Well for one I'd set the age of consent and age limit of child pornography to be 13. That you can be thrown in jail for looking at a 15-16-17yo is just a joke. Not to mention the many horny teens who are "child porn producers". I don't consider looking at horny and willing teens immoral at all.
Apart from that I must say it largely depends on the content, I've seen children loved and I've seen them abused. I don't really think there's much of a lower limit to being pleasured, from what I've seen. Of course in the media they are all brain washed, which is bullshit. Teach any kid to masturbate and I assure you they won't stop on their own.
Pedophilia is no doubt a sexual orientation to many, but for others it's a fetish seeking something even more perverted and forbidden. They're also the ones usually asking for and producing the worst stuff, because they have no interest in loving children. Personally I've known it since the early teens, I was looking at the 8yo sisters of friends rather than the 18yo sisters.
Looking at pictures and videos are my release of sexual tension, not my buildup. Not that I haven't fantasized about doing it for real, but it's more a pleasant dream than anything I want to pursue. I got as little belief that you can change me as that you can "cure" a homosexual. Maybe the people with other problems, but not me. The only thing you could teach me is to control it and that I do on my own.
Is it teenagers on the site or is it pre-pubescent children? I think that makes all the different not in the eyes of the law but in my opinion of the content. I think if it's post-pubescent it's not child pornography.
Of course he is a troll. Pedophiles try to hide as much as possible. They know they are scum "but can't help themselves." They know that if they are ever found out they will... have an unpleasant time.
Pedophiles and viewers of child pornography might be the same demographic but they aren't exactly the same.
It is likely that there are many more child pornography hidden services out there, that are not publicly listed. The hidden services architecture makes it difficult to say how many hidden services there are, and I doubt that the worst child porn websites are keen on being publicly listed.
Don't we have better things to do than actively search for child pornography? If it's hidden from the general public then it's censored.
I think the idea is that making consumption illegal (not to mention highly stigmatized) increases the "barrier to entry." There are people who do not seek out CP, who would if it were legal (just like there are people who don't smoke weed, but would if it were legal).
Fewer people consuming means less money to be made. Less money means less incentive for production. This is of course assuming there is money to be made... I honestly don't know. It could be that the whole "CP system" runs on reputation or something, like the hacking scene, but either way the point remains the same: fewer eyeballs = less currency = less incentive for production.
Looking at it another way, consuming CP does indirectly cause CP to be produced, so people who download it are contributing to its creation. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this particular point being sufficient to make it illegal, but I'm also not a lawyer or a parent.
That is a complete line of BS. "There are people who don't seek out child porn who would if it were legal".
Here is the main question, why should we care what gets people off as long as they aren't hurting anyone?
Definitely take down the websites that make money from the content. Beyond that it becomes a pointless witch hunt which doesn't accomplish anything.
Not really. I've seen CP threads there that lasted for HOURS.
Anonymous is that which is most primal. They may fap to the pictures, but they object to the abuse itself. Purveyors of those deepweb sites made NEW content, much of it HORRIFYING. Those people deserve the worst thing that can ever happen to a man, whatever that may be.
To be honest, the ban on CP doesn't really make much sense to me. It should be the PRODUCTION that is banned. Guro pictures aren't going to make people run out and slice people up, so why would CP make people run out and rape every midget in sight? It's like trying to deny the problem, and then locking up people for being what they are in a way that doesn't really hurt anyone. Indeed, Japan, with it's truly vast array of child erotica, which until fairly recently included legal CP, has among the lowest sexual assault rates on children (and in general, with most people with such tendencies keeping those urges under control with their respective forms of pornography).
Posting anonymous due to highly unpopular opinions in a country that no longer tolerates dissent.
There are smarter ways to go about this. Vigilantism is the dumbest way.
The thinking doesn't seem like something Anonymous would do. It doesn't fit their mantra at all. How does trying to take down Tor hidden services promote free speech?
No - Freedom Hosting is not libertarian - they are anarchist. All libertarians I know believe in some small oversight (i.e. government).
Oversight if lives are at risk. Anonymous hasn't proven that any childrens lives are being put at risks. Child pornography does not directly put childrens lives at risk. If there were a forum where pedophiles were discussing how to actually harm children then they'd be onto something.
You may of missed the point that the DOJ didn't want the guy to know they were reading his mail.
