And I hope for your sake that the majority of you went home and did just that. If your employer is trusting you with a security clearance but it's not trusting you with publically available data, it means that they are suffering from schizophrenia and you should call an ambulance.
If the employer tells you these are the rules, you follow the rules. They don't have to make sense. It's just to see whether or not you can follow senseless rules which is part of the military lifestyle.
If you have a security clearance, you are not allowed to talk about classified materials, even if you only know of those materials from an out of channel source (the news). You are also not allowed to seek out classified material that you do not need to know. If a person has had access to classified material without authorization beforehand, it can complicate the process of gaining a security clearance.
If the enemy can read it, if all your friends can read it, if everybody except you can read it, then you are at a disadvantage. It's a situation where the information is classified on paper but not in practice and to ask people not to read the Newspaper or go to their favorite websites is a bit ridiculous.
As for asking people not to seek out classified information that makes sense. In this case nobody has to seek it out, it's pretty much everywhere, even Larry King was talking about it with Putin.
What does this have to do with your ability to follow rules? I guess they give you this rule just to see if you can follow it. So follow the rules even if they don't make any sense.
Considering these cables are on every news site and on TV it's no longer classified by law. They can try and pretend like it's still classified but it's not. Once it's saturated in the media and millions of people know about it all over the world it's public information.
By his own words, that guy meets all the requirements for a paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I had a girlfriend once who complained that her ex used to break into her house on a regular basis and inventory her underwear drawer. Logic dictates that the costs/benefits of paying a staff to do 24/7 harassment of an ex-employee just don't make sense.
That depends on who you work for. I'm sure a bank or the feds would have the money to do 24/7 surveillance on anyone they choose. That includes you.
By the government, commercial data mining firms, and my employer. As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."
It is tracked, then it's sold to China so the Chinese workers and business owners can have the edge.
Most people are not perfectly anonymous. You have no idea how difficult it is to be perfectly anonymous. Cookies in the browser, identifiers in the operating system, theres a lot more to it than IP address. The only way to be anonymous is to never use the same computer in the same location more than once.
Give thinking a try. Having firepower is not the same as being able to deploy it in the way you describe. The leaks continue for no reason other than the existence of Internet. No one can stop leaks now, NO ONE. I t's just that disgustingly easy to leak info now while remaining anonymous. US military leakers (citation needed, btw) will die in prison, right, just like the guy who leaked the Pentagon papers did. Dude, seriously, the only reason Manning got caught was because he wanted fame: he was spilling his guts to a black hat named Lamo, for chrissake. Get a clue. The only fallout from the Manning incident is going to be this: no other leaker will get caught unless they really want to.
No one is anonymous. They would have found Manning eventually, oh wait they did find him through Adrian Lamo.
Nothing stops the FSB from killing everyone associated with Julian Assange one by one. Nothing stops the US government from killing everyone associated with Julian Assange.
If they want to shut down Wikileaks they can and will. If 10 more pop up then those people will be tracked down and murdered until people get the picture that if you leak you die.
So like I said, why did the US refuse to point out any information that should be redacted when it had the opportunity too? Either it doesn't care about the threat, or the threat is not substantial.
It doesn't matter what's contained, the point is that if there really is any danger to anyone, then the US refused to aid wikileaks in redacting it when they had the opportunity choosing instead to let them push ahead with full disclosure.
Why do you think US authorities have been trying to contact Julian Assange? Assange wanted to do the leak so its his job to do this not the US Government.
That's fine, but you're NOT going to be a whistleblower if that's your attitude. Whistleblowers are ALWAYS called evil criminals by the powers they're exposing. Governments ALWAYS claim that any leaks that they don't approve of kill people. If you're going to agree with them, that's fine. But don't pretend you're going to be a whistleblower and tow the government line at the same time. You CAN'T do both.
This is about the quality and nature of the leaks. This is about the facts that the leaks target my nation (USA).
On top of all that the leaks aren't even redacted so that intelligence sources are easily identified.It really does put lives at risk.
I don't see where he was killed or harmed. You expect to see that? You think Iran is going to show you what they did to him? If you are acting against your government, regardless of intent, you are not innocent.
The document says baku businessman. A businessman is a civilian not a government employee or a soldier. He never worked for the Iranian government so he is completely innocent. It's not like this guy is a double agent, the document does not say anything about him being loyal to any government. That's just wrong. You may want to think about your wording.
Why is it wrong? Make a case.
Lives will be lost either way. I'm saying when intelligence sources are revealed innocent civilian lives are destroyed. This is a certainty.
I notice you only respond as anonymous, and you spit out opinions as if they are facts.
