
Lord Blair: we need laws to stop 'principled' leaking of state secrets - pwg
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/26/lord-blair-laws-principled-leaking
======
cageface
Having spent quite a bit of time in the last three years living in countries
where there is no free press or protection for critics of the government at
all, I feel I can pretty confidently say that a completely unanswerable
government is far more of a threat to its people than any outside terrorist
threat could ever be. Without checks on government power, corruption is
absolute.

If people that have been carefully vetted for security clearance are willing
to risk their freedom and perhaps even their lives to bring to light abuses of
government power we should _protect_ them.

~~~
ekianjo
> outside terrorist

We all know this is a big word to make headlines and influence people to be in
favor of extreme laws. No country has ever been destroyed by Terrorism.
Terrorism is, before all, a political tool. That's why States finance
terrorist actions (the archives are full of that) to reach political means.

------
pwg
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in
order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to
establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The
object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

George Orwell, 1984

------
tinco
He argues that the release of this knowledge facilitates terrorism. I'm
curious, has there actually been a leaked secret that could facilitate
terrorism?

Perhaps in the accidental leaks back when the password for all those
diplomatic cables leaked?

Or is the only way they facilitate terrorism that they make the public
mistrust the authorities?

~~~
petercooper
It would be hard to prove with the existing leaks, but there are certainly
forms of information that _could_ be considered very valuable to and likely to
incite known terrorist groups, no? I'm thinking things like detailed floor
plans for embassies, personal info about members of the special forces,
confirmations of extralegal executions and details of the people who carried
them out, etc.

So far it seems no-one who has leaked information has had the clearance to get
to the truly painful stuff, but the psychological screening to get to those
levels is specifically designed to keep potential Snowdens and Mannings out.

~~~
madaxe
Sorry, which known terrorist groups? If you say Al Qaeda, you're forgetting
that there's still not a single attack in the west which has, in a court of
law, been shown to be their doing.

"The Terrorists" are "The Reds" are "The Jews". It's not "us and them" because
there is no "us" and "them". There's just "us".

~~~
LargeWu
It almost seems as though you're asserting that facts can only be established
by court trials, which is a farcical notion. Sorry, but just because there was
never a trial doesn't mean Al Qaeda wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks.

~~~
madaxe
Really? So you'd argue that we should sentence people, and pass judgment on
groups, without any legal basis?

Without a trial, there is _NO VERDICT_. The entire point of the judiciary is
to adjudicate - and without their judgment, in legal standing (which is what,
y'know, laws, such as those being proposed, are based upon), there is no fact,
nor precedent.

There's no doubt in my mind that Mickey Mouse and the Legion of Doom carried
out the 9/11 attacks. I mean, who needs a trial or a legal process to reach a
conclusion about a legal matter?

~~~
aninhumer
>So you'd argue that we should sentence people, and pass judgment on groups,
without any legal basis?

