Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

The War on Public Knowledge 91

Posted by Hemos from the removing-things-from-the-domain dept.
SnapShot writes "There's a very scary article at slate about the revision and reclassification of public, U.S. Government documents made available over the last thirty years. This is supposedly to protect us from the terrorists. Do you feel safer?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The War on Public Knowledge More

The War on Public Knowledge

Comments Filter:

  • Why is this surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @09:50AM (#11998657) Homepage Journal
    It seems like McCarthy was a liberal by current standards. Land of the free my ass. Maybe if you're a corporation.

  • Anyone else worried? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Richie1984 ( 841487 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @09:55AM (#11998716)
    a growing number of these sources are now barred to the public as "sensitive but unclassified" or "for official use only."

    For a start, what does "sensitive but unclassified" actually mean? Does it have any legal status? Or is it simply there because of the connotations? The subtle purposes of the phrase are easily explained; the government isn't hiding the material, but it's in everyone's best interests that you don't and anyone who says otherwise could be dangerous.
    • Who cares. Anything can be researchable if giving enough resources. Credit card companies hold more info about you than the government anyways.

      • Re:Anyone else worried? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Who cares.

        Such a poignant response from a quintessential new generation puppet, with a signature paying homage to the obsession of playing videogames.

        Things are like this because of people like you. Who can't be bothered to divert some of their brain cells away from Halo 2 and contemplate the cause-and-effect that's going on with our society and government.

        Ironically, those of us who aren't so mentally handicapped, continually ask ourselves the same question, why should we care, when we see who we're
      • Consider for a moment the admission, on September 10, 2001, that the Pentagon has "lost" several trillion dollars over the course of a decade; roughly a third of its budget. Apparently it would prefer to be considered grossly negligent, than to admit to a deep black budget with no oversight.

        Via: Rigorous Intuition [blogspot.com]

    • "sensitive" is a somewhat-meaningless modifier to "unclassified". the basic levels are:

      unclassified
      unclassified + sensitive
      -----
      confidential
      secret
      top secret

      other modifiers exist, including "secret/special compartmentalized information" added on to "top secret" to make TS/SCI, and "special access programs" or SAPs.

      read here for more [answers.com]

  • Who really cares?... nobody (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @10:08AM (#11998864) Homepage Journal
    Flamebait? Hmmmm.... maybe.... you decide.

    I'm done caring about it... we're now firmly in the shoes of the Germans circa 1935, we're not stopping the cult that siezed power. Protesting on a weekend doesn't count, nor to buttons. (I've done both, too).

    If we really cared, we'd march to the Capital Mall, in DC... and stay, until we got our troops home, and had an honest election, for a change.

    --Mike--

    • Y'know the Allies didn't exactly march up to Hitler's living quarters and hold up protest signs until he gave up.

    • Re:Who really cares?... nobody (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HMA2000 ( 728266 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @11:05AM (#11999603)
      You're disgusting. Suggesting the US is Germany 1935 is an egregious overstatement and shows little regard for those unfortunate enough to actually suffer throught that period.

      Did you think maybe the reason the democrats can't win an election is because you actively promote hatred of those who's votes you wish to capture? Until you learn that a vast majority of the US citizenry is on the same side you will continue to be blasted in "fair elections."

      • Democrats are still destroying themselves. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @11:19AM (#11999781)
        "Until you learn that a vast majority of the US citizenry is on the same side you will continue to be blasted in "fair elections.""

        Things are not looking too good for those of us who think that America is best served with at least two viable parties. The Democrats are diminishing themselves even further under the leadership of Howard Dean. A few weeks ago, he called Republicans and those who support them "evil". Just recently he called them "brain dead". I'm sorry, it is just not a winning strategy to go out of your way and attack and write off HALF of the U.S. population.

        Clinton was successful, and helped the Democrats, because he knew it was important to appeal to the middle, including those who nominally sympathized with Republicans and their causes. Clinton won only due to "Clinton Republicans", just like Reagan only won with "Reagan Democrats". Howard Dean is problematic not because he is a "left wing extremist" or any other sort of extremist. He isnit. However, he is problematic because his mean and divisive manner turns off a lot of people. It is no surprise that Rush Limbaugh loved him. While Dean fires up "the base", he tends to turn off way too many outside the base with insulting language.

