Comment by sneak
14 years ago
> In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense.
It does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain to me how you reached this conclusion?
14 years ago
> In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense.
It does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain to me how you reached this conclusion?
More mundane than protecting secret codes and espionage, I think there's a strong argument for keeping the private conversations between the representatives of two governments confidential. Much as my conversations with my close friends would be very different if I knew the contents would be published in the New York Times today, to have functioning relationships governments need to know that some level of confidentiality will be kept when requested.
That said, over-classification is definitely a problem, particularly if done with domestic political considerations in mind. Even worse can be selective declassification, when the public is presented with a few bits of intelligence that present only part of the story and may lead to conclusions very different than had the full picture been presented (i.e. 2003 Iraq War run-up).
> to have functioning relationships governments need to know that some level of confidentiality will be kept when requested.
To have relationships that function the exact same way they do now. It's clear that things would be different. It's probably true that things would be harder for people in those roles. It's not at all clear that things would be worse for those outside of government, which is the real question of whether it is desirable.
What part doesn't make sense? An example from WWII was when the Allies cracked the enigma code. Obviously the intelligence value goes down if the British brag about it to all the voters and the Germans stop using it.
In that case, why not brag about cracking some code that's just too hard to crack? Make the enemy question the value of a difficult code, and put them through the expense of replacing code books, cypher machines, or at least changing out all public keys.
You'd have to come up with something you could leak to prove that the code was broken, I suppose. But what about bragging about a code you've broken pretty thoroughly, and then giving really shoddy evidence that only arguably proves you've broken it? Sort of the opposite of Cryptonomicon's Unit 2702. You might make the enemy snort in derision, and believe that the cypher in question was still secure.
Do that a few times, and then suddenly reveal a lot of stuff that could only have come from one of the bragged-about-in-a-shoddy-fashion cyphers. Now all cyphers, especially the one's not bragged about come under suspicion.
Wow, this is a fun game!
I've answered this elsewhere already, but spin the question around: Could you explain how it doesn't make sense to you? It seems obvious on its face to anybody who's ever withheld any information from anybody else.