Of course not. We should obviously have a trial before passing _sentence_ on
any individual, but it's ridiculous to suggest that legal judgements are the
only valid way to establish facts about a particular situation. There were no
trials relating to 9/11 because anyone who could have been sentenced is either
dead or in another country. So suggesting that a trial be used as the burden
of proof in this case is preposterous.

~~~
laumars
In a way, you're both right.

You are correct in saying that particular example (9/11) cannot be be tried in
court. Sometimes the perpetrators are obvious and sometimes it's impossible to
follow established court proceedings to legally appoint the blame.

But the former poster is also correct that we shouldn't go around passing
judgements without taking matters to court and giving all parties a fair
opportunity to prove their case.

This is the problem that the government face, they do occasionally need
special powers to combat unusual circumstances. The problem is knowing where
to toe the line. In my opinion, they've hop, skipped and jumped over that
line.

------
w_t_payne
We are facing a troubling future as increasingly squeezed natural resources
combine with the ever mounting public debt burden to create a toxic
environment, perfectly suited to breed civil unrest, subversion, and anti-
authoritarianism, terrorism and open revolt.

The stability and security of a well-ordered society demands conformance to
certain social norms and limits on behaviour. These limits must be upheld even
in the face of rising food insecurity, income inequality, and economic
distress.

The protection of civil order requires the enforcement of conformance to
behavioural norms, which in turn demands that that we crack down on
destabilising influences, both in traditional and digital/distributed media.

Fortunately, modern digital tools allow the state to monitor and control
discourse, behaviour and thought as never before. These tools must be
exploited to their full potential, and dissent and nonconforming behaviour -
in all it's forms, must be detected, isolated, and crushed immediately.

For example, forums such as this one are hotbeds of dissent - anarchic and
destructive cess-pits of ideological filth that lead our vulnerable and easily
influenced youth astray.

The state must identify the minority of subversive participants in these
forums who are actively encouraging dissent -- and must silence them, for the
good of a well-ordered society.

------
sspiff
He claims the release of information facilitates terrorism, without sharing
any argumentation: no examples, not even hypothetical scenarios, nothing.

He's asking to restrict the sharing of information, supposedly information on
how "the government fights terrorism". He glosses over the fact that once law
enforcement can persecute people for sharing some information, it is
incredibly easy to persecute people for the sharing of _any_ information if it
choses to. Power creep is a scary and dangerous thing, and it is very hard
(impossible?) to guard against it.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
This is from a person who persued the initiation of an illegal war. I was
watching as Blair said "If you knew what I know, you would support [our war]"
(paraphrasing). It turned out of course that he knew nothing that would
justify a war. Why would we expect anything less than draconian measures from
Blair on the issue of state secrets?

Reference for illegality of the war:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War)

------
rlpb
"The peer insisted there was material the state had to keep secret, and powers
had to be in place to protect it."

How does he propose that we keep a check on the state to make sure that it is
not abusing its powers? Did he omit to mention this obvious flaw in his
proposal, or is it an omission of the journalist reporting on what he said?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>" _Did he omit to mention this obvious flaw in his proposal_ " //

Is it a "flaw". Surely it's impossible to have a system where the state retain
information as secret that yet has third-party oversight and doesn't require
the populous to trust a person in power (the third-party).

It seems more to be an outcome or corollary than a[n unexpected] error or
"flaw".

~~~
officemonkey
Here's a work around for the "flaw."

Reduce the need for secret information.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
No. A work around would have to entirely remove the need for secret
information.

~~~
noarchy
This. The "need" for secret information frequently means covering up for
whatever rotten thing the government is doing somewhere. Decades later, you
get to see the declassified documents, and you can see why the criminals of
the time wanted it all kept a "secret".

~~~
officemonkey
There are legitimate needs for secret (or protected) government information.

However, over-classification tends toward the abuses you fear.

------
adaml_623
What we actually need are laws that make it an offence for any government to
cover up projects and operations that materially impact the lives and rights
of their citizens. Whether a single citizen or all of them are affected it
should be a punishable offence if higher ups cover up the actions of a
government official.

~~~
JulianMorrison
What you should be learning from this is that there is no government that
rules government - that laws, constitutions, and democracy exist only when and
where those in power believe they ought to. I'm not arguing they're all amoral
monsters. Often, it's their moral side that's the problem. They want a
reasonable thing, such as protection from terrorism, and they sweep all
impediments aside to obtain it, because they care, and they can.

------
devx
This is getting very scary. Politicians who say something like this at any
time, should be met with extreme outrage and make them lose whatever position
they're holding _immediately_. Otherwise they'll get their way, rise to power,
and attract more like him there.

What he's saying is unacceptable, but I fear many in the governments think
like that right now, which why extreme outrage over this is so important.

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
_This is getting very scary. Politicians who say something like this at any
time, should be met with extreme outrage and make them lose whatever position
they 're holding immediately._

Ian Blair is a Life Peer, not a politician. The UK's House of Lords is not a
democratic institution even in pretense.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords)

------
ams6110
Snowden did not leak the information he did because he felt that states should
not have secrets. I think any reasonable person would agree that there is
information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. What Snowden did
was in response to abusive overreach in secret domestic surveillance, which
(to me anyway) is quite different.

