Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DoD Paper Proposes National Security Through a Culture of Restraint (and Stigma)

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the shhh-the-fatherland-is-listening dept.

Censorship 310

decora writes "An SAIC analyst has written a paper [PDF] calling for the 'stigmatization' of the 'unattractive' types who tend to discuss government secrets in public. The plan, described in the Naval Postgraduate School Homeland Security Affairs journal, is to promote self-censorship as a 'civic duty'. Who needs to censor themselves? Amateur enthusiasts who describe satellite orbits, scientists who describe threats to the food supply, graduate students mapping the internet, the Government Accountability Office, which publishes failure reports on the TSA, the US Geologic Survey, which publishes surface water information, newspapers (the New York Times), TV shows, journalism websites, anti-secrecy websites, and even security author Bruce Schneier, to name a few."

cancel ×

310 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

tags (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268884)

censorship? how 'bout "roadtofascism"?

Re:tags (2)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268986)

I got the feeling this was more along the lines of not talking about ship movements and stuff... The summary is a little extreme.

Re:tags (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269154)

Sounds like the good old "loose lips sink ships". Except for the fact that we are not in a world war, where it actually made sense.

Re:tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269208)

Ah, yes -- the old "loose lips can cause a loss of seamen" shtick.

That's not the vibe I'm getting from skimming the paper, though. Naming Schneier doesn't help the cause -- he certainly haven't disclosed any ship routes.
The argument against the Movie-Plot Threat Contest and its ilk seem to stem from some kind of "if even we don't know our weaknesses then no one will" thinking -- the exact kind we have seen failing so badly in the IT world.

Re:tags (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269222)

We can avoid the possibility of terrorists trying to destroy a free and open society, by eliminating the free and open element - therefore removing attractiveness as a target.

Re:tags (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269098)

Well, I guess Matt Blaze [crypto.com] won't fit into this brave, new world, Mr. and Mrs. AmeriKKKa.

This is a proposal for better security through psychological denial and cognitive dissonance.

As such, it fulfils the "Ignorance is Strength" part of the equation, which already has it's "War is Peace" and "Freedom is Slavery" components well under way. So begins the formalisation of thoughtcrime - through state promotion of doublethink.

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

-- Part II, Chapter IX - The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

road to fascism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269128)

We (as in USA) are already a fascist state. We're not on "the road" there anymore.

SO not true! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269214)

We (as in USA) are already a fascist state. We're not on "the road" there anymore.

Trains run on time in fascist states.

Re:SO not true! (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269466)

Well, at least we have *that* to look forward to.

Wait.. what kind of trains?

Re:road to fascism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269410)

We're not on "the road" there anymore.

Really? Look at it this way: when Germany turned fascist and cheered Hitler, people abroad saw what was happening, and everyone said "Why don't they see where this is going, why won't anyone there stand up and stop it?!". Right now, Americans just bend over, they either don't care or they don't care enough. Or they post insightful comments online, and that's about it.

Will Americans stand up and fight? Fascism thrives on fellow travelers.

Sounds rather un-american (5, Funny)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268896)

self-censorship as a 'civic duty'

I'm speechless.

Re:Sounds rather un-american (5, Funny)

guibaby (192136) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268958)

Yes,

But do you feel a duty to remain speechless?

Re:Sounds rather un-american (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268968)

self-censorship as a 'civic duty'

I'm speechless.

Then they've already won....

Re:Sounds rather un-american (2)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268976)

Not to mention that saying "Keep mum about things that are fairly easy for the common man to discover, lest it falls in the hands of the enemy", by definition means it's fairly easy for the enemy's common man to discover.

Sounds rather Chinese (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269014)

This is the sort of thing the Chinese do.

Chinese? (2)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269180)

Keeping the secrets everyone knows is one of the common threads of totalitarian government (wannabees) from time immemorial.

(It ain't just the Chinese. The guys who wrote the US Constitution saw it coming, the Greeks saw it a bit too late some two thousand years ago, the Egyptians, well, I'd get into controversies about historicality if I said anything specific, but it wasn't new then, either.)

