Wikileaks - your thoughts - no politics

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Does that pass for humor in your neck of the woods?

No I am deadly serious. We only worry about real problems. Like when our governments try to manipulate us and others.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO Is it just me, or has wikileaks.org been down for 3-4 days?

It's here now:

WikiLeaks

(wikileaks dot ch).

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Does that pass for humor in your neck of the woods?

Rustic, I didn't interpret Keith's comment as an attempt at humor... and even if it was, I don't think it'd merit that sort of riposte.

There are some contentious topics on this board which can be discussed while agreeing that points of view may never be reconciled, and also without attacking the poster's comments. I think it improves one's credibility when the discussion can evaluate a concept on its own merits instead of those of the posters or their statements.

You recently made a comment to me about having pissed off a group of posters at one time or another. I'm not sure that's an accomplishment which I would take pride in.

[Rustic23]

I did!

I also thought it was a dismissive comment as if the Afgan war lord has no idea what is going on in the world. That it is a backward country, and no one there would ever get wind of the leaks on the web. I also interpreted this and other comments in other threads by this poster as being anti government, and in particularly as anti American. i.e. the use of the term 'U.S. propaganda'.

So if I offended him or others, well, so be it as his comments have offended me. It may be the problem with the written word. You can not see the expression on ones face when it is written. While I have disagreed with others on this board, and I am sure there are those that disagree with me, I accept it is the way of the world.

Nords,
I do not remember making such a comment to you, and I am not sure I understand the intent of your last statement. In fact the more I read it, it seems to contradict the point you made earlier in the post. But, hey, as I said, I only have the written word to interpret, so I may be 100% off.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 ... i.e. the use of the term 'U.S. propaganda'.

Enlighten me. What would be a better (more appropriate?) term?

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Nords, I do not remember making such a comment to you, and I am not sure I understand the intent of your last statement. In fact the more I read it, it seems to contradict the point you made earlier in the post. But, hey, as I said, I only have the written word to interpret, so I may be 100% off.

It was during the chapter meeting a couple months ago.

I'm saying that you two don't seem to be getting along very well and that your comments appear to be trying to score points off each other. The personality conflicts detract from the quality of the discussion as well as the strength of your positions.

I'm not offended by anti-government or anti-American statements. In fact I made an entire career out of defending various people's rights to say such things. The strength of both institutions relies on their ability to tolerate, or even rise above, those sentiments.

[Rustic23]

Well there you go. A difference between you and I. As we both made a career out of defending people's rights, however, I believe the defense of this country when attacked from an outsider is called for. Many from different countries seem to think it is perfectly ok to denigrate and take shots at the US and it's policies on this site. I don't, and I do not apologies for stating such.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Well there you go. A difference between you and I. .... I believe the defense of this country when attacked from an outsider is called for. Many from different countries seem to think it is perfectly ok to denigrate and take shots at the US and it's policies on this site. I don't, and I do not apologies for stating such.

+1

[kcowan]

I am against all attempts by government at propaganda (as in brainwashing their citizens). It is just that the US is a big target. But they all do it, some more effectively than others.

So when I say that the US has a propaganda machine at work, I don't mean it as anti-American. If anything, it is pro-American. Don't let them do it to you. Don't drink the Koolaid.

Regarding wikileaks, I am just not sure who is responsible. But I am reserving judgement.

Regarding Afghan warlords, I am willing to grant them being more resourceful than relying on a website to determine who their friends are! These guys know exactly what they are doing. Never underestimate your enemy (or your friends).

[Rustic23]

Fair enough.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Many from different countries seem to think it is perfectly ok to denigrate and take shots at the US and it's policies

I think you need to add "until they need our help and expect it" after the word "policies"..........see France or a fair number of other countries around the globe.........

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude I think you need to add "until they need our help and expect it" after the word "policies"..........see France or a fair number of other countries around the globe.........

Sad, but true.
Just goes to show you can't buy love.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies Sad, but true. Just goes to show you can't buy love.

And we should stop trying.......

[Texas Proud]

Well, I have held off on this one for awhile but thought I might as well chime in...


It looks to be a failure of the gvmt to monitor who can get what info... saw something last night that said there were over 600,000 people who had access to ALL the info that is being put on Wikileaks... and more...

Is it just me or does that sound like a bit many...

They said the system was opened up after 9-11 so people can connect the dots.... but they also failed to notify anybody who seems to make huge downloads of info... I think that will be fixed going forward...


So, Assange (or whatever his name) is not a friend of the US... big deal... we have a lot of enemies... I don't think there is anything that we can or should do about it... just fix the problems and move on...

As for the private that they think did the leaking... the guy on the TV said that he should (and probably will) spend the rest of his life in jail... I do not have any problem with that either... he knew, or should have known, the damage that he was doing... I still wonder how a private can get access to all that stuff...

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet And we should stop trying.......

I agree.
Starting with the United Nations...

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Well, I have held off on this one for awhile but thought I might as well chime in... It looks to be a failure of the gvmt to monitor who can get what info... saw something last night that said there were over 600,000 people who had access to ALL the info that is being put on Wikileaks... and more... Is it just me or does that sound like a bit many... They said the system was opened up after 9-11 so people can connect the dots.... but they also failed to notify anybody who seems to make huge downloads of info... I think that will be fixed going forward...