I think he might have guessed if they were pulling his fingernails out and screaming "what is your email password!"
I didn't say the torture had to be physical. Interrogation can be done covertly.
Sure he would suspect that people are interrogating him but he wouldn't have to know it's the DOJ. He could be made to think it's anybody or just random people. The fact is, it wouldn't matter to the government how they break the encryption as long as it gets broken.
It would only matter to the government if they wanted to use it in a legal case. The DOJ is law oriented, the NSA and CIA are not going to care about the law.
This is why if you're going to be doing stuff that you want to keep private, you encrypt it. If he was conducting wikileaks business over gmail using unencrypted email, that's very sad for Mr. Applebaum.
Computer programmers are also like that. Those who write simple, boring code - but lots of it - will lose to their Chinese and Indian competition. Those who write difficult code remain in business.
What exactly constitutes "difficult"? If you mean specialized code based upon specialized knowledge, that code isn't necessarily "difficult", it is simply specialized. Anyone can learn to write it given the proper documentation and materials to work with.
So what makes code difficult? This way I can choose the most difficult code possible to write.
There will probably never again me an engine of growth or strategy of success. You do something and if you do it well and you get lucky and no one either steals it before you finish it and or takes the credit, then you can do fairly well. Once again it requires luck to not get robbed, and to receive investor support, creativity alone simply means that people will have more ideas to steal from you.
This part of the summary is just great: "... is about to be launched"
Yes, having somebody sitting there as the attack is taking place and somehow guessing how the attacker will try to compromise your system makes it much easier to defend against the attack. Of course, just correctly guess sooner, and then you can fix the system beforehand and then you don't need someone sitting there....
It also assumes we can determine the capability or the resources the enemy is willing to employ. It's a lot safer to assume you don't know than to try and assume you know.
Or someone knows something about information security that you don't. Try and keep up because this isn't the movies it's real life.
Look, this isn't about deep cover missions inside Iran or China.
Iran and China have cyberwarfare spending. They have trained hackers specifically to attack government employees, and government infrasturcture. Cuba has been tapping phones in the USA for years.
(Where merely having a cell phone of unusual manufacture puts you under suspicious).Its about use in casual every day situations in urban areas where cell phones are common, and you can speak and listen to a conversation without attracting a great deal of suspicion.
If you work for the federal government you are going to be one of the main targets. If you work for the federal government and you have one of these cellphones you and that cellphone are going to be an even bigger target. An urban area where there are lots of people provides the opportune cover for exactly the sort of threats we have to be concerned about. That has to be the worst environment possible to handle classified information.
A street in New York, A bar in Paris, a market in Algeria. 200 people in the same cell triangle on the phone at the same time.
Security through obscurity? Are you saying classified information would be protected by this?
Almost all they need is voice/data encryption and device wipe. Data encryption is already available on consumer devices, as is remote wipe.
So you and your buddy walk into a bar with one of these phones. Little do you know, there are sensors in this bar designed to pick up the signals and emissions of cellphones. What I'm saying is you don't know the security level of the bar, you assume that obscurity means security. You assume that the people using these phones are perfectly secure. I don't assume any of that. I assume they will be targets and that carrying these phones will put the information in greater risk and that the risk in this instance does not outweigh the benefits.
But voice has to be encrypted end to end, because it almost always ends up going across commercial circuits somewhere in its travel.
In short, the NSA is looking for protection from people like, well, the NSA. They are not worried about someone out of a movie script sitting in a white van parked 6 blocks away listening to their keystrokes, because in real life, that does not work, and it certainly doesn't work in a crowd.
The NSA should be worried about all threats. Not just obvious threats but not so obvious threats and of course potential future threats. Just because the enemy isn't utilizing white vans to monitor keystrokes at this time, if you leave a security hole open, by giving out cellphones like these, it's only a matter of time before a scenario like this happens. Will the government be checking every van the parks next to the bars? I honestly don't think it's going to be so easy.
And real life isn't scripted like a movie, it's completely unpredictable. What these mobile devices do is add a new layer of uncertainty for a negligible benefit. That uncertainty is opportunity for the adversary.
