Slashdot Mirror
Military and Government E-mails Compromised
Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is reporting that 16,959 e-mail accounts were recently exposed by Connexion Hack Team. Included in the data dump are usernames and passwords for military and government accounts. The other compromised accounts included addresses from GMail, Yahoo, MSN, and AOL."
Reader Stoobalou adds a report that NATO's servers have been hit for the second time in as many months.
The North American Terrorist Organization deserves what they get.
what's your agenda here, btw?
lets start with that. how odd you make a comparision when no sane person would. speaks volumes about you.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Shortly after the release of War Games in 1983, there were a rash of hacking incidents "inspired" by the movie. Events of late seem to be a repeat of that, aggravated by the (still) piss poor security policies. How some things changed but other persists over the decades.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Has nobody in government security ever heard of an air gap? WHY would you ever attach military gear to the public Internet?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
When your boss uploads the company's customer lists to Google Docs, don't worry, because their IT security is certainly much better than that of the U.S. military and government computers. When the Target clerk asks for your driver's license, go ahead and let her scan the barcode into Target's computers because they'll be able to protect your identity better than Sony or the U.S. military can.
what's your agenda here, btw?
My "agenda" is to point out the hypocrisy. The same people that clapped in glee with the release of this and other govt. data should either clap in glee with the release of ALL hacked data, or should object to the release of ALL hacked data.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
TSA is not.
The fact that you somehow got modded up horrifies me. There is a world of difference between the two scenarios, perhaps somebody will patiently explain them to you...maybe with bright colors and friendly animals!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
False dichotomy. One is a family, one is a large and corrupt public organisation.
Well, government data is (nominally) public property and should be owned by and available to the public at large, with only certain exceptions, usually in a time of war. Fucking around the the voice mail account of a missing, underage girl who may or may not have been murdered, is a little bit different than that, don't you think? But hey, context, what's that?
Nonsense. Government data should be public unless there is a compelling need for secrecy. This provides for accountability of government. Personal data have no such application; a person is not accountable to society in the same way that the government is.
The difference is that Milly's voicemails were deleted to make space, while the exposed email accounts were not deleted.
The difference is that Milly's voicemails were expected to be private, and the operations of government and the military are expected to be public since they are funded by the public.
If there is hypocrisy, then that point can stand by itself. It doesn't matter what his agenda is.
Your argument is the same argument global warming deniers use against climatologists.
according to some of his defenders, alot of the stuff he got was 'commonly downloaded' by people on the base, especially the Collateral Murder video.
if you search youtube for video of afghan/iraq air strikes, i'd say that seems about right.
now if there is a bradley manning, who was doing it to blow whistles, there are probably some people who are doing it for profit, selling info to others.
why they aren't up on charges like him? sometimes the military wants to flip them to become triple agents. sometimes it doesnt want the bad publicity. the people who caught aldrich ames almost got nothing, a tiny ass little party , small than what we give people for birthdays at work. who knows.
I can't, in my wildest dreams, see the parallel you see.
seek help, is my advice to you.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Does this only happen to the United States government, or does it happen elsewhere too? Where are the hacks of Russian, Chinese, not to mention Libyan, etc., systems?
I am in favor of the release of ALL hacked data. Even when it my hurt people, even when it may put lives at risk. All in all I think all the secrecy, and covert action makes us weaker not stronger. It creates more division and strife in the world not less; why? because it always comes out eventually; even if it takes decades.
When I was very young my mother gave me a simple bit of advice. See said if you want to be sure nobody every reads something, don't write it down.
Wow simple eh? much simpler than encryption schemes, dealing with vetting 10s of thousands of people to receive secret clearance, etc. NATO higher ups need to speak to each other pick up the damned phone and don't make recordings of the call. Data that is not there can't leak.
People should take this to their personal lives as well. The average teenager would probably be lots happier if they themselves as well as their school mates put a little consideration in what words they commit to paper, or Facebook. Conversations between a few people will be forgotten, everything else tends to get distributed more widely or to resurface and cause more grief at the wrong times.
Yes in 2011 we can record everything, we can store a life stream for every person large with or without their cooperation, but WE SHOULD NOT WANT TO DO THAT.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
While I understand the point you are trying to make you seem to have sidestepped the context. Hacking an organization and at least theoretically exposing weaknesses in their security and hacking an individual's phone are quite a bit different. I generically applaud publicly hacking organizations that are failing in their responsibility to protect the information they have. So while I would support generically hacking the entire phone system to expose such a weakness the focused malicious attack on a deceased girl does not quite have the same flavor.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
You're an idiot.
The same people that clapped in glee with the release of this and other govt. data should either clap in glee with the release of ALL hacked data, or should object to the release of ALL hacked data.
So you don't see any difference at all between a private individual and a government organization?
I'm not particularly moved to emotion by either of these stories... But I can at least see a difference here.
The US government is supposed to be by the people, for the people... And yet we see plenty of evidence that the US population is being lied to at nearly every turn. Why would I, as a US citizen, object to actually getting to find out what my government is really doing? Yes, of course, folks are going to cry that it's a security breach and our top secret plans are now in the wild... Which may actually be true... But after literally years of being lied to, I guess I'm not all that worried about a top secret plan or two making it into the wrong hands.
As for Milly... Well, I'm not really convinced that anything horrible happened there. It sounds like deleting those voicemails hampered the investigation of her death. And maybe the parents might have wanted to hang on to some of them for sentimental value... But, not to be cruel or anything, the lady was already dead. Still, she's a private citizen. Not some government organization. Her close friends and family might have a legitimate argument that they have a right to hear her voicemail... And the police can certainly get a warrant to listen to it... But that really isn't something that a tabloid needs to be reporting on to drum up more readers. It's certainly something that they want to report on, because it's sensational and will sell a few more copies... But that doesn't make it right.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
... how people can believe in the existence of a government that conspires to slowly erode our freedoms, but also maintains such poor security on their information.
Oh wait, never mind, I just got it. This is clearly a ruse they orchestrated to make the truth seem implausible. Very sorry, continue with normal business.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
That gets tricky. Not all government data, just government work product. There are a lot of situations where direct public access to government data is a real problem. Not the bullshit "national security" reasons, but simple things like access to internal information about an ongoing FBI or SEC investigation. Eventually the information -- excepting things that could easily compromise future investigations -- should be public, but not necessarily immediately. Likewise, government officials should be able to have e-mail accounts without their e-mails being available in real time to the public. That's a bullshit claim that's a (somewhat fair) reaction to the everything-must-be-secret government culture. Data necessary for transparency and oversight needs to be available while maintaining a reasonable degree of privacy that enables individuals and organizations to do their jobs effectively. I think that if better government transparency isn't forthcoming, than this sort of vigilante exposure will only increase.
Noone is ever going to guess that I changed my password to hunter2.
I wish that everyone would just stop storing passwords as they're typed and instead only store the comparative hash. It wouldn't matter, nearly so much, if they were obtained that way, so long as the algorithm to turn the password into the hash can't also turn the hash into the password.
Yeah, I know, it might break some interoperability, but I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about this crap. Unfortunately the only way this will change is if it becomes in the interest of the requisite parties for it to, like if they can't obtain insurance anymore because no insurer will want to extend liability insurance to a company whose IT structure is so poor that it's likely that a payout might be necessary.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
...which I got at work a few weeks ago:
From: Ranald [________@dla.mil]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:10 PM
To: Some_User_Group
Subject: Dream to act like a porn star? Nail a magicpilule!
Ensure energy and gain extra size. http://shellyfarnham.com/basin.html
if you have millions of people with security clearances,
including people who are having serious psychological or emotional problems, which were known to the commanders at the time they sent him on duty.
I sympathise, but I disagree. People are allowed to define their own rules, and hence exceptions, in their own moral compass. I mean, if exceptions weren't allowed, then you could be a hypocrite for believing one "thing" is good, but not another "thing". Surely, either you believe everything is good, or everything is bad?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
How would you feel if someone hacked into your Doctors office computer and released the fact that you are
1. On Psych meds
2. Are attracted to little boys.
3. Did your mom when you were 16.
Wait...are you even 16 yet?
Emails and passwords of government workers "should be owned by and available to the public at large"? Only online can one see irrational dogmatism like this. There are legitimate avenues for accessing data, this isn't one of them. Filing an FOI request and tunneling your way into the archive room are distinctly different things.
Wait, you know the US government is corrupt? Oh my god! Have you contacted the police, or the press, or corruption watchdogs, or presented your evidence somewhere on the internet, or anything like that?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
One has to wonder what you thought about Palin's emails being hacked. Or, what you would think is Bachman's emails were hacked. I suspect you would be overjoyed.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
OK, then let's see what China, Russia, Israel, and others have including Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Oh wait, they'll actually find the people that hack them and seriously fuck them up. Well, we know just how brave these groups are now, don't we?
So while I would support generically hacking the entire phone system to expose such a weakness the focused malicious attack on a deceased girl does not quite have the same flavor.
So breaking into a server and publishing account/password combinations to expose the weakness would be a public service? What if one breaks into a bank and dumps the deposit box keys onto the street, would you view that as a public service?
Anybody can claim and fabricate data. Since they are not explaining where they got the data, and the link goes to an EXE file (I chose to not download), I suspect it is just at a minimum a fake claim, even possibly a malware attempt to infiltrate, now propagated by Slashdot.
Furthermore, most of the NIPR if not all uses RSA cards, and passwords are expressly locked out. Now, if they claimed to have copies of the RSA/CAC cards, that would be a different thing.
Of course, everybody assumes they are successful, because that is the easy thing to assume.
In those countries, you get a bullet in the head for pulling this kind of sh_t.
I should be more clear I suppose. I don't support every action the hackers take, I never have. I support the exposing of the weaknesses to force the organizations to fix them or at least allow the individuals the ability to mitigate them. The problem here (and with your analogy) is that a security vulnerability like this can easily be used and then kept secret by the company and/or hackers. If you break into a bank and dump the keys into the street it is very public (even if you don't dump the keys) and will illicit and immediate and strong corrective response. If that was the case for hacking an information system we probably wouldn't be in this situation to begin with and it would be much harder to accomplish.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/06/24/wargames-remake/ :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Well, government data is (nominally) public property and should be owned by and available to the public at large,
Can you cite a supreme course case, an amendment, an article of the constitution, etc?
No, this is just your vision of how things should be? Oh, ok then.
Nonsense. Government data should be public unless there is a compelling need for secrecy.
"Should" and "is" are two different things. Possibly one should push for a change in legislation (I thought Obama was pushing a transparent government initiative...?), but until then I dont see any reason to get giddy because someone broke laws and saw fit to play the data-vigilante.
No, not the people who had their e-mail and passwords hacked, just most of the commenters here on Slashdot. Really, after all this time I should no longer be surprised.
Heads up, folks! The vast bulk of these e-mail addresses are from @yahoo.com, @gmail.com and the like.
These are PERSONAL e-mail addresses of possibly U.S. government personnel. They are prefaced with a couple dozen .gov and .mil addresses, but the rest are anybody's guess.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
All in all I think all the secrecy, and covert action makes us weaker not stronger.
Maybe look at the situation in Zimbabwe, and the fallout after the release of several diplomatic wires between Mugabe's opposition and the US, and then repeat that statement.
You don't have to presume violent breaking and entering. One could surreptitiously compromise a bank and access secure items by masquerading as a worker, same as cloning certificates for computer systems. The bank/server analogy works very well this way, and in either case the claim to public benefit is dubious.
Your argument is the same argument global warming deniers use against climatologists.
No, the argument is that its been changed several times and credibility begins to wane when it goes from "global warming" to "global climate change".
I am in favor of the release of ALL hacked data.
That viewpoint, I can respect. I disagree, but I can respect it. When you pick and choose who is within the boundries of the law, the law loses its function, and you become a vigilante.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
but until then I dont see any reason to get giddy because someone broke laws and saw fit to play the data-vigilante.
This is just your vision of how things should be? Oh, ok then.
As if the imprimatur of law has an ounce of weight when it comes to morality.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
heh, I really hope you're not basing yourself in OMGZ, wikileaks endangered Morgan Tsvangirai's life. Please, tell me you're not nitpicking clearly false and biased information to support... er... what was your point again? yeah, whatever that was.
One liners might make someone look like they know more than they do, but some people will research and realize you're saying nothing at all.
if someone reveals the truth, no matter what happens, it's still the truth. Why should people rely on saviours, politicians, leaders, whatever that operate in secret and do not want their actions known?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
I'll explain but would like to point out that I don't like "conspiracy theories" of the usual "make up stupid shit for fun" kind (it's sort of amazing how many people love to lie).
Here's how real conspiracies usually work:
- zero paper (and none is needed)
- negligible or no traceable communication that can be used as evidence (as little if any is needed; humans communicate with more than plain language and if you keep your head down you're unlikely to be continuously monitored in the early phase. In addition conspiracies can be viewed as or sometimes are something akin to emergent/self-establishing phenomena)
- very small groups of people who actually know what's being conspired
- often relatively large groups of people being used/misdirected without their knowledge
- subverting perfectly reasonable aims and ideals; the better and more "obviously good" the easier (hard to whip significant minorities or majorities into frenzies about things people would consider bad right? But if you take something actually genuinely positive like national or cultural or even racial pride it's easy (and don't even bother with PC idiotic claims of how those are actually bad things because most people don't truly feel that way deep down nor have they any real reason to no matter where they're from or who they or their ancestors are/were))
Let's add the crucial distinction that most people skip:
- A government, pretty much any government, would be incapable of conspiring anything much (but more than able to do all the same shit right out in the open out of stupidity and public ignorance/disinterest).
- Anyone close to governmental power, elected or not, would be extremely well placed to conspire as individuals.
And of course just about anybody no matter what is ready to "conspire" in favor of themselves, e.g. a politician automatically favors politicians just as much as a baker favors bakers or a nurse favors nurses: politicians are part of the largest most powerful "union" by default.
There is no reason to accept false choices, be they hidden, implied, or in your face. Insecure inept governments and conspiring power-mongers are not contradictory, in fact their conspiracies are just an additional example/trait of an inept and/or corrupted government or societal structure.
One can't reform rot.
dumbasses
I hadn't thought of it that way and it does work better as an analogy except for the reaction both to the stolen items being released to the public and the hacking event itself will be dramatically different. I should also be clear I don't think the release of the information has much if any benefit but the public disclosure of the compromise does.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Tsvangirai's position was put in jeopardy because he was allied with the US against Mugabe, and Mugabe was able to use his control of the media to twist it into some anti-Zimbabwe sentiment.
There is no possible way youre going to convince me that the curiosity of some citizens in the US was worth endangering the potential fixing of the disaster that is Zimbabwe.
One liners might make someone look like they know more than they do,
Pot calling the kettle black. How many one-liners pop up stating "information wants to be free", nevermind that the founding fathers, the 2 sides in the confederacy, and the WW2 united states would have utterly disagreed with that statement on certain matters? People complaining about the harsh treatment of Manning seem to have lost sight of the fact that during the Civil or Revolutionary wars, he would have already been shot or hung as a traitor.
This isnt some new thing that is a distortion of the values our country stands for; people have long recognized that once you get back into reality, some secrets are necessary for the functioning of diplomacy and for the waging of military operations.
How successful do you suppose Neptunes Spear would have been if Wikileaks had gotten wind of the operation beforehand, pray tell? In what conceivable way is it a service to US citizens to ensure that its operations are unsuccessful, as such operations will be if such intel is leaked?
These aren't email addresses with passwords to those accounts, they're the email address and password someone used to sign up for some random, unknown website. Without knowing what website, most of these combos are worthless. It might have been a hack of the server, but chances are it's just some DB (and not DataBase) admin who published his user list. If you're using the same email address to register for websites, make sure you don't use your password for that email address when you register.
Misconduct by an international megacorporation is now equivalent to childish pranks done by anonymous geeks? Misconduct for profit equates to some kind of misguided political activism?
Let me be blunt - I want Rupert Murdoch's head on a pig pole. Knowing that the "gubbermint" is looking for these miscreants in this story is good enough for me. These little freaks don't actually threaten my freedoms, while Murdoch does. Murdoch's vision for the world is endorsed by dozens of MP and congressmen around the world, and he uses his money and influence to move forward with his plans. The freaks hacking emails have no influence, little money (if any) and cannot sway any parliament or congress to pass asinine laws that will increase their wealth.
It's a matter of priority. When being stalked by predators, you deal with the biggest, baddest, meanest, and most dangerous predator first. In this case, that is Rupert Murdoch.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This is just your vision of how things should be? Oh, ok then.
No, its me stating a fact: that I am in a state of confusion over why people are overjoyed that others are violating the laws of the land in a democracy where the majority stands against them.
As if the imprimatur of law has an ounce of weight when it comes to morality.
One treads on dangerous ground when speaking of morality in such an issue, especially when you havent explained what your ground for morality is. Myself, I would say that part of a proper system of ethics recognizes the necessity to submit yourself to the governing laws of the land, unless such laws contradict a more basic ethical rule.
And honestly, I would not call the "need for information to be free" a deeper ethical rule.
So the question becomes, if the law of the land has absolutely no say in your mind as to how one should behave, where DO you derive your standards from?
Tsvangirai's position was put in jeopardy because he was allied with the US against Mugabe, and Mugabe was able to use his control of the media to twist it into some anti-Zimbabwe sentiment.
There is no possible way youre going to convince me that the curiosity of some citizens in the US was worth endangering the potential fixing of the disaster that is Zimbabwe.
You're saying that because zimbaweans learned THE TRUTH and Mugabe could use it to his advantage that secrecy was entitled? Tsvangirai engaged in talks with the US and supported sanctions against the country, wether that's a good or bad thing, it's not important in this discussion. The important thing is that it's represents the truth and if people get angry about it, wether there's a media spin or not, it's just how things are supposed to be.
I might be wrong, but you're claiming that secrecy should've been mantained so that Tsangivarai could effectively fight Mugabe while he lied to the people he represented? That's not good, that's not fair. I understand that you're on ONE side and that probably makes it hard to look it from a perspective. But life is not really us vs them. Just because I don't like Mugabe, it doesn't mean I'll blindly pretend all Tsvangirai's actions are ok.
People are supposed to make informed decisions in a democracy but you want your, let's say team, to be able to lie in order to achieve it's goals?
One liners might make someone look like they know more than they do,
Pot calling the kettle black. How many one-liners pop up stating "information wants to be free", nevermind that the founding fathers, the 2 sides in the confederacy, and the WW2 united states would have utterly disagreed with that statement on certain matters? People complaining about the harsh treatment of Manning seem to have lost sight of the fact that during the Civil or Revolutionary wars, he would have already been shot or hung as a traitor.
First off, I didn't say that information wants to be free. I just called you out on a lousy, unexplained and false example which was proven to be a piece of media propaganda a long time ago and it all started with this piece of crap article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/03/zimbabwe-morgan-tsvangirai
Second, founding fathers, blah, blah... Don't appeal to a mistic authority to try and support your non existent argument. You remind me of people who make a up quotes from the bible. By the way, I'm not a history expert but I think there were compulsory drafts during the civil war too. So does everything that happened then apply now as well? No. Null argument.
This isnt some new thing that is a distortion of the values our country stands for; people have long recognized that once you get back into reality, some secrets are necessary for the functioning of diplomacy and for the waging of military operations.
How successful do you suppose Neptunes Spear would have been if Wikileaks had gotten wind of the operation beforehand, pray tell? In what conceivable way is it a service to US citizens to ensure that its operations are unsuccessful, as such operations will be if such intel is leaked?
