[madaxe]

> The government isn't crazy like Deputy Minister Helpmann in Brazil.

Who said Helpmann was crazy? He's perfectly sane and rational, from his frame of reference. So are our governments. The issue arises when the subjective reality in which ones leaders reside and the subjective reality in which you reside are radically disconnected, which makes decisions and actions made by either side seem irrational and scary.

I'd argue that governmental secrecy is bad, in all its forms, as it always ends up being abused, from the perspective of the cit. I understand your point, but it's demonstrably the case that secrecy begets secrecy, which begets corruption.

I stand by my parallel of Brazil, for we do not exist under a brutal, evil, autocratic government, nor under a consciously designed society intended to be "better", but instead under a self-sustaining zombie bureaucracy that no longer connects to the world it governs, and in fact is attempting to reshape the subjective reality of others to suit its own ends - which are, in fact, none, other than perpetuation of the status quo and hegemonic systemisation of anything which conceivably can be - which was the crux of Brazil.

[Svip]

What I admire about Edward Snowden was that he leaked documents that revealed secrets that are important for the public to know. But most importantly, his leaks did not contain secrets about the whereabouts of American personnel. No one was put in immediate danger because of his leaks. And Mr Snowden has stated himself that was his intent; he had come across documents that revealed a far reaching system that he simply could not justify not revealing.

However, while Mr Snowden's conduct was admirable, there will be some people out there interested in state secrets, with the intent of malice. With the intent of doing harm to the government, the state, people working for the government/state or the people of that state.

I agree that secrecy is bad, but I feel we must at least have some secrecy, but clear and public requirements for when something can become (or remain) secret.

[belorn]

Sweden has a relevant law to define a public requirement for when someone can become liable for publishing secrets¹. It demands evidence that shows that the information was correctly classified, and that some damage actually happened from the publishing. Simply having a seal on the document is not enough.

The precedent case for this law happened during the cold war, and was about a newspaper that published a counter-espionage report (Case: NJA 1988 s. 118²).

The military argued that the national safety was damaged by the publishing, but would not give any details because of the nature of doing national security work.

The court made two tests to decide the case. Did the information deserve to be classified under secrecy, and was the damages reported by the military believable. On the first, they said it was doubtful, and on the second they said a straight no. Case dismissed.

To me it sounds as very clear and public requirement, which would work fine in both Snowden's and Manning's cases.

1) Please note that this is only about publishing secrets. Breaking a contract or an oath can and is likely to be punished under different laws.

2) https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/1988s118

[Svip]

Was the law used in the 1988 ruling? Or was the law created following that ruling? I assume it is the former, as Sweden is a Civil Law countries and judgements don't make something enforceable.

But regardless, that is a decent enough requirement system. The military refusing to present evidence in the case also hurt their argument, which is how it should be.

[belorn]

Correct, the law(s) was made before the ruling. Sweden still use precedent cases as guides, but they don't decide the law.

[melling]

Funny that you should say that. I read HN every day and I don't know what's in the documents that Snowden leaked. Granted, I usually only skim these types of posts trying to glean any insightful comments.

Anyway, the point is that if I don't know what Snowden leaked, I bet most people don't know either.

[001sky]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/snowden-powerpoint/

[inthewind]

I think the easy opt out here then is to say that governments shouldn't be secret, but the military can. But then you get to the strange point, as to whether the government can trust the military.

[madaxe]

That's not a strange point. That's the way it should be. The military represent the people. The government represent the people. The police/law enforcement agencies represent the state-sanctioned violence of the government's legislative branch. Note that this does not mean that the military represent the government. This has come to be the case in many western democracies, but has not always been the case.

Military coups are the outcome of a disconnect. Whether that disconnect lies between the people and the government, or the government and the military, varies.

But fundamentally, no, the government should not trust the military, nor the military the government, as the two should be at odds, for otherwise the military have no distinction from the police - and the police no distinction from the military - and then you find yourselves in a scary place indeed.