Technology itself is uncertainty. You cannot predict what technology the adversary will come up with to counter this technology. We know only the research that has been done, and the research already shows that cellphones can easily be tapped, that emissions can easily be captured, and whether it takes a van or briefcase or something smaller depends entirely on the sophistication of the technology, and that is unpredictable. So you're assuming it's always going to be this way, that the adversary will never develop a counter technology, or counter measures, that something like this could only happen in a movie. But guess what? These smartphones are also som
Then use an on-screen keyboard with a randomized layout for password entry. Assuming a layer of rubber padding behind the keyboard circuit isn't good enough.
The smartphone emits radiation, because of the electricity flowing through the screen. It emits light from the screen which can be detected by a human or a non human. It emits sound as the human presses on the on screen keyboard, but also the electrical signal is going to change depending on where their fingers are and this will emit signals which can be reconstructed.
What I'm saying is information is going to leak through any emission from that device. The enemy simply has to know what to look for, and build devices to detect the emissions. Not every emission is stuff the general public believes can be detected, but when there's enough research and enough money, any leak can be reconstructed even if its stuff people never thought about or don't know about.
For this reason it's not ever going to be safe enough for classified information. It's smarter to build top secret phone booths with a phone in there than to use a smart phone in an open field.
Scenario: Your operative is in an unsecured location preparing for a mission. There is no SCIF in his vicinity. You learn new information which is relevant and must be communicated to him immediately.
It seems obvious that having a communications device which is as secure as practicable under those conditions is preferable to e.g. sending a completely unencrypted text message to his COTS cell phone.
I disagree. If there is no SCIF in his vicinity he should not communicate classified information. Classified information should never be communicated over an unclassified channel. If there is even a slim chance that the enemy can detect and intercept a signal or emission which can lead to the reconstruction of classified information then it's not worth the risk.
Honestly, the operative would be more secure using a radio cold war style than to use a smart phone. If you look at the history of radio transmissions you'll see that typically foreign intelligence immediately detects the transmissions, and through triangulation they can locate the individual making the transmission. Foreign intelligence also intercepts cellphone calls, because cellphone signals are easy to intercept and listen in on. There is no way to secure the emissions of a smartphone, it's not technically possible. There will always be a leak where the classified information can be reconstructed. Because of this it's important to never allow classified information to be emitted anywhere where there isn't absolute complete control over the environment.
No amount of encryption will change this. No amount of apps will change this. An text message isn't secure because it has to be typed. So the emission is the keystrokes themselves and that will be intercepted. And in the case of the display, the light, radiation and flow of electricity will be detected and the information reconstructed based on that.
What are you rambling on about? You can 100% guarantee that a phone given to you by the NSA capable of accessing classified information is going to be heavily and regularly monitored by the government without court orders required. There would be 0% expectation of privacy with such a phone.
It's not the phone you'd have to monitor, it's the entire environment itself that the phone is in that you have to monitor.
It still does not change the fact that using a cellphone leaks emissions. Those emissions can be deciphered because of a human being can read the screen and decipher it, a non human can detect the emissions and decipher the signals to read the same screen.
So most importantly would be finding a secure location to use the phone in such a way that nothing can leak. Light, sound, radiation, no emission whatsoever must leak from the secure room, and if you have to be in a special room to use these phones then it defeats the purpose of having them because why not just use a desktop computer in that special room?
To think that these employees aren't going to be tracked by foreign intelligence is impetuous in itself when the mission of many of these foreign intelligence agencies is to extract secrets from the US government.
Employees who carry this phone are going to be targeted. And it's not the US spies they'll have to worry about.
Encrypted partitions + well-secured lock screen with anti-bruteforce + case intrusion detection systems (to prevent cold boot attack) + self-destruct systems (remote wipe + dead man's switch) = really fucking good security.
Not at all. When you type in your password it creates sound frequencies, perhaps indicating what keys were pressed and what the password is. This makes you encrypted partition useless since you wont be able to log into it without leaking sound frequencies which could help hackers reconstruct the password. Since there as so many emissions, some which we might not know anything about or not know they even exist, it's not safe to enter in a password or handle a device like that in an uncontrolled environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Well for one I'd set the age of consent and age limit of child pornography to be 13. That you can be thrown in jail for looking at a 15-16-17yo is just a joke. Not to mention the many horny teens who are "child porn producers". I don't consider looking at horny and willing teens immoral at all.
Apart from that I must say it largely depends on the content, I've seen children loved and I've seen them abused. I don't really think there's much of a lower limit to being pleasured, from what I've seen. Of course in the media they are all brain washed, which is bullshit. Teach any kid to masturbate and I assure you they won't stop on their own.
Pedophilia is no doubt a sexual orientation to many, but for others it's a fetish seeking something even more perverted and forbidden. They're also the ones usually asking for and producing the worst stuff, because they have no interest in loving children. Personally I've known it since the early teens, I was looking at the 8yo sisters of friends rather than the 18yo sisters.
Looking at pictures and videos are my release of sexual tension, not my buildup. Not that I haven't fantasized about doing it for real, but it's more a pleasant dream than anything I want to pursue. I got as little belief that you can change me as that you can "cure" a homosexual. Maybe the people with other problems, but not me. The only thing you could teach me is to control it and that I do on my own.
Is it teenagers on the site or is it pre-pubescent children? I think that makes all the different not in the eyes of the law but in my opinion of the content. I think if it's post-pubescent it's not child pornography.
Of course he is a troll. Pedophiles try to hide as much as possible. They know they are scum "but can't help themselves." They know that if they are ever found out they will... have an unpleasant time.
Pedophiles and viewers of child pornography might be the same demographic but they aren't exactly the same.
A viewer might not be an actual pedophile.
It is likely that there are many more child pornography hidden services out there, that are not publicly listed. The hidden services architecture makes it difficult to say how many hidden services there are, and I doubt that the worst child porn websites are keen on being publicly listed.
Don't we have better things to do than actively search for child pornography?
If it's hidden from the general public then it's censored.
I think the idea is that making consumption illegal (not to mention highly stigmatized) increases the "barrier to entry." There are people who do not seek out CP, who would if it were legal (just like there are people who don't smoke weed, but would if it were legal).
Fewer people consuming means less money to be made. Less money means less incentive for production. This is of course assuming there is money to be made... I honestly don't know. It could be that the whole "CP system" runs on reputation or something, like the hacking scene, but either way the point remains the same: fewer eyeballs = less currency = less incentive for production.
Looking at it another way, consuming CP does indirectly cause CP to be produced, so people who download it are contributing to its creation. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this particular point being sufficient to make it illegal, but I'm also not a lawyer or a parent.
That is a complete line of BS. "There are people who don't seek out child porn who would if it were legal".
Here is the main question, why should we care what gets people off as long as they aren't hurting anyone?
Definitely take down the websites that make money from the content. Beyond that it becomes a pointless witch hunt which doesn't accomplish anything.
Not really. I've seen CP threads there that lasted for HOURS.
Anonymous is that which is most primal. They may fap to the pictures, but they object to the abuse itself. Purveyors of those deepweb sites made NEW content, much of it HORRIFYING. Those people deserve the worst thing that can ever happen to a man, whatever that may be.
To be honest, the ban on CP doesn't really make much sense to me. It should be the PRODUCTION that is banned. Guro pictures aren't going to make people run out and slice people up, so why would CP make people run out and rape every midget in sight? It's like trying to deny the problem, and then locking up people for being what they are in a way that doesn't really hurt anyone. Indeed, Japan, with it's truly vast array of child erotica, which until fairly recently included legal CP, has among the lowest sexual assault rates on children (and in general, with most people with such tendencies keeping those urges under control with their respective forms of pornography).
Posting anonymous due to highly unpopular opinions in a country that no longer tolerates dissent.
There are smarter ways to go about this. Vigilantism is the dumbest way.
How do we know this wasn't the authorities?
The thinking doesn't seem like something Anonymous would do. It doesn't fit their mantra at all.
How does trying to take down Tor hidden services promote free speech?
No - Freedom Hosting is not libertarian - they are anarchist. All libertarians I know believe in some small oversight (i.e. government).
Oversight if lives are at risk. Anonymous hasn't proven that any childrens lives are being put at risks.
Child pornography does not directly put childrens lives at risk. If there were a forum where pedophiles were discussing how to actually harm children then they'd be onto something.
M.C. Hammer actually has money?
That he didn't spend on crack?
He does now. He has DanceJam, Record Labels, and now this.
You may of missed the point that the DOJ didn't want the guy to know they were reading his mail.
I think he might have guessed if they were pulling his fingernails out and screaming "what is your email password!"
I didn't say the torture had to be physical. Interrogation can be done covertly.
