The logistics of this would be no problem for an organization such as the US military... They do much more complicated stuff all the time
And btw, you mean 'the US military shouldn't have refused', rather than 'that Julian Assange should not have released these documents without doing the right thing', right?
And how do we know the US Army refused? And how do we know Julian Assange planned to do the right thing? Julian Assange should not have released these documents. There was nothing valuable in these documents that US Citizens would be concerned about, but to the Taliban there was information which could help them locate sources. This was a bad move on Julian Assanges part.
Do you really believe that any law would stand in the way of military objectives? Look at US law. Look at the fact that a US citizen is currently on the governments hitlist. The US government has the capability to capture or kill anybody anywhere in the world if they become an armed combatant.
I don't think that will happen to Julian Assange, but lets not pretend like the US government wouldn't do it.
I highly suggest you read up on the spying business before you make a comment. You assume people in these situations have much choice in the matter as of who to associate with, as if there are human rights and as if there isn't torture going on, or bombs dropping on them, or the fact that they are starving. In some cases the only group capable of helping them is the USA. There literally is nobody else. The Taliban is not going to give these people a better life. The Taliban wont give them freedom. The Taliban won't give them food, water, medicine, education, limited human rights, and honestly having limited human rights beats not having any. The warlord or the US government, which do you think would give you a better life if you had to choose?
It's so fkn simple Wikileaks should have never released those documents.
Documents with names, locations, and sources, should never be saved on any computer system. If they must be saved they should never be viewed by anybody who does not have Top Secret clearance. It puts lives at risk just for Assange to be able to view it. If Assange was able to view it, Bradley Manning is directly to blame and if people have died and importantly if Wikileaks dies, all blame should go to Bradley Manning. He is the moron who did what he did after swearing an oath. He is the moron who then went to Adrian Lamo of all people and openly compromised himself further.
Bradley Manning should of never have had Top Secret clearance. Julian Assange should have never have had those documents. Those documents should have never have been stored on any computer system including names and locations. That stuff should be code names no matter what.
Who vets the reporters for the new york times or any other news agency? There's a long tradition of documents getting leaked to news agencies over the years.
As a general rule the moment state secrets reach a reporter/news agency based in another country who are citizens of another country they cease to be secrets and the system supposed to keep them safe has failed utterly in every way.
When classified documents get released to the New York Times the FBI and CIA get involved. The FBI has files on every American, especially journalists who work for the New York Times. The CIA probably has files on them too. They know who is loyal to the USA and who might be attached to foreign intelligence. The fact that we have domestic counter intelligence agencies that exist specifically to determine who the foreign spies are is why you don't see classified documents with the identities of sources included in them.
The last time classified documents of these sort were released, it was the covert action quarterly. For all who don't know what CAQ was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CovertAction_Quarterly , it was controlled by Philip Agee. Phillip Agee was a CIA agent who may have become a double agent for the KGB. He went on to release the identities of CIA officers through the CAQ publication.
The fact is the US Government considered him to be a traitor. In Julian Assanges case he was from Australia so it's not exactly the same, but if his publication released the identities of sources or released information which assisted the Taliban in determining the sources, if Julian Assange does not want to be looked at in history as being another Philip Agee he has to do everything within his power to protect the sources. There are lives at stake, and if lives have been lost he's just the same as Phillip Agee, Robert Hansen, or any of those others.
The logistics of how do you allow the US government to do it difficult. First problem is finding a trusted rep of the US government. I suppose Julian Assange could have sent a copy to Adrian Lamo via PGP who could have sent it to the people who could properly take out the information which needed to be removed and then send it back to Adrian who sends it to Julian all via PGP.
Let's not pretend like this system is easy to implement or that the web of trust cannot be compromised. It would not be easy, but I accept that it would have been possible and that Julian Assange should not have released these documents without doing the right thing.
Wikileaks can only work as a concept in the same way that the UN works as a concept. You get all the governments of the world to agree to support Wikileaks with technological support, experience, advisory support, financial support, and so on. This would allow Wikileaks to work. The problem is that no government on planet earth is going to support Wikileaks releasing the names of informants. Once Wikileaks passed that phase it became a foreign intelligence instrument itself because now it's actually assisting the Taliban and is no longer neutral in the information warfare theater.
Wikileaks should have NEVER under any circumstances for any reasons released information which could lead to the death of sources. The sources in my opinion are more important than the Wikileaks project itself. Wikileaks exists to protect the sources, and to protect civilians from abusive regimes. Wikileaks did not however develop the appropriate legal, technological, and physical structures necessary to actually protect certain kinds of information. First of all Wikileaks has complete faith in AES256, and while the US government uses it and it's difficult to crack it may be crackable through mechanisms or math we don't know about. Wikileaks also does not seem to have a system to determine who can view what, who can access what, and if they do have such a system there is no indication as to how it would work.
They need an American with Top Secret Clearance to work with Julian Assange on certain documents. This requires working closely with the US government. They'd need to do this with every government around the world for the exact same reason, so they'd need people from all governments who they can contact and work with. This would present major information security problems which I don't see how they'd be able to resolve. Foreign intelligence agencies around the world know Julian Assanges face, and even if he hides his identity they have trained hackers to target him. This puts him and his information in constant danger and under constant attack. This constant attack means there will be nobody for Julian Assange to trust, so how can Wikileaks have the web of trust necessary to get anything done?
I would say it would be very very difficult to do without government support of some kind. So once again if a government is supporting Julian Assange then can the global community trust him? There are so many issues here that Julian Assange is very probably going to have to resign his position over this. Wikileaks can survive this, I just don't know if it will survive with Julian Assange as it's editor.
It's time that people understand that information wants to be free. And we the people should want information to be free.
One of the secrets released was that the Taliban are quite a bit more violent and willing to kill innocents than has been reported. It has sums of civilian casualties created by the NATO (US) forces and the Taliban. Yeah, these guys are scum bags.
More importantly, wasn't Obama supposed to have the most transparent administration?
But most importantly, government secrets in the open are inherently good for the People. Why is there not an understanding of this? 9/11 did not teach us how bad the terrorists were. We already knew that. Instead, we should have learned that government cannot, under any circumstances, be trusted.
Information wants to be free is a ridiculous quote coming from a person who does not understand the concept of the GPL. Information is power, in some cases the power over life and death. In some cases information released about you, can help your enemies plan to kill you. Personal information like names and identities have to be protected. The fact that these documents stored the names of informants is ridiculous in itself because all names in these sorts of documents should be replaced by code names, code words, etc. Redacting the names is not good enough. Also locations have to be changed so as to confuse the enemy. Anything which can allow the enemy to determine anything has to be changed.
Only a government or spy agency has the tools and skills necessary to deal with this. One man, Julian Assange, cannot possibly be qualified to do this type of work. If he is qualified then qualified through what experience? The point is that the global community is losing trust in Julian Assange. Unless Julian Assange can be trusted Wikileaks cannot be trusted. If Julian Assange cannot handle the task of declassifying the documents through a strict secure process, then he needs to find someone or some entity with the expertise to do just this.
Obviously my last post resulted in an immediate troll rating but I'm going to say it again. The US government and governments around the world go through ridiculous means to keep this information secret. It's not stored on a laptop somewhere. It's stored in such a way so that only people with top secret security clearance can access it. This classification system is called access control. Anybody who knows about information security knows that in order to secure or keep information secret you need absolute control over who accesses it. You have to control it on the "eyes only" level in some cases and in other cases you have to minimize it to only people who have been fully vetted and checked so as to find out if they are a member of a foreign intelligence agency, or if they are a compromised individual who can be turned into an informant for a foreign intelligence agency.
Wikileaks does not appear to have any internal classifications or compartmentalization. If Julian Assange thinks he can just let entire organizations with hundreds or thousands of eyes access top secret information then hes naive. If he thinks he can come up with his own classification system without government support hes also probably naive but at least this would be a step in the right direction. If he gives the documents out to one wrong person it will get to the Taliban. If he does not take information security seriously it will get to the Taliban. The only solution is for Julian Assange to work with the US government on this.
The real question is who vetted Julian Assange? If he has these documents how do we know he isn't passing it along to some foreign government himself? It's a matter of who to trust and how would Julian Assange know who to trust in this situation assuming he really is an honorable individual? And if he is a corrupt individual how do we know we can trust him? With no government or state protecting him or doing the process of handling the web of trust, it's like not having a certificate authority, or not having a web of trust for PGP. You don't know if there is a man in the middle or if the person you communicate with is friend or foe, or just a neutral who sells information to friend and foe.