~~~
madaxe
* > I think any reasonable person would agree that there is information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. *

Such as? Why should the state have a higher expectation of privacy than its
citizens, if it's representative of them?

~~~
jasonwocky
Names of undercover agents infiltrating criminal organizations, to start?

~~~
madaxe
You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest groups?

You see, the thing is, as soon as you say "well, clearly X needs to be
secret", you open the avenue for all of the unintended, unforeseen uses of
said secrecy.

The only solution, as far as the state is concerned, is to have no secrets.
Undercover police/intelligence work would be obviated by not defining economic
and social systems which engender the kind of behaviour that mandates such in
the first place.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest group

Yes. And when they leave, abandoning the infant child that they had with a
member of the protest group. Yes, that happened.

------
001sky
_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"._

== What. The. Fuck.

~~~
adamnemecek
Didn't you get the memo? When someone says that something is causing
terrorism, you must stop thinking about it and just take their word for it.

~~~
jrockway
Memos can be used by terrorists, so no I did not get a memo, terrorist.

------
guard-of-terra
Next time you hear the word 'terrorists', stop listening.

~~~
sthulbourn
Correction: Every time you see or hear "terrorists" replace it with
"citizens".

> Lord Blair told BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House programme: "The state has
> to have secrets – that's how it operates against _citizens_.

~~~
marcuspovey
[http://skunk.marcus-
povey.co.uk/debogotron/?url=http://www.t...](http://skunk.marcus-
povey.co.uk/debogotron/?url=http://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2013/aug/26/lord-blair-laws-principled-leaking)

:)

------
toddnessa
We know we have a problem when transparency is largely demonized. Allegations
of "terrorism" seems to be bringing much benefit to government. I saw a movie
recently from the 1980's called "They Live!" I noticed that in the movie the
word terrorism, allegations of terrorism or terrorists toward those who
opposed them, was the weapon of control of the disguised, camelion
totalitarian regime in power. Only those with special glasses could see them.
It would seem as if this would be the playbook in protecting criminal
government activity done under the auspices of law. Al Capone would have
drooled for such type of power.

Top Secret should not be an excuse to undermine the law, the rights of
individuals, and the Constitution of the United States. Those who witness such
crimes have the duty to come forward to the public. By keeping quiet and
turning a blind eye to crime, one partners with it.

Crime grows in the dark while the light of day exposes it. Freedom requires
transparency. A war on whistle-blowers is really a type of barometer as to the
amount of freedom that we really have.

------
spindritf
This is not even politics. This is irrelevant politics. The article boils down
to a retiree saying something.

~~~
moocowduckquack
Afraid not. He used to be less political than he is now. He used to be in the
police, now he is a life peer and gets to actually vote on stuff.

~~~
hipsters_unite
A policeman joining the police state lobby. Well, I never.

~~~
Silhouette
He's not a mere lobbyist, though. He sits in the House of Lords, where he
wields actual legislative power but has no corresponding accountability to the
electorate.

If you ever wondered why so many people have been campaigning for an elected
second chamber in the UK, now you know.

~~~
vixen99
And who elects them? Politicians ready to bestow favours. Thus we have a self-
appointed club. Hereditary peers had at least one worthwhile characteristic in
that they owed their position to no one save a long-dead ancestor.

~~~
hipsters_unite
I think he means a second chamber elected by voters. That's certainly what I
mean.

------
arethuza
So he is wanting a new law to cover people who haven't signed the Official
Secrets Act from spreading information that is covered by that act?

Given how existing legislation is abused I would hate to see how that could be
used. What if I've read something secret that I shouldn't have - would I be
commiting Thought Crime?

