Cost of Secrecy Continues to Increase 213
xerid writes "The Associated Press is running an article about the increasing costs of government secrecy. The information stems from a report (PDF Warning) posted at OpenTheGovernment.org. From the article: 'The government is withholding more information than ever from the public and expanding ways of shrouding data. Last year, federal agencies spent a record $148 creating and storing new secrets for each $1 spent declassifying old secrets, a coalition of watchdog groups reported Saturday. That's a $28 jump from 2003 when $120 was spent to keep secrets for every $1 spent revealing them.'"
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The figure also doesn't really give any indication if the total number of secrets is rising (ie more new secrets than declassifieds) because keeping a secret certainly is more expensive than declassifying one. But how much more expensive, I don't know.
Like I said, kind of an odd figure to give.
Catch 22 (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
The number is meaningless by itself, but meaningful relative to other measurements of the same quantity. If you RTFA, they do also give absolutes, in terms of number of classified and declassified documents.
This ratio is just an attempt at a "single figure of merit," that, like so many other benchmark numbers, is not meaningful relative to anything other than other computed values of that metric.
--JoeComment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing odd about the figure. (Score:3, Funny)
1) Figure out what you want people to believe.
(The government is hoarding secrets!)
2) Find the single figure that appears to most severely support your position.
($148 spent classifying secrets per $1 spent declassifying secrets.)
3) Hope nobody notices that your figure is utter bullshit.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Increased cost (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing that absolutely amazed me has been investigating my Grandfathers [utah.edu] history. Many of his records going back to WWII are still classified and it was only a few years ago that he had certain medals delivered to his family after the declassification of other records. Of course it is likely that they do not have any real bearing on todays issues, and nobody likely checks them anymore against new issues, but the amount of history that is being kept away from American citizens is stunning. I am not saying that declassification is easy. Quite the contrary, it takes skilled analysis to sit down and go through documents line by line and word for word while retaining a comprehensive knowledge of current and past events that may or may not have bearing on the request.
Re:Increased cost (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, here is the deal. Keeping secrets is simple for one reason: You have to fact check each new bit of classified information with a whole database of older information in order to decide whether or not something has bearing. It is often easier to simply start classifying everything that *might* have some bearing on national security than it is to actually go looking all of the time.
Actually, it's more accurate to say that it seems easier. You're right that this perception is what often drives over-enth
Re:Increased cost (Score:3, Interesting)
More than that, I think (Score:5, Informative)
I had an opportunity to speak with an FBI man whose job it was to certify people for security clearance. The man is a world traveller, interviewing personally as many people as he could to get an idea of how trustworthy the candidate would be.
When I asked him about these interviews, he said he didn't bother with the telephone, but went right to the interviewee and looked them in the eyes. He told me he recently went to Elko, Nevada to go down into the mine to talk with the candidate's former co-workers. He also mentioned that if the candidate had spent time overseas, then the process becomes very complicated and time consuming.
Now, that sounds like a very expensive process to me. It seems from the article that this cost would not be included (it doesn't say specifically, but it only mentions documents), but it certainly would be a related cost.
Another (unrelated) point:
From the article:"...and the inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina shows the public needs to know what could happen in their communities and what the response plans are..."
What? Is it just me or did someone just drop the name Katrina to increase the emotional blow of his tirade? I don't see the connection. Are these response plans a secret? Is the possibility of a hurricane on the Gulf Coast some kind of NSA classified information?
I probably sound sarcastic, but if there is anyone who could enlighten me on this, let me know.
Faulty logic (Score:2)
Just because they didn't elaborate where each shelter or stockpile is doesn't mean it's classified. There's lots of information that's not supposed to be handed out to everyone, but isn't under the protection of required levels of s
Is it sustainable? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Increased cost (Score:2)
It burned and smouldered for several days as records were still in paper form at the time.
good luck on your search
Re:Increased cost (Score:2)
Thanks for the feedback though. Every little bit helps.
