I'd like to know your opinion about military secrets in the an-cap world. If information is leaked to the press, it would be legal for the press to print it. But by printing it actual troops might be endangered, and entire plans discovered by the enemey. What is your take on that?
Certainly.
Hmm... Certainly what?
In the end it would all boil down to the press agency. Very few (if any) media groups would risk the wrath of the tyrant to get these secrets on front page. And before you bring WikiLeaks on remember to date Wikileaks hasn't published anything about what we usually take as military secrets: where are all the detailed troop deployments or the plans for the new stealth fighter? Where are the drafts for the carpet bombing of Iran's nuclear sites?
The last man who leaked out military secrets to the press, the heroic Mordechai Vanunu, had to search high and low to find a news outlet for his story. Only the London Sunday Times (intriguingly enough owned since 1981 by Rupert Murdoch) gave him room. Since the same newspaper had been taken in by the so called Hitler Diaries three years before it may be argued the editors believed Vanunu's story to be a fake useful to sell more copies. It was only after the Mossad spared no effort to capture Vanunu that they realized they may have more than they bargained for on their hands.
So if publishing troop deployments should be legal, then no military agency should have the right to pursue the newspaper.
The military owns the information it produces, just as a private individual owns a patent or a copyright. Whether or not someone agrees with how that information was obtained or what the military does with the information is irrelevant. Those who steal it are guilty of theft, and those who publish it are aiding and abetting, not to mention possibly endangering their fellow citizens.
Property rights apply to everyone.
It can't work like patents. With patents you can freely publish the patent details, you just can't sell a product that is implemented in the same way as the patent describes. It also won't work with copyrights, because troop deployment cannot be copyrighted, that's a constantly changing information. Copyrighting does not suit this model.
FleetCenturion: The military owns the information it produces, just as a private individual owns a patent or a copyright. Whether or not someone agrees with how that information was obtained or what the military does with the information is irrelevant. Those who steal it are guilty of theft, and those who publish it are aiding and abetting, not to mention possibly endangering their fellow citizens. Property rights apply to everyone.
Most people here, including myself, believe that intellectual property is not considered property. I don't agree with the concept of patents or copyrights.
Eugene: I'd like to know your opinion about military secrets in the an-cap world. If information is leaked to the press, it would be legal for the press to print it. But by printing it actual troops might be endangered, and entire plans discovered by the enemey. What is your take on that?
Trade secrets are important to a companies success be that a defense contractor or a software firm. Usually an NDA is enough to keep information secret but there are other ways for a company to keep information secret such as not giving any single individual in the company the whole story. Obviously this works to a certain extent since no matter how much people try to figure out what Apple or Google's next big piece of hardware is it usually doesn't get really leaked until late in the development cycle. It's not like information about the iPhone or the iPad got leaked as soon as the product entered development. It usually happens around the time it goes into large scale quality assurance that rumors start circulating and all the news outlets eat it up.
Eugene:It can't work like patents. With patents you can freely publish the patent details, you just can't sell a product that is implemented in the same way as the patent describes. It also won't work with copyrights, because troop deployment cannot be copyrighted, that's a constantly changing information. Copyrighting does not suit this model.
It can work in exactly that manner. It applies to a governments just like it would to a corporation. As a company is also free NOT to publish its patents and protected information, it also has a right to expect someone not to just steal from them and get away with it. The military and its employees (soldiers) produce material and information unique to the business they are in, and they have a right to protect it.
Government information is created as public domain, as it should be in a free society. Military information, however, is created to be privileged information. The military itself is not a free society, and was never intended to be such.
The only instance I can think of where divulging military secrets would be justified is if that information involved troop movements targeted against U.S. citizens. The latest leak of secrets, though, while extremely funny, does not make us as a society any freer.
I am no fan of the Government in general either. However, telling the whole world what I am doing does not make America more free or liberate anybody (especially yours truly) from state influence. Causing me to get my ass shot off in Dirkadirqistan does not stick it to the Man. It just makes even more people dead.
FleetCenturion:Those who steal it are guilty of theft
Presumably the military is still in possession of the information, which means it hasn't been stolen. If we are talking about some flash drive, an actual physical thing, this of course can be stolen. Otherwise, the information is merely copied and passed on. This is not theft.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Ah, yes, as to the intellectual property argument:
If someone takes information off of your computer without your consent, are they stealing it, or are they copying it and passing it along?
Here is where military secrets differ from IP. This is not the latest Metallica album being traded over the internet. It is not intended in any way for distribution outside of the organization that created it. Nobody is raking in profits from its sale, and then using the state to deny others te right to copy and distribute property they purchased freely. Military secrets were never intended to see the light of day in the first place. The military has a right to create and use material and information it creates, just as an individual or company has a right to its own private property.
Thus, you have no more right to take protected military information than the military has a right to copy and make public the contents of your hard drive.
As a side note, military information that is not either classified or designated purely for official use is freely and widely distributed all over the world by the military itself, since nobody can be expected to profit from its sale. If you doubt me, just Google explosives manuals, or pick up a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships. All that information was obtained 100% legally.