I did my research. Most assets are civilians. They aren't soldiers. They are ordinary people who just happen to live in the wrong location and know the wrong people.
Your mom being crucified to protect the sources would be acceptable?
If I were a CIA officer yes I would protect my sources identities as if they are family members because thats what you do. It's just like you protect your comrades in war.
In war I'd be risking my life to win, and the sources would be risking their lives for me.
Say what? I don't think I agree with that AT ALL. Those actions are morally and legally miles apart.
No they aren't. A source is likely going to be tortured if discovered. A source if you out them has no life to go back to.
Somehow you have the idea that intelligence sources are "bad" people. Some of the best people on earth are intelligence sources and some of the worst scumbags on earth are intelligence sources. If you are an intelligence officer then you'd know everything about your source, if you know they are one of the best people and you know they are risking their life for you what kind of scumbag would you have to be to sell them out?
An intelligence source is 100% civilian and innocent. An enemy combatant such as a member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda gang member is not a civilian and not innocent. The US soldiers are at war with the foreign soldiers. It's expected that soldiers on both sides of a war are going to die.
Intelligence sources are not soldiers. They are people who have surrendered to the US government. They had the option to surrender to the Taliban, to Iran, but chose to surrender to the US Government. Whether it was because the US Government had the bigger better military or whether it's because they just hate Al Qaeda and the Taliban, they sided with the USA and the USA has a sacred trust to protect their identity at any cost.
Assange thinks he is more important than he is. Exposing intelligence sources is never acceptable. It's as bad as torture which we agree is not acceptable, or killing women and children. So if Assange gets an entire family killed off because of this leak, or several families are ruined, this is okay to you?
But if the USA bombs the wrong house by accident then it's not okay?
Slashdot Mirror
And I hope for your sake that the majority of you went home and did just that. If your employer is trusting you with a security clearance but it's not trusting you with publically available data, it means that they are suffering from schizophrenia and you should call an ambulance.
If the employer tells you these are the rules, you follow the rules. They don't have to make sense. It's just to see whether or not you can follow senseless rules which is part of the military lifestyle.
If you have a security clearance, you are not allowed to talk about classified materials, even if you only know of those materials from an out of channel source (the news). You are also not allowed to seek out classified material that you do not need to know. If a person has had access to classified material without authorization beforehand, it can complicate the process of gaining a security clearance.
If the enemy can read it, if all your friends can read it, if everybody except you can read it, then you are at a disadvantage. It's a situation where the information is classified on paper but not in practice and to ask people not to read the Newspaper or go to their favorite websites is a bit ridiculous.
As for asking people not to seek out classified information that makes sense. In this case nobody has to seek it out, it's pretty much everywhere, even Larry King was talking about it with Putin.
What does this have to do with your ability to follow rules? I guess they give you this rule just to see if you can follow it. So follow the rules even if they don't make any sense.
Considering these cables are on every news site and on TV it's no longer classified by law. They can try and pretend like it's still classified but it's not. Once it's saturated in the media and millions of people know about it all over the world it's public information.
Once the other governments have read it, what difference does it make if everybody else reads it then?
People at the State Dept might know what goes on at the State Dept? Thats supposed to be bad?
Have you heard of infraguard? This is why some guy at a bank would have the power to do that.
Actually it's a Republic. Bush did not win the popular vote.
He is fighting against it. The government is cracking down because if fears guys like him and Jim Bell.
By his own words, that guy meets all the requirements for a paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I had a girlfriend once who complained that her ex used to break into her house on a regular basis and inventory her underwear drawer. Logic dictates that the costs/benefits of paying a staff to do 24/7 harassment of an ex-employee just don't make sense.
That depends on who you work for. I'm sure a bank or the feds would have the money to do 24/7 surveillance on anyone they choose. That includes you.
By the government, commercial data mining firms, and my employer. As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."
It is tracked, then it's sold to China so the Chinese workers and business owners can have the edge.
We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it. We must accept that we are peasants to large financial institutions. They own our souls.
In the police state we are all potential terrorists. Just like this guy http://www.jbhfile.com/invest_beginnings.html
Let it be a lesson, don't piss off the banks and financial institutions of America.
Most people are not perfectly anonymous. You have no idea how difficult it is to be perfectly anonymous. Cookies in the browser, identifiers in the operating system, theres a lot more to it than IP address. The only way to be anonymous is to never use the same computer in the same location more than once.