It appears Mr. Assange does not know the basics of information security. Wikileaks does not have a system through which to vet it's insiders. These insiders who are supposed to help Mr. Assange in editing out or redacting the names could very well be foreign intelligence agents sifting through the data specifically to get the list of names to sell to Al Qaeda, Taliban or whomever has the money to pay for it. I expected more from Mr. Assange, if he does not take his information security a lot more seriously how do we trust this man to keep these secrets safe? The leakage of these secrets can cost lives, so this is very serious.
Who vetted Julian Assange? How do we know he's not foreign intelligence himself?
Social skills can be learned anywhere not just in a University setting. Yes it is valuable to learn how to work the system and politic, but it's not like the classroom is the only place to learn it.
If you are one of those people who says theres a value to this or that, show us what that value is. Reveal the limitations of the internet education to us. Show us why it's no replacement for a university education.
I think for the liberal arts subjects the internet is a worthy replacement. I think some subjects like science which require work in labs have to be done at a university for sake of experiments and for the equipment. History, social sciences, psychology, most of philosophy and a lot of math subjects can be taught entirely over the web.
Remember email bombing? Thousands of anonymous emails with gibberish. How about spam? Now we have kiddie bombing.
It's time we treat child porn as an internet virus and create antivirus scanners which detect child porn and automatically delete, wipe, and report any image saved in the backround with limited user interaction. I don't want to and should not have to risk being prosecuted for possession of something which was sent to me by mistake, uploaded to me, or otherwise infiltrated by trickery, hacking, or anything of that sort.
If we treated child porn as a virus then the only people left who would have large collections of child porn would be the individuals who actually like child porn.
I think that it has less to do with governments and more to do with the paranoid, tribalist mentality that the so-called "civillized" world is regressing into.
H.O.A.'s, for example. Vigilante partols. "Concerned Citizens". Gang-stalking. Surges in the popularity of MMA.
The role of the government in this case is to turn half the population against the other half to distract them from the fact that they are robbing the population blind.
How the heck do you connect gangstalking with the surging popularity of MMA, and vigilantism? Do you have a theory? Maybe you should explain in more detail in your post because you didn't make any effing sense.
They don't seem to care if the government spies on them either. Anyone who complains about government spying on Americans is labeled a Tin Foil hat wearing Alex Jones loving right wing Militia terrorist.
So why not take the best hackers of the United States and train them to hack China, Iran, Iraq or whereever the foreign networks are? It's not like the foreign networks aren't hacking the US networks.
Also it creates jobs. Since most people on Slashdot work in these industries imagine the amount of jobs the billions of dollars of funding will create for all of us? High paying jobs for American citizens.
“It’s kind of curious, because these are the people that have got no time for hackers and the bad guys at all, but seem to think it’s all right for countries to do this,” said Cluley. “I think they need to remember that, one day, it might be a country attacking your company’s network, and trying to infiltrate it, and how are you going to feel about it then?”
Hire people like us thats what you do. Information security professionals know how to deal with malware attacks, just as nationalist cyber armies know how to attack and infiltrate. This creates jobs for both sides so it's not really a bad thing for most of us on Slashdot. Also how long did we really think we could go around being ignorant of security procedures and leaving networks open to infiltration? It's time that corporations spend the money necessary to defend from infiltration and it's time that the government create their elite army of hackers that they keep hyping up and talking about.
Therefore no amount of public financing is going to work unless the government bribes them instead of the corporations. Politicians are owned by "the people" and it's only a matter of which people.
So the prostitution issue is completely separate from all of this. They should legalize prostitution so that it's safe and expect prostitution to be popular in every country with married or unmarried men.
You don't think women want male prostitutes also?
I'm for that too, but since most women are traditional minded and care about what other women think of them, they don't go to a male prostitute out of fear of being labeled.
Men generally do not marry for sex. Not in the USA, not in Asia, not anywhere. If a man has a wife he's still going to see the prostitute. And in Asian history it was common for a man to have multiple wives.
So the prostitution issue is completely separate from all of this. They should legalize prostitution so that it's safe and expect prostitution to be popular in every country with married or unmarried men.
Slashdot Mirror
The logistics of this would be no problem for an organization such as the US military... They do much more complicated stuff all the time
And btw, you mean 'the US military shouldn't have refused', rather than 'that Julian Assange should not have released these documents without doing the right thing', right?