Re:Increased cost (Score:3)
Democracy dies in the dark! The current administration held the tightest control of information BEFORE 9/11/01. Senate and congressional aids from both parties commented that requests for information to the White House were completely ignored. Prior admistrations since Truman would respond in days and if the answer would require more time, a memo
Depends on the definition. (Score:2)
Re:Increased cost (Score:2)
Something that might help is to label classified information with a
Why not just call it what it is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not just call it what it is? (Score:2)
Re:Why not just call it what it is? (Score:3, Informative)
USA is both a republic (that is a statesform) and a democracy (that is a political state)
There is no contradiction between beeing a republic and beeing a democracy.
Re:Why not just call it what it is? (Score:2)
in truth it's actually become a damned plutocracy
Re:Why not just call it what it is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not just call it what it is? (Score:2)
On an unrelated note, a Discovery Channel program on "real life spies" had some interesting stories about this. Aparantly, in one agency the secretaries would dispose of sensitive documents by ripping them in half before tossing them in the waste bin. Needless to say, this was very helpful for the espionagers: the trash was already presorted for them...
Re:Why not just call it what it is? (Score:3, Informative)
No Surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Surprise (Score:2)
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
'cost of creating secrets' is NOT the same as 'cost of keeping secrets'. They're comparing apples to oranges.
Of COURSE creating a secret is more expensive. Because.. you're both creating the information, AND trying to keep it secret. Telling people what you know (revealing the secret) is pittance compared to the time and effort doing the research for something that is to be KEPT secret.
Sheesh!
Maybe it should be converted into .. (Score:2)
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
There are, of course, a lot of things with little damage, but those tend to be of little benefit too. On the other hand, if something is bad enough (such as Nixon's watergate coverup), I expect it'll get leaked anyway. Whistleblowers have the strong motivati
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
You're more likely to fuck up and blow yourself up at the wrong time or give yourself lukemia than to fail to make a nuke once you've got the plutonium.
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
You're more likely to fuck up and blow yourself up at the wrong time...
This is exactly the kind of failure we want, rather than a succesful detonation at the target location. A partial
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
Did you even read what you cited? The problem you are referring to is the tendency of non-weapons grade plutonium, (Pu-240) to predetonate and cause dispersion of the materials before critical is reached by reason of it being much more likely to spontaneously release neutrons. Modern nuke design does NOT use the
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
Yes. I've read a lot more too. You should read it more closely.
Modern nuke design does NOT use the design you gave as your example
So what design did you mean when you said:
That's the little boy design, which is the only one that works simply, but doesn't work well with Plutonium (unless that Plutonium is more pure than that used in modern nuclear weapons).
Modern nuke design does NOT use the design yo
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
By which you mean a civilian, since a military person could get access to the manuals if needed. A civilian having to disarm an armed nuclear weapon is pretty much the definition of "unlikely". Most weapons are pretty much impossible to stop once armed anyway, unless by disarm you meant dismantle. Modern bombs tend very much toward trying to be safe, since having one blow up your own people is undesirable. Thus if you want, you could dismantle one w
for now on (Score:4, Funny)
Re:for now on (Score:3, Insightful)
Only those ashamed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they could be proud, they would be loud.
Project on Government Secrecy http://www.fas.org/sgp/ [fas.org]
Re:Only those ashamed ... (Score:2)
If there needs be conflict, why can't it be met honestly and openly?
Re:ha! (Score:2)
No anwser? My, how shocking!
Re:Only those ashamed ... (Score:2)
Can our government say the same?
I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets take the example that was listed in one of the links and see what the big deal is. The USMC came across some bad body armor. Some state its the result of using the bottom bidder. Others state that people need to know this. Both sides have valid points, but now consider this: Our enemies get a hold of just exactly how that body armor is flawed and use that against our men and women deployed. You can use your imagination from there. If it is classified, it is usually done for a reason that people who apply that classification know about. If they justified every application of a classification, why have secrets at all.