~~~
cwoac
Actually the provisions of the OSA cover you even if you _haven 't_ signed it.
Signing it is generally just a reminder thing, hence the fact that if you have
to sign it once, you will probably end up signing it several times (when you
join, when you leave, when you change roles, etc).

The OSA primarily covers how you handle secret information that you
legitimately have access to. He was talking about stuff _outside_ the scope of
the OSA - i.e. when you acquire material that you shouldn't have to start
with.

~~~
001sky
Good point, but still, one still needs to just laugh at this guy. The idea tha
any idea (data, knowledge) can be mis-used for terrorism is non-falsifiable
hypothesis. It makes a mockery of the adverserial justice system.

Many pieces of data can be used for such purposes. Its precisely the
_innocence_ of the victims and the _innocuous_ and everyday nature of the
means, that is the purposes of this new bloody sport.

THE TERRORISTS WENT TO FRIGGIN FLIGHT SCHOOL.

We taught them how to fly a guided missile into a FRIGGIN SKYSCRAPER.

We gave the STUDENT VISAS.

~~~
einhverfr
Teaching people how to fly can facilitate terrorist acts. Therefore we must
arrest all flight instructors.

~~~
regularfry
s/flight instructors/flight manual authors, readers, flight sim writers,
players, planespotters, and anyone who knows what an NACA 0012 is/

~~~
einhverfr
I'd say lock up everyone and let the juries sort them out but I wonder where
we'd get juries in that case....

------
ajb
This is probably an attempt to move the 'overtone window'
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window)

~~~
rwmj
It's an attempt, but I suspect one which moves it in the opposite direction to
what he intends.

------
otikik
"The state has to have secrets – that's how it operates against terrorists"

Secrecy allows the state to do a lot of things.

~~~
rvkennedy
Defenders of the State on this issue tend to answer the question they _want_
to be asked - "should the state have secrets".

No-one (except maybe Julian Assange) is arguing that the State shouldn't have
secrets - the recent leaks occurred not as a blow against secrecy but to
expose State wrongdoing. That's why it's whistleblowing, and not just
vandalism.

Guys like Blair like to pretend that they're fighting for the government's
right to keep secrets, which no-one is seriously challenging; they run shy of
addressing the specific secrets exposed - be it military misbehaviour against
civilians, civil servants deceiving lawmakers and so on.

------
mbesto
The root cause of all of this is really simple - our definition of terrorism,
and the fact that we are at war with it. The solution is unfavorably not
simple.

First thing's first, we need to redefine what constitutes terrorism, otherwise
this situation will only get worse.

------
fab13n
As often with powerful tools, what we miss is an effective counter-power to
restore balance. In this case, I'd investigate:

* making it a crime for officials to use anti-terrorism provisions without a serious enough ground (this poses the problem of legally defining "serious enough")

* nullifying any legal procedure which uses anti-terrorist laws yet doesn't yield a terrorist indictment (Today, sticking a terrorist charge on an investigation just gives free super powers to judges and cops; with this caveat, making terrorist claims would become an all-or-nothing gamble, which would be used much more carefully)

~~~
Loughla
From what I've seen in the US political and judicial system (I may be too
cynical), I believe that the following would happen:

Point 1: The definition of what is "serious" would be so watered down and full
of political rhetoric that anyone, at any time could be found to be a 'serious
threat'.

Point 2: This would simply increase the amount of 'terrorism' convictions, and
may actually lead to a quicker trials and harsher sentences --- surely the
police and prosecution wouldn't bring a charge to MY court unless it was
serious! Look at the new law that makes it so!

The issue is that the people using the powerful tools are also the same people
allowed to write the checks and balances. . . .

------
nicholassmith
Great, so the government would have laws that prevent us from ever knowing
what they think is an acceptable level of surveillance of our daily lives.
That has no potential for misuse.

I get that the leaks could potentially give an advantage to terrorists, but if
they're so smart they're following the leaks with baited breath and reworking
their tactics, the likelihood is they're probably already avoid using channels
that they believe are compromised. If they're using channels that are
compromised they're probably too ineffective to pull off a large scale terror
attack.

