>>Don't you think this is something rather dangerous?
>
> As I said, I don't feel free to detail this further, but I think, at 
> least in this case, they are right to do so, in order to protect the 
> public.
>
> It is a slippery slope though.

Good discussion.

But someone (not me) probably needs to change the subject line, if 
only so I don't get (too) beaten up (yet) again. I don't think that in 
this case that this was a reasonably predictable path for this thread 
to take :-).
___________

The line between reasoned protection of public interest by suppression 
of harmful information, and having your servants conniving behind your 
backs to deprive you of person liberties (tm) is an inordinately ill 
defined one. What one can be sure of is that human nature will use 
precedent to drive things in the latter direction without eternal 
vigilance. And when those who are meant to assist us in being vigilant 
(eg the press) are partners in the suppression things can get out of 
control fairly quickly. In my country we seem (IMHO) (and to my 
surprise) to have managed to strike a far better balance than in most 
other places. Why this should be I'm not sure. The home of the free, 
with significantly greater codified freedom of speech than we, still 
seems to be more bound by secret processes and hiding of information. 
Having much more active real enemies is no doubt a factor in this. To 
some extent those who see the US as their enemy would see us as one 
too (eg we have a small number of troops in Afghanistan), but to a 
lesser extent, and we are small and far away and on average are 
perceived to be more balanced in our approach to world affairs. (It's 
easier to be perceived as balanced when you only have a population of 
4 million :-) ).


        RM

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist