Sometimes you will hear people say things like, “Well, if that was true, someone would have said something.” I’m unsure about this statement. That is, having worked in several jobs and seen things in my life, I’m not so sure that this is true. Let’s talk about this.
Here is a scenario: let’s assume that I worked for a corporation. I see something there that is crazy. I mean… something nuts. But one would assume I am signed to a gag order. Also, on would assume (these days) if you are in the environment to see sensitive information, there would be other countermeasures as well. Possibly an assassin on hire, etc. Now, this sounds kind of cloak and dagger, but if I owned a corporation, this is what I would do - at the least.
So here is the question:
If one really want to, is it possible to keep information hidden? And if not, what would be the means that would overcome the basic countermeasures that I have presented (legal framework, an assassin on hire).
It seems to me like it’s harder to spread information than to cover it up.
Sorkin’s show THE NEWSROOM gives us a good insight into this sort of thing:
News organs don’t just air anything. They have to think about their integrity, and there are system variables than can veto and prevent information from airing.
It really seems like if you have power, that applies to information cover up. Cat videos go viral. When was the last time you saw some viral conspiracy thing? It seems like, if it’s true that “someone would say something,” sooner or later, someone would say something very important, and it would go wild. That doesn’t happen.
Yes, gruops have kept secrets even when they no longer needed to. there was a group of intelligence officers in the UK who kept secrets long after WW2 when these secrets were no longer relevent and the officers were no longer bound to keep those secrets. But more importantly is what happens when stuff leaks. Can the corporation/group/government marginalize the person? Can the ideas be made to sound silly via PR? Not only does this keep people from blabbing - along with other more severe repercussions - but it is very effective at eliminating the threat of whistleblowers.
I mean how many people know the other stuff that Snowden has said. No one seriuosly questions the truth of what he revealed about the NSA - the issue for some is whether he should have. But he mentioned other things that have not made it into the mainstream media. Why? Even if the MSM thinks it is loony stuff, wouldn’t that still be newsworthy? But no, it is simply non-existent.