But people are arguing that certain technologies (nuclear power, but it could be others) cannot be made safe because to be safe it needs to be secure, and to be secure it has to be secret. And they're using the terrorism/organised crime bogeyman to buttress the argument.
Isn't it agreed that if someone is determined to die trying, there's no amount of security that will make any target safe? But that is the problem, you have to either assume overwhelming force or willingness to die trying in order to justify secrecy for security or safety. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Chemical industry. Also a problem (and before someone curses Greenpeace et al again, I note one that gets attention -- say BASF's spills into the Rhine), though stakes are less.
cannot be made safe because to be safe it needs to be secure, and to be secure it has to be secret.
You short-cut it there. For you the info-anarchist, the main issue seems to be the theoretical possibility of safety without secrecy. While I would contest that, too, a more important question is the practical issue of whether there are people who (1) do think that safety needs secrecy, and (2) are in position to influence actual policy. Be them military or police, as I try to argue towards you, or François's blockhead politicians, I think there are and there always will be such people.
they're using the terrorism/organised crime bogeyman
I don't think they're only bogeymans. They should be taken into account just like earthquakes. There is safety and excessive safety. On the other hand, you left out the most probable willfull human-caused damage concern, mentioned by rdf, sabotage, especially by on-site workers, which is not theoretical. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
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?
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.
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?