Maybe I will have others disagree with me. Fine, my response is not all inclusive just something to chew on.
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2)
When troops come back in body bags, you can't really keep something like that a secret. People start investigating.
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2)
still, dead men tell no tales...
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, I imagine that security through obscurity doesn't work.
They should have fixed it, not try to hide it has a flaw. Someone will find out anyway how they are flawed and use this info against soldiers who have been kept in the dark on how to mitigate the risks.
Bad exemple
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2)
It's disseminated on a need to know basis. In the body armour example, it may be that it's decided that the troops actually wearing the armour need to know, and so they're told. Or perhaps their commanding officers are, and it's left up to them whether or not to tell their men. Or maybe noone gets told.
The point
Re:TOTAL NONSENSE! (Score:2)
Go read the ACLU website to see just what the goverment is trying to keep secret, especially with their new tool, the National Security Letter.
Re:TOTAL NONSENSE! (Score:2)
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2)
It seems like way too many wrongs were commited in the name of national interests, national security and so on.
I really don't have trust or faith in this system that it would be properly used.
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2)
There is a third party review. The DoD is the one that keeps the secrets. Congress and the president have the right to ask for and review those secrets.
Of course the soldiers in the field know what is going on, and if our elected representatives don't address the issue, as what happened with the body armor, the information will get out from them.
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what they are telling us, but they are lying. GW Bush is a liar. Let me say it so you can hear me, BUSH IS A LIAR.
The entire administration is based on lies. They stole two elections. They ignored intelligence which would/could/should have prevented 9/11. They started wars where there were none and where the US had no business starting them. They made rogues of us.
This is not about protecting national interests; it's about building power for a federal government
Re:I need to know, I have a right to know! (Score:2)
We are right about him. We knew that they weren't telling the truth about weapons evidence and we knew that the Iraq war was a mistake. We knew what a clown Rumsfeld is. We knew the agenda of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. We knew that America would be heading downhill when Bush "won" the election.
Just as support for the war in Iraq is plummeting, so is support for the man who started it.
Soldiers are safer now that it is known! (Score:4, Insightful)
They already have been using this flaw against us simply by shooting and killing our soldiers! The flaw exists regardless of whether or not it is publicized. Do you think the bullets have to know that the armor failed ballistic tests before they can penetrate it?
The only reason to keep that information secret is to avoid political embarassment at the expense of soldiers' safety.
In the
Thus freeing the information actually resulted in our soldiers being safer because they are no longer saddled with equipment that won't protect them!
This is completely typical of the way this war has been fought. Decisions that endanger our soldiers are made, and either concealed or backed up with bullshit. Guess what? Reality doesn't care what story you tell to cover your bad decision; your soldiers still die. But the cover up is never about making our soldiers safer anyway. It's about politics. Our war is being run by politics, and politics is the opposite of reality. War is not.
I think Bush has realised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think Bush has realised (Score:2)
Re:I think Bush has realised (Score:2)
Look, perhaps this article supports all of your personal biases. Goody for you. But doesn't anyone smell "contrived statistics" when an article writer uses such elaborate yardsticks for measurement without SOME sort of causal connection? And the ones that ARE straightfoward are sketchy and presented so partially (ie. missing vital comparison data) they are worthless at letting the reader draw their own conclusions.
"cost of classif
How the Govt can reduce the cost (Score:2, Interesting)
Put the two together: You don't pay for the old/bought software and no one can read the file formats that it produced ... perfect, cheap secrecy.
Retarded story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Retarded story (Score:2)
1/148 =
148/1480 =.10
The latter is a MUCH BIGGER NUMBER. Some 15-ish times larger. So, what you're in effect saying, is "Duhhh [sic], bigger society means bigger government using modern communications tech. Yeah, I'd say the government cranks out 148x more info today than it dis [sic] previous. Maybe in 50 years folks will say the govet [sic] will say the govet [sic] is spending "almost 1/15 as much as 2005 keeping secrets".