And how do we know the US Army refused? And how do we know Julian Assange planned to do the right thing? Julian Assange should not have released these documents. There was nothing valuable in these documents that US Citizens would be concerned about, but to the Taliban there was information which could help them locate sources. This was a bad move on Julian Assanges part.
Do you really believe that any law would stand in the way of military objectives? Look at US law. Look at the fact that a US citizen is currently on the governments hitlist. The US government has the capability to capture or kill anybody anywhere in the world if they become an armed combatant.
I don't think that will happen to Julian Assange, but lets not pretend like the US government wouldn't do it.
I highly suggest you read up on the spying business before you make a comment. You assume people in these situations have much choice in the matter as of who to associate with, as if there are human rights and as if there isn't torture going on, or bombs dropping on them, or the fact that they are starving. In some cases the only group capable of helping them is the USA. There literally is nobody else. The Taliban is not going to give these people a better life. The Taliban wont give them freedom. The Taliban won't give them food, water, medicine, education, limited human rights, and honestly having limited human rights beats not having any. The warlord or the US government, which do you think would give you a better life if you had to choose?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee
It's so fkn simple Wikileaks should have never released those documents.
Documents with names, locations, and sources, should never be saved on any computer system. If they must be saved they should never be viewed by anybody who does not have Top Secret clearance. It puts lives at risk just for Assange to be able to view it. If Assange was able to view it, Bradley Manning is directly to blame and if people have died and importantly if Wikileaks dies, all blame should go to Bradley Manning. He is the moron who did what he did after swearing an oath. He is the moron who then went to Adrian Lamo of all people and openly compromised himself further.
Bradley Manning should of never have had Top Secret clearance. Julian Assange should have never have had those documents. Those documents should have never have been stored on any computer system including names and locations. That stuff should be code names no matter what.
Who vets the reporters for the new york times or any other news agency?
There's a long tradition of documents getting leaked to news agencies over the years.
As a general rule the moment state secrets reach a reporter/news agency based in another country who are citizens of another country they cease to be secrets and the system supposed to keep them safe has failed utterly in every way.
When classified documents get released to the New York Times the FBI and CIA get involved. The FBI has files on every American, especially journalists who work for the New York Times. The CIA probably has files on them too. They know who is loyal to the USA and who might be attached to foreign intelligence. The fact that we have domestic counter intelligence agencies that exist specifically to determine who the foreign spies are is why you don't see classified documents with the identities of sources included in them.
The last time classified documents of these sort were released, it was the covert action quarterly. For all who don't know what CAQ was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CovertAction_Quarterly , it was controlled by Philip Agee. Phillip Agee was a CIA agent who may have become a double agent for the KGB. He went on to release the identities of CIA officers through the CAQ publication.
The fact is the US Government considered him to be a traitor. In Julian Assanges case he was from Australia so it's not exactly the same, but if his publication released the identities of sources or released information which assisted the Taliban in determining the sources, if Julian Assange does not want to be looked at in history as being another Philip Agee he has to do everything within his power to protect the sources. There are lives at stake, and if lives have been lost he's just the same as Phillip Agee, Robert Hansen, or any of those others.
The logistics of how do you allow the US government to do it difficult. First problem is finding a trusted rep of the US government. I suppose Julian Assange could have sent a copy to Adrian Lamo via PGP who could have sent it to the people who could properly take out the information which needed to be removed and then send it back to Adrian who sends it to Julian all via PGP.
Let's not pretend like this system is easy to implement or that the web of trust cannot be compromised. It would not be easy, but I accept that it would have been possible and that Julian Assange should not have released these documents without doing the right thing.
Wikileaks can only work as a concept in the same way that the UN works as a concept. You get all the governments of the world to agree to support Wikileaks with technological support, experience, advisory support, financial support, and so on. This would allow Wikileaks to work. The problem is that no government on planet earth is going to support Wikileaks releasing the names of informants. Once Wikileaks passed that phase it became a foreign intelligence instrument itself because now it's actually assisting the Taliban and is no longer neutral in the information warfare theater.
Wikileaks should have NEVER under any circumstances for any reasons released information which could lead to the death of sources. The sources in my opinion are more important than the Wikileaks project itself. Wikileaks exists to protect the sources, and to protect civilians from abusive regimes. Wikileaks did not however develop the appropriate legal, technological, and physical structures necessary to actually protect certain kinds of information. First of all Wikileaks has complete faith in AES256, and while the US government uses it and it's difficult to crack it may be crackable through mechanisms or math we don't know about. Wikileaks also does not seem to have a system to determine who can view what, who can access what, and if they do have such a system there is no indication as to how it would work.
