|
Most network information breeches that affect secure networks (by "secure" I mean government/military networks containing classified information) are initiated by authorized users inside the network. The recent Wikileaks case is a prime example. The documents were lifted off SIPRNet by PFC Manning of army intelligence, who had a valid account and need-to-know. I've seen security briefings where the security analysts talk about numbers of breeches and other statistics. It's not 51% of breeches coming from the inside, it's more like 80% or 85%.
Protecting information in the future will probably see its biggest gains from a better vetting process for users and segmenting information such that people at the lower levels don't have access to things they have no job-related need to access (such as PFC Manning being able to read State Dept. cables).
-Skeld
|
Once they come down off their immoral highground Governments are left with one thing - Wikileaks is in posession of Stolen Intellectual Property. Their only Legal Option is to do what companies do. Sue for Billions everyone in Posession of their stolen data.
Or, option two...since these documents contain information that could harm national security charge any Americans involved with treason and any foriegners involved with terrorism. This is not a game. People are going to die because this information was released (for a variety of reasons). All of that blood is on the leaker's and Assange's hands.
|
|
Once they come down off their immoral highground Governments are left with one thing - Wikileaks is in posession of Stolen Intellectual Property. Their only Legal Option is to do what companies do. Sue for Billions everyone in Posession of their stolen data.Or, option two...since these documents contain information that could harm national security charge any Americans involved with treason and any foriegners involved with terrorism. This is not a game. People are going to die because this information was released (for a variety of reasons). All of that blood is on the leaker's and Assange's hands."All of that blood.."
Which blood is that, exactly?
Can you point to any specific examples where people have lost their lives due to Assange's actions?
He released the identities of quite a few of the translators in Iraq/Afghanistan. They had to be put into protective custody, and I'm sure that a few of them didn't get snapped up quick enough. As for specific examples? I'm sure they'll be leaked eventually.
EDIT: And I should have used future tense in that statement, as I am not aware of any confirmed deaths as of yet, but I am positive that there will be some.
I would guess that governments will try and shut wikileaks down. Right now, most ways for Wikileaks to get more money are being closed (amazon, PayPal), which is probably partially due to a real concern by said companies to support illegal activity (which poses the question what illegal means - "innocent until proven guilty" obviously does not apply here), but more probably due to some pressure or other by, say, some government agency trying to bleed wikileaks dry.
And they will try to improve the protection of their secrets, which will invariably foster an atmosphere of mistrust in the government itself and regarding the populace. By leaking these documents, many of which were relatively trivial, Wikileaks might have done itself a disservice. If anything, the age of secrets might only have begun, as we might see a renaissance of critical information being locked up somewhere and not even existing electronically, as any electronical system can be hacked into, or the info handed out by an insider.
I´m not so sure if wikileaks has done the "right" thing here, anyway. Many of the secrets unveiled now have probably not been harmful when still secret, but now unveiled, they can be damaging or even life-threatening. Good journalism keeps its sources protected, but laying possibly endangered sources open just to spite a government is not looking like professional journalism. Concerning what was unveiled about German politicians (which has been discussed at length in local newspapers), this has only managed to damage the relationship to the US, but has not brought forth any details harmful to the general populace - which is what whistleblowing is all about. Regarding informants in other parts of the world, their life might indeed be in danger due to these revelations. In any case, trust that had been built up has suffered from this.
Indeed, this might even be rightly viewed as terrorism, as it weakens the diplomatic ties the US have to other countries. Revealing that the Iran is viewed negatively even by its neighbouring states will do nothing to bring Iran out of its isolation, and might give them the reason to be even more isolationist and agressive, and less willing to have its nuclear program monitored by other countries. In the end, the leaking might indirectly lead to Iran becoming an even greater nuclear threat. Isolating the US and making them even more hated surely sounds like the idea of some islamistic fundamentalist bent on destroying the "Satan America".
I´m all for critical investigative journalism, it is absolutely necessary. But what Wikileaks did here might be publishing information for publishings´ sake, to hell with the consequences. And that is not something I can support - with great power comes great responsibility.
