21–26 of 26 posts
By the logic of the report, the New York Times should have been shut down or marginalized when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Maybe a better response by the government to Wikileaks would be to ignore it as a specific source of leaks, and instead: a) Ensure that what the government does is legal and moral, and if the government cannot always be forthcoming with…
(I'm absolutely clueless when it comes to anything related to security clearances, but considering some of the stuff that is illegal in various parts of the USA, I wouldn't be surprised if simply reading a classified document is considered illegal.)
a) The US DoD classifies Wikileaks as a "threat", or potential threat.
b) This seems to be primarily because troop sizes/equipment/movements might be or have already been leaked. Such information may give the upper hand to potential enemies.
c) There are some complains about material on Wikileaks being inaccurate, or edited in such a way as to give a misleading impression of events (a fairly standard complaint).
d) They propose trying to out/scapegoat/make an example of anyone who is identified as a wikileaker in the hope that that this will deter openness in government, although so far it seems that they have been unsuccessful in this endeavor.
e) Wikileakers seem to be a fairly competent bunch, adhering to security best practices in the handling, anonymising and release of documents, but may still be vulnerable to cyber attacks of various kinds.
Fascinating. The document states that "Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website." Whoever wants to put the US on that list is no patriot.
Fascinating. The document states that "Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website." Whoever wants to put the US on that list is no patriot.
There is a censor here, meaning you often here news reports like "a missile has landed somewhere, no one hurt, but the military censor is currently preventing us from telling where." And then the details get delayed for a few hours. It seems to require a fair amount of cooperation, though, that works because most people agree with the temporary censorship. Longer term censorship would be likely to be relatively ineffective because it's a small enough country that everyone knows everyone through maybe two degrees of separation.