I don't disagree with anything you said, but let me play devils advocate and explain why I think it is a important that 600,000 people have access to information in wikileaks.

We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years and over that time I bet the average Afghan tribal commander has seen 1/2 dozen or maybe dozen US/NATO commander in his region. He has made lots of deals with them, some Afghan leaders have good guys, some are really Taliban, and many other try and figure which way the wind is blowing.

A Army captain takes command of area and the outgoing captains tells him that village leader Joe is good guy. That is useful info, but far more useful is a database of local Afghan leaders. In the database is the last 1/2 commanders reports on Joe which show he has been loyal ally, that Bob, his father in law, who is the leader of the next village seems to be neutral. What is more important is finding out that Bill another tribal leader although pretending to be anti-Taliban is strongly suspect of being a Taliban leader. So how do you limit access to this material. Is access restricted to captain and above serving in a particular region in Afghanistan?. What about Captain in the US who are deploying to Afghanistan shouldn't they have access to the info?. What about State Department employee who is doing research on the tribal structure and genealogy in Afghanistan? You really don't want to cut him of the loop because this guy that figures out that Bill and Joe are cousin, and while Joe maybe a real American ally he is almost certainly going to not betray his cousin even if he has kept this fact secret for many years.

So how do we classify the information about Bill, Bob, and Joe? It ain't the launch code for nuclear missile but it isn't information that we want getting back to Bill and Joe. It seems to me that stamping it secret or top secret and letting people with this level of clearance and some plausible connection to Afghanistan access is the best way.

Quote:

So, Assange (or whatever his name) is not a friend of the US... big deal... we have a lot of enemies... I don't think there is anything that we can or should do about it... just fix the problems and move on... As for the private that they think did the leaking... the guy on the TV said that he should (and probably will) spend the rest of his life in jail... I do not have any problem with that either... he knew, or should have known, the damage that he was doing... I still wonder how a private can get access to all that stuff...

The question is how do you fix the problem? The private in question worked in Army IT, not sure how you keep a pretty clever programmer from getting access to a database about Afghanistan. The fix Assange hopes will occur is that the US will compartmentalize our information so that the future Army captain ask Bill to help him catch Joe not realizing they are cousins and our troops run into an ambush.

This will make America a less effective authoritative government, which maybe a good thing unless you happened to be related to one of the American soldiers killed or wounded in the ambush.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp So how do we classify the information about Bill, Bob, and Joe? It ain't the launch code for nuclear missile but it isn't information that we want getting back to Bill and Joe. It seems to me that stamping it secret or top secret and letting people with this level of clearance and some plausible connection to Afghanistan access is the best way. The question is how do you fix the problem? The private in question worked in Army IT, not sure how you keep a pretty clever programmer from getting access to a database about Afghanistan. The fix Assange hopes will occur is that the US will compartmentalize our information so that the future Army captain ask Bill to help him catch Joe not realizing they are cousins and our troops run into an ambush. This will make America a less effective authoritative government, which maybe a good thing unless you happened to be related to one of the American soldiers killed or wounded in the ambush.

You could do it similar to the way it is currently done in large corporations. A person only have access to the servers/info for their department (Bill, Bob, Joe's area) and up if they are given access - not the whole company (Afghanistan). So, for example, a small plant finance manager (new captain) would have the salary information for all the people employed at that plant except for managers over a certain level. The next level up manager at the central office would have the managers salary info and input it into the budget in bulk so no one manager's salary could be determined by those lower down. The finance manger a the plant would not have access to HR (diplomatic) information.

"Tags" might help with the process - I'm no expert at that. Searches across the data bases could be made but access would have to be granted to look at the detail information of the search if the person does not have clearance.

I don't know the current clearance protocol. But, if a person has a level of clearance - top secret - and that allows that person to view all documents across departments at that level and below; I can see the problem.

[Rustic23]

As has been said before here, I think there was a clamor after 9-11 for the sharing of data. The intelligent agencies and the law enforcement agencies took major hits for not sharing their data. So the pendulum seems to have swung to the other side.

The break down, IMO, was in the security procedures. If the story is true as to how the data was smuggled out, then there was huge lapse.

Some have wondered here how a pfc, gets access. It is easy. Just because he is a pfc, does not mean he does not have a security clearance, or is not trained for his job, which I believe was IT. In this case his need to know was not operational. It was to manage the data bases. In order to do this he would require read and write capabilities. In the AF they could easily have an airman basic working on nuclear weapons. However, there are security procedures to insure he does not do it alone, or take one home to the kids. If this data was taken by an IT specialist, he should have never been allowed to leave or enter the room with anything that could contain the data.

When I was in the service, it was said if you make a copy of, or tell some of a Secret document, you can never be sure it is still a secret! My guess someones career is over for the lapse in security.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Some have wondered here how a pfc, gets access. It is easy. Just because he is a pfc, does not mean he does not have a security clearance, or is not trained for his job, which I believe was IT. In this case his need to know was not operational. It was to manage the data bases. In order to do this he would require read and write capabilities.

Can you explain this more? I don't understand it. Why would he have to read the document? Wouldn't all he need to know that it was a .doc or .exl or whatever extension.

[NW-Bound]

What that meant was the "read privilege" to access the files from the storage medium, e.g. a hard drive or a computer tape. In this case, we expect that the files are also encrypted, which require a crypto key for decoding, else they appear as just random data.