Stefan
What's interesting is that before, SELLING government secrets TO a specific enemy has been considered treasonous. Just filching them and putting them up on a site for everyone and anyone to read? I dunno. Still, I'd have to agree with Stefan here- while no lives have been lost(yet), this isn't an okay thing to do. I'm for the people being investigated, then prosecuted depending on what exactly was leaked when.
Makes you wonder what the whole deal was about the Valerie Plame situation. I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?
Makes you wonder what the whole deal was about the Valerie Plame situation. I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?
If leaking classified information is no deal, why would it be classified in first place?
|
|
It was my understanding that he originally released information only to the mainstream press and then, after they redacted the content and released what they'd cleaned, he only released to the general public stuff that the mainstream media had already released.
Can you point me to a reliable source which says otherwise?
I'll have to do some looking, but I do remember the Army or the State Department releasing something saying that they were going to put their compromised translators into protective custody.
Also another facet of this is the question of what has it done to the war effort? We have a hard enough time "making friends" over there, and good translators are indespensible. If their identities have been leaked, then what are the chances of someone else coming forward if they can't be assured of their safety and privacy. The repercussions of these leaks have created a ripple effect...many more things are affected than just the things directly named in the leaks.
Makes you wonder what the whole deal was about the Valerie Plame situation. I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?If leaking classified information is no deal, why would it be classified in first place?
Oh, that is just some people's attempt at "control". They want to control others and information is a good way to do that. Doesn't anyone read 1984 anymore?
Makes you wonder what the whole deal was about the Valerie Plame situation. I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?
Part of the problem is that there is such a huge amount of classified and sensitive data that it becomes entirely unmanageable. In theory any mismanagement of classified information could be prosecuted, but it rarely happens. Our government is buried in secrecy, and it has done a poor job of managing its billions of secrets for decades. This is going to get much worse before it gets any better.
|
One likely consequence of this fiasco is that the already absurdly high security rules in companies worldwide will be raised even higher.
This will further damage the quality of the work of many professionals in their own fields as they will have to go through more useless security loops to get their legitimate job done, while the very few bad apples will already have found the next leak.
Morality : invest in people, not in tech.
I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?
And the equally reasonable flip side is "the government should obviously keep everything secret for our own good, since what we don't know can't hurt us. In fact, it would be better if we lived our entire lives within one armored compound with no access to media, just to make sure no one learns any of these dangerous secrets."
Because obviously the only possibilities are binary, right?
To me, it says: Welcome to the Sixth World.
I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?And the equally reasonable flip side is "the government should obviously keep everything secret for our own good, since what we don't know can't hurt us. In fact, it would be better if we lived our entire lives within one armored compound with no access to media, just to make sure no one learns any of these dangerous secrets."
Because obviously the only possibilities are binary, right?
I don't know, are you suggesting that the Plame leak was more damaging than the current leaks?
I don't know, are you suggesting that the Plame leak was more damaging than the current leaks?
I'm stating that maybe neither "all leaks are all good" nor "all leaks are all bad" is a valid viewpoint.
Makes you wonder what the whole deal was about the Valerie Plame situation. I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?
There are a few different things going on here.
Most of the stuff in the most recent WikiLeaks leak, the State Department communiques, isn't even classified. Most of it, assuming the government repository program is fundamentally the same as it was 20 years ago, would have made its way into government repository archives across the country. You can review tons of old State Department communiques conveniently bound together in your local government depository, for example. They do, however, benefit from a certain level of candor and confidentiality while still fresh and relevant. So their leak, while not what I would consider criminal, is still a shame, particularly since they most won't rise to the level of honest whistle-blowing on real illegal or otherwise shady activity. That's a major contrast with the Pentagon Papers, which were released when they were no longer current, with the help of editorial oversight from the New York Times, and detailed actual deception and illegal behavior.
There's also a question of information classified not because it's really damaging or truly secret, but because it's something the government just doesn't want to release. There are plenty of cases of over-classified documents, the release of which won't actually cause any damage.
The Valerie Plame leak came during ongoing covert programs in which she was involved and could, potentially, have compromised anyone associated with her. We may never know the full extent, whether large or small, of any fallout.
The differences between whistle-blowing, releasing non-classified but embarassing information, releasing over-classified information, and releasing classified information that affects ongoing, important operations are substantial.
