Re: "U" vs "C" vs ... in elsets

Sat, 05 Jun 1999 23:18:52 -0400

Re: "U" vs "C" vs ... in elsets

As far as that goes, If it's not broken, don't fix it. Forget all
those extra letters. U works. Just leave it that way. The simplest
way is the best way.

SeeSat-L Wrote:
> I couldn't agree with you more. Security is not something to be taken
> lightly even if the government itself has shown that it has not done
> such a good job of keeping its secrets at home. At best, it is childish
> for some individuals to flaunt having information which they should not
> have, 

Excuse me? We should not have information (TLEs) that we pay for?
Information that 'the other side' already has?
Information that any other country in the world can easily have?
The childishness is shown by those in power trying to keep 'our' 
information away from us;  those that feel, we have this and we won't
show you.

>to intentionally pass on such information

The idea of information is to share it, not hide it. Unless of course,
it is a dictatorship.

> or to bemoan the fact
> that the military classifies certain material at their own discretion.

That's the idea in the US. Civilians are given ultimate control because 
the military should not make those policy decisions.  Given that, just above, it
is admitted that government does not do a good job with secrets, it is desirable
that citizens have a say in the matter.

> At worst it could be dangerous if information inadvertently tagged as
> classified were to reach the hands of an inspector somewhere. If it
> could not be proven to that inspector that such information was not in
> fact classified then it could conceivably result in seizure of computers
> of those who happened to receive it. This means all of us.

Are there Big Brother inspectors coming to check all of our computers 
all around the world? Now there's a worse danger.  An inspector should have to
prove something is classified. We should not have to prove that it is not. It
should be easy to show that something is widely available and not classified. If
an inspector can not, or will not realize that, that again is a worse danger.

> The best way
> to view security always has been and still is the manner in which it was
> presented to the public during WWII... "Loose Lips Sinks Ships".

I doubt any of us have any objection to real security in a WW setting. To apply
that to information already known by everyone in a peace time setting is

> It is their perogative to withold information which "they" feel to
> potentially be sensitive and "their" criteria by which such judgment is
> made regardless of what information is to be found elsewhere.

And it is the prerogative of the majority to disagree with "them". Especially
since it is "our" information.

> In a more
> ideal world where people do not inherently become adamant to see what is
> hidden from them, perhaps those who determine what is made public and
> what is not might tend to be more relaxed in their evaluations.

So we should not look to see what we know is there?  And the only reason they
are strict with classification is because someone wants it? And an ideal world
(for who?) is where the people never question what goes on but blindly accepts
whatever is told to them? Wow!
But what the heck, it it works, why not?  OK everyone. When Lacrosse flys over,
hide your eyes. Do not look at NOSS. No more discussion about classified
elements. And now that the whole subject will completely disappear, we should
expect that within the week, ALL elements will be re-rated as unclassified.
What a great idea. Why haven't we done that before?

Jay Respler
Sky Views:
   Satellite Tracker * Early Typewriter Collector
           Freehold, New Jersey