~~~
coldtea
Well, as for the bad guys, most of the public perception of them seems to be
based on Holywood movies. In real life their sophistication seems to be
absolute BS -- crude stuff that only works (sporadically at that) because a)
it's simple to the point that nobody can prevent such stuff anyway, b) the
agencies let it happen, c) the agencies are incompetent.

I don't believe they blocked any large scale stuff we don't know about. If
they did, they would be shouting it on the rooftops, to show how effective and
necessary they are.

~~~
nicholassmith
That's the argument isn't it, 'we need this to protect you, but we can't tell
because it's super classified'.

------
s_q_b
If you want to see the largely-tamed press suddenly become rabidly anti-
national security, go ahead guys.

The press is still massively powerful in the UK, and even more so in the
United States, where the First Amendment still holds relatively strong. More
importantly than any legal protection, civil society won't stand for it.

I think I've made clear through previous comments that, by HN standards, I'm
slightly to the right of the Kaiser on SIGINT to prevent terrorism. Large
scale persecution of the press would be enough to get even me to consider
switching sides.

------
netcan
He is right about one thing: times are changing and our institutions need to
change too.

There are things considered to be "tenants of democracy." Press freedoms
(independence, access, source anonymity) political rights (secret ballots,
right to organize, rights to protest). People actively claiming those rights
is seen as a sign of health for democracy. If a government is harassing
journalists, finding out people's vote or preventing political protests we
immediately see this as an attack on democracy. These are protected by public
opinion (formed over generations), courts and basic/fundamental/constitutional
laws, usually old ones. They are not protected by governments.

If the definition of "leak" or whistleblower is left to governments (pretty
much any current government in the world), they will define them as some
variant of "traitor" or "terrorist."

In order for a distinction to be made between someone who makes information
available to The People and someone who make information available to The
Enemy, courts need to be involved. They need to have basic laws to lean on.

BTW, I think that distinction is incredibly clear. All the cases under
discussion made information available to the US public (and in some cases the
subjects of other governments). They were primarily of interest to the US
public. I believe independent courts would be able to make that distinction
easily.

------
Mordor
Yeah, I get the logic: 'terrorism' is knowing what the government is doing.
Perhaps there's another logic: a government which hides in the shadows
terrorizes everyone.

------
mcintyre1994
Why don't 'they' get it? What the Guardian has leaked does not benefit
terrorists, and I've heard nobody make a case that it does. Until they make
that case, the reason this was hidden was not because of terrorists unless
we've widened the definition to preliminarily classify the whole worked as
such.

Sure there's stuff that's reasonable to keep secret (in my opinion), but if
this is identified as such that just weakens the case for any of it being
secret.

------
ihsw
And the "War on Dissent" rears its ugly head again. Anyone that doesn't gladly
salute the state is "terrorist."

------
deveac
_> "I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when somebody
possesses material which is secret without having authority."_

Terrifying.

This describes journalists and news organizations unless his proposed ratchet-
tightening carves out clear and bold exceptions, which are, by definition, not
clear, bold, or easy to define in this age of new media.

------
Fuxy
What the hell makes this guy a lord? Secrets are secret because they are
controversial or out right illegal (from what Snowden has showed us at least).
So what he's basically telling us is the government should be allowed to be
above the law because they need to catch terrorist while at the same time
broadening the definition by including journalists reporting of the truth. The
only people these journalists re terrorizing are the people in power who are
hiding their abuses of power by classifying them top secret.

------
trekky1700
Does anyone have an original thought on this, or is everyone going to keep
saying "this is bad because I read it in a book about bad things"?

I personally, coming from admittedly a position of ignorance where I don't
know what secrets may or may not exist and what their implications may or may
not be, have trouble picking a side. As we don't know the secrets, any opinion
we take on them, other than a general one, is purely emotional.

------
bdcravens
Aren't there laws already in place? If I have access to confidential
information, and I disseminate, there's criminal and civil consequences.

Laws that revolve around preemptive action to prevent something that's already
illegal (war on terror, gun control) offer marginal benefit at the cost of
making life difficult for those who wouldn't have violated the laws already in
place.

------
kalms
How is this not a bigger deal? This man is completely mind boggling. Is the
corruption in the UK really this bad?

------
shortcj
There must needs be an independent and viable channel for whistle blowers to
report government abuse to and be protected from retaliation. The problem with
terrorist is real; but there is also a real problem with bad/corrupt
government cronies.

------
ttt_
The State is the one that must have no expectations of privacy and in fact be
held to rigorous transparency an independent audit, not the other way around.

Like in software, security that relies on closed source is in fact more
vulnerable.

------
alan_cx
Well, if government stopped abusing our trust, we wouldn't need leaks. What
this ex policeman is saying is that we have no right to know if government and
his lot in the police are abusing the power we grant them.

What a surprise.

------
DominikR
Most people don't challenge the states right to keep secrets, what Snowden,
Assange and others challenge is the right to commit crimes and keep them
secret.

------
amykhar
Then maybe governments should stop doing things that require people of
principle to have to make the difficult decision to leak state secrets.

------
polyvisual
Coming from Ian Blair, this is fairly unsurprising. It's amazing he's even
being put in print, given his prior behaviour.

------
guizzy
I've got a great way to do that, no law necessary!

Stop having state secrets that 'principled' people will want to leak!

------
scrabble
Is it just me, or are the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" starting to lose
their meanings?