Some of the statements here seem to imply that the government (which is no monolithic entity, btw.) is always or at least most of the time trying to control anything and everything, with a lot of criminal energy if need be. While this may be true for totalitarian regimes, I don´t think so of democratic governments. There may be some parts of said governments who go over the top and are involved in illegal activities (Iran-Contra-Affair is just one example that crosses my mind), I would not go so far as to put all government agencies under a general suspicion. This would in turn justify the recent leakings if it were true, but most of the leaked material is AFAICT of minor importance and more embarassing than showing illegal activity. Diplomatic activity is not always something that can be shown to the public, as it might compromise informants. Informants having local insight are important to diplomatic endeavors, but need sometimes to kept confident lest local regimes (especially those who are hostile to the US or have a history of arbitrary and violent punishments of "traitors") harm those informants.
OTOH, democratic governments should of course not be allowed to have a monopoly on information. Democratic participation is only possible if information is available for all. If infomation is considered to be relevant for the security on other vital interests and thus kept as confidential by government agencies, democratic governments need to have a possibility to review such information from outside said agencies (say, by a part of the elected parliament or something similar) and to decide if these information needs to be confidential. The point is that in a representative democracy (which seems to be the best kind of government we have today - note that I don´t say that it is the absolute best form, but we have nothing better ATM), by necessity and by definition, not every citizen can be involved in every political process, so we have to trust the representatives to do their job. In an atmosphere of general mistrust lies the seed for a fractured community, which weakens it. Still, controlling any and all institutions is a necessity - trust is a needed base, but control is mandatory as well.
Now, I am not as naive to trust any and all politicians generally, as everyone has his or her own agenda, lobbying notwithstanding. But neither can I subscribe to the government=evil equation, as this is too simple (roleplayers should know that there is no simple black and white in the real world). If governmental actions are seen as undemocratic, there is a need to protest against that, and a necessity for control - and if need be, a replacement of the persons responsible. This is often easier said than done, but in the end, that is what democracy is about - finding the best person for the job in question by a general vote. if these processes are found to be lacking, they need to be reviewed as well, but that needs participation.
Stefan
|
He released the identities of quite a few of the translators in Iraq/Afghanistan. They had to be put into protective custody, and I'm sure that a few of them didn't get snapped up quick enough. As for specific examples? I'm sure they'll be leaked eventually.EDIT: And I should have used future tense in that statement, as I am not aware of any confirmed deaths as of yet, but I am positive that there will be some.
I whole heartedly believe that releasing that information, without removing the name of the individuals and endangering their lives of those involved was morally and ethically wrong. That was just irresponsible and heartless, from my POV.
That being said I also believe the "need" for governments to keep secrets is a myth. We've been fed that bunk for so long we believe it and they do not have the right to keep things from citizens. Especially not in a supposedly democratically oriented country that is supposed to be "by the people, for the people." Secrets are just a way for those in power to keep and manipulate their power to serve their own interests.
Sure there are special circumstances, like troop movements, but other than items that truly are for securities sake, there is no reason to keep your opinion of a foreign diplomat, spending or a Senate meeting secret from the public. If you can't say it in public you shouldn't be saying it.
When you see a news article which has no references to sources, ignore it. Practice critical reading skills.
I don't think thats a popular skill anymore... we shouldn't think for ourselves surely!? Anyone asking questions is sure to be a suspect!
Even if a source are given, it might just be another news agency - copy&paste is easier than researching a topic yourself.
Somebody made a test last year: the new german secretary of defense has a whole lot of given names, as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg
Somebody changed the wikipedia entry and added one more name to this list when he became secretary of defense last year - quite a lot of newspapers reprinted that faulty list. So much for researching information.
In any case, trust that had been built up has suffered from this.
What trust? If anything a lot of the recent leaks show the duplicity of diplomacy, where you smile and shake hands outwards, while you then turn around and send scathing descriptions of the country you're a diplomat to home to your own government.
That's hardly a good way to build trust. Trust requires honesty and transparency, otherwise it's just a facade and this shows that you shouldn't trust a friendly facade.I'm disgusted by the attacks on Wikileaks, most likely from governments like the US, to try and bring them down by operating behind the curtains (like they're used to).
