  We discuss the recent "realpolitik" analysis of Wisian & Traphagan (2020,
W&T) of the potential geopolitical fallout of the success of SETI. They
conclude that "passive" SETI involves an underexplored yet significant risk
that, in the event of a successful, passive detection of extraterrestrial
technology, state-level actors could seek to gain an information monopoly on
communications with an ETI. These attempts could lead to international conflict
and potentially disastrous consequences. In response to this possibility, they
argue that scientists and facilities engaged in SETI should preemptively engage
in significant security protocols to forestall this risk.
  We find several flaws in their analysis. While we do not dispute that a
realpolitik response is possible, we uncover concerns with W&T's presentation
of the realpolitik paradigm, and we argue that sufficient reason is not given
to justify treating this potential scenario as action-guiding over other
candidate geopolitical responses. Furthermore, even if one assumes that a
realpolitik response is the most relevant geopolitical response, we show that
it is highly unlikely that a nation could successfully monopolize communication
with ETI. Instead, the real threat that the authors identify is based on the
perception by state actors that an information monopoly is likely. However, as
we show, this perception is based on an overly narrow contact scenario.
  Overall, we critique W&T's argument and resulting recommendations on
technical, political, and ethical grounds. Ultimately, we find that not only
are W&T's recommendations unlikely to work, they may also precipitate the very
ills that they foresee. As an alternative, we recommend transparency and data
sharing (which are consistent with currently accepted best practices), further
development of post-detection protocols, and better education of policymakers
in this space.