Learn what a ratio is before using it!
The real question (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly the whole state bureaucracy, whole state machine is just like a Windows installation. It degrades over time and at some point you have to re-install from scratch.
Re:The real question (Score:2, Funny)
who released this information? (Score:3, Funny)
It's not $128:$1 (Score:5, Funny)
The real figure is $3:$1.
The other $123 went towards buying the hammers and wrenches that they claim to spend $500 for - which they don't - those $500 aren't spent on the hammers and wrenches - it is actually used towards funding the stuff that they are trying to keep secret in the first place.
It shouldn't be much of a secret though that the secret is this crazy scheme of keeping secrets.
Got it?
wtf (Score:2, Funny)
perhapse (Score:2)
Is Sweden still an "Open Gov't" Kingdom? (Score:4, Interesting)
Some years ago, I read (in official info, received from the Swedish Institute) that
almost EVERYTHING produced by a Swedish gov't dep't, authority, etc. is freely
available for public access.
http://www.si.se/templates/StartPage.aspx?id=3 [www.si.se]
If that link has died/changed, pick your language at the top of the site at:
http://www.si.se/ [www.si.se]
There used to be an SI Fact Sheet (or 3) on all of this, but I couldn't find it
after 8 minutes at SI's web site...
(Perhaps Sep 11th has changed Sweden's openness? 'hope not...)
Surprisingly enough, openness applied even to such sacred cows (in other lands)
as [most of] the Prime Minister's mail & [most] individual's tax records (useful,
after all, to family-tree researchers).
While living/working in the Kingdom of Sweden over 5 chilly "winters," I tested the latter
claim... walking into the local tax office (Lokallaskattemindigheten, from memory...)
and - in English - asked to use the Office's "public computer terminal" - still speaking
English.
In about 5 minutes, whoever was using a computer terminal finished and I was escorted
inside, to a place with 2 or 3 computer terminals. A "Public (ie, limited / read-only)
Access" card was sweeped-in, for my terminal, and I was given practically unlimited access
(in time spent at the computer terminal).
Of course, I had to know enough Swedish to be able to understand the prompts & commands
needed to get to some sample data records, by my own & some few friends' and colleagues'
data.
I understand that only the names of children born out of wedlock would have been hidden
from me; also, data may be hidden at certain points in the processing cycle (eg, before
it is verified as accurate?)
The only cost became payable only if I had wanted to print out some of the date I found
(rather than copy into my notes, by hand).
(I wonder if - today - one could use digital cameras to photograph data while displayed
on screens, or - better - whether USB-disks can be used to gether much more information
in a more convenient & useful manner...? Does anyone know?)
The openness was said to go far beyond the example mentioned above...
Any publicly-funded report was to be freely available - on request - at various depart-
mental libraries.
Even corporate libraries could be pursuaded to loan some of their materials (via Inter-
Library Loan arrangements) to individual borrowers, in the community.
The idea was, I understand, that an informed public was a basic tenet of [Social] Democracy.
I didn't happen to stumble on any reports on the costs of supplying such information, or
of not providing it.
Has anyone got up-to-date info on how it is in Sweden today?
( cf: http://www.sweden.se/ [sweden.se] for gen'l info )
Re:Is Sweden still an "Open Gov't" Kingdom? (Score:3, Interesting)
In Scandinavia people except wide rights to review government and other public institutions in action and this is provided by legislation, so yes, you are free to access practically everything but truly sensitive documents such details of military bases (the list of things government is allowed to classify is limited)
Re:Is Sweden still an "Open Gov't" Kingdom? (Score:4, Interesting)
It causes constant problems in relations between the US and Sweden, because Sweden wants the US to tell them things which may be sensitive or classified, but the US is afraid that if they do tell them then by Swedish law they would become publically available.
Re:Is Sweden still an "Open Gov't" Kingdom? (Score:2)
I am humming that to the tune of "United States of Whatever" in Swedish right now.