Re:Sounds rather un-american (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269046)

yeah that analysts name "Walt Havenstein" is certainly an american name isnt it ?
now let me guess his ethnicity...

Re:Sounds rather un-american (1)

the simurgh (1327825) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269142)

proposing good citizenship responsibilities? omg whats next corporations are not people and thus don't have the rights of a citizen?

Re:Sounds rather un-american (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269368)

proposing good citizenship responsibilities? omg whats next corporations are not people and thus don't have the rights of a citizen?

Well, at least that would free them from the responsibilites of good citizenship.

(As if many of them give a sh*t now.)

Re:Sounds rather un-american (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269200)

Well played, I appreciate the irony.

OTOH, from recent US actions worldwide we could have the "wrong" impression that "defense" means "attack" in English (yeah, I know about "the best defense is an attack", "war is peace" etc. etc... please... ).

Re:Sounds rather un-american (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269228)

I'm speechless.

That is the spirit comrade! Continue on your way.

Joking aside, this is scary. Real scary.

Re:Sounds rather un-american (2)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269260)

On the one hand, I agree that with liberty comes responsibility, and consequently, we ought to be responsible enough to know when it is "patriotic" to speak* and when it is "patriotic" to keep silent* -- that is, to self-censor. Having said that, TFS makes it sound like the SAIC analyst is suggesting that we turn into a nation of yes-men and women. Historically, that's typically a Very Bad Thing.

*and by this, I mean calling the government out when it is behaving illegally or irresponsibly. I am a firm believer in, "If you want peace, work for justice" and "None of us are free while any of us are oppressed." Patriotism, IMHO, isn't blind obedience to the government; it's working for the good of the nation as a whole. By that definition, Martin Luther King, Jr. was far more of a patriot than G. Gordon Libby, for example.

Re:Sounds rather un-american (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269486)

It's been done before.....

LIPS SEALED! [plakaty.ru]

The Soviet version translates roughly as "Be on the alert. In days like these, the walls listen. It's a fine line between chatter/gossip and betrayal. KEEP YOUR LIPS SEALED!"

can't stop the leaks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268900)

So get the whistle blowers to stop themselves. God bless America.

Leaking = snitching. (3, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268960)

Snitching = bad. Right?

It's not hard to stigmatize snitching. It's already universally recognized as bad by everybody who doesn't work for government and who isn't a cop. And the cops only think it's good when the snitches are working for them. So basically governments don't like being snitched on, but so what? Governments are the ones funding the informants and snitching by offering prizes in cash to the biggest leaker/informant/snitch.

And governments don't have a problem trying to use morality to convince people it's right to leak when it's to them. Suddenly it's your civic duty to help the FBI solve it's crimes, or to turn on your friend to help law enforcement, but if it's the other way around and someone within the FBI reports crimes going on to the media, suddenly it's snitching again.

It's the blue code of silence. So we have to decide whether or not leaking = snitching.
If leaking != snitching, then why would leaking be wrong? Why should any of us care about government agendas if we don't work for them?

Why should Bruce or Bob or Alice care about the governments private agenda? We don't know about it, so we don't have any responsibility. Also we haven't taken an oath. And finally, it's a matter of does the government care about the agenda of individuals when they are out to make arrests or conduct whatever operations? I highly doubt they would.

So lets have the debate. How much leaking is too much? When does leaking become snitching? And what are the effects of a leak or snitch culture vs a culture of secrecy? It's not like these questions have been fully discussed. So lets ask them.

Wrong debate. (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269226)

Leaking is snitching. Or, I should say, snitching is leaking.

Snitching is only bad when we have something to hide.

Getting rid of everything we have to hide scares most people. Or, at least, scares most of the people who spend the most time talking.

The silent majority knows about the secrets and do what they can to mitigate without making much fuss of it. At least, until somebody decides to make an example of them by saying how wonderful whistleblower X or Y was.

Re:Wrong debate. (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269334)

Leaking is snitching. Or, I should say, snitching is leaking.