        When you attack half of the people as "evil", you are automatically making sure that 50% will not vote for you. Since you can't get everyone in the 50% you have left, you have ensured that you will lose.

        • Re:Democrats are still destroying themselves. (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I would more compare it to pre-reveloution China , than nazi era Germany
        • You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians... none of it matters because now that the Fairness Doctrine has been eradicated [bsalert.com], it's all about who has the most media influence.
          • "... none of it matters because now that the Fairness Doctrine has been eradicated, it's all about who has the most media influence."

            The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no busin

            • The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".

              Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about the Fairness Doctrine. Read about it befor
              • "Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about the Fairness Doctrine. Read about it before you make wildly erroneous claims."

                I did. I've read it, and read about it for years. This is why I prefer the First Amendment to the censorship involved with the "Fairness Doctrine. I opposed it the first time I read it, since I realized that it ripped the heart out of any idea of "freedom of the press".

                "a) mandate EQUAL TIME for multiple sides of important issues"

                First, that is entirely incorrect. It mandated "E

                • You have mistaken the press, that is, stuff printed by anyone who could afford to run a printing press, with stuff sent over the airwaves which belong to the public by entities holding licenses to use those airwaves in the public interest.

                  Also, the Fairness Doctrine was instituted in a time when most households got only a few stations (usually affiliates of NBC, ABC, and CBS) via rabbit ears or an outdoor antenna, i.e., over the publicly owned airwaves.

                  The Fairness Doctrine basically said that if your local

                  • "You have mistaken the press, that is, stuff printed by anyone who could afford to run a printing press, with stuff sent over the airwaves which belong to the public by entities holding licenses to use those airwaves in the public interest."

                    There is no mistake. The First Amendment does not demand the censorship of broadcasters. Besides, if you want them to serve the public interest, they should be able to communicate to the public without the government micro-managing content.

                    In light of your points, I

                    • " The First Amendment does not demand the censorship of broadcasters."

                      The First Amendment really has nothing to do with broadcasters, both because the concept of broadcasting didn't exist and wasn't forseen at the time of the writing of the First Amendment, and because the concept of a communications medium owned by the people as a whole didn't really exist then either.

                      The Fairness Doctrine is only capable of censorship to the extent that a broadcaster might not air a particular view because if they had to

                    • "The First Amendment really has nothing to do with broadcasters"

                      Nor did the Internet and blogs. However, it is clearly an extension of the newspaper press that existed when the amendment was written.

                      "The Fairness Doctrine is only capable of censorship to the extent that a broadcaster might not air a particular view because if they had to give equal time to an opposing view they couldn't sell that time to advertisers."

                      That is only part of the story. For one, they could use that time for other programs

                    • Apparently we are incapable of understanding one another's points and shall have to agree to disagree (provided of course that we can understand each other sufficiently to agree about what it is about which we are disagreeing :-) )
              • Your response again shows your total ignorance of the Fairness Doctrine. It warrants no reply except to again, suggest you get a clue as to what you're talking about because you don't right now.

                The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner, period. It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media. If you don't understand that, nobody can help you. Stop sprea
                • "Your response again shows your total ignorance of the Fairness Doctrine"

                  How so? Can you back up your blanket claim with any specifics?

                  "The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner"

                  This is entirely false. Whenever the government gags someone or controls what they say, it is censorship. It is also false since you yourself have argued that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be used to censor what you perceive to be "right-wing media".

                  "It merely provides a me

                  • censor :to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

                    Looks to me more like censorship means removing of rights TO SAY SOMETHING, not forcing the media to allow ANOTHER PERSON TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

                    The Fairness Doctrine only required that the opposing view be given the same amount of time on the air. If a broadcaster didn't want to do that, then he best not give HIS side the air time. I think that's where you got confused and called it "censorship".
                    • "Looks to me more like censorship means removing of rights TO SAY SOMETHING, not forcing the media to allow ANOTHER PERSON TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT."

                      The last part should be replaced with "forcing someone to say what the government wants them to say". Then, the fairness doctrine says both.

                      The Doctrine removed the right to say something by opening the station up to government management of content if they aired something controversial. It is a situation of "if you air music, you can air whatever you wan

                    • ya got me there.