They need an American with Top Secret Clearance to work with Julian Assange on certain documents. This requires working closely with the US government. They'd need to do this with every government around the world for the exact same reason, so they'd need people from all governments who they can contact and work with. This would present major information security problems which I don't see how they'd be able to resolve. Foreign intelligence agencies around the world know Julian Assanges face, and even if he hides his identity they have trained hackers to target him. This puts him and his information in constant danger and under constant attack. This constant attack means there will be nobody for Julian Assange to trust, so how can Wikileaks have the web of trust necessary to get anything done?
I would say it would be very very difficult to do without government support of some kind. So once again if a government is supporting Julian Assange then can the global community trust him? There are so many issues here that Julian Assange is very probably going to have to resign his position over this. Wikileaks can survive this, I just don't know if it will survive with Julian Assange as it's editor.
It's time that people understand that information wants to be free. And we the people should want information to be free.
One of the secrets released was that the Taliban are quite a bit more violent and willing to kill innocents than has been reported. It has sums of civilian casualties created by the NATO (US) forces and the Taliban. Yeah, these guys are scum bags.
More importantly, wasn't Obama supposed to have the most transparent administration?
But most importantly, government secrets in the open are inherently good for the People. Why is there not an understanding of this? 9/11 did not teach us how bad the terrorists were. We already knew that. Instead, we should have learned that government cannot, under any circumstances, be trusted.
Information wants to be free is a ridiculous quote coming from a person who does not understand the concept of the GPL. Information is power, in some cases the power over life and death. In some cases information released about you, can help your enemies plan to kill you. Personal information like names and identities have to be protected. The fact that these documents stored the names of informants is ridiculous in itself because all names in these sorts of documents should be replaced by code names, code words, etc. Redacting the names is not good enough. Also locations have to be changed so as to confuse the enemy. Anything which can allow the enemy to determine anything has to be changed.
Only a government or spy agency has the tools and skills necessary to deal with this. One man, Julian Assange, cannot possibly be qualified to do this type of work. If he is qualified then qualified through what experience? The point is that the global community is losing trust in Julian Assange. Unless Julian Assange can be trusted Wikileaks cannot be trusted. If Julian Assange cannot handle the task of declassifying the documents through a strict secure process, then he needs to find someone or some entity with the expertise to do just this.
Obviously my last post resulted in an immediate troll rating but I'm going to say it again.
The US government and governments around the world go through ridiculous means to keep this information secret. It's not stored on a laptop somewhere. It's stored in such a way so that only people with top secret security clearance can access it. This classification system is called access control. Anybody who knows about information security knows that in order to secure or keep information secret you need absolute control over who accesses it. You have to control it on the "eyes only" level in some cases and in other cases you have to minimize it to only people who have been fully vetted and checked so as to find out if they are a member of a foreign intelligence agency, or if they are a compromised individual who can be turned into an informant for a foreign intelligence agency.
Wikileaks does not appear to have any internal classifications or compartmentalization. If Julian Assange thinks he can just let entire organizations with hundreds or thousands of eyes access top secret information then hes naive. If he thinks he can come up with his own classification system without government support hes also probably naive but at least this would be a step in the right direction. If he gives the documents out to one wrong person it will get to the Taliban. If he does not take information security seriously it will get to the Taliban. The only solution is for Julian Assange to work with the US government on this.
The real question is who vetted Julian Assange? If he has these documents how do we know he isn't passing it along to some foreign government himself? It's a matter of who to trust and how would Julian Assange know who to trust in this situation assuming he really is an honorable individual? And if he is a corrupt individual how do we know we can trust him? With no government or state protecting him or doing the process of handling the web of trust, it's like not having a certificate authority, or not having a web of trust for PGP. You don't know if there is a man in the middle or if the person you communicate with is friend or foe, or just a neutral who sells information to friend and foe.
It appears Mr. Assange does not know the basics of information security. Wikileaks does not have a system through which to vet it's insiders. These insiders who are supposed to help Mr. Assange in editing out or redacting the names could very well be foreign intelligence agents sifting through the data specifically to get the list of names to sell to Al Qaeda, Taliban or whomever has the money to pay for it. I expected more from Mr. Assange, if he does not take his information security a lot more seriously how do we trust this man to keep these secrets safe? The leakage of these secrets can cost lives, so this is very serious.