Snitching is only bad when we have something to hide.

Getting rid of everything we have to hide scares most people. Or, at least, scares most of the people who spend the most time talking.

The silent majority knows about the secrets and do what they can to mitigate without making much fuss of it. At least, until somebody decides to make an example of them by saying how wonderful whistleblower X or Y was.

But it's impossible to get rid of some things. Since everyone has secrets, from medical history, to sexual history, to that project you are working on that you don't want stolen before you can patent it, everybody has secrets. Of course governments have secrets too, the problem is governments don't expect or allow individuals to have secrets. Governments all around the world know everything about each one of us, and we know virtually nothing about them or what their true agenda is.

So we know and understand privacy has to exist to keep our own secrets safe that governments possess. These could be nude photographs from a body scanner, it could be surveillance records, photos, videos, or it could just be some obscure law we broke or are breaking. The simple fact is everyone has a record of doing immoral things, and governments have enough secrets about each person that any one of us could be made to look like a monster.

If you look back to COINTELPRO in the USA the FBI had secrets on virtually everybody in little FBI files locked away. Do we want "anonymous" or some leaker to leak these sorts of files to the media? Hell no of course not. So yes it does matter when it comes to whether it's leaking or snitching. When it's information being leaked about us, that hurts us, it's snitching, and when it's not hurting anybody in specific then its leaking.

Snitching can ruin lives, destroy marriage, get people killed. Leaking has minimal impact on peoples lives. Snitching would be releasing the names of all the informants in the USA. As this would put their lives at risk and probably get them all killed. Leaking would be releasing information about the COINTELPRO program itself and details on parts of it which violate human rights.

Some leaks are news worthy, and some leaks are just outright snitching, and the only way to determine which it is, is by subjective measure. Does it put civilian lives at risk? If it does then it's snitching because it hurts the people. On the other hand if it puts troops at risk, it might not be snitching unless you are a troop / fed putting troops at risk. And if it's neither of these and no ones life is going to be destroyed or at risk, then it's leaking.

Whistleblowing usually details a human rights violation. Either way the idea in this article is that civilians like Bruce Schneier should accept extra responsibility. I don't think Bruce or civilian owes the government a damn thing. I do believe as civilians that we should not snitch on other civilians, we should not for example leak the names of informants or release peoples FBI or other files to the media. We should not attack other civilians but thats my personal belief as a civilian and not all civilians follow that.

Re:Leaking = snitching. (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269304)

Snitching = bad. Right?

It's the worst thing EVAR! [youtube.com] Right up there with eating babies.

It's bad or good depending on perspective (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269404)

One governments snitch is another governments hero.

But as civilians, we are usually caught in the middle of these snitch wars or whatever you want to call them.

Now of course it's not snitching if it's detailing human rights abuses against civilians. That is not snitching.
It's snitching when the leak destroys civilian lives. An example would be if some rogue hacker decided to hack top secret FBI files and leak a bunch of files on a bunch of people to the media. That is snitching.

It doesn't matter whats in those files. It's snitching. It's also snitching if the names of informants are leaked, that too is snitching. If you know who is or isn't an informant, and you leak that, their lives are put directly at risk. Even if you don't particularly like informants, it's probably not wise to leak that kind of information.

Anonymous leaked Hal Turner's status as being an FBI informant. That is the perfect example of snitching on a snitch. It's still snitching if you do that. For people who don't believe it happened just Google Hal Turner and Anonymous.

In order words "Stop Snitching 2.0". (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268902)

They have learned the value of secrecy.

In order words, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269080)

Does that slogan mean anything besides, "Lie. Cheat. And Then Lie Some More." Or, "Go Ahead, Be Despicable." Oh yeah, that's a wonderful civic attitude. No wonder Las Vegas has the reputation for being Sin City. Horrid. Perfectly horrid.

Re:"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269220)

No, it means get ridiculously drunk, do stupid shit while your judgement is impaired to the max, and when the hangover goes away deny everything instead of bragging about it.

