I'm not sure that this is completely tin-foil hat worthy. I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp: When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being le…
The good thing is I am an European citizen, so I do not have to take into account at all any American "classified" or "restricted" or whatever label. Or do I?
This has nothing to do with morality or ethics. This is an automated system that detected malware on the wikileaks site. There's no reason to think a human was even involved in the decision to apply this label. The site may have been hacked (and just because it looks OK when you visit doesn't mean it hasn't been hacked). It could even be a state-sponsored attacker trying to exploit a zero day to monitor wikileaks vis…
This has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Regardless of the means, any entity which performs some form of censorship --- especially if that entity is through which a nontrivial amount of the population gets their knowledge and can be influenced by, like Google --- automatically makes itself the subject of moral and ethical scrutiny. There's no reason to think a human was even involved in the decision to apply t…
OK, sure, but that's a completely different ethical question than that suggested above. You are asking whether it's ethical to deploy automated malware scanners (clearly ethical in my view especially considering that the scanner is correct in this case; there is malware hosted on the site as pointed out above), while the original suggestion was that Google had consciously applied this label for some legal or moral reason unrelated to actual malware.
I'm not sure that this is completely tin-foil hat worthy. I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp: When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being le…
> When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law. I'm pretty sure this is wrong:…
I was in the military when the initial leak by Chelsea Manning occurred, and had a TS clearance. The next day, we had a base wide meeting where OSI (The Air Force's FBI) said that although all the information is classified, we were not prevented from reading it. However, none of us were permitted to discuss specifics in non-secure areas, view it on military computers, or confirm any information regarding it.
This is technically accurate since I found out myself this week when browsing the AKP email leak. Some of the attachments in the emails were clearly malware of some sort. See for example: https://wikileaks.org/akp-emails/emailid/27482
The exact same thing happened to me when I was downloading a email containing a MIME base64 encoded PDF. I was curious as to what it was so I clicked the download button and Chrome warned me that it was malicious.
Funny, it doesn't give that same warning on this URL now. I've downloaded it and base64 decoded it but I'm slightly afraid to open it; I don't know how I'd do it safely. On a VM with no internet connection maybe?
This is technically accurate since I found out myself this week when browsing the AKP email leak. Some of the attachments in the emails were clearly malware of some sort. See for example: https://wikileaks.org/akp-emails/emailid/27482
The exact same thing happened to me when I was downloading a email containing a MIME base64 encoded PDF. I was curious as to what it was so I clicked the download button and Chrome warned me that it was malicious. Funny, it doesn't give that same warning on this URL now. I've downloaded it and base64 decoded it but I'm slightly afraid to open it; I don't know how I'd do it safely. On a VM with no internet connection…
> When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law. I'm pretty sure this is wrong:…
I was in the military when the initial leak by Chelsea Manning occurred, and had a TS clearance. The next day, we had a base wide meeting where OSI (The Air Force's FBI) said that although all the information is classified, we were not prevented from reading it. However, none of us were permitted to discuss specifics in non-secure areas, view it on military computers, or confirm any information regarding it.
I was active Army EOD (TS-SCI) when both Chelsea's and Snowden's leaks happened. We were the opposite. Forbidden from accessing WL at all, even on our personal computers. No real way to enforce it obviously, but the threat was the fact (specifically with Snowden) that you accessed TS-SCI material that was outside the 'scope' / compartment of your SCI access.
I'm not sure that this is completely tin-foil hat worthy. I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp: When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being le…
> When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law. I'm pretty sure this is wrong:…
State Department appears to have said something conflicting with your account as it relates even to average citizens:
The exact same thing happened to me when I was downloading a email containing a MIME base64 encoded PDF. I was curious as to what it was so I clicked the download button and Chrome warned me that it was malicious. Funny, it doesn't give that same warning on this URL now. I've downloaded it and base64 decoded it but I'm slightly afraid to open it; I don't know how I'd do it safely. On a VM with no internet connection…
use a disposable amazon desktop vm
You can start a spot instance or something like pence and then remove it minutes later.
This has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Regardless of the means, any entity which performs some form of censorship --- especially if that entity is through which a nontrivial amount of the population gets their knowledge and can be influenced by, like Google --- automatically makes itself the subject of moral and ethical scrutiny. There's no reason to think a human was even involved in the decision to apply t…
OK, sure, but that's a completely different ethical question than that suggested above. You are asking whether it's ethical to deploy automated malware scanners (clearly ethical in my view especially considering that the scanner is correct in this case; there is malware hosted on the site as pointed out above), while the original suggestion was that Google had consciously applied this label for some legal or moral re…
These are all good points, but I will make the claim that it is typically possible to edit the labels of classifiers manually if they are inaccurate. Whether it is the case here, I'm uncertain, but it's worth considering. If this tag was in effect just after their recent DNC leak, the timing is uncanny, particularly since we know that Google has political leanings.