Slashdot Mirror
State Department Hit With Many More Break-Ins
adjust28 writes to tell us CNN is reporting that the US State Department has been dealing with a number of computer break-ins with regards to their headquarters and offices dealing with China and Korea over the past couple of weeks. From the article: "Investigators believe hackers stole sensitive U.S. information and passwords and implanted backdoors in unclassified government computers to allow them to return at will, said U.S. officials familiar with the hacking."
And also at the same time, we "have to" entrust them with our information. Which they seem to have a voracious appetite for these days. Sad, really.
One has to wonder if this is for real or if this is just another stab at fear-mongering so more propositions to cripple net neutrality / online privacy / ... can be passed.
If they really experienced that much security breaches I doubt CNN would be allowed to publicize this.
OTOH, TFA mentions a lot of scary evil things like North-Korean missiles and Chinese Hackers.
I'm not sure whether I prefer this article to be for real or propaganda, both possibilities imply information warfare on the US people.
Actually, yes we do. As long as we have to trust it with our things, we want it to be able to hold onto those things and not let just anybody see them or use them against us. If the government expects to claim that it's protecting us and our personal information, it has to deliver on that protection.
However, you're conflating security with transparency , when in fact they're both important. Security is the ability to keep the secret things secret against prying eyes. Transparency is the ability to unlock and inspect certain documents on demand to make sure that the government is functioning as it should. And ideally, the minimum amount of information should be classified secret: the smaller the pile of sensitive information is and the less it moves around, the less likely it'll get violated.
The role of the free press is to report. It could be said that the role of the free press in a healthy democracy is to act as watchdog, to report when the system's security breaks so people can be warned and take measures for their own security, or to use the transparency to report problems. And it could be further argued that when transparency breaks down and secrets are kept unnecessarily, the best thing a reporter can do is intentionally break that bad kind of security. When the Pentagon Papers were exposed and the illegal acts of the Nixon administration were revealed, that was the free press's finest hour.
Nowadays, government security and government transparency are both oxymorons, and the "free press" provides spin, runs interference, and distracts people with the missing-blond-girl-du-jour (I'm looking at you, Fox "News"). Oh, and a significant portion of the people are okay with that.
My question is, where do we start the triage? Any one we start to fix will give us trouble from the other three.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
...there are certainly dire consequences -if- the government wants there to be. Just look at the money tracing operations and their exposure: President Bush openly and fiercely attacked those newspapers who have reported on it, stating that they have hurt the U.S.'s cause in tracking down terrorists -and- have done damage to the security of the United States and its citizens. He has done this repeatedly, with the full support of other government officials and branches, and guess what? Recent polls showed that the nation is divided roughly in half on the issue at this time, while when the story was published most people really just didn't care too much -or- were outraged that the U.S. government once again pried in their personal affairs. That is now 50% of people agreeing that they feel less secure now that papers, specifically The New York Times, reported on this secret program, and that they shouldn't have done it and -should- be prohibited from doing so in the future. The U.S. government is doing a great job of making the papers out to be 'the bad guys', and one can only imagine that it's certainly not helping their subscribership.
So yes, they can report whatever they want, but the government can very much make them feel sorry for doing so in financial terms. Thankfully the majority of the papers who have reported it -don't- feel sorry in terms of 'doing the right thing'; as one of the editors said - if they can't report on this, then what's next? Not reporting on Abu Ghraib? Not reporting on 'accidental' bombings of civilians? All in the name of supposed national security.
I can understand - and papers should certainly be wise enough to make this decision for themselves - that papers should -not- publish information regarding specific individuals or programs that would severely compromise those individuals or programs; e.g. operatives abroad who have infiltrated: you don't go publishing their names and photos. Investigations into a terrorist sleeper cell in Hicksville: you don't go publishing that they are under investigation. But for something as broad as "The U.S. government is tracking your international money transfers", there is -no- compromise of the program. If nothing else, sad as it is, most people probably expect that the U.S. government was doing that already, and the U.S. government can happily continue doing so; they can't honestly believe that terrorists will suddenly go "oh dear, I say... they are tracing our money wires.. perhaps we should stop using that.".
Elections must be coming up again soon...