Which is a vast improvement from my college days, where every weekend was an insane drinking binge, and the dumber the shit, the louder most of us bragged about it Monday.

Seriously, I have no clue how most of us can possibly have made it through an engineering degree with the amount of alcohol consumed each weekend, but we obviously did.

Re:"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269294)

"Eat, drink, and be merry. But be a basically good person. Lie a little. Take advantage of another person because her words give you an opening. Dig traps for your neighbors. There is nothing wrong with this, everyone has to fudge a little to get by. Besides, tomorrow we die, and if we take a slightly guilty conscience with us to the grave, there can't be anyone waiting on the other side who really cares about such little things."

(Paraphrase. Can you find the original?)

Re:"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269406)

Well, it starts out with Ecclesiastes, which again takes up Isaiah. However, do you imply that you only behave ethically because you believe there is someone waiting on the other side? I don't want to go into details about what light that sheds on the personality of someone who derives his ethics, or rather morality, from such a worldview. I am not exactly sure what you are aiming at here.

Restraint? The road to disaster. (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268906)

Security through strong-armed obscurity, leading to security through censorship.

What, it's obviously not secure? Sorry, can't talk about the fact that the door is actually open.

Is this for real? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268916)

Seriously, is this some kind of joke? Why do we keep paying these people to suggest things like this - what value are they bringing to our lives?

Re:Is this for real? (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269044)

What choice do you have? The machinery of aristocracy and control is well beyond the need for your support. They're self-sustaining and the level of corruption in all aspects of government and politics so unbelievably extensive and deep and convoluted that there is no way to simply excise the foreign tissue by itself.

Naomi Wolf does a great job of describing the process that seems to be occurring right now (including this event) in her book "The End of America".

I mean, we live in a country where our president's (last president) family did extensive business with the family of the man that killed thousands of Americans. We live in a country where government officials who are employees of Goldman Sachs take a trillion dollars from the tax payers to bail out Goldman Sachs. We live in a country where our president appoints Ken Lay as energy advisor to deregulate his own industry on his own terms. We live in a country where we allow our government to pass bills that allow the president to point at a citizen and make them disappear. Off to gitmo for torture, if he wants. Without representation or a trial. We live in a country where judges are paid off in millions of dollars by the private prison industry to fuel their business by unfairly punishing minor juvenile violators with many months in juvenile detention (google it - in Pennsylvania).

It's probably not too late to force change, but by the time you could ever even remotely possibly convince enough of the population to give a flying fuck and get their heads out of their Bible and Twilight or their "durr durr abortion" and "durr durr immigration" and "durr durr religion" bullshit to actually do something about the real problems facing us, it'll definitely be too fucking late.

Re:Is this for real? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269460)

Oh, you're one of those people.

I've heard about people like you -- there was some sort of un-American stigma attached to those of your ilk, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is...

Re:Is this for real? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269342)

What evidence do you have that they care about our lives? Psychopaths rarely care about anything but themselves.

Shorter solution (4, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268936)

Let's stigmatize SAIC analysts who have internalized the mind-set of the Soviet Union.

It will save lots of time in the long run.

All successful governments have similar mindsets. (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269022)

Whether we are talking about the mafia with omerta, or a terrorist cell, or a full fledged government, they all rely on secrecy to maintain power.

And they all hate snitches, traitors, leakers, informers or whatever they choose to call the person who tells the secrets.

So it's nothing new. On the other hand opposing groups see the snitches, traitors, leakers, informers as heroes. Why? Because by revealing secrets and leaking, it protects lives on the opposing side, but keeping secrets protects lives on your governments side, and depending on which side you are on you will care about secrecy or not. It's completely subjective and determined more by what side you see yourself on.

This stigma of secret might work on people who swore an oath to keep secrets. These people probably do feel responsible. On the other hand ordinary civilians have no reason to give a shit or choose a side. They'll choose whichever side pays them at the time, which is all sides, or they might choose no side, or they might choose one side or another based on ideology, but they have no responsibiliy or reason to choose the US governments side.