~~~
unimpressive
Did they ever have any?

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a
means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no
legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of
terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear
(terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and
deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of
similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce
a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions
may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The
writer Heinrich Böll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested
that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social
oppression.[3][4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this
greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies
have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism
may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals
with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8]
and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against
opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the
state).[8][9]"

\- wikipedia, at the time of writing

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)

------
madaxe
We're not in _1984_. We're not in _Brave New World_. We're not even in
Zamyatin's _We_. We're in bloody _Brazil_.

    
    
                                         INTERVIEWER
                             Deputy minister, what do you believe 
                             is behind this recent increase in 
                             terrorist bombings?
    
                                         HELPMANN
                             Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless 
                             minority of people seems to have 
                             forgotten certain good old fashioned 
                             virtues. They just can't stand 
                             seeing the other fellow win. If 
                             these people would just play the 
                             game, instead of standing on the 
                             touch line heckling
    
                                         INTERVIEWER
                             In fact, killing people
    
                                         HELPMANN
                             In fact, killing people  they'd 
                             get a lot more out of life.
    
                   We PULL AWAY from the shop to concentrate on the shoppers. 
                   Helpmann's voice carries over the rest of the scene.
    
                                         INTERVIEWER
                             Mr. Helpmann, what would you say 
                             to those critics who maintain that 
                             the Ministry Of Information has 
                             become too large and unwieldy... ?
    
