Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
House Intel chair Turner (R-OH) warns of 'serious national security threat' ahead of planned White House briefing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 77566233" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>That's "the rub" as I see it...</p><p></p><p>There's two different perspectives (and there's validity to both)</p><p></p><p>1) Certain things have to remain secret because if they were public knowledge, that would both a- tip off potential enemies we're on to them (as you made reference to), and b- would cause panics that would destabilize and make bad situation worse</p><p></p><p>vs.</p><p></p><p>2) US taxpayers are paying to fund the US military industrial complex, and have a right to know what they're paying for. Which, at a basic level, I can understand the Ron/Rand Paul way of thinking on that. As, the notion of "you keep giving us your money, we can't tell you what we're doing with it, just know that we have your best interests in mind" doesn't necessarily sit well with a lot of people (and I get that)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Walking that delicate tightrope has always been a challenge for military superpowers. Two things that people almost universally dislike is having to pay taxes to fund these kinds of endeavors... and being kept in the dark on the details.</p><p></p><p>Whistleblowing made the situation even more murky...as the same entities we're supposed to entrust with keeping us safe (even if they can't share the details) were exposed as having been spying on American citizens.</p><p></p><p>The "unfortunate reality" of this whole thing is that in order for an entity to have enough surveillance power to keep Americans safe, that comes with the ability of performing the kind of warrantless "snooping" on people that leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths.</p><p></p><p>I heard an interview with a former SF operator (I forget the details of who was conducting the interview now, but I'm sure it'll keep me awake trying to think of it now that I'm mentioning it lol), but they called it "The Due Process Conundrum". What he was explaining was that you can't 100% due process & privacy and 100% security...and that it's more like assigning attribute points to a character in a video game "You've got these 100 points, you can allocate some to due process and privacy, and can allocate some to security...but they both can't be 100 simultaneously, they can only add up to 100"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 77566233, member: 123415"] That's "the rub" as I see it... There's two different perspectives (and there's validity to both) 1) Certain things have to remain secret because if they were public knowledge, that would both a- tip off potential enemies we're on to them (as you made reference to), and b- would cause panics that would destabilize and make bad situation worse vs. 2) US taxpayers are paying to fund the US military industrial complex, and have a right to know what they're paying for. Which, at a basic level, I can understand the Ron/Rand Paul way of thinking on that. As, the notion of "you keep giving us your money, we can't tell you what we're doing with it, just know that we have your best interests in mind" doesn't necessarily sit well with a lot of people (and I get that) Walking that delicate tightrope has always been a challenge for military superpowers. Two things that people almost universally dislike is having to pay taxes to fund these kinds of endeavors... and being kept in the dark on the details. Whistleblowing made the situation even more murky...as the same entities we're supposed to entrust with keeping us safe (even if they can't share the details) were exposed as having been spying on American citizens. The "unfortunate reality" of this whole thing is that in order for an entity to have enough surveillance power to keep Americans safe, that comes with the ability of performing the kind of warrantless "snooping" on people that leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. I heard an interview with a former SF operator (I forget the details of who was conducting the interview now, but I'm sure it'll keep me awake trying to think of it now that I'm mentioning it lol), but they called it "The Due Process Conundrum". What he was explaining was that you can't 100% due process & privacy and 100% security...and that it's more like assigning attribute points to a character in a video game "You've got these 100 points, you can allocate some to due process and privacy, and can allocate some to security...but they both can't be 100 simultaneously, they can only add up to 100" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
House Intel chair Turner (R-OH) warns of 'serious national security threat' ahead of planned White House briefing
Top
Bottom