                      My point was more along the lines of:

                      If a broadcaster wants to give his opinion on a matter, great. But if he's going to say "All Christians are evil because they eat babies.." He better be ready to allow a Christian on the air to defend himself. Why? Because that's what's -fair-.

                      They're given the right to use public airwaves to put out some pretty horrid crap - why CAN'T the government tell them to allow people to defend themselves over the same airwaves? The government didn't HAVE
                    • "But if he's going to say "All Christians are evil because they eat babies.." He better be ready to allow a Christian on the air to defend himself. Why? Because that's what's -fair-"

                      I strongly disagree. The freedom to be able to express opinions like this is the reason the First Amendment was written. In the real world, if someone said this and you really want "Fairness", chances are that there is a Christian radio station at the low end of the FM dial to "speak back": on their own station, not yours (if

                    • Your take on this is refreshing. I'm tired of those whose reason for supporting the Fairness Doctrine comes explicitly out of a desire to reduce the speech of someone they do not like.

                      I'm fine with idiots being able to state their opinions, I guess my issue is that since they entered a contract w/ the government to provide public service with the airwaves, they should at least be responsible with it.

                      Free press is a double-edged sword. You get the Truth and the "truth" out of the deal. Don't get me wr
                    • I have little to add to that. I see what you are saying. Except that yes, the broadcasters should do what some judge to be responsible, but due to the subjective nature of this, and the tendency for government action to be a tool of party (and other) ideology, the government should stay out of judging what is responsible or not.
      • You're disgusting. Suggesting the US is Germany 1935 is an egregious overstatement and shows little regard for those unfortunate enough to actually suffer throught that period. You are right. This kind of slanted, exaggerated rhetoric is disgusting and obscures accurate discussion of the issue.

        For the record, the U.S. is Germany c. 1933.

      • Uh, have you been watching the news lately? With the recent Congressional intrusion into our private lives regarding the right to live/die, I'll submit that the neocon retards are going to lose a whole lot of seats in Congress in 2006. Far as I'm concerned, I've had more than enough of this radical right wing garbage and I'll wager that most of the American Public will agree with me.

        Of course, if the liberals have any sense, then they better not push for Howard Dean in 2008, either, lest it be a stupid pi

    • I live in germany , a couple of my inlaws were alive during that time .You know why most of them did nothing ,It was because it sliped in slowly , most of the changes were great for the standerd of living and the demonisation of the jewish people was not highly promoted at first so it slipped by most people .
      The thing is back then to these people Hittler was a hero , he brought them wealth and rebuilt the nation , it was not untill far too late that some people saw his true nature , he marched into checkoslovakia not fighting an oposing army , but to a parade. He was a very evil monster , but a very evil monster who was a hero to the people

      The Bush administration may well be a problem or perhaps it is not ( i wont state my opinion here as i dont want to bias people against my point)
      This in most ways is very very diffrent to Germany 1935,
      • The thing is back then to these people Hitler was a hero , he brought them wealth and rebuilt the nation , it was not until far too late that some people saw his true nature , he marched into checkoslovakia not fighting an oposing army , but to a parade. He was a very evil monster , but a very evil monster who was a hero to the people

        You forgot to mention that Hitler, monster that he was, could be considered one of the most brilliant orators in recorded history. GW on the other hand...
    • "If we really cared, we'd march to the Capital Mall, in DC... and stay, until we got our troops home, and had an honest election, for a change."

      You might want to familiarize yourself with what the government did to the "bonus army" (and they were all World War I vets) before you make your travel plans.

  • Perhaps they are already searching out and destroying copies of Analog Science Fiction, April 1979, which included George W. Harper's fine article "Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood". It had useful information on how to convert a small house to a nuclear facility for building your own nuclear devices.

  • Tactics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NoSuchGuy ( 308510 ) <do-not-harvest-m ... dot@spa.mtrap.de> on Monday March 21, 2005 @10:18AM (#11998996) Journal
    The current administration doesn't want to help compile their own "I messed up..."-list.

    For example, if they disclose the former environmental data from the Environmental Protection Agency, nobody can easily compare actual data with the old data.

  • A long history of information hiding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @10:47AM (#11999359)
    The US government has a long history of hiding information and even classified documents aren't always classified to protect the country.

    A lot of classified documents are classified to avoid embarrassing the military or the current administration. The most famous example was the so-called "Pentagon Papers" which were a secret history of the Vietnam War. They proved that several Presidents had lied about the war (sound familiar?).

