January 25, 2005

Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those. Cartome is a companion site to Cryptome. It is an archive of spatial and geographic documents on privacy, cryptography, dual-use technologies, national security and intelligence -- communicated by imagery systems: cartography, photography, photogrammetry, steganography, climatography, seismography, geography, camouflage, maps, images, drawings, charts, diagrams, imagery intelligence (IMINT) and their reverse-panopticon and counter-deception potential.

I was reminded by their superb Eyeball series. Cryptome is full of information.

posted by ActuallySettle 19 years ago
  • It's kind of surprising that you'd lump "freedom of expression" into the same class as "national security."
  • Ha ha ha, Jeff Harrell comes out from under the rock. Wonder what spell it was that summoned up the Republicron? Oh, it was mention of 'freedom of expression' - guaranteed to draw out The Harrell from its darkened lair, it seems. Freedom of expression *is* national security. It keeps free men safe from fascists.
  • Freedom of expression *is* national security. It keeps free men safe from fascists. That quote redeems your slide towards wacko cranky irrelevance of late, in my mind.
  • blind squirrels and nuts
  • IMHO, I do not like or approve of anybody who does not believe that national security is a product of, not an impediment to freedom of expression. What makes the previous statement impossible to argue with, of course, is the "IMHO".
  • your slide towards wacko cranky irrelevance Yeah, stay the hell outta my genre!
  • His point (though delivered by apparent drive-by trollery) was that sometimes national security is more important than letting some one say what they want to. I'm sure he meant that in connection to some justification for the patriot act, but to then take the stance that freedom of speech is an absolute right in every case is dangerous. Nostil has a point though.
  • I don't see why they can't be considered in the same class. The tension between freedom and security is a fine balancing act. On the one hand, I do believe that absolute "freedom" is not really freedom, but anarchy; but absolute security is well... death. There's nothing more secure than being dead. But how much freedom for how much security? At what point does would it become a farce to say that the individual should defer to society? of course we do defer to society a great deal; there are many laws on property, theft, physical and financial crimes, and I doubt many of us would decry them as repressive (well, not all the laws at any rate). It's not always such a cut-and-dried issue, I think. It's not an on-off switch between the two.
  • April 2004 is the cruellest month, breeding Corpses out of the dead land, mixing Memory and desire. November ain't too fucking hot either.
  • apologies to t.s. and unnumbered brown brothers and sisters
  • The tension between freedom and security is artificial. It's totally possible to have all our freedoms and still remain just as secure, if not more so. But the powers that be have tried to make us fear freedom so that we'll give it up.
  • Ha ha ha, Jeff Harrell comes out from under the rock. Wonder what spell it was that summoned up the Republicron? Oh, by all means, let's give this Web site an award for its unshakable community values. Sigh.
  • "That quote redeems your slide towards wacko cranky irrelevance" Who wants to be relevant? Not me. Anyone who craves relevance is a dick. And I am wacko, & I am cranky. "Oh, by all means, let's give this Web site an award for its unshakable community values." - says Jeffy, who has posted zero links, and only ever appears to troll threads that criticise conservative stupidity. Jeff, you aren't part of this community, you're just a fucking troll.
  • Curtailing freedom of expression strikes me as a very lazy means to national security. I liken it to zero-tolerance policies in schools. Solutions that require zero thought and zero intelligence.
  • There are limits. For example, I'm all for curtailing the freedom of nuclear scientists to express their knowledge to certain foreign governments. There are national security issues relating to cryptography, too, but I know little about that field. It's always in a nation's best interest to be able to curtail individual rights for the greater good, (ideally) in rare and special situations; the fact that the current US government abuses this notwithstanding.
  • Nuclear scientists work under contract, and sign agreements stating they won't divulge information to outside interests. Leaking proprietary information doesn't count as personal expression. We're talking political viewpoints, artistic expression, etc.
  • How about we just give up the "t" word? It's invariably misapplied hereabouts. Jeff says what Jeff thinks, and that's fine with me.
  • I'm all for curtailing the freedom of nuclear scientists to express their knowledge to certain foreign governments. Unless the nuclear scientist is affiliated with a certain dictatorship who the US is pals with at the moment. Then limits be damned.