Civic duty will not work. It's like expecting people to conduct business in a way which promotes the nation. That isn't going to happen. People aren't going to care and I highly doubt any of these people are going to give a damn what the government says unless they work for the government and their paycheck is determined by their ability to keep government secrets. (Such as if they have a clearance)

No, nobody likes a snitch. (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269358)

Not even the whistleblower, I mean, snitch, I mean, leaker who leaks the secrets of the enemy.

No one likes a snitch.

Use the snitch, sure. Then make sure you either corrupt him to keep him under control, or get rid of him before he snitches on you.

Not that this is a new thing.

Of course, the only way to lose to this kind of government is to give up and fail to do your civic duty. So I disagree with you there, too.

Re:Shorter solution (1)

k8to (9046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269028)

How about we stigmatize, culturally, independent thought, investigation, and critical anlysis.

Hmm. seems like some other folks were 60 years ahead of me.

In Other Words (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268944)

The United States government is so corrupt that the only way they see it surviving is to use 1984 as a howto manual.

As an American (hopefully not for that much longer), this is shameful. Every so-called patriot should be fighting against censorship and spying, in every form, yet both the "small government" republicans and "progressive" democrats are for this kind of crap.

Welcome to the road to a third-world banana republic, America.

All governments are corrupt (1, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269102)

It's not just the US government. All governments act the same way and promote secrecy among their employees but don't want citizens to have any secrets and promote informing and transparency among civilians. So basically this is a matter of the military and
other law enforcement factions wanting to keep secrets, which they can use, but they don't want any of us to be able to keep secrets from them because they have to enforce the law and protect themselves from us (the terrorist civilians).

So why would we want to help keep their secrets? Whats in it for you or me to not discuss something when we don't work for them?
To put it more basic, whats in it for you or me to work with the government if the government isn't paying us to do it?

And if the government is willing to pay people then they can just pay for a clearance and do it properly. This looks like they want to have the
benefits of a security clearance without actually paying for it. So for example government employees cannot discuss wikileaks, or government secrets, but we aren't government employees. We didn't take an oath, and we don't have a security clearance to protect, so what right does the government have to censor our speech?

It's like if Microsoft or Sony were to try to enforce an NDA on users of the software rather than on developers. the user shouldn't be subjected
to an NDA but the developers are getting paid by Microsoft and Sony and signed the NDA, they can be subjected to it.

Basically this is like Microsoft and Sony deciding they don't want to bother with making people sign NDA's, people are just supposed to culturally embrace the NDA like some sort of mafia omerta. Honestly it's a fatuous idea but I suspect they will try to implement it.

 

Not all governments are corrupt (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269446)

Well, at least, not all governments are corrupt all the time.

On the other hand, every institution (not just governments, as you note about Sony and Microsoft) has this same tendency.

It's one of the problems of systems. Systems, once constructed, tend to self-destruct. At least, the systems we build do. Trying to make a system self-correcting generally tends to make things worse when they slip out of the defined behavior modes.

The only solution is continued monitoring -- eternal vigilance.

And that requires, erm, morals, ethics, some sort of cosmology comparable to, dare I say it? ...

This is one of the reasons a society without a moral compass tends to generate a lot of smoke and loud noise before it disappears.

Re:In Other Words (1)

rzitex (2206668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269114)

The United States government is so corrupt that the only way they see it surviving is to use 1984 as a howto manual.

Hey, hey, hey. There is no reason to be rash. I mean, all people are equal, just some are more equal. :)

Re:In Other Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269168)

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Let's just have a dictatorship (0)

kawabago (551139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268948)

Just have a dictatorship, no one will mention all the evil things it does to maintain control. What our society really needs is to stop having secrets at all. It's 2011 and a commercial quantum computer is for sale which means cracking encryption will soon be quick and easy. We can't keep secrets in today's world so we need to learn how to live without them.

Re:Let's just have a dictatorship (2)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269072)

Actually, if you had read the other article, the "commercial quantum computer" is not of the sort that can crack encryption in any way, shape or form that a normal computer cannot do as fast or faster.

