Display:
I agree on sabotage, but inside jobs are not something than can be prevented by secrecy either.

the main issue seems to be the theoretical possibility of safety without secrecy. While I would contest that, too

I'd like to see that.

Chemical industry. Also a problem

And that's why we have strong regulation.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 04:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree on sabotage, but inside jobs are not something than can be prevented by secrecy either.

Agree, though tiered clearances and access to information may reduce the risk (or at least are argued to reduce the risk by those who influence policy).

And that's why we have strong regulation.

And we also have protected perimeters and secrecy.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 05:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Everything that is vulnerable has a protected perimeter.

As for secrecy, that's an ongoing battle ("freedom of information" laws). Or are you agreeing that the government and industry cannot operate with freedom of information laws?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 05:10:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series