500N
I absolutely disagree with you here. The ability of the Gov't to censor DECREASES as the ability to broadcast information increases.
Not if the ability to censor increases exponentially relative to the ability to broadcast information. Do you think the government really has an internet kill-switch just because they're worried about hackers?
In the UK copyright lobbyists asked the government to create means to swiftly block websites and streaming videos. While this was to prevent copyright infringement, this could easily adapted for so called "cyber security" to provide real-time censorship.
Keep in mind censorship doesn't have to be done with an army of people anymore, with advanced automation and complex computer algorithms the capability to censor information is exponentially increasing . It's only a matter of time before this capability is further developed and implemented.
cazatou
Apologies for the tardy reply - the Birthday of "She who must be obeyed".
Your wife has the same birthday as me
(Sept 6)?
it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
I don't know what context Churchill was saying this in, but I would assume he was talking about war. Regardless, there are many politicians who also agree that truth is so pernicious that it must be guarded with a bodyguard of lies, not because it's a matter of national survival, but because it would make them look bad, and expose corruption.
Do you think
that is an acceptable application of secrecy?
Keep in mind that being that in our systems of government, people select the elected officials that will govern them, and for this to work even remotely well, the public have to know what they're doing. If government officials are allowed to use secrecy to cover up misconduct, it'd throw a monkey wrench into the entire democratic process