It is, however, very useful for a lot of very large and very computer intensive research problems, such as in artificial intelligence.

Turn the tables on them! (4, Interesting)

bdsesq (515351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268950)

How about a culture where attempting to stigmatize people for your own gain is looked on as bad?
Or one where openness and freedom of speech is looked upon as helpful?

Does anyone with more than a room temperature IQ think the "bad guys" don't know the satellite orbits?

Not policy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268970)

One guys opinion which really doesn't carry any more weight than mine (and is best classified as feather-weight).

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268978)

Two words: free speech

authenticated cowardice (3, Insightful)

10am-bedtime (11106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268984)

Kind of opposite of "anonymous coward" is the "authenticated coward", which is what this "culture of restraint" will encourage. You are someone only if you don't say anything. Anyone who says something (not officially condoned) is a persona non grata.

Yuck! Someone tag this Do Not Want, please.

will they wear brown shirts ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268990)

just asking comrade

You neglected to mention... (1)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268994)

You neglected to mention the most important 'government secret' that henceforth should not be allowed to be discussed in the open...

A list of 'government secrets' that shouldn't be discussed in public.

It is vital that we discourage people from mentioning these items, primarily so that we can attack anyone for anything at all.

No, I am not being serious. This is a bad idea and should be fought against, fortunately it violates the first amendment, lets hope that means something still. Yeah Obama and transparent government!

Sounds like China or North Korea to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269002)

Downplay economic crises, lock up those who speak out against the atrocities, remove factual information contrary to the state's agenda and eliminate anyone who refuses to be kept poor and stupid.  Why is this anything anyone is championing for?

Re:Sounds like China or North Korea to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269248)

...because stupid cowards far outnumber intelligent individuals. Cattle can hurt you if enough of them run in fear and rage. And, it is relatively easy for a snake or a wolf to spook the herd in your direction.

Lets start with the Author, Dallas G Boyd. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269004)

He spilled the beans on this new strategy. This Dallas Boyd character is a real terrorist threat. Discussing these strategies in the open only helps the terrorists. Shame on you Dallas G Boyd. Feel free to contact this shameful, shameful man at dallas.g.boyd@saic.com.

Psychology 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269016)

The biggest difference between left and right in psychological terms (and we'll leave out the middle to keep things simple) is that people on the left value fairness and equality more than people on the right, who value loyalty and authority in their valuative psych profiles.

So, when a bunch of hippies are saying change the system, of course the cops get threatened because the sorts of people who join paramilitary organizations love systems. Fundamentally, this is a clash of values in the same way that Spock and McCoy actually feared each others' world views.

In short, one side shouldn't have an unambiguous right to decide what everyone else can talk about. Threats to the nation's food supply? Jeesus, I am suffering from food poisoning at this moment and you're goddamned right I phoned the city to gave the restaurant inspected. (Undercooked prawns that felt funny from the first bite.)

Re:Psychology 101 (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269116)

Yeah thats BS.

People on the right are just as disloyal to me as people on the left.

Ladies and Gentlemen (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269026)

Welcome to the Dystopian Future. Welcome and enjoy the fear. And if it all gets just wee little bit too much to handle, why we can just take a vacation in Brazil [wikipedia.org] . Just one thing: stay away from the libraries. They are full of subversive literature and free thinking. Can't have that now, can we? Anyway, once again, welcome. I have to run now, I'm off to the Animal Farm [wikipedia.org] . Cheers.

Matchmaking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269036)

Anyone care to introduce Mr.DoD to Ms. Streisand?

CAPTCHA: infamous

Better solution (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269038)

How about we get a culture where things don't have to be leaked? Almost everyone who leaks something is doing so to attract public attention to a problem those responsible refuse to solve. If you institute a culture of "if someone brings a serious problem to your attention, you fix it, regardless of what it does to your bottom line or to your dignity", then leaking never needs to happen.

PS: Yes, I saw some of the bizarrely paranoid things they suggest self-censorship for. That's just their culture of paranoia kicking in.

