tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post5600705827005165735..comments2024-03-23T12:05:13.464-07:00Comments on Ideas: NSA, state secrets, and bonding: A suggestionDavid Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-35949992402462626522007-05-19T01:42:00.000-07:002007-05-19T01:42:00.000-07:00Two further objections: first, the government does...Two further objections: first, the government does not seem to have ever been short on people willing to lie on its behalf, especially when they are convinced that it is their patriotic duty to deceive the people. Second, it seems unlikely that appropriate follow-up will ever occur.<BR/><BR/>Let me suggest an alternate approach: rather than trusting an involved party to accept future penalties, trust an uninvolved party. The judge (perhaps with the aid of suitable amici curiae) selects a knowledgeable and reputable person or small group. This group, along with the judge, is sworn not to reveal the allegedly sensitive information. They see all the evidence from both sides and determine whether or not there is a probability of success in the action.<BR/><BR/>The best part is that we already have a similar system -- the Grand Jury.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-57723600143871633762007-05-14T07:59:00.000-07:002007-05-14T07:59:00.000-07:00Seneca, the issue is that when the classified info...Seneca, the issue is that when the classified information is revealed after 30 years, and it turns out that government officials were lying about it, absolutely nothing will happen to them. Government officials generally don't prosecute other government officials for perjury - ask any defense attorney, they will tell you of cases where a cop was caught perjuring himself in the courtroom, and nothing happened to him. Beyond that, a 30 year span means that most lawsuits and criminal laws are impossible because of statutes of limitation, and even if it is possible to get a case into court, it's generally impossible to prove it. After 30 years evidence is hard to find, memories have faded, etc.<BR/><BR/>So, there's no real downside to officials lying about classified material.<BR/><BR/>Arthur, those mathematical theorems you cite are only applicable within very narrow domains, not to the kind of evidence we're talking about. As for trusted third parties, the <I>judge</I> is supposed to be a trusted third party, but:<BR/><BR/>1) The judge likely owes his job to the boss of the people who are presenting the case for keeping the secret, and<BR/><BR/>2) the judge will not know whether claimed "facts" are really facts or could be easily disproven by the other side in the case - if they knew what they needed to disprove.<BR/><BR/>markmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-32082776121494588242007-05-13T09:18:00.000-07:002007-05-13T09:18:00.000-07:00In cryptography, there exist zero disclosure proof...In cryptography, there exist zero disclosure proofs. By answering a series of challenge, it is possible to prove that some statement is true without revealing information.<BR/><BR/>Without using so much formalism, there are very simple cases of this. I can prove I made an anti-gravity device by some direct confirmations without revealing the inner working. I can prove that I can break some encryption schemes without showing how. <BR/><BR/>With the right formalism, it is even possible to prove that I have a proof of any mathematical statement without revealing the proof itself.<BR/><BR/>With a lot of work, maybe such a formalism could be brought to resolve disputes with zero disclosure.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the easiest way to do that is to use a trusted third party, and in many case it should be more than a sufficient guarantee. A private company could easily do that and provide claim verifications without disclosure. But the point is that theoretically (as long as one way function exist) a trusted third party is not even necessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-55516070092951818822007-05-12T11:24:00.000-07:002007-05-12T11:24:00.000-07:00In response to Seneca--whose English is surprising...In response to Seneca--whose English is surprisingly good for an ancient Roman ... <BR/><BR/>1. I have had no real exposure to classified information.<BR/><BR/>2. The real point of my post wasn't about classified information--that was just the example that inspired it. The real point was to suggest an approach to dealing with situations where it was important to establish truth, but revealing the secret information needed to do so would be undesirable.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-69008737852804973512007-05-11T21:21:00.000-07:002007-05-11T21:21:00.000-07:00David, have you ever had any real exposure to clas...David, have you ever had any real exposure to classified information? It doesn't appear so: first because you're apparently unaware that classified information already <I>has</I> an expiration date (in almost all cases, no more than 30 years, and in a development completely uncovered by the media, the "most secretive administration in history" has unilaterally reversed previous policy, so that material is automatically declassified after 30 years unless a cse is made to maintain classification, rather than the old policy); and second, because (perhaps for purposes of hypothesis, rather than ignorance, but you can't tell from this) you make the rather peculiar argument about a lack of lwyers cleared for certain material. Believe me, if there's one thing the agencies don't lack, it's lawyers.Charlie Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14586506407851173416noreply@blogger.com