N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets (opens in new tab)

Say you have 5 arrests warrants for members of a gang, you often can't arrest them all the once so here is where the "secret" comes into play when they are arrested and the arrest is maintained confidential for 24-48 hours depending on the jurisdiction.

This is done to prevent the rest from scattering into hiding as soon as the news of one or more of them getting arrested breaks, this also means they won't hold down somewhere and be ready for a fight, or even go and do something worse like take hostages in order to try to get out of dodge.

This also means that in some rights are withheld for the duration of the "gag order" like access to a phone or an attorney, however the police is not allowed to question or formally charge the subjects during that period either, so while there is some violation of rights it is not egregious.

To be fair, what if two people did that and disagreed?

"Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

Hedges v. Obama did not affirm the constitutionality of that law, but rather that that plaintiff did not have a sufficient interest in that provision in order to ensure that they would present the best case that can be made, which is important because US Court's follow precedent. If you'd like to read more, look for the constitutional requirement of Standing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization...

... under the NDAA "an American citizen can be detained forever without trial, while the allegations against you go uncontested because you have no right to see them"

(One or two documents had classified sections, which were labeled with small (c) marks. The document should have had big CLASSIFIED marks, but since it didn't, missing a (c) next to a paragraph is not an arrestable offense)

The biggest change might simply be that they need to start doing unambiguous good or their workers will keep leaking stuff.

Yes, it's not cryptographic-level security, but it raises the costs of an attack. In the real world, that matters.

Also consider that not all attacks are spy-vs-spy. This could be a case of 'keeping honest people honest', i.e.: making it sufficiently difficult to dissuade the majority of political activists and/or protesters. This is the same reason why padlocks are a thing.

On account of (a) unjust governments being more likely to abuse power than just ones, (b) unjust governments are more dangerous than unjust actors and (c) the belief that just governments are plausible, I would say "more".

If you live under an unjust government, their curtailed power is a plus. If you live under a just government, your threat profile from unjust governments is decreased. The threat from unjust actors may increase, but that is a fair trade-off per (b).

Collecting attack weapons, but letting your defense rot is a strategy which might work in computer games.

Apparently they do it anyway.

He knows his stuff. And he's dismissive and rude. The former forgives the latter, for me.