Who vetted Julian Assange? How do we know he's not foreign intelligence himself?
What do you learn from physical interaction with regard to international affairs that you cannot learn from intellectual interaction?
Social skills can be learned anywhere not just in a University setting. Yes it is valuable to learn how to work the system and politic, but it's not like the classroom is the only place to learn it.
If you are one of those people who says theres a value to this or that, show us what that value is. Reveal the limitations of the internet education to us. Show us why it's no replacement for a university education.
I think for the liberal arts subjects the internet is a worthy replacement. I think some subjects like science which require work in labs have to be done at a university for sake of experiments and for the equipment. History, social sciences, psychology, most of philosophy and a lot of math subjects can be taught entirely over the web.
Remember email bombing? Thousands of anonymous emails with gibberish. How about spam? Now we have kiddie bombing.
It's time we treat child porn as an internet virus and create antivirus scanners which detect child porn and automatically delete, wipe, and report any image saved in the backround with limited user interaction. I don't want to and should not have to risk being prosecuted for possession of something which was sent to me by mistake, uploaded to me, or otherwise infiltrated by trickery, hacking, or anything of that sort.
If we treated child porn as a virus then the only people left who would have large collections of child porn would be the individuals who actually like child porn.
I think that it has less to do with governments and more to do with the paranoid, tribalist mentality that the so-called "civillized" world is regressing into.
H.O.A.'s, for example. Vigilante partols. "Concerned Citizens". Gang-stalking. Surges in the popularity of MMA.
The role of the government in this case is to turn half the population against the other half to distract them from the fact that they are robbing the population blind.
How the heck do you connect gangstalking with the surging popularity of MMA, and vigilantism? Do you have a theory? Maybe you should explain in more detail in your post because you didn't make any effing sense.
They don't seem to care if the government spies on them either. Anyone who complains about government spying on Americans is labeled a Tin Foil hat wearing Alex Jones loving right wing Militia terrorist.
So why not take the best hackers of the United States and train them to hack China, Iran, Iraq or whereever the foreign networks are? It's not like the foreign networks aren't hacking the US networks.
Also it creates jobs. Since most people on Slashdot work in these industries imagine the amount of jobs the billions of dollars of funding will create for all of us? High paying jobs for American citizens.
“It’s kind of curious, because these are the people that have got no time for hackers and the bad guys at all, but seem to think it’s all right for countries to do this,” said Cluley. “I think they need to remember that, one day, it might be a country attacking your company’s network, and trying to infiltrate it, and how are you going to feel about it then?”
Hire people like us thats what you do. Information security professionals know how to deal with malware attacks, just as nationalist cyber armies know how to attack and infiltrate. This creates jobs for both sides so it's not really a bad thing for most of us on Slashdot. Also how long did we really think we could go around being ignorant of security procedures and leaving networks open to infiltration? It's time that corporations spend the money necessary to defend from infiltration and it's time that the government create their elite army of hackers that they keep hyping up and talking about.
Let the cyberwarfare begin.
Therefore no amount of public financing is going to work unless the government bribes them instead of the corporations. Politicians are owned by "the people" and it's only a matter of which people.
So the prostitution issue is completely separate from all of this. They should legalize prostitution so that it's safe and expect prostitution to be popular in every country with married or unmarried men.
You don't think women want male prostitutes also?
I'm for that too, but since most women are traditional minded and care about what other women think of them, they don't go to a male prostitute out of fear of being labeled.
Nobody even considers that. What did they call that? Courtly love?
Men generally do not marry for sex. Not in the USA, not in Asia, not anywhere. If a man has a wife he's still going to see the prostitute. And in Asian history it was common for a man to have multiple wives.
So the prostitution issue is completely separate from all of this. They should legalize prostitution so that it's safe and expect prostitution to be popular in every country with married or unmarried men.
"puritan like values are on the rise"
Are those puritan values based upon reason or tradition? Traditional values don't apply to the new world. Old values exist for the old world.
Kudzu is for feeding goats. If you can get Americans to eat goat meat, you'll wipe out kudzu in short order.
Put goat meat in American supermarkets and they'll eat it. Americans eat anything and they don't care what it is.