TrapWire - Voiding what little privacy we have left? - General

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208626]Though, the fact that Wikileaks is being assaulted by what is undoubtedly the United States government as a result of the leak isn't making me any more relaxed.[/QUOTE] A group of Al Queda agents in Los Angeles that previously had plans to attack several targets now knows it's being watched. No matter how you look at it, unless you're a member of Al Queda, that is not a good thing. Doubtless there are more cells being observed and they're trying to do damage control to prevent giving the bad guys any more of a heads-up.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;37208670]You've got to understand that releasing this information is like telling the bad guys "hey look, a system you can try and take advantage of!" not to mention it really sets people off on conspiracy theorist trips. I'm all for telling the populace the truth about things that matter, but this is one of those things that I understand is better left a secret, because releasing it doesn't help anyone, and just hurts progress. If they [b]were[/b] watching us in our house, I would love to know, but this doesn't seem to matter to most people at all. It's the same thing with whether aliens have visited us or not, or if Mitt Romney is really a reptile. These are things that would cause so much hysteria in the general populace, that it would cause more harm than good.[/QUOTE] I just can't buy into that. Transparency is something every government needs, if we condone hiding even one big thing in the name of security, we invite disaster upon us. [editline]13th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;37208678]A group of Al Queda agents in Los Angeles that previously had plans to attack several targets now knows it's being watched. No matter how you look at it, unless you're a member of Al Queda, that is not a good thing. Doubtless there are more cells being observed and they're trying to do damage control to prevent giving the bad guys any more of a heads-up.[/QUOTE] They're still being tracked, though. We are identifying their patterns, and now that they're being tracked, they're going to have to try a lot harder to take us by surprise and to do anything more than get caught. As a deterrent, this can work. As a surveillance tool, this could work. But we deserve to know that we are being tracked in this way.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208711]I just can't buy into that. Transparency is something every government needs, if we condone hiding even one big thing in the name of security, we invite disaster upon us.[/QUOTE] No government is 100% transparent, and never will be. I would go the length to say that the U.S. government is pretty transparent in comparison to many countries. While I know it has secrets, every other country has them too, if not more. If things were 100% transparent, covert operations around the world would never work.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208711]I just can't buy into that. Transparency is something every government needs, if we condone hiding even one big thing in the name of security, we invite disaster upon us.[/QUOTE] Temporary secrecy is vitally important to many things. They don't wear their police uniforms when performing a sting, do they?

[QUOTE=Loriborn;37208725]No government is 100% transparent, and never will be. I would go the length to say that the U.S. government is pretty transparent in comparison, and while I know it has secrets, every other country has them too, if not more.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=cccritical;37208733]Temporary secrecy is vitally important to many things. They don't wear their police uniforms when performing a sting, do they?[/QUOTE] Of course. But should we not be working towards 100% transparency, even if it's not possible? The government of the United States should, in theory, operate for the people, by the people, and if that's to happen, the people need to know what their government is doing on their behalf. If a sensitive situation could be exacerbated by the knowledge being public (like, say, planning the Osama assassination), then yes, secrecy is a given. But the truth needs to come out, eventually- and sooner rather than later. Each case is unique.

Imagine what a catastrophe it would be if the full details of the planned raid on Osama's stronghold were leaked a day in advance of the operation. Effectively that just happened, just on a smaller scale.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208746]Of course. But should we not be working towards 100% transparency, even if it's not possible? The government of the United States should, in theory, operate for the people, by the people. If a sensitive situation could be exacerbated by the knowledge being public (like, say, planning the Osama assassination), then yes, secrecy is a given. But the truth needs to come out, eventually- and sooner rather than later. Each case is unique.[/QUOTE] I'm more than positive TrapWire would have been publicly described eventually, but it's been around for what appears to be roughly 6 years already, and it seems to be doing well and no one has been harmed by it.

