NationStates Jolt Archive

It's my 3,333rd post and I figured I'd do something more useful than normally, as well as contribute almost immediately after returning to this big beautiful boatful of retards.

Last night I finished reading Greg Bear's "Eon". I won't spoil anything too much for those interested, but throughout the book there was a constant issue of critically important information being regulated in the interest of A. Protecting the world from panic which may not in fact be justified and B. Keeping the damned commies in the dark (the book was written just before the fall of the Soviet Union). There was, of course, a spy involved, and information did, ultimately get out, though not soon enough to prevent catastrophe.

So what I've been left with a desire to discuss is this: At what point do you, Generalites, cross the line between "need to know basis" and "everyone needs to know, dammit!" Are there things, dare I say truths, that would actually do the public disservice to know, or should all knowledge, no matter how "dangerous" be out in the open and revealed as soon as it's found?

The idealist in me says that all information should be everyone's.

The realist says that such could be dangerous and that the world isn't all that friendly.

It's my 3,333rd post and I figured I'd do something more useful than normally, as well as contribute almost immediately after returning to this big beautiful boatful of retards.

Last night I finished reading Greg Bear's "Eon". I won't spoil anything too much for those interested, but throughout the book there was a constant issue of critically important information being regulated in the interest of A. Protecting the world from panic which may not in fact be justified and B. Keeping the damned commies in the dark (the book was written just before the fall of the Soviet Union). There was, of course, a spy involved, and information did, ultimately get out, though not soon enough to prevent catastrophe.

So what I've been left with a desire to discuss is this: At what point do you, Generalites, cross the line between "need to know basis" and "everyone needs to know, dammit!" Are there things, dare I say truths, that would actually do the public disservice to know, or should all knowledge, no matter how "dangerous" be out in the open and revealed as soon as it's found?

"If you knew all the deep, dark secrets your government was up to, you would curl up under your bed crying and waiting for the inevitable end of the world."
Global Frequency

It's my 3,333rd post and I figured I'd do something more useful than normally, as well as contribute almost immediately after returning to this big beautiful boatful of retards.

Last night I finished reading Greg Bear's "Eon". I won't spoil anything too much for those interested, but throughout the book there was a constant issue of critically important information being regulated in the interest of A. Protecting the world from panic which may not in fact be justified and B. Keeping the damned commies in the dark (the book was written just before the fall of the Soviet Union). There was, of course, a spy involved, and information did, ultimately get out, though not soon enough to prevent catastrophe.

So what I've been left with a desire to discuss is this: At what point do you, Generalites, cross the line between "need to know basis" and "everyone needs to know, dammit!" Are there things, dare I say truths, that would actually do the public disservice to know, or should all knowledge, no matter how "dangerous" be out in the open and revealed as soon as it's found?


I don't know if it's the aftereffect of the combination of the brown sugar goodness of Pam Grier mixed with the creamy succulence of Margaret Markov, or if it's the gin and the pot...or if perhaps your post really is fantastic...but I dub this one of the most interesting threads I've seen on NSG in quite a while.

I don't know if it's the aftereffect of the combination of the brown sugar goodness of Pam Grier mixed with the creamy succulence of Margaret Markov, or if it's the gin and the pot...or if perhaps your post really is fantastic...but I dub this one of the most interesting threads I've seen on NSG in quite a while.

Aw, thanks. (Not from me, from the gin and pot)

All I have to say is "Setec Astronomy".

Well...

It's also an issue of access (or dissemination) and priority. Say we make all knowledge a priority, and anything the government learns through any of its various administrative or bureaucratic bodies is released immediately to the public. How would they do this? Specific Ministry-grouped publications? A single publication reporting every event/discovery/shred-of-new-info as it comes? You'd have to have people putting that information into context for it to be at all useful...but then again, you could simply choose to deluge the public with the raw data, and wash your hands of it. You could leave it to the public to decipher the info for themselves, rather than expend the effort and cost of hiring people to make said info more palatable.

More likely, some information would be judged more important and immediate. How that would be decided, who would judge, is problematic. Would those decisions be entirely political? Essentially censoring the information in a way by deprioritizing certain data and prioritizing others?