FleetCenturion:Here is where military secrets differ from IP. This is not the latest Metallica album being traded over the internet. It is not intended in any way for distribution outside of the organization that created it. Nobody is raking in profits from its sale, and then using the state to deny others te right to copy and distribute property they purchased freely. Military secrets were never intended to see the light of day in the first place. The military has a right to create and use material and information it creates, just as an individual or company has a right to its own private property.
None of this addresses the issue of copying versus stealing, which is what I raised. It doesn't matter if it is a Metallica album, or what the intentions for it are, or whether someone is profiting by it. Information is not property, period. Copying it and passing it along not not stealing. Theft deprives the owner of his property, copying does not. If you are going to analyze military secrets, you should have this distinction clear in your mind.
It is perfectly possible to make contractual agreements beforehand that someone with authorized use of a computer will not copy or in any way distribute the information he sees on it. However, the military is a criminal organization that gets its funding through extortion. Therefore, no one who works for the military is morally bound to honor any obligations they made to it.
gocrew:... However, the military is a criminal organization that gets its funding through extortion....
Gee, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the debate would consist of baseless name calling and gross displays of ignorance.
Apparently, you believe that someone who hacks into your hard drive and copies all your information for some unspecified use is merely "sharing". I'm sure the nanny state will soon be making the same argument.
FleetCenturion: Gee, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the debate would consist of baseless name calling and gross displays of ignorance.
Looks like somebody got pwned and is getting a wee bit testy. He's even seeing baseless name-calling where none has occurred.
FleetCenturion:Apparently, you believe that someone who hacks into your hard drive and copies all your information for some unspecified use is merely "sharing".
A citation of my posts where I imply or explicitly state this will not be forthcoming, because none exists. One wonders why you bothered with the last post at all.
FleetCenturion:I am no fan of the Government in general either. However, telling the whole world what I am doing does not make America more free or liberate anybody (especially yours truly) from state influence. Causing me to get my ass shot off in Dirkadirqistan does not stick it to the Man. It just makes even more people dead.
Military secrets are precisely why so many young people are getting their asses shot off.
What are you doing in Dirkadirqistan in the first place?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
The military's secrets should receive no different legal treatment than anybody else's secrets.
</thread>
Clayton -
mikachusetts:What are you doing in Dirkadirqistan in the first place?
If I told you, it would refute my entire argument, wouldn't it?
liberty student:Military secrets are precisely why so many young people are getting their asses shot off.
If this is part of a larger rant, please enlighten the rest of us, because on the surface, it seems both incoherent and childish.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the rise and growth of the Nanny State might have come before this country's over-use of military aggression and not the other way around? Since WWII, that would seem to be the case, especially since the debt run up by social programs has dwarfed that of all the wars we've ever fought.
The growth of government causes the Nanny State to expand the military, not the other way around. It is about using force to get other countries to accept our worthless money and absorb our debt, when simple coercion wouldn't do it.
FleetCenturion:If this is part of a larger rant, please enlighten the rest of us, because on the surface, it seems both incoherent and childish.
I think it is pretty clear what I am saying. Any thoughtful libertarian will understand the point I made.
FleetCenturion:Did it ever occur to anyone that the rise and growth of the Nanny State might have come before this country's over-use of military aggression and not the other way around?
I'm sure people who are unfamiliar with history have considered it with intensity.
If this is part of a larger rant, please enlighten the rest of us, because on the surface, it seems both incoherent and childish. Did it ever occur to anyone that the rise and growth of the Nanny State might have come before this country's over-use of military aggression and not the other way around? Since WWII, that would seem to be the case, especially since the debt run up by social programs has dwarfed that of all the wars we've ever fought. The growth of government causes the Nanny State to expand the military, not the other way around. It is about using force to get other countries to accept our worthless money and absorb our debt, when simple coercion wouldn't do it.
Does it really matter? Socialized defense has been around for millenia. It's one of the primary pillars of the State.
so american spys should be convicted of stealing infomation.or should spying be only intrusted with our wise overlords."cant have wiki leaks showing corrupt russian mayors or reporters getting shot can we' ''
Why would a world without States have a military?
"The Military" would have to demonstrate explicit and tangible damages done by the release of said information. This would be impossible, as the "crime" would be killing mercenaries, not diseminating information. So unless they were physcially pulling the trigger or ordering subordinates to pull the trigger whilst posting information online....
no crime.
In a world without states there might not be military. I am talking about a world of states and an anarchi-capitalist state. If one of the other states decides to attack the anarcho-capitalist state (just in order to take the land), then the anarcho-capitalist state will have to defend itself. The positioning of its troops might be vital.
My position would be unchanged then. Similarly to intoxication not being the crime when a drunk driver wrecks into something, disseminating information you are not beholden to protect is not a crime either. In your more specific example, that doesn't mean society would have to accept the individual. They could utterly cast them out by refusing to trade with them. However, from a legal standpoint, innocent of any crime.