[QUOTE=cccritical;37208753]Imagine what a catastrophe it would be if the full details of the planned raid on Osama's stronghold were leaked a day in advance of the operation. Effectively that just happened, just on a smaller scale.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't go that far. Knowledge of the raid would have destroyed it. Knowledge of this doesn't neuter the service. It will still function tomorrow as well as it did before TrapWire was public knowledge, except, now, it's a deterrent. It will force terrorists and criminals to adjust their plans to compensate for the system- something that may prove daunting, and damn near impossible to do for them. It will still identify threats and patterns.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208784]I wouldn't go that far. Knowledge of the raid would have destroyed it. Knowledge of this doesn't neuter the service. It will still function tomorrow as well as it did before TrapWire was public knowledge, except, now, it's a deterrent. It will force terrorists and criminals to adjust their plans to compensate for the system- something that may prove daunting, and damn near impossible to do for them. It will still identify threats and patterns.[/QUOTE] Now they'll simply know that cameras that are watching them know who they are, and may make efforts to neutralize them, or move operations to a location free of cameras, since these are only in high risk locations.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;37208761]I'm more than positive TrapWire would have been publicly described eventually, but it's been around for what appears to be roughly 6 years already, and it seems to be doing well and no one has been harmed by it.[/QUOTE] Sure, and that's great. But what if it was key in causing some havoc, what if it facilitated less-than-legal acts on behalf of the government? It didn't, but what if it did? We can't trust that every program will turn out as well. [editline]13th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;37208796]Now they'll simply know that cameras that are watching them know who they are, and may make efforts to neutralize them, or move operations to a location free of cameras, since these are only in high risk locations.[/QUOTE] Thereby making their lives much, much harder. They will have to design new ways of committing attacks with the knowledge that we have the capability to figure them out before they even know we're onto them.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208800]Sure, and that's great. But what if it was key in causing some havoc, what if it facilitated less-than-legal acts on behalf of the government? It didn't, but what if it did? We can't trust that every program will turn out as well.[/QUOTE] But we also can't assume that every project owned and operated by the government is going to harm us eventually. Living in constant fear of the government based on fictional actions in novels and slight similarities to those actions in real life is just as bad as being the government who facilitates those activities.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208784]I wouldn't go that far. Knowledge of the raid would have destroyed it. Knowledge of this doesn't neuter the service. It will still function tomorrow as well as it did before TrapWire was public knowledge, except, now, it's a deterrent. It will force terrorists and criminals to adjust their plans to compensate for the system- something that may prove daunting, and damn near impossible to do for them. It will still identify threats and patterns.[/QUOTE] The specific group plotting the attacks knows they have to change up their approach somewhat now. They may have found the spy in their midst, now suddenly the FBI has no idea what they're doing anymore. They have the upper hand and innocent lives are up in the air now.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;37208815]But we also can't assume that every project owned and operated by the government is going to harm us eventually. Living in constant fear of the government based on fictional actions in novels and slight similarities to those actions in real life is just as bad as being the government who facilitates those activities.[/QUOTE] No, but it's much more advantageous to plan for a bad result than it is to just assume they're going to work out. [editline]13th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;37208820]The specific group plotting the attacks knows they have to change up their approach somewhat now. They may have found the spy in their midst, now suddenly the FBI has no idea what they're doing anymore. They have the upper hand and innocent lives are up in the air now.[/QUOTE] Innocent lives are always at risk, though it's disgusting. Yes, maybe the revelation has just put a wrench in the good guys' plans, but the moment we compromise that which we hold dear for safety, we've crossed a very depressing line. The nation deserves to know what its government is doing, in this regard. TrapWire is still an effective surveillance system. The leak doesn't change that. And remember, the fact that they have to change their approach may very well mean they can't carry out their attack. Now that they know they're being watched, they know they're likely to be caught. The time and logistics it could take to redesign their entire plan could fundamentally ruin their operation.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208842]No, but it's much more advantageous to plan for a bad result than it is to just assume they're going to work out.[/QUOTE] While that's true, that's no way to live a happy life, especially when worrying about it won't solve the problem. Even if the system were abused, we, as individuals, can't prepare for a situation like that beforehand. There's nothing we can do to ready ourselves for the system being hijacked, since the only way to "prepare" would be to destroy the cameras, which at this point, would be considered criminal. (for good reason)

[QUOTE=Loriborn;37208872]While that's true, that's no way to live a happy life, especially when worrying about it won't solve the problem. Even if the system were abused, we can't prepare for a situation like that beforehand. There's nothing we can do to ready ourselves for the system being hijacked, since the only way to prepare would be to destroy the cameras, which at this point, would be considered criminal. (for good reason)[/QUOTE] There's gotta be some failsafe measure to implement, some way to stand up and stop it if this system goes rogue. We have to trust people to a degree. I trust that the government will use this system, on the whole, for good. But the possibility remains that abuse can occur with it. I trust that if there is a failsafe and things go south, it can and may be used to stop it. But the possibility remains that the failsafe could be a liability. We just have to trust that it won't be. Better to be prepared than to be stuck with a serious breach. Everything is escalation until a balance is found. We have a failsafe, they have an override. That's what we need. Abuse can occur, still, but the possibility of it occurring should be marginalized.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208900]There's gotta be some failsafe measure to implement, some way to stand up and stop it if this system goes rogue. We have to trust people to a degree. I trust that the government will use this system, on the whole, for good. But the possibility remains that abuse can occur with it. I trust that if there is a failsafe and things go south, it can and may be used to stop it. But the possibility remains that the failsafe could be a liability. We just have to trust that it won't be. Better to be prepared than to be stuck with a serious breach.[/QUOTE] But what can you or I do to prepare for said situation? All of the progress towards dealing with that issue rests in the hands of the government, and the tech guys in charge of the system.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;37208914]But what can you or I do to prepare for said situation? All of the progress towards dealing with that issue rests in the hands of the government, and the tech guys in charge of the system.[/QUOTE] I've got faith in the ingenuity of the human race to figure out some way around this, if the need is so dire. As with Al-Qaeda, it's true that it may be damn near impossible and so problematic that it's better to just give up, but at least we can try. Alright, it's getting late and my arguments are about to start lacking coherency. However, I get what you're saying and do agree in a large part. Both of you. Still uncertain about this whole thing, but you make compelling points.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208900]But the possibility remains that the failsafe could be a liability. We just have to trust that it won't be.[/QUOTE] It in itself is already a liability and for six years it's proven uncorrupted. The possibility of corruption [i]is[/i] marginalized. I understand what you're saying but you're thinking like Leslie Knope, contingency plans for every possible outcome of a situation, no matter how improbable.

Cyberdyne systems are 40% operational