Even though Umberto Eco probably does not realize that mr. Mannings activities do not really qualify as hacking he's right on the money in that any large trove of data will sooner or later become public.
There is a ratchet action at work here which causes information to be disseminated even when you really don't want to. The mere existence of information that more than just a very few people have access to almost guarantees a leak and eventual publication, with some direct numerical link between the number of people that have access and the chances of the information being leaked.
Those tasked with guarding our privacy are worried about all this precisely because they seem to be incapable of doing so, even when dealing with stuff that would never have seen daylight 20 years ago.
With every advance in telecommunications technology, computing and storage the amount of information explodes further and avenues through which it may leak out multiply.
Cellphones with cameras are one nice example of this effect.
When you put together a 'list of sensitive installations' you need to realize the impact of just creating such a list. Once created you have to assume that eventually it will fall in to the hands of those that you don't want to have it (and what a banal list it is, is that the best they could do?).
Spy novels have been preaching 'need to know' for a long time, and governments the world over have always struggled with finding the right balance between being able to do their jobs as well as not helping their perceived enemies or other parties to the information they so painstakingly collected.
It looks to me as though the big lesson of this leak (besides a bunch of important details in the cables themselves) is that this process is currently failing.
Jacques your rhetoric on Wikileaks is quite frankly awful. Here are some specific pieces I take issue with:
The mere existence of information that more than just a very few people have access to almost guarantees a leak and eventual publication
Empirically not true. What percentage of classified information has been leaked in the course of history? It's infinitesimally small.
With every advance in telecommunications technology, computing and storage the amount of information explodes further and avenues through which it may leak out multiply. Cellphones with cameras are one nice example of this effect.
The government can control what technology they allