I think its wonderful
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Wikileaks https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4805 |
Page 1 of 9 |
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Wikileaks |
Is there already a thread for this? Anyways it's funny how legislators are calling to prosecute Julian Assange when he's not even American. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wikileaks |
Or the people calling for his assassination. Wikileaks isn't the problem. They're not leaking anything, they're just publishing it. Someone else leaked it to them first. Should we have put the management of the New York Times into prison for publishing the Pentagon Papers? In fact I'm pretty sure there's a court case saying the press has the constitutional right to publish material if the government fails at keeping it secret and someone leaks it to them. Going after Assange would just further the, "Well, he's not a US citizen, so he doesn't count as a human being with rights." perception that the US already has all over the world. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wikileaks |
The guy that leaked it is already in custody. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wikileaks |
Diamondeye wrote: The guy that leaked it is already in custody. Who, William Bradley? I don't think he's the one that leaked the diplomatic cables, he leaked that helicopter video and the Iraq War material. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think its wonderful
|
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wikileaks |
It's how we roll  Personally I just think there's not enough to do in this country ... so there's way too much of the "I wonder what would happen if I did this... " mentality. 
|
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wikileaks |
Xequecal wrote: Diamondeye wrote: The guy that leaked it is already in custody. Who, William Bradley? I don't think he's the one that leaked the diplomatic cables, he leaked that helicopter video and the Iraq War material. Don't recall his name, and too lazy to look it up, but all of the 'leaks' came from the same source. Wikileaks just chose to release them in stages to maximize the impact. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is a congress critter (King) that wants to have wikileaks labeled as a terrorist group. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wikileaks |
It all came from PFC Bradley Manning. Quote: Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, is suspected of disclosing more than 260,000 diplomatic cables, more than 90,000 intelligence reports on the war in Afghanistan and one video of a military helicopter attack — much of it classified. Most of the information was given to WikiLeaks.org, a web site dedicated to making secret information public. It posted the war reports in August 2010, after sharing them with three publications, including The New York Times, and the diplomatic cables in late November.
|
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Wwen wrote: There is a congress critter (King) that wants to have wikileaks labeled as a terrorist group. More BS political posturing. Now im sure after a lot of political and legal shucking and jiving, the US might find a way, or they might find a way to pressure an ally to shut this guy up. Its all crap tho- Hillary was just having a case of panty puddles when it was done to Bush. Now shes indignant. Goose and gander time bishes. |
|
| Author: | Ienan [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Hannibal wrote: Its all crap tho- Hillary was just having a case of panty puddles when it was done to Bush. Now shes indignant. Goose and gander time bishes. I will ask you this only once sir. Please don't put that imagery in my head or I'll have to put you on ignore. 
|
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where do you think Al Gore got his beard from.... |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So after 9/11, everyone complained that we weren't sharing intelligence. Now, they are saying we are over-sharing, and this is the result. /facepalm It is rather embarassing. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: So after 9/11, everyone complained that we weren't sharing intelligence. Now, they are saying we are over-sharing, and this is the result. /facepalm It is rather embarassing. It's impossible to ever get this right. Intelligence, by it's very nature, can exist in one of three states: 1) Total secrecy, where it's known only by the fewest possible people, possibly only one, and never discussed, shared, or used. This renders it irrelevant and useless, and is the extreme of undersharing 2) Total openness where its complete public knowledge. This is almost equally useless since everyone now knows how you got it, and that you know it, and can take steps to correct both. Extreme oversharing. 3) Somewhere in the middle. In here, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Overshare it, and it becomes public and compromised. Undershare, and you don't get the full benefit of it. The beauty of it is that you never know if you overshared or undershared until either something goes south because someone didn't have the information, or it leaks. Even better, both can happen at the same time! |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It seems like everybody and their sister have access to SIPRNET... |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: It seems like everybody and their sister have access to SIPRNET... Almost everything you do in theater is on SIPRNET, and any Intel Analyst is going to have access. In theory, you're not supposed to go surfing SIPRNET for stuff you don't personally need, but that's a bit silly because it rather defeats the purpose of having a secret internet in the first place, and even if you didn't you see a ton of stuff in the process of seeing what you're actually looking for. It illustrates exactly the point I made above: You put it all out there, but then tell people not to look at it because you're constantly trying to balance usefulness and compromise. Personally I think it's better to risk compromise in most cases because 90% of what's classified is bullshit and is classified only because it's on a classified system with the stuff that actually needs to be classified, and more importantly, even if your intel system gets compromised at least you got some use out of it. Secure intel that gets no use is pointless. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A lot of the leaked documents should have had a higher security rating based on the possible political consequences of them being leaked. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wikileaks |
Evidently you understand the theoretical basis of the classification system. What documents should have been classified higher and why? (Also please note that not all the material is necessarily from SIPERNET or from a SECRET level of classification. Some of it could have been from the Top Secret network or from other Top Secret sources. There are also caveats that can be attached to the classification levels that further restrict distribution, such as no foriegn nationals, etc. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It defeats the purpose if everyone has access to all levels. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wonder if he just used the Konami Code to get in? |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
|
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: It defeats the purpose if everyone has access to all levels. Everyone doesn't have access to all levels. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I understand that. I was commenting on: Quote: It illustrates exactly the point I made above: You put it all out there, but then tell people not to look at it because you're constantly trying to balance usefulness and compromise.
|
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: I understand that. I was commenting on: Quote: It illustrates exactly the point I made above: You put it all out there, but then tell people not to look at it because you're constantly trying to balance usefulness and compromise. Right, but that has nothing to do with everyone having access to all levels. There are basically 4 levels of classification: Unclassified, Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. Within each of those, there can be additional caveats and restrictions, but those are the only four levels. (Confidential sees little use too, so there's really only three important ones) The vast majority of people only have access to unclassified material, and a lot of that is flagged For Official Use Only which limits its dissemenation to official purposes even if you don't need a security clearance to see it. Only relatively few people have Secret access (although in absolute numbers its still quite a few people) and only a small percentage of those have access to Top Secret. For example, in my battalion only three people have Top Secret: Me, the Commander, and my Intel Analyst. In my personal view, therefore, the Commander, my Analyst and I should (if we had a TS terminal which we don't) be permitted to look at anything on the TS version of the Web. If someone specifically needs to restrict information from being viewed, they should handle it on a case by case basis. "Need to know" should be used very sparingly for people already having the clearances. For people that don't have the clearance, Need to Know should be the guiding principle. Right now, however, there's a terribad balancing act betweent he two that generally results in information being not only known by too many people, but also not being known by the right people. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership" http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/ ... l_profound I was waiting for Chomsky to say something. I never knew he had anything to do with the prior leaks. |
|
| Page 1 of 9 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|