                                         HELPMANN
                             David... in a free society 
                             information is the name of the 
                             game. You can't win the game if 
                             you're a man short.

~~~
fudyy
Not sure this is fair. The government isn't crazy like Deputy Minister
Helpmann in Brazil. It really is trying to do its job. Imagine if every
American football coach had to announce his play to the other team. What
purpose would there be in it? So, there needs to be a system in place that
helps keep secrets. But, the question is how should those that expose secrets
be dealt with? No one wants to deal with those exposing state secrets because
they are doing it to no one in particular, and aren't being seen as actively
trying to help terrorists. That is the problem and that is the reason we are
comparing things to the movie Brazil here.

Growing up in the U.S., we were all taught the history of our country, which
included Benedict Arnold. But very few see a parallel to Benedict Arnold in
Snowden. They cannot see how someone whose main claim to fame in the press has
been, "They are watching you!" has exposed state secrets. Neither do they
think Julian Assange is Benedict Arnold. Julian is just posed as a well-
meaning but much misled Australian hacker that probably got framed in a rape
case and is on the run, like a modern day Frank Abagnale, but with state
secrets instead of fake checks.

The fact is, our governments need respect in order to keep secrets better, but
prosecuting and hunting down these people is not the answer, neither are other
"control" techniques. They just need better security. If they had better
security, I for one would respect the fact that they said, "Oops! I guess I
left the playbook in front of the press tent. I guess I should keep it on my
person at all times."

~~~
madaxe
_> The government isn't crazy like Deputy Minister Helpmann in Brazil._

Who said Helpmann was crazy? He's perfectly sane and rational, from his frame
of reference. So are our governments. The issue arises when the subjective
reality in which ones leaders reside and the subjective reality in which you
reside are radically disconnected, which makes decisions and actions made by
either side seem irrational and scary.

I'd argue that governmental secrecy is bad, in all its forms, as it _always_
ends up being abused, from the perspective of the cit. I understand your
point, but it's demonstrably the case that secrecy begets secrecy, which
begets corruption.

I stand by my parallel of Brazil, for we do not exist under a brutal, evil,
autocratic government, nor under a consciously designed society intended to be
"better", but instead under a self-sustaining zombie bureaucracy that no
longer connects to the world it governs, and in fact is attempting to reshape
the subjective reality of others to suit its own ends - which are, in fact,
none, other than perpetuation of the status quo and hegemonic systemisation of
anything which conceivably can be - which was the crux of _Brazil_.

~~~
Svip
What I admire about Edward Snowden was that he leaked documents that revealed
secrets that are important for the public to know. But most importantly, his
leaks did not contain secrets about the whereabouts of American personnel. No
one was put in immediate danger because of his leaks. And Mr Snowden has
stated himself that was his intent; he had come across documents that revealed
a far reaching system that he simply could not justify not revealing.

However, while Mr Snowden's conduct was admirable, there will be some people
out there interested in state secrets, with the intent of malice. With the
intent of doing harm to the government, the state, people working for the
government/state or the people of that state.

I agree that secrecy is bad, but I feel we must at least have _some_ secrecy,
but clear and public requirements for when something can become (or remain)
secret.

~~~
belorn
Sweden has a relevant law to define a public requirement for when someone can
become liable for publishing secrets¹. It demands evidence that shows that the
information was correctly classified, and that some damage actually happened
from the publishing. Simply having a seal on the document is not enough.

The precedent case for this law happened during the cold war, and was about a
newspaper that published a counter-espionage report (Case: _NJA 1988 s. 118_
²).

The military argued that the national safety was damaged by the publishing,
but would not give any details because of the nature of doing national
security work.

The court made two tests to decide the case. Did the information deserve to be
classified under secrecy, and was the damages reported by the military
believable. On the first, they said it was doubtful, and on the second they
said a straight no. Case dismissed.

To me it sounds as very clear and public requirement, which would work fine in
both Snowden's and Manning's cases.

1) Please note that this is only about publishing secrets. Breaking a contract
or an oath can and is likely to be punished under different laws.

2) [https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/1988s118](https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/1988s118)

~~~
Svip
Was the law used in the 1988 ruling? Or was the law created following that
ruling? I assume it is the former, as Sweden is a Civil Law countries and
judgements don't make something enforceable.

But regardless, that is a decent enough requirement system. The military
refusing to present evidence in the case also hurt their argument, which is
how it should be.

~~~
belorn
Correct, the law(s) was made before the ruling. Sweden still use precedent
cases as guides, but they don't decide the law.

