Some things the public should not be able to spy on. Using the example of the DEA, we can't have cartels knowing the identities of the DEA's informers, or when and where they're planning to make a bust. We can't have our citizens' tax records getting out of the IRS. And public relations would break down if we can't keep our allies secrets, either. Our military's plans shouldn't be made known to the enemy, of course. Many secrets are kept for good reason—letting it all out indiscriminately just doesn't make sense.
> we can't have cartels knowing the identities of the DEA's informers
You should learn about how CIs are blackmailed, used, and discarded, and, often enough die. If informants were outed and the use of CIs ended, it would be a benefit to everyone.
Wikileaks? Cables? We lost all our allies, right?
Don't fear radical transparency. It will be to your benefit.
Radical transparency would be good, so long as it's not exposed to everyone in the world. We often forget the multitude of wickedness in the world, and while the US government smells, there are actors on the outside that wouldn't hesitate to manipulate/destroy us the moment we free up information.
Undoubtedly, the power between the people and the government is unbalanced, but unrestricted transparency is not a one stop solution to the problem.
That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does?
Let's stipulate all the bad wickedness you would like me to think there is. How much of that has the actual means to threaten the US in any economically or militarily significant way?
With radical transparency may find that we're harming ourselves more by overspending on security theater, and that, for all their wickedness, most of those wicked people can't afford a bus ticket to the next town, much less to actually do anything with their wickedness.
> That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does?
Yes. Your intentions aren't malicious. There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm.
It shocks me how many people on this site seem to not understand that sometimes.
How is it logical that a few kids in SF building some world-changing piece of software is expected, but a few kids in _____ building a piece of software and whaling a few executives in the DOD, DOJ, DOE and damaging critical national infrastructure is beyond possibility.
How how does is it not clear that exposure of an infrastructure of information gathering would eradicate our ability to do anything but read newspapers about what's going on in the rest of the world?
Yes we need better or different protection against domestic spying. As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen.
We need a continuation of the values and knowledge development that our current tech-centric generations hold. When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.
> There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm.
Come off it, and stop watching "24" reruns. The risk you face, I face, everyone faces, is practically nil. We all know the numbers. You have no need to pay more attention to terrorism than you pay to lightning, or slipping in the bathtub.
Moreover, this is true in places that don't have an HSA, an NSA, a CIA, or an FBI. There is no difference in outcome regarding terrorism in Latvia where they all they can afford is to deploy an anti-terrorism potato, or in Alabama, where you have camo'ed citizens armed-up and waiting for ISIS to invade.
> As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen.
I think you underestimate them; i would say they are full well aware of exactly the implications, and that it seems to them like their wet dreams are coming true.
> When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.
I'm sorry, but i think this ship has already sailed. Or do you believe that currently a majority of "young people" do in fact "care about how their tech works"?
I'm going to have to go with no. I'm not going to kneel before some spectre of Actors on the Outside (ooooOOOOooohhh).
We live in perhaps the finest times of this specie's history, and it's foolish to limit and harm ourselves out of an unspecified anxiety that somebody, somewhere could do something to harm us. We cannot live in fear.
Security through obscurity? No doubt a great deal would need to change, but we've tried the method of giving a select group of individuals an immense amount of power and hoping for the best. It hasn't worked out that well. So I'd recommend that you consider the present situation, because the prospect of you knowing my tax information, by comparison, doesn't seem so bad.
Interesting—I haven't seen that term used that way before. If I encrpyt my customers' private data using a well-publicized encryption method, is it still security through obscurity, simply because they are secrets?
No. That would be like saying a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. The concept requires a great deal of torturing to get there :)
Anyway, the whole idea that the state needs to operate in secret to perform its duties is ridiculous and only serves bad actors. Who would seriously wish for a secret police force anyway? Maybe we should be focusing on preventing and deescalating, through systemic and scalable solutions, instead of masked weekend warriors kicking down doors and shooting people. Also, if you want a laugh - here is a funny story about what happens when you allow the DEA to operate in secret: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a...
> a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key.
I don't know, that's not such a bad analogy. To put it another way, a key is just a really funny way to write down a bunch of numbers, and a key-lock is just a really esoteric number-pad.
People have actually broken into houses by cutting working keys from pictures they took of victims unlocking their doors—so it's not even obscurity aiding the security per se (or rather, it used to be, but then we greatly standardized the way key-locks work.) Instead, it's just concealment, like the concealed face of a credit card in your wallet.
If you keep the key on the same machine as the data, it might be the specific kind of "security through obscurity" that is more commonly referred to as "DRM."
> What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?
Normal people don't have a moat.
A major reason that e.g. home invasions are risky (and thus are deterred) is that the criminal doesn't know when the mark or the neighbors will be away from home, what security may be in place or whether there is anything worth stealing. If you put that information on the internet for anyone then every time you come home from work all your electronics will be missing.
Replacing that "security through obscurity" with actual physical security is not something most people can afford.
What is more likely: I was suggesting that people secure their homes with a moat; or I was demonstrating that, contrary to the post I was responding to, not all security relies upon obscurity?
And what good is physical security if you don't have it? If it doesn't exist in practice then pointing out that it exists in theory is just being pedantic.
lol, ok buddy - being described as pedantic by a person who just helpfully volunteered the revelation that normal people don't have moats is just too weird.