Sure, keeps spewing official crap. "Values America stands for"? Really? Fake patriot rhetoric won't help your case. Citizens will be lied to and everything will be kept secret to "protect" them from we-can't-tell-you-what dangers that lurk around.
With full secrecy comes no accountability.
Remember how this all started:
He said:
"All in all I think all the secrecy, and covert action makes us weaker not stronger."
You replied:
"Maybe look at the situation in Zimbabwe, and the fallout after the release of several diplomatic wires between Mugabe's opposition and the US, and then repeat that state
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
I know you guys are mostly just going at each other, but seems to me that knowing corruption is rampant (at least what regular people call corruption) is very different from necessarily having some new, undisclosed evidence in hand. I mean, we see cases of it every day... some of which net prosecutions, and sadly many that don't. Politics is a lying bastards game, fueled by huge sums of money and extraordinary influence. It doesn't surprise most of us that a situation like that is rife with problems. The only time I hear anyone even suggest otherwise is when they're temporarily blinded by some flashy new liar. Though it always ends the same, in time.
And I think the original point stands... sometimes we consider various kinds of cronyism, back room deals, government contracts, negligence, etc. as examples of corruption, even if they're somehow legal. Just because most people don't know, or care enough to say anything about it, doesn't mean it's not shitty. We're not lawyers, so we judge right and wrong on the stricter criteria of everyday life.
I'm not normally a black helicopters, Illuminati, "zomg corporations r teh evil" kind of person... but I think it's entirely rational to expect frequent and serious problems in system with so much money and influence around for the taking.
This is by no means all-inclusive, but it's a starting point.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
You failed and should probably just kill yourself now.
Get FUCKED.
U RAH
--
Maybe look at the situation in Zimbabwe, and the fallout after the release of several diplomatic wires between Mugabe's opposition and the US, and then repeat that statement.
Was the people releasing the information about the US funding a puppet leader to take over a natural resources rich country the real villains or the political powers that be who are breaking international law at fault? Money is all they gave a shit about and their plans had nothing to do with overthrowing Mugabe for moral reasons. There are immeasurably worse tyrants out there in poorer places such as the Ivory Coast, so stop trying to play the high and mighty card and get off that horse before you hurt yourself.
Why?
Le français vous intéresse?
tunneling your way into the archive room, and convincing a digital system to transmit a stream of bits to you are distinctly different things.
you're an idiot.
Apparently though, not nearly as much of an idiot as you, Kristopeit.
Cower in my shadow some more behind your countless unimaginative pseudonyms, feeb.
You're completely pathetic.
The same people that clapped in glee with the delivery of this and other delicious pizzas should either clap in glee with the delivery of this shitty pizza, or should object to the delivery of ALL pizzas.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
One has to wonder what you thought about Palin's emails being hacked. Or, what you would think is Bachman's emails were hacked. I suspect you would be overjoyed.
It made me wonder exactly how many of my clients have accounts that can be reset based on information in their wikipedia entry.
Work bio at MMWD
Why would any military allow the use of such things for communications, is it not protocol to have secure lines of comm. no matter what the means or reason for it.
You never know who is listening, so you have to ensure your line is safe....you can't do that with a company the likes of google that say all you emails belong to them.because you use their services....
come one...common sense 101 here...
I don't think I would like that very much at all. Which is why I should be able to ask my doctor to shred my medical file, or at least portions of it. Does that mean treatment may not be as effective in the future yes. I not anyone else though should get to chose how to weigh the risk it leaks against the value of storing it.
I think personally in most aspects of life right now we grossly over value keeping records and grossly underestimate the risks of leaks and the costs of fallout from them.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
OK, now that you've made your case, allow me to make mine.
The criteria of everyday life and everyday people sucks. Most people will listen to the flimsiest evidence for something that vindicates their beliefs (and in a small part, their identity), and draw completely fallacious conclusions that they are correct. Worse still, they will then use these fallacious conclusions as evidence to solidify their beliefs, until they have this illusion of a pile of evidence mounting behind them. If you try to follow almost anything up, it turns to smoke, often in the form of speculations. They draw up a situation that fits both their beliefs and the thin pieces of actual data, with no evidence other than mountain of other "evidence" that also turns to smoke. In this way, they build a castle on sand, with the appearance of solidity and stability, until you start to tap the bricks.
You know how you feel when you read a really earnest defence of a really dumb conspiracy theory? Well, I feel like this all the time when I read people's arguments that a given action of the government is due to corruption (I also feel this way when I read christian apologetics, and sporadic other topics, so it's not just government).
Government corruption is one such castle made from fallacies. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, because it clearly does from the actual hard evidence we have received about previous government scandals. However, I have heard people discuss points of alleged corruption, and it's like they don't even check to see if there are any other possibilities. They are so convinced that the government is corrupt, they don't even bother to check whether it's true or not, and so it makes them more sure. This leads to an exponential growth of false assurance.
Here's a litmus test. How many actual times can you think of examples of times when you've seen governmental negligence? You might think, "loads of times", as many would. However, think harder about it. How many times do you actually know for sure (i.e. there's no other feasible and adequate explanation for the series of events that occurred) that some governmental screw-up occurred, when it realistically could have been prevented by the people involved doing their job better? If it couldn't be prevented by people doing the job better, then it is a problem of the system, which is not fair to blame on the government. I think, if you think back, there will only be at most a couple of times where it is actually known the government was negligent, and the rest of the time we kind of assumed it was, because governments are negligent by nature.
So yes, you are correct, "knowing" something in court is very different from "knowing" something in real life, a distinction that mirrors the distinction between "fact" and "belief".
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I wonder if Murdoch's company has also hacked our government like they have in England? They are even spying on private citizens.
You're saying that because zimbaweans learned THE TRUTH and Mugabe could use it to his advantage that secrecy was entitled?
For the most part, yes, because the depiction of "the truth" that they were getting was mostly incorrect. Im not clear on what precisely the average Zimbabwean knows about this issue, but as Mugabe basically controls information there, you can bet that its not anything so accurate as you or I know.
while he lied to the people he represented?
In what way was he lying? It is well known that he opposes Mugabe; this is just an excuse to trump up treason charges.
And as for "represented", you DO realize that Tsvangirai WON the last election and STILL doesnt really have control of the government, because Mugabe is refusing to step down?
Tsvangirai's "lie" as you term it is that he spoke with US officials and encouraged sanctions against Mugabe. I dont recall him ever stating he wouldnt do that, and I dont think any reasonable person familiar with Mugabe would find that to be some terrible crime.
First off, I didn't say that information wants to be free. I just called you out on a lousy, unexplained and false example which was proven to be a piece of media propaganda a long time ago and it all started with this piece of crap article:
When you say "proven to be some piece of propaganda", you mean that he ISNT facing treason charges, and that Mugabe ISNT still in power? Im not clear. The wikipedia article indicates neither of those to be true.
By the way, I'm not a history expert but I think there were compulsory drafts during the civil war too. So does everything that happened then apply now as well? No. Null argument.
Your premise, unless im reading it wrong, is that there is no place for secrecy in any part of the government-- and as this article is specifically about the military, your premise seems to include military and diplomatic relations as well.
My counter argument which you are dismissing as null is that this has NEVER been recognized at any point in our country's history-- it seems to be assumed throughout all of our wars and throughout all of our history that there IS some information that can and at times must be kept secret. Does it apply now? Well, presumably you are indicating how things "should be", but you arent giving a reason for why they should be that way; and presumably the framework of the folks who wrote the Constitution has SOME say when talking about "how things should be". Obviously, just because things "have always been that way" is not in and of itself a perfect defense of the practice, but surely you can see it carries some weight.
Sure, keeps spewing official crap. "Values America stands for"? Really? Fake patriot rhetoric won't help your case.
Er, you completely missed the thrust of what i was saying. My statement was that this "WASNT some distortion of values america stands for", arguing AGAINST such rhetoric as it is commonly employed. I dont think secrecy is a "value", I think it is a necessary evil when discussing military operations.
Citizens will be lied to and everything will be kept secret to "protect" them from we-can't-tell-you-what dangers that lurk around.
Grats for building a strawman, thats not at all what I said. Im simply stating that it is lunacy to suppose military and diplomatic missions can be carried out successfully if the opposition and bad actors all know all of our plans as we plan them. Im not endorsing a government dominated by secrecy, at all.
With full secrecy comes no accountability.
Well, perhaps you would like to push for an amendment to the constitution. What you are talking about is a fundamental change to the way our military and diplomatic relations work, one that goes back to the founding of the country. I agree with your statement (the on
Members of the military do need to transact business with the outside world. Sign up for websites, order a book from Amazon, whatever. As long as the public e-mails aren't used for classified information, what, precisely, is the problem?
So, in the file, it states "We want everyone to know that we mean business here." So, my question is "What business are they in?"
By extension, those who cheer when a notorious serial killer is put in jail should either support putting every last person in jail or should object to putting anyone in jail at all.
And honestly, I would not call the "need for information to be free" a deeper ethical rule.
Your phraseology betrays your bias. There is no "need for information to be free" - that "information wants to be free" is an observation of fact not an imperative.
Furthermore the debate has no more to do with the fact that information "wants" to be free than the fact that round wheels "want" to roll has to do with the debate on speeding.
So the question becomes, if the law of the land has absolutely no say in your mind as to how one should behave, where DO you derive your standards from?
Your question suggests you think the law of the land does significantly define morality. The reverse is the only sane belief, that the law of the land should be defined by morality.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I am not Korean by ethnicity, blood, or citizenship, nor do I feel any particular attachment to Korea. The name is an inside joke that you unfortunately are not privy to. I was genuinely interested in hearing an explanation of your position on this issue which is why I asked "why". I know I've insulted you in the past (and honestly you deserved it) but now I'm not trying to be combative or argumentative at all.
Le français vous intéresse?
that "information wants to be free" is an observation of fact not an imperative.
No, its a non-sense statement-- information has no power of cognition, and thus cannot want anything. To speak of it thus is to speak absurdities. Im not even sure what principle people are trying to communicate when they make that statement-- that people tend to be bad at keeping information private? That is neither an argument for or against private information.
Furthermore the debate has no more to do with the fact that information "wants" to be free than the fact that round wheels "want" to roll has to do with the debate on speeding.
I quite agree, which is why I was criticizing that whole argument. When discussing whether or not it should be legal for wheels to roll, one does not argue that "well, they TEND to roll, therefore it should be legal", any more than you would make that argument with theft or secrecy. Its a complete non-sequitur.
Your question suggests you think the law of the land does significantly define morality. The reverse is the only sane belief, that the law of the land should be defined by morality.
As a slightly off-topic aside, I recently heard a concise description of the classical, philosophical definition of "morality" as opposed to "ethics", which described the difference thus-- morality is the system of ethics practiced by a society. That being the case, yes, laws would effect it.
All that aside, I never indicated to what extent I think laws affect morality or ethics; I simply stated I think it plays some role.
As for defining laws by morality / ethics, thats great, but we still dont have an answer to "where do your ethical values come from?"
Finally, as an interesting thought experiment, why dont we observe the responses from people decrying the evils of all secrets when the next article about google and privacy comes up. It seems that there are times where people will concede that SOME secrets are acceptable for various reasons; why is it then assumed that there are no reasons ever in government?
No, its a non-sense statement-- information has no power of cognition, and thus cannot want anything
If you can't grasp the fundamental truth of that statement you'll never be able to have a meaningful discussion of its implications. I suspect that your dogged focus on secrecy for secrecy's sake rather than the validity of the secrecy in the first place is rooted in the same lack of sophistication.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I begin to suspect the lack of progress in the discussion is due to your inexplicable conclusion that I support secrecy for secrecy's sake.