Cunt wrote:So who decides what is important? We have had various governments handling it, with varying degrees of success for years.
I like the system that has applied in the US traditionally, and I'm a tad bit concerned about the direction we're going. The US has been a country which hasn't had a law prohibiting a private person or press outlet (like wikileaks) from publishing whatever it wants, even classified information, except if the private person is engaged in "espionage" (which requires that they be the ones actually stealing info - e.g. doing the hacking or copying - or they be involved in the conspiracy to obtain the docs -- e.g. "that Pentagon computer has US military secrets, let's hack into it...."). Other than that, the people that are prohibited from publishing classified information are government workers who are notified exactly what they're not supposed to disclose and as a condition of employment subject to criminal penalties if they violate their employer's rules. The government then sets up Freedom of Information Rules, that can a citizen can follow and also seek judicial determinations as to whether the government's claim to secrecy is warranted under the law.
The scary part, for me, is not that the government wants to decide what secrets to protect. The scary part is that it seems very likely that very soon, private persons are going to be held to have to know what information that is dropped on their doorsteps is "classified" and not lawful to disseminate.
Cunt wrote:
I see immense possibility for good there. If only highlighting that if Joe Public can now get at all that info, there is a good chance that forces of evil have had access to it before.
The good and evil aspect of this is all a matter of opinion, as good and evil always is. The issue for individuals, IMHO, should be "legal obligation." Do you and I, as individuals or as members of the press, have the responsibility - the legal obligation - to vet data dropped on our doorsteps to make sure that the government doesn't want it kept secret? Or, does the government have the obligation to adequately protect what it wants to keep secret? And, to justify that secrecy if the information is requested by a private citizen or media outlet? I think the latter. Whether good or evil is furthered is completely beside the point.
Ian wrote:
Assange likes to say he's just a journalist. Well, should the media be exempt from all responsibilities and negligence?
No. They have to refrain from criminal fraud, libeling people, and the like, among other things. However, the question is not whether the media is exempt from "all" responsibilities. The question is whether they have an obligation to check with the government before publishing documentation that may or may not be classified. If that obligation is imposed on the press, then it places a tremendous chilling effect on the media, because there will always be a HUGE grey area around what is and is not important to the government. Sometimes the government's opinion will be completely political, and they will go on witch hunts against media outlets they don't like, and ignore the "offenses" of others. The press will have to look at a packet received from an anonymous source and ask themselves: should I ask the government if it's o.k. to publish, or should I just go ahead and do it. From the perspective of the individual who would face jail time as a result of a mistake in that situation, what do you think will happen?
I think Assange is a total tool-bag. I think he is behaving irresponsibly. I think that publishing all that material without vetting it could have serious unintended (or perhaps in Assange's case "intended") consequences that could effect the US negatively, and perhaps other countries negatively too. That being said, IMHO, it still remains the government's job to protect the secrets it wants to protect, and if they are too sloppy then they ought not to be so sloppy. The fact that some douchebag was able to download this much data without being caught in the act is shameful, and ridiculous, from an IT security perspective. Are they kidding? No flag was triggered when this low level guy was accessing this much data? No second person was required to sign off on his access? They didn't code top-secret and sensitive data in a special way to make sure that only a select few knew of it?
These leaks remind me of the foot locker theft scene in the movie Biloxi Blues. If you don't lock your fucking footlocker, you're inviting theft. In this case, the American government hasn't locked its footlocker. Sure, the thief is still a thief. But, so far, we have seen no allegation, let alone evidence, that Assange is a thief. So, the government should prosecute the thieves and hang the oath-breaker who did it, and anyone who helped him. And, they should call the people to the carpet whose job it was to create a secure data storage system. Those guys really fucked up, and need to pay the price, maybe with their jobs. But, as much of an asshole as Assange may be, until he's alleged to have done more than received information and published it, whatever his motives and whatever the damage, he just ain't a criminal.