In either situation, you'd be releasing ALL information, and no one could accuse you of censorship. It's unlikely that the information would be very useful to people in general, and if no one took it upon themselves to properly analyse the info coming out, what would it matter if you released things that were formerly classified as secrets?

In the past we would have suspected large scale espionage operations, assuming always that someone was watching, deciphering, expending enormous energy and resources to get our secrets. There was therefore a very pressing need to keep certain things secret. I'm not sure that's a viable belief anymore. I'm not saying it's not a viable possibility though, but I wonder if that belief could possibly be motivating governments in the Western world at the moment. Certainly when the cold war was at it's height, the general populace was also suspicious, and 'aware of the danger' and it seems to me that now, people worry a bit about terrorism, but not so much about espionage. Whether that 'general feeling' among the public is an accurate way of gauging the political motivations of the executive branches in the West, I'm not entirely certain, but I suspect it is.

Seems to me that general apathy makes it less dangerous to release ALL information than perhaps was the case before. You've got all these conspiracy theory wingnuts as it is, and very few people take them seriously...what's the danger of a few more? Compared to the political benefit of being an 'open and transparent' government?

Aw, thanks. (Not from me, from the gin and pot)
Channeling my gin and pot?


It'd be way awesomer if you could channel Pam Grier (http://www.cinemaisdope.com/news/films/blackmamawhitemama/1000-1.jpg).

Picked "Screened information for some, eventually!" without realizing that screened meant censored, but I do believe that information that can lead to bad things happening should be withheld until a time comes that said bad things can't happen. That is when the information should be released with nothing edited in or out.

For instance, I don't think it would make sense to release the blueprints for the Manhattan Project until after Germany canceled its nuclear program (regardless of the fact it wasn't even that good of a program).

Making it all available without necessarily pumping it through the loudspeakers may indeed work best, though there'll inevitably be a rash of Douglas Adams-esque cases of people not knowing because they didn't go down to the city planners to see the blueprints. I wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's right to be ignorant, though.

The other side of the coin would be withholding information because of the possibility of it being used against you. Not in the blackmail sort of way, but more int he realm of military intelligence. For example, a man is curious because while fishing one day, he sees what looks like a large metal bunker underwater in the Potomac. He asks questions and demands answers be made public about secret military operations on the east coast. What if this is wartime, and this is some kind of defense system? Letting that kind of information out would afford some strategic advantage to the enemy.

It's a very fine line, in some cases.

Making it all available without necessarily pumping it through the loudspeakers may indeed work best, though there'll inevitably be a rash of Douglas Adams-esque cases of people not knowing because they didn't go down to the city planners to see the blueprints.

Number of such cases depending on whether or not they keep it in the basement guarded by a leopard.

The idealist in me says that all information should be everyone's.

The realist says that such could be dangerous and that the world isn't all that friendly.

What that one said.

Some information should be available to everyone (e.g. an upcoming candidate's three conviction for grand embezzling).

Some information should be highly restricted (e.g. missile launch codes).

By suggesting to release *even sensitive* information, do you include IFF codes, fighter avionics software source code, locations and orders of USN submarines?

i think the question becomes: who needs what information to not be known?

obviously tactitions, managing their end of some sort of conflict, need to not telegraph their next moves, but really, that's just about it.

far too much useful information is withheld, just because someone or some several, who might be 'embarrassed' by it, are in a position to be able to do so.

of course intimate personal details don't need to become public information either. but nothing about how anything works, no knowledge someone could create or explore with, has any moral legitimacy being withheld, or even 'controlled'.

I'm just coming up with this off the top of my head.....so it's probably not good.

Tests:
*Who does it affect? (everyone, someone, a certain group)
*Can that person/persons do anything about it? (prevent it, etc.)
*Is there someone that can cause chaos or harm with this knowledge?
*Is someone being protected by the knowledge being censored? (a spy's identity, a population in the case of launch codes)

that sounds right. Its called commen sense. Sadly political motives get thrown in.