[IP] more on Op-Ed Columnist: May I See Your ID?
From: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dave,
While the argument to censor information is sound, the
idea of making information free is equally viable.
The dawn of the Cold War coincided with the modern
practice of national security classification. Not that information
wasn't kept secret in the past; but rather that the classification
of material as secret and the hoarding of such secrets was
institutionalized following WWII, with the creation of the
NSA, the CIA, and the intelligence community in general.
However, our [and the West's] keeping of these vast secrets
hasn't really been proven to increase our security. On the contrary,
the Soviets (as just one example) were able to time and time again
steal our secrets and encryption keys (as we did to them) and the
net result was that we always knew what the other party was
doing and this actually kept us safer rather than increase risk.
The Cuban missile blockade was defused not by tough action
or bold gestures but my targeted, clear communication between
Washington DC and Moscow.
There are numerous examples of the downside of keeping secrets--
the most recent being the failure to prevent 9/11. By turning secrets
into commodity items to be hoarded rather than traded
(Cf. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's book "Secrets"), the FBI, CIA, and
NSA allowed a team of terrorists to execute a massively complex,
long-term plan to almost complete perfection while the intelligence
necessary to stop them was readily available for months and
ignored through bureaucratic blunder.
Perhaps the only argument for keeping secrets lies in the nuclear
field since the downside of misuse is so serious. However, even
with the IAEA and various security agencies including the CIA,
MI6, and Mossad doing their best, Pakistan's A.Q. Khan was
able to sell nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran, North Korea, Iraq,
and possibly others as easily as one might buy a computer on eBay.
I suggest that instead, information should be shared openly with
everyone. That way, we know who has what information and
everyone is also trained on its proper use (even basic firearm training
in the U.S. would prevent many deaths each year).
The real problem here, as always, is not in reducing the arsenal
of potential weapons available to terrorists (although it couldn't
hurt), but in reducing the number of terrorists. Despite their current
media popularity, terrorists will always be a tiny percentage of the
population simply because few people are willing to commit
mass murder and/or kill themselves. In addition, terrorism isn't
a natural tendency for anyone and only arises when drastic and
specific circumstances occur, usually over a long period of time.
We can use this time to our advantage.
If the U.S. were to lead the world rather than try to militarily
dominate it, we might actually be able to share our economic
progress and the modernity it brings--including perhaps some
democratic reforms. Then, with people able to make a living
and provide for their families, the urge to purchase and use
a nuclear bomb will be lessened. This seems like the cheaper,
saner, more compassionate, and more logical approach to me.
The thought that there will always be evil people out there who
are naturally desperate to find and use weapons of mass
destruction strikes me as an overly narrow and pessimistic
viewpoint and one that is sadly bigoted or racist in the context
that I am currently and frequently hearing it in.
Tom Fairlie
www.tomfairlie.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/