Xref: utzoo rec.aviation:13107 sci.space.shuttle:2650
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!ugthomps
From: ugthomps@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Gregory Thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: The Thought Police
Message-ID: <4806@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 20 Mar 89 17:03:39 GMT
References: <524@gonzo.UUCP> <1475@petsd.UUCP> <13987@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <976@nbife.NBI.COM> <1993NU052179@NDSUVM1> <320@carroll1.UUCP> <278@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <1596@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <11254@ut-emx.UUCP>
Reply-To: ugthomps@sunybcs.UUCP (Gregory Thompson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 42

In article <11254@ut-emx.UUCP> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>Considering how meaningless "security" and technology restrictions are these
>days (i.e., public-knowledge except the public shouldn't know about them),
>I have no problem with people commenting half-remembered experiences.  More
>to the point, I'd be surprised if the "opposition" didn't know all about a 25-
>year-old airplane.

Security and techonology restrictions are by no means "meaningless".
Consider the level of knowledge that you *think* you have.  How far
up is it really?  Do you know for a fact?  Let's take a nice simple fact
that is a very commonly asked question: how deep does say, a trident 
class sub go?  Do you know the answer?  I thought not.  Restrictions are
not meaningless,in fact far from it.

>I think we're mostly adults here.  I would be surprised if people working on 

Considering the fact that it is adults who give away the overwhelming 
majority of secrets,the fact that we are adults in any sense of the word
is rather gutted of meaning. 

>the SR-71 did not have to sign a contract, providing for mucho penalties for
>security violations.  Let the individuals make up their own minds on what
>to post.  If they break the law, well--that's their own problem.  We don't
>need someone to set us straight on what's "correct" to talk about.

No it's not just their problem.  It is the nation's problem.  It is not just]
law they are breaking.  If a person with a security clearance reveals data
that endangers this nation, it very quickly becomes your problem as well.

The person who gave us that reminder about security was not in the wrong.E
Even those of us who have security clearances occasionally need refreshers.
In fact in many areas of security it is common practice to have refreshers.
This person was doing a favor to us and the nation he represents.

>Robert \
>Dorsett, who's never had a security clearance, and hopes never to have one. :-)
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How do you feel qualified to comment?  I don't know your history, but
if you have never had a security clearance, then what do you know about it??

                           - G