a terrorist, why should you care if the government keeps tabs on every single thing you do, eh?
Perhaps if I'm making phone calls to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern shitholes, I would expect that would take place. Just like when I was in the military using military phone lines, I could expect to be monitored.
And you seriously believe that the vast number of people they were tapping were doing anything like that? They were just using it as an excuse to keep tabs on anybody they didn't like -- that's why they couldn't be bothered to file for warrants, even in the generous after-the-fact time allotted by the law they were ignoring.
Okay, you got me. In all the red states, there are really underground caverns of secret smokey rooms fill with old white men with 1950's headphones listening to our conversations. Transcribing our every word so they provide it to Cheney and Gonzales. ssshhhh, don't tell anyone.
No. It's just that I don't see a boogey man around every corner of ANY administration...unless I use my super X-Ray specs provided by the freemasons. @.@
Look out, there's a terrorist behind you and he'll get you unless you allow the government to perform a lot of unnecessary surveillance of every aspect of your life.
I object because while in theory our government is for the people, there are individuals working in the government who can misuse information.
I do not drink, do drugs, engage in morally questionable acts or own any illeagal items/substances - yet I would not want my parents or friends rooting through my stuff or shadowing me.
I am not a terrorist- and I don't want the government to treat me as if I was one either. I want to be respected as a citizen who respects government's role and laws, pays taxes and understands the rules of society. As a citizen who does so, being treated as if I were at war with myself and society insults both my personal feelings and my society which theoretically respects the rights of individuals.
What exactly does this have to do with a civilian news organization publishing sensitive information it receives?
If the Times could find it out, so could a determined group of terrorists; this is not the Times' fault. How does keeping the Times from telling the people protect anybody except the terrorists (and those responsible for the vulnerability)?
Microsoft and countless other software companies have proven that security by obscurity works just great. Why not extend that to American national security? All it would take would be scuttling the First Amendment; a small price to pay, for true safety.
Here's American Gladiator. Here's fifty channels of it. Go back to bed, America. - Bill Hicks
Reply
Power to the people!
Reply
Case in point: the undocumented vulnerability that a plane full of fuel without proper security measures posed, several years back.
Let me repeat myself, lest I be misunderstood: security by obscurity does not work. It only prevents the vulnerable from knowing their plight, and thus having any hope of changing it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Perhaps if I'm making phone calls to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern shitholes, I would expect that would take place. Just like when I was in the military using military phone lines, I could expect to be monitored.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
That was close.
Reply
Reply
I do not drink, do drugs, engage in morally questionable acts or own any illeagal items/substances - yet I would not want my parents or friends rooting through my stuff or shadowing me.
I am not a terrorist- and I don't want the government to treat me as if I was one either. I want to be respected as a citizen who respects government's role and laws, pays taxes and understands the rules of society. As a citizen who does so, being treated as if I were at war with myself and society insults both my personal feelings and my society which theoretically respects the rights of individuals.
Reply
Reply
If the Times could find it out, so could a determined group of terrorists; this is not the Times' fault. How does keeping the Times from telling the people protect anybody except the terrorists (and those responsible for the vulnerability)?
Reply
Leave a comment