Why is the US so paranoid? (2, Insightful)

drsparkly (65767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269052)

It makes no sense to me. You have by far the strongest military in the world. The USSR is gone. Ok, so there's China, but so far they have not made any seriously threatening moves. Who is left that is any threat?

I know 9/11 left some big scars on the collective psyche but seriously, it's been 10 years, you invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, killed Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Surely there's been enough restitution?

I worry that one day the rest of the world is going to have to unite against the US as you decide to pacify or nuke us all since we are deemed a threat to national security.

All governments are paranoid. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269174)

That includes the USA. They all hate leakers and all love informants who leak to them.

Re:Why is the US so paranoid? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269382)

The military, at least, has reasons. Current US military training emphasizes the importance of battlefield information - terms like "information-centric warfare" are often bandied about. Essentially, they believe that the side with the better information and ability to exploit it will be victorious. (You see the same in business, now, with all sorts of customer information and statistics being used). Thus they also emphasize denying that information to your enemies. Thus, they have a "corporate culture" of never giving out information, ever, and greatly overestimating how much damage leaked info can cause. It's not a totally rational reason, but there is a reason for the military to be paranoid about leaks.

The government probably just doesn't want people knowing what they actually do. Must preserve the facade of democracy at the federal level, after all. (The state/local governments are relatively good, except in big cities, but the federal government is terrible about it).

Re:Why is the US so paranoid? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269436)

It makes no sense to me. You have by far the strongest military in the world. The USSR is gone. Ok, so there's China, but so far they have not made any seriously threatening moves. Who is left that is any threat?

People who don't vote the same way you do.

hmmm, that rings a bell... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269064)

"The plan, described in the Naval Postgraduate School Homeland Security Affairs journal, is to promote self-censorship as a 'civic duty'."

hmmm.... self-censorship, this rings a bell... Ah, yes... Doublethink [wikipedia.org] .

to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed

Yes, I think this is a very nice example of Doublethink.

"Loose Lips Sink Ships" (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269066)

Obviously, that phrase has led us into the 10th circle of hell known as Amerikkka! (Yeah, that was sarcasm. But it was so hard not to parody everyone else on this thread.)

Re:"Loose Lips Sink Ships" (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269148)

We are not at war. Just remember that.

Re:"Loose Lips Sink Ships" (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269202)

We are always at war, which side are you on?

Basically governments exist only for war and so they are always at war even during peacetime operations.

Re:"Loose Lips Sink Ships" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269232)

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

Re:"Loose Lips Sink Ships" (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269156)

And this attitude of loose lips sink ships is fine if we are let in on whats going on.

But since they don't tell us shit, if we discover on our own why would we be expected to keep it to ourselves and keep it secret?

Loose Lips Sink Ships applies to soldiers, or people who work for the government who have access to secrets.
It does not apply to graduate students, security researchers, bloggers, and ordinary people.

If we are going to apply it to ordinary people, then ordinary people should be given security clearance.

Re:"Loose Lips Sink Ships" (1)

alcourt (198386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269286)

Actually, the ad campaign included a lot more. The random soldier telling the wrong person that they were deploying with their unit that night, the dock worker who comments in a bar that a particular ship came back heavily damaged and would be in port for at least a month. It was aimed at people all over, who might not realize at first what they knew could be valuable in intelligence.

Re:"Loose Lips Sink Ships" (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269348)

No, it refers to the fact that people have a natural tendency to leak an entire secret very slowly over time. Normally people with sensitive information won't give it up if one asks directly. But without training most will give up damn near the whole thing if asked for small portions of it when interspersed with conversation. Hence the saying.

It's really not applicable to this sort of situation.

War. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269186)

Certain measures, with regard to security, are necessary during war.

World War II was a war.

The "War" on "Terror", the "War" on Drugs, the "War" on Intellectualism - none of these things are wars. They're just bloody fucking depressing when one considers the future of this once-great nation.

Re:War. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269212)

It's a war, it's a war for control of global resources and it's a covert war.

Or do you think all the world leaders sit together in a room and decide who gets what with talk?