Give thinking a try. Having firepower is not the same as being able to
deploy it in the way you describe. The leaks continue for no reason other than the existence of Internet. No one can stop leaks now, NO ONE. I
t's just that disgustingly easy to leak info now while remaining anonymous. US military leakers (citation needed, btw) will die in prison, right, just like the guy who leaked the Pentagon papers did. Dude, seriously, the only reason Manning got caught was because he wanted fame: he was spilling his guts to a black hat named Lamo, for chrissake. Get a clue. The only fallout from the Manning incident is going to be this: no
other leaker will get caught unless they really want to.
No one is anonymous. They would have found Manning eventually, oh wait they did find him through Adrian Lamo.
Rumor has it Assange has Chinese bodyguards. Rumor has it China has given him 20 million. Who knows.
That might protect Assange from the US government but it wont protect him from Russia.
Nothing stops the FSB from killing everyone associated with Julian Assange one by one. Nothing stops the US government from killing everyone associated with Julian Assange.
If they want to shut down Wikileaks they can and will. If 10 more pop up then those people will be tracked down and murdered until people get the picture that if you leak you die.
The FSB and NSA both know everyone associated with WIkileaks. If you've communicated directly with Julian Assange they know who and where you are.
So like I said, why did the US refuse to point out any information that should be redacted when it had the opportunity too? Either it doesn't care about the threat, or the threat is not substantial.
It doesn't matter what's contained, the point is that if there really is any danger to anyone, then the US refused to aid wikileaks in redacting it when they had the opportunity choosing instead to let them push ahead with full disclosure.
Why do you think US authorities have been trying to contact Julian Assange? Assange wanted to do the leak so its his job to do this not the US Government.
I condemn whoever was responsible for the outing of Valarie Plame. The higher up in rank the worse it is.
I also condemn the outing of Erik Prince. An intelligence operative/source should never be outed.
I don't think Valarie Plame should have been outed.
That's fine, but you're NOT going to be a whistleblower if that's your attitude. Whistleblowers are ALWAYS called evil criminals by the powers they're exposing. Governments ALWAYS claim that any leaks that they don't approve of kill people. If you're going to agree with them, that's fine. But don't pretend you're going to be a whistleblower and tow the government line at the same time. You CAN'T do both.
This is about the quality and nature of the leaks. This is about the facts that the leaks target my nation (USA).
On top of all that the leaks aren't even redacted so that intelligence sources are easily identified.It really does put lives at risk.
When did I ever claim I was going to be a whistleblower?
I don't see where he was killed or harmed.
You expect to see that? You think Iran is going to show you what they did to him?
If you are acting against your government, regardless of intent, you are not innocent.
The document says baku businessman. A businessman is a civilian not a government employee or a soldier. He never worked for the Iranian government so he is completely innocent. It's not like this guy is a double agent, the document does not say anything about him being loyal to any government.
That's just wrong. You may want to think about your wording.
Why is it wrong? Make a case.
Lives will be lost either way. I'm saying when intelligence sources are revealed innocent civilian lives are destroyed. This is a certainty.
I notice you only respond as anonymous, and you spit out opinions as if they are facts.
I did my research. Most assets are civilians. They aren't soldiers. They are ordinary people who just happen to live in the wrong location and know the wrong people.
Your mom being crucified to protect the sources would be acceptable?
If I were a CIA officer yes I would protect my sources identities as if they are family members because thats what you do. It's just like you protect your comrades in war.
In war I'd be risking my life to win, and the sources would be risking their lives for me.
Say what? I don't think I agree with that AT ALL. Those actions are morally and legally miles apart.
No they aren't. A source is likely going to be tortured if discovered. A source if you out them has no life to go back to.
Somehow you have the idea that intelligence sources are "bad" people. Some of the best people on earth are intelligence sources and some of the worst scumbags on earth are intelligence sources. If you are an intelligence officer then you'd know everything about your source, if you know they are one of the best people and you know they are risking their life for you what kind of scumbag would you have to be to sell them out?
An intelligence source is 100% civilian and innocent. An enemy combatant such as a member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda gang member is not a civilian and not innocent. The US soldiers are at war with the foreign soldiers. It's expected that soldiers on both sides of a war are going to die.
Intelligence sources are not soldiers. They are people who have surrendered to the US government. They had the option to surrender to the Taliban, to Iran, but chose to surrender to the US Government. Whether it was because the US Government had the bigger better military or whether it's because they just hate Al Qaeda and the Taliban, they sided with the USA and the USA has a sacred trust to protect their identity at any cost.
Assange thinks he is more important than he is. Exposing intelligence sources is never acceptable. It's as bad as torture which we agree is not acceptable, or killing women and children. So if Assange gets an entire family killed off because of this leak, or several families are ruined, this is okay to you?
But if the USA bombs the wrong house by accident then it's not okay?