I also find it incredibly hypocritical that the "freedom of the press" symbol was waved high when stuff was released from Iran around and after the elections down there, while when the focus is turned on these same "freedom" supporters, it's suddenly a whole other ball game and the Wikileaks people are called terrorists.
No, it shows that "us" in the West are no better than "the others" and we're just as corrupt and do just as much backstabbing, illegal activities and spying as everyone else (Clinton's orders for her diplomats to gather information about high ranking UN officers, anyone?).
Should rank and file people have their names protected? Sure, some of them might be harmed. But everyone else should be able to face the fire.
What trust? If anything a lot of the recent leaks show the duplicity of diplomacy, where you smile and shake hands outwards, while you then turn around and send scathing descriptions of the country you're a diplomat to home to your own government.
That's hardly a good way to build trust. Trust requires honesty and transparency, otherwise it's just a facade and this shows that you shouldn't trust a friendly facade.
Right, being brutally honest with everyone when you meet them is the most reasonable course of action.
I wonder if people thinking ideas like that would feel the same way if every single one of their private conversations was recorded and made public.
|
|
Right, being brutally honest with everyone when you meet them is the most reasonable course of action.I wonder if people thinking ideas like that would feel the same way if every single one of their private conversations was recorded and made public.
If they are honest in all their public conversations, they would have nothing to fear. If they keep their ugly opinions even from private conversation, it wouldn't matter.
I wonder if people thinking ideas like that would feel the same way if every single one of their private conversations was recorded and made public.I much prefer that people be brutally honest with me than I prefer the opposite.
And would you be more willing to work with someone who said less than flattering things about you, in fact down right insulting things than if they were "diplomatic" in their comments, at least in public, about you?
There are a few points that are commonly missed.
1) The government represents their people. They ask the people to trust them to do what's best for the people, according to the things they have said prior to the election. However, trust is, and has always been, a two-way street. For the representative democracy to work, the government must also trust its people. Or, otherwise put, the presumtion of innocence, respect for the private life of the individual, and so on. As long as that trust existed, we could accept that the government kept some secrets. Now, not so much. Even worse, many countries have two-party systems where BOTH electable parties have the same policies regarding trust of the people. That area is no longer democratic, and so, the government must accept more suspicion and mistrust regarding EVERYTHING they want to keep secret.
2) Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall. Accountability is not there to punish those politicians who are unlucky enough to get caught. It is there specifically to make politicians avoid doing things that would merit punishing them. When you instate openness and transparency, those who have misused secrecy WILL complain that "you have to have some secrets blah blah blah". Heads always roll then. The point of this is to make future politics BETTER than current ones. It's not a bad thing, it's the hope we can all have for any sort of future.
3) It's not the publisher who did the bad things and cause the bad results. Take Abu Ghraib as an example. The US military did some terrible things to prisoners there. Showing the world that this happened is not what caused the acts, the people who mistreated prisoners did. If someone dies from the publication of evidence of government misdeeds, maybe the government shouldn't have done those misdeeds, eh?
4) It's not the content of the cables that's important, people have suspected these things for years, even decades. What IS important is that people now have EVIDENCE to point to. This will have absolutely MASSIVE ramifications for how international and national politics will work in the future. One thing I am betting on is that there will be far fewer embassies in the world in ten years. An embassy was motivated by long travel times in the pre-telephone world. Now, any politician can talk to any country directly. Why embassies?
5) Yes, the powers that be will now be more careful. For a while. However, there are two problems with this reasoning. First, the efficiency of those organisations will go down severely as a consequence. Second, one watchword of the current securitocratic regime is that information must always be easily spread between agencies. Count on this to stop now. It will no longer be possible for the agencies to act as a monolithic power in politics, which may mean that the power in society will shift further from them. Again, this is a good thing.
What trust? If anything a lot of the recent leaks show the duplicity of diplomacy, where you smile and shake hands outwards, while you then turn around and send scathing descriptions of the country you're a diplomat to home to your own government.
That's hardly a good way to build trust. Trust requires honesty and transparency, otherwise it's just a facade and this shows that you shouldn't trust a friendly facade.
Unfortunately, I can't honestly and transparently state my opinion of that viewpoint, or I would be thrown off the boards.
