Comments on: The sanitized version http://rc3.org/2010/07/26/the-sanitized-version/ Strong opinions weakly held Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:59:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: acm http://rc3.org/2010/07/26/the-sanitized-version/comment-page-1/#comment-9272 acm Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:42:07 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=11309#comment-9272 <p>oh, pound away! I guess I thought maybe "the same level of transparency ... as we do from public corporations" meant a bit more than that. thinking again, I can see that that bar is already rather low, heh...</p> <p>:)</p> oh, pound away! I guess I thought maybe “the same level of transparency … as we do from public corporations” meant a bit more than that. thinking again, I can see that that bar is already rather low, heh…

:)

]]> By: Rafe http://rc3.org/2010/07/26/the-sanitized-version/comment-page-1/#comment-9271 Rafe Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:21:47 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=11309#comment-9271 <p>I definitely see the value in secrets, both for the government and for businesses. (Nobody says Dell should be required to disclose its product road map for the next five years to its investors.) However, I think that the government is so sharply skewed toward secrecy that we need to pound the crap out of them in hopes of getting any movement at all.</p> I definitely see the value in secrets, both for the government and for businesses. (Nobody says Dell should be required to disclose its product road map for the next five years to its investors.) However, I think that the government is so sharply skewed toward secrecy that we need to pound the crap out of them in hopes of getting any movement at all.

]]> By: acm http://rc3.org/2010/07/26/the-sanitized-version/comment-page-1/#comment-9270 acm Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:07:43 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=11309#comment-9270 <p>well, it's tricky, of course. that is, one wants the government to be able to do undercover intelligence-gathering and sneak attacks, where necessary (let's keep our images to WWII for clarity), so it's hard to say exactly where the transparency should start. does the government have to come clean on its current strategic assessments? it's hidden operations? or just the information obtained from them (somehow dissociated from whatever would make it clear how we got it) or maybe an after-view of what we did and where/how/why?</p> <p>I love the idea of transparency, of having real information with which to evaluate my "employees'" performance and/or critique their policies, but I honestly don't know how you can do that in a situation where there is an "other side" who could make a different, and possibly detrimental, use of the same information. there might be ways, but if so, nobody is talking about them...</p> well, it’s tricky, of course. that is, one wants the government to be able to do undercover intelligence-gathering and sneak attacks, where necessary (let’s keep our images to WWII for clarity), so it’s hard to say exactly where the transparency should start. does the government have to come clean on its current strategic assessments? it’s hidden operations? or just the information obtained from them (somehow dissociated from whatever would make it clear how we got it) or maybe an after-view of what we did and where/how/why?

I love the idea of transparency, of having real information with which to evaluate my “employees’” performance and/or critique their policies, but I honestly don’t know how you can do that in a situation where there is an “other side” who could make a different, and possibly detrimental, use of the same information. there might be ways, but if so, nobody is talking about them…

]]> By: Jonathan Hartley http://rc3.org/2010/07/26/the-sanitized-version/comment-page-1/#comment-9267 Jonathan Hartley Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:51:36 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=11309#comment-9267 <p>Absolutely. They work for us.</p> Absolutely. They work for us.

]]>