Sure he would suspect that people are interrogating him but he wouldn't have to know it's the DOJ. He could be made to think it's anybody or just random people. The fact is, it wouldn't matter to the government how they break the encryption as long as it gets broken.
It would only matter to the government if they wanted to use it in a legal case. The DOJ is law oriented, the NSA and CIA are not going to care about the law.
This is why if you're going to be doing stuff that you want to keep private, you encrypt it. If he was conducting wikileaks business over gmail using unencrypted email, that's very sad for Mr. Applebaum.
Encryption doesn't stop governments.
And torture = broken encryption.
So no, encryption wont protect sensitive emails.
Since they don't believe in paying for the police, who exactly are they going to call?
Of course they'll bribe the police or try to build a private police force, but once again who do the 1% have who they can trust?
Computer programmers are also like that. Those who write simple, boring code - but lots of it - will lose to their Chinese and Indian competition. Those who write difficult code remain in business.
What exactly constitutes "difficult"? If you mean specialized code based upon specialized knowledge, that code isn't necessarily "difficult", it is simply specialized. Anyone can learn to write it given the proper documentation and materials to work with.
So what makes code difficult? This way I can choose the most difficult code possible to write.
Ad revenue from Youtube? are you kidding? You'd have to get 10 or 20 million hits a month.
There will probably never again me an engine of growth or strategy of success. You do something and if you do it well and you get lucky and no one either steals it before you finish it and or takes the credit, then you can do fairly well. Once again it requires luck to not get robbed, and to receive investor support, creativity alone simply means that people will have more ideas to steal from you.
This part of the summary is just great: "... is about to be launched"
Yes, having somebody sitting there as the attack is taking place and somehow guessing how the attacker will try to compromise your system makes it much easier to defend against the attack. Of course, just correctly guess sooner, and then you can fix the system beforehand and then you don't need someone sitting there....
It also assumes we can determine the capability or the resources the enemy is willing to employ. It's a lot safer to assume you don't know than to try and assume you know.
Someone has been watching too many spy movies
Or someone knows something about information security that you don't. Try and keep up because this isn't the movies it's real life.
Look, this isn't about deep cover missions inside Iran or China.
Iran and China have cyberwarfare spending. They have trained hackers specifically to attack government employees, and government infrasturcture. Cuba has been tapping phones in the USA for years.
(Where merely having a cell phone of unusual manufacture puts you under suspicious).Its about use in casual every day situations in urban areas where cell phones are common, and you can speak and listen to a conversation without attracting a great deal of suspicion.
If you work for the federal government you are going to be one of the main targets. If you work for the federal government and you have one of these cellphones you and that cellphone are going to be an even bigger target. An urban area where there are lots of people provides the opportune cover for exactly the sort of threats we have to be concerned about. That has to be the worst environment possible to handle classified information.
A street in New York, A bar in Paris, a market in Algeria. 200 people in the same cell triangle on the phone at the same time.
Security through obscurity? Are you saying classified information would be protected by this?
Almost all they need is voice/data encryption and device wipe. Data encryption is already available on consumer devices, as is remote wipe.
So you and your buddy walk into a bar with one of these phones. Little do you know, there are sensors in this bar designed to pick up the signals and emissions of cellphones. What I'm saying is you don't know the security level of the bar, you assume that obscurity means security. You assume that the people using these phones are perfectly secure. I don't assume any of that. I assume they will be targets and that carrying these phones will put the information in greater risk and that the risk in this instance does not outweigh the benefits.
But voice has to be encrypted end to end, because it almost always ends up going across commercial circuits somewhere in its travel.
In short, the NSA is looking for protection from people like, well, the NSA. They are not worried about someone out of a movie script sitting in a white van parked 6 blocks away listening to their keystrokes, because in real life, that does not work, and it certainly doesn't work in a crowd.
The NSA should be worried about all threats. Not just obvious threats but not so obvious threats and of course potential future threats. Just because the enemy isn't utilizing white vans to monitor keystrokes at this time, if you leave a security hole open, by giving out cellphones like these, it's only a matter of time before a scenario like this happens. Will the government be checking every van the parks next to the bars? I honestly don't think it's going to be so easy.
And real life isn't scripted like a movie, it's completely unpredictable. What these mobile devices do is add a new layer of uncertainty for a negligible benefit. That uncertainty is opportunity for the adversary.