1984 (1)

danhaas (891773) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269092)

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

"... and EVEN security author Bruce Schneier"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269106)

Really, dumbass timothy? Because Schneier was the first person I thought of. (Obviously the security/hacker cons were the first few thoughts -- not that they aren't already stigmatized in the popular media.)

Fortunately... (1)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269118)

We are a nation of loudmouth dissenters. Especially the younger generations. Looks like the baby boomers might have trained us well after all. Well, then again, they also trained the authoritarian idiots in control.

Not new (1)

alcourt (198386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269134)

Don't tell me that I'm the only one who was reminded of the classic posters during World War II: Loose lips sink ships!

Why not? (1)

KenDiPietro (1294220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269150)

Please, we all know that when we keep inconvenient subjects out of the public discussion, they are always competently addressed. And to prove my point, I would direct your attention to Windows7...

Troll Article (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269172)

A single analyst at a private company writes a paper, and now everyone pretends that it is the official policy of the US Government, 'cause by golly, we haven't had our two minutes hate yet today, and we need something to be outraged over!

Re:Troll Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269316)

It's what gets the hits around here. Slashdot's leadership is about the almighty dollar, not the truth or even the facts.

Re:Troll Article (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269390)

A single analyst at a private company writes a paper, and now everyone pretends that it is the official policy of the US Government, 'cause by golly, we haven't had our two minutes hate yet today, and we need something to be outraged over!

Not at all, from the synopsis:

The plan, described in the Naval Postgraduate School Homeland Security Affairs journal

So, that means this nutter is given space for his perverted ideas in a journal for people working for the US military, and influencing them. This is bad unless there is a good commentary in the journal showing what an ass that guy is and how perverted his ideas are. But if they do that (sorry, can't be bothered to check: I'm betting they don't do it!) then they shouldn't really mention him in that journal...

Re:Troll Article (3, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269394)

SAIC is not exactly your typical private company. Like many such contracting companies, it's essentially a quasi-private arm of the US government, and it's deeply tied in with (among other things) the intelligence community. We should take this paper just as seriously as if, say, a CIA analyst had written it.

Re:Troll Article - Do your civic duty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269458)

Just sayin'

Please leave a message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269184)

His email is posted at the end of the article. Have fun anonymous.

dallas.g.boyd@saic.com

If the terrorists missed (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269198)

the original publication of these scary ideas this sure does make a nice "management summary" for them along with links !

On a more positive note, at least it advocates persuading people to do the right thing. It's not unreasonable for the government to issue a statement along the lines of "if you can think of an attack vector, call us first on 1-800-RUA-CRANK". At least then they could publish any funny ones

as per heinlein (1)

CorvisRex (1266594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269218)

[cencorship]...it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.

Treason (1)

hackus (159037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269234)

Since when did discussion of censorship of any kind in a republic become fashionable?

I immediately identified myself as an undesirable.

Thank god to, I always thought I was a terrorist and chixs dig it!

Hack

in soviet Russia (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269256)

You rat on everyone even your self!

Email the author (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269276)

He missed big pharma suppressing "alarming" reports of drugs killing people, and big tobacco hiding that smoking is really bad for you, and banks' balance sheets causing economic collapses.

The author's email address is at the bottom of the paper. Wouldn't hurt to let him know he lives in the wrong country.

dallas.g.boyd@saic.com

Cultures are organic (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36269278)

Good luck handling unintended consequences of complex situations with many actors, Mr. Boyd.

Also, what's the secret to getting your nose so far up your employer's ass that you can smell what he'll have for supper?

echelon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269314)

oooops i guess m to be stigmatized now...does it hurt?

Not to break up a tinfoil hatters convention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36269378)

but this is one document by one analyst. This is not policy, this is not even being proposed by an analyst directly employed by a government agency. This is a private citizen working for a public company (SIAC is traded on the NYSE under the symbol SAI). Hell, I sent an email to the present administration (at their behest) calling for limiting the lifetime of a copyright, if you think that's now the administration's policy I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>