Politics and diplomacy often require the diplomat to hide his feelings, as he shakes hands with the scum of the earth, hoping to turn enemies into friends (or, at least, allies). Do you really think it's wise to exercise frank candor with people who may be blatantly corrupt or power mad? Just because they're the best option at the moment doesn't mean they're decent people.
"Hello, General Kilzlots. We would like to work with you for a while, until we have the chance to betray your corrupt and brutal regime, throwing you to the wolves."
"Thanks, Yankee dog!"
"We don't actually have the resources for another military intervention at the moment, but once we do, look out!"
"I'll keep that in mind as I arrest your country's spies. You were so kind to point them out to me."
"No problem! As you know, we're committed to a policy of frank and open candor."
Lilithsthrall: You didn't get my point, did you? If the government want us to trust them, they need to start trusting us. As soon as they don't, distrust is what they will face, and that is all good.
Sir_Wulf: Dealing with General Kilzlots is in every way a supremely bad idea. That's how secrets get made, and those kill. Say that you deal with him to achieve something in an area of interest that you have. He helps you, and in return you make sure Kilzlotsia gets money. He then uses the money you sent him to build more prisons for oppositional voices, buy more weapons, and tighten his control of the country. At that point, your involvement becomes a serious problem for you, so what do you do? You stamp it classified. That's why leaks are important, comprende?
A friend is someone who can tell you that you smell bad. A diplomatic ally is someone who can tell you your policy is wrong.
A friend is someone who can tell you that you smell bad.
And this is why the current trend of attacking (non-violent) bullies and bullying is so wrong. Those bullies are really the only true friends the people being bullied have. Everyone else is lying to them, it is the bullies that truly care enough to tell them the absolute brutal truth.
I'm an adult. I can handle, and prefer, people being upfront with me.
Good for you. But in the political arena, things are different and not everyone is as upright as you are. In Near Eastern and Asian countries, face is important. If a foreign diplomat would tell someone there that he is an idiot or an enemy of the greater good, he would lose face, which is not acceptable and makes him hostile. You may see this as childish, but it is the way it is - and you won´t change them by telling them its childish.
But even in western countries, not many politicians like it to be publicly criticised by someone else. Open criticism is about the worst way to start a conversation in any culture, that´s what you need diplomats for and how the word diplomatic got its present meaning.Of course, a country can always elect to not have any diplomatic relationships to countries it deems unacceptable - but it has to face the consequences. If, say, the US were to sever all ties with China, a huge market would be lost, and the US would lose what little influence it has on the humanity situation there. A country should have high moral standards and hold the universal human rights high - but even then, not talking to countries would rob you of any chance to improving the status of that other country at all. Plus, mercantile interests are important as well - what good do high moral standards if the populace suffers because the economy is down? (To bring a gaming parallel into it, even a paladin does not expect everybody else to behave LG all the time, but if he would just ignore evil, it won´t go away on its own. He needs to talk to the evil guys to convince them of their errors. Not talking to evil guys is akin to cut off your nose to spite your face.) Humanity is built like that, feeding comes first, then morals (as an german adage says).
Stefan
And this is why the current trend of attacking (non-violent) bullies and bullying is so wrong. Those bullies are really the only true friends the people being bullied have. Everyone else is lying to them, it is the bullies that truly care enough to tell them the absolute brutal truth.
I feel sorry for you, if you can't tell the difference between someone who (a) tells you the truth, rather than stabbing you in the back; vs. (b) shoves you around and steals your lunch money.
And this is why the current trend of attacking (non-violent) bullies and bullying is so wrong. Those bullies are really the only true friends the people being bullied have. Everyone else is lying to them, it is the bullies that truly care enough to tell them the absolute brutal truth.I feel sorry for you, if you can't tell the difference between someone who (a) tells you the truth, rather than stabbing you in the back; vs. (b) shoves you around and steals your lunch money.
I would suggest you look closer to home, if you want to feel sorry for someone. Unless you think "shoves you around and steals your lunch money." qualifies as "non-violent".
Well, secrets will be impossible to keep if 2.5 million people have access to the database in which they are kept... SIPRNet is reported to be accessible by that many people. It makes me wonder why nothing leaked earlier.