  • Welcome to Nazi Germany. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Papers please.

    How long before one group of people in the US is forced to wear an emblem on their person? No, not Jews and the Start of David. Maybe the government will come up with another symbol for "trouble-makers" that refuse to stand by and allow our rights to be trampled?

    Sure, they're slowly taking away access to previously public data and information. These aren't necessarily rights per se. But where's it going to stop? We're already required to show our "papers" for interstate travel. How long befo
    • Who needs emblems?

      US can pick outthe dark ones already. They have more than 10% of their black males in prison already.

    • RFID chip implants would accomplish this quietly. You would be tagged, and the database would have the information. You would not know what the tag means, nor what the information says about you. Kind of like the credit agencies today, but far more invasive. Watch for it to come as an extra to a program that is publicly good, like health information or credit information (in place already). If you doubt the existance of information like this, do some seartches online, have a company research your SSN,

  • Secrecy - because we are at War (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @11:57AM (#12000386) Homepage Journal
    Most of the nation, including for instance the Supreme Court, accepts that the nation is at War. Not really Iraq, but the War on Terror.

    How does the War on Terror end?

    From whom do we accept surrender? Osama Bin Laden? What if Bin Laden were to surrender, but other terrorists disagree and want to continue fighting the US.

    How and when can a War on Terror possibly end? If you really want to consider this a War, then the answers have to be, "no way" and "never". Terrorism only requires people willing to be terrorists in order to continue, and I forsee no shrinkage in that pool of people in either near or distant futures.

    So we'd probably better get ready for the "temporary restriction of liberties during Wartime" to become permanent, because there is no forseeable way to end that war.

  • I find it odd... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @12:13PM (#12000688) Journal
    ... that when confronted with a highly skilled enemy who's ghouls and spooks rivaled our own during the peak of the cold war... we didn't really have this issue.
    • Your statement answers your wonder. It was precisely because it would have been a wasted exercise. What we declassified was a backhanded measure of what we reasonably believed the other side would have already compromised. Hence, why hide it? It was not as though we were up against an enemy who would cross the line so heavily and blatantly as Al Queda and the rest of the loony schmucks on the loose do today.

      Now we have a ragtag enemy without the appropriate experience and intelligence infrastructure to p

  • First... (Score:2, Informative)

    by suitepotato ( 863945 )
    ...can we please grow up and stop harkening to Nazi anything? If Slashdotters get any faster at Godwining themselves, they'll violate causality and do it before the fact.

    This is nothing new under the sun. During the 80s the USSR sent physicists here to discuss information on nuclear fusion which was directly generated by the USSR. The USSR declassified it. They were giving the data on USSR government orders. The USA saw it differently and decided that since similar information generated by the USA was st

    • Did you really think that prior to George W. Bush that the US government was some brain trust under Bill Clinton?

      The fact that George W. Bush is a contemptable scumbag who, in any sane society, would be institutionalized for his own protection and that of others, in no way implies that Bill Clinton is not a contemptable scumbag who, in any sane society, would be institutionalized for his own protection and that of others.

      Still, just like I'd rather have gonorrhea than lung cancer, I'd take Clinton ove

    • National Socialism comes up as a comparison to things we find wrong largely because Universities and schools today teach that all coltures morally are identical. We learn that we should not judge other cultures and other idealogies. They are all the same. The leftist montra that we should "try to understand them" and "alternative lifestyles are just different not wrong" lead to some problems for the leftists and for the rightist idealoges.

      With these new foundations of thought in the university there is on
  • It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions [bsalert.com] which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq.
    • "It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq"

      The choice to exclude is something made by Google. They can perfectly well include stuff despite "robots.txt". "Robots.txt" is something I've never liked the idea of anyway: if you posted it on the public Internet, and leave it up on the public Internet, what is the problem if it

  • I do.

    Was not there a bunch of articles and editorials in 2001-2002 describing, how easy it is to obtain technical documents and blueprints for various public infrastructure objects and private buildings? Brooklyn Bridge, Hoover Dam?

    That the government is trying to stem this information flow through legal means at its disposal is, actually, somewhat reassuring. Whether the actions are effective is unclear, of course. Nor is it clear, whether our terrorism-free 3.5 years after 2001 are thanks to, in spite

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close