Technology itself is uncertainty. You cannot predict what technology the adversary will come up with to counter this technology. We know only the research that has been done, and the research already shows that cellphones can easily be tapped, that emissions can easily be captured, and whether it takes a van or briefcase or something smaller depends entirely on the sophistication of the technology, and that is unpredictable. So you're assuming it's always going to be this way, that the adversary will never develop a counter technology, or counter measures, that something like this could only happen in a movie. But guess what? These smartphones are also som
Then use an on-screen keyboard with a randomized layout for password entry. Assuming a layer of rubber padding behind the keyboard circuit isn't good enough.
The smartphone emits radiation, because of the electricity flowing through the screen. It emits light from the screen which can be detected by a human or a non human. It emits sound as the human presses on the on screen keyboard, but also the electrical signal is going to change depending on where their fingers are and this will emit signals which can be reconstructed.
What I'm saying is information is going to leak through any emission from that device. The enemy simply has to know what to look for, and build devices to detect the emissions. Not every emission is stuff the general public believes can be detected, but when there's enough research and enough money, any leak can be reconstructed even if its stuff people never thought about or don't know about.
For this reason it's not ever going to be safe enough for classified information. It's smarter to build top secret phone booths with a phone in there than to use a smart phone in an open field.
Scenario: Your operative is in an unsecured location preparing for a mission. There is no SCIF in his vicinity. You learn new information which is relevant and must be communicated to him immediately.
It seems obvious that having a communications device which is as secure as practicable under those conditions is preferable to e.g. sending a completely unencrypted text message to his COTS cell phone.
I disagree. If there is no SCIF in his vicinity he should not communicate classified information. Classified information should never be communicated over an unclassified channel. If there is even a slim chance that the enemy can detect and
intercept a signal or emission which can lead to the reconstruction of classified information then it's not worth the risk.
Honestly, the operative would be more secure using a radio cold war style than to use a smart phone. If you look at the history of radio transmissions you'll see that typically foreign intelligence immediately detects the transmissions, and through triangulation they can locate the individual making the transmission. Foreign intelligence also intercepts cellphone calls, because cellphone signals are easy to intercept and listen in on. There is no way to secure the emissions of a smartphone, it's not technically possible. There will always be a leak where the classified information can be reconstructed. Because of this it's important to never allow classified information to be emitted anywhere where there isn't absolute complete control over the environment.
No amount of encryption will change this. No amount of apps will change this. An text message isn't secure because it has to be typed. So the emission is the keystrokes themselves and that will be intercepted. And in the case of the display, the light, radiation and flow of electricity will be detected and the information reconstructed based on that.
What are you rambling on about? You can 100% guarantee that a phone given to you by the NSA capable of accessing classified information is going to be heavily and regularly monitored by the government without court orders required. There would be 0% expectation of privacy with such a phone.
It's not the phone you'd have to monitor, it's the entire environment itself that the phone is in that you have to monitor.
It still does not change the fact that using a cellphone leaks emissions. Those emissions can be deciphered because of a human being can read the screen and decipher it, a non human can detect the emissions and decipher the signals to read the same screen.
So most importantly would be finding a secure location to use the phone in such a way that nothing can leak. Light, sound, radiation, no emission whatsoever must leak from the secure room, and if you have to be in a special room to use these phones then it defeats the purpose of having them because why not just use a desktop computer in that special room?
To think that these employees aren't going to be tracked by foreign intelligence is impetuous in itself when the mission of many of these foreign intelligence agencies is to extract secrets from the US government.
Employees who carry this phone are going to be targeted. And it's not the US spies they'll have to worry about.
Encrypted partitions + well-secured lock screen with anti-bruteforce + case intrusion detection systems (to prevent cold boot attack) + self-destruct systems (remote wipe + dead man's switch) = really fucking good security.
Not at all. When you type in your password it creates sound frequencies, perhaps indicating what keys were pressed and what the password is. This makes you encrypted partition useless since you wont be able to log into it without leaking sound frequencies which could help hackers reconstruct the password. Since there as so many emissions, some which we might not know anything about or not know they even exist, it's not safe to enter in a password or handle a device like that in an uncontrolled environment.
Governments without secrets cannot exist at all.
SIPRNet only allows SECRET information and below. You need to be on JWICS to access Top Secret information.
That doesn't make it any better. It's still a bad idea.