Skew the facts a little (Score:2)
I guess it costs more money to make paper and write on it than it does to hand out existing documents.
And from the article:
Overall, the government spent $7.2 billion in 2004 stamping 15.6 million documents "top secret," "secret" or "confidential." That almost doubled the 8.6 million new documents classified as recently as 2001.
That's some expensive ink. Maybe they should refill their
Hiding? (Score:2)
--jeff++
The reason (Score:2, Funny)
Re:selling secrets (Score:5, Interesting)
The correlation is so strong that it makes me think there's a lot more that we should be able to learn from that graph. Perhaps there are correlations between businesses owned primarily by Repubs vs. businesses owned primarily by Dems. Perhaps there are correlations with watchdog groups which try to keep the government in line. Perhaps there are correlations with specific lobbying groups and law enforcement agencies.
There's also a graph on secrecy orders issued vs. secrecy orders rescinded with respect to patents. Apparently this was a much more popular maneuver in the late 80s than it is today. It makes me wonder if that system may have become stagnant and no longer serves the purpose which it was created for.
I like graphs.
End of cold war (Score:4, Interesting)
I think there's a strong correlation to the end of the cold war and the lack of understanding of the magnitude of terrorist threats with the trend you've noticed.
Re:End of cold war (Score:2)
I'm not so certain that militant terrorists would have much of an interest in poring over patents. It's not like they have the type of legitimate facilities and employment that would put them close to the development stage of manufacturing. Unless someone would like to admit that there are more real-world business ties to militant terrorists than what's commonly thought.
Re:selling secrets (Score:4, Informative)
From Wikipedia: In 1994 it was estimated that the United States Government had over 1.5 billion pages of classified material that was 25 years old and older.
And if we want to stretch things a bit, i guess we could give Clinton credit for creating this commission (though the only creation reference I have found so far is that it was created by congress, not the president)...
Unfortunatly, Clinton replaced the previous executive order on classification with Executive Order 12958 which, from the way it sounds in Wikipedia, actually drastically increased the number of people that could mark something as secret. Give it a little time to ramp up to speed and for govt. employees and contractors to get used to their new found powers, and suddenly we have growth again.
The funniest thing is, knowing how things play out in some office atmospheres (and the number of people with the capability to classify material), theres probably a monthly pool going on in more than one place on who can classify the most stuff in a month or who can classify the most mundane piece of informaiton ever...we're going to get to this stuff in 25 years and find out someone classified their greasy post-it note with a lunch order on it...
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ever work with classified data you'll realize it's almost impossible to get something declassified, since nobody wants to be the one who releases data that turns out to help an enemy launch the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attack. When you're a civil servant, the key to advancing is to not do anything that hurts your career, as opposed to businessmen (and to some extent, military) who advance their careers by doing something.
Also, not classifying sensitive data is a career-ending mistake, while over-classifying unimportant data is, well, nothing that will ever get you into trouble. Who's gonna know? So when in doubt you always err on the side of extra security.
Sometime in the '80s they made a change to the rules where if you classified something you had to put a date upon which the item becomes declassified automatically. Unfortunately, there's warehouses full of classified data dating back to the second world war (think Raiders of the Lost Ark here) that nobody has the time to look at, so it will never be declassified.
I suspect most of the old stuff will eventually be destroyed for lack of money, which is a shame from the historical perspective.
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think any leaked classified data made any contribution to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 though it is clever on your part to invoke those two traumas to win points for your argument.
In fact much of the "suprise" part of the "suprise attack" on Pearl Harbor was due to the high classification of Japanese communication intercepts which led to the many signals the Japanese were preparing
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2)
In the case of Pearl Harbour, it was never meant by the Japanese to be a surprise attack. It was supposed to begin half an hour after the declaration of war was delivered to the United States. Unfortunately, the actual declaration was classified to a point where only the highest level diplomats could be allowed to decode and translate it - and
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2)
Its was mostly thanks to J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Richard Nixon and a series of CIA fuck ups in the 60's and 70's. The CIA was being used to spy on Americans, intervene in American domestic affairs, and play dirty tricks on political opponents of those in power, not to mentio
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2)
I'm not trying to "win points" for anything. I'm just trying to address a bureaucratic mindset. I never said the classification system had anything to do with either tragedy, and I didn't mean to imply it either. The point I was trying to make is while over-classifying data doesn't make sense from the country's perspective, f
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2)
May not have been your intention but it was the result, and you fell in to the same brand of rhetoric the Bush administration falls into when they want to win a point without risk of debate, just invoke 9/11 and Pearl Harbor and you can rationalize every government excess and accuse anyone who argues a counterpoint of being weak or unpatriotic.
"As to the 9/11 report..."
I wasn't referring to the 9/11 committee report. I was referring to the Congressional report which was har
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2)
Uh, I was trying to provide information, not win a debate. As I said, that's the mindset among the people who classify information. Since you don't know me well e
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2)
I can attest to this, from personal experience. I tried to point out a security flaw in some code, but was told they'd already thought of it, tested it, and there was no such flaw. So I wrote a program to demonstrate the flaw. Was told it didn't demonstrate any flaw. I improved the program, and showed them again. They were finally convinced, and made "look
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2)
vote to elect Bush
The American people did not elect Bush twice, either. Due to voter disenfranchisement in a number of states (including Florida), a Florida law that prohibited a state-wide vote recount (which violated due process), and ineffective legal council on behalf of Bush's opponent, it was the US Supreme Court that voted George Walker Bush president, not the USA's citizens nor the El
Re:Maybe we shouldn't have impeached clinton? (Score:2, Informative)
Basic Economics (Score:4, Informative)
Today we mostly are experiencing the results of the Clinton fiscal policy. ( effects of the current war not included of course as those effects are felt faster then normal fiscal changes )
Much as the Clinton years enjoyed the results of Regan's polices.
Re:Basic Economics (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly the government spent less under Clinton than under Bush. The fact that Bush prefers to finance the government via debt instead of taxes shouldn't fool anyone into thinking that his tax cuts represent fiscal restraint.
Re:Basic Economics (Score:2)
I only explained that what we see today isn't the result of the current administration. I was speaking facts of how the economics work, not making a political statement of any kind.
Be Bush's polices good or bad ( i wont get into that debate at all ), we wont feel its true effects until some time into the *next* administration.
Re:Basic Economics (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you, but economic reaction time is in no way that simple... there is no magic 4-year delay, or even 8-year delay.
The truth of the matter is that we'll feel some of the effects now, some during the next administration, and some in the next decade and decades down the road.
For an example, let's look at fuel costs, since they have myriad
Re:Way to go mods!! (Score:2)
Most? How about at the height of either World War, or the Cold War? Nonsense. And it's a simple truth that the very nature and volume of the information that the government produces and processes - including while performing vital and extremely sensitive duties - is exploding. It's not as much paperwork, but more data. What's a secure document to you? A cc of an e-mail? Depends on where you work and what yo
Re:Yet more opportunities for leftist paranoids... (Score:2)
Download the PDF from the article summary. Go to page 5. You should see a graph of the number of documents classified and declassified.
Notice how from 1994-2000 the number of declassified documents surg
Thank-you, Mr. Blue Pill. (Score:2)
For the shallow out there who need everything as an irreverent joke, consider what you'd give to never have seen your dad step naked out of the shower or your mother'
Re: How's the tinfoil hat working? (Score:2)
Re:why we classify (Score:3, Interesting)
So if we don't protect the black-ops, we might find out exactly ho
Re:why we classify (Score:2)
You'd rather be in favor of no secrets in our government, which would let other countries walk all over our national concerns, as well completely negate any insight that we may have into things that other countries aren't forthcoming about?
That question is based on a high degree of dogma. You presuppose that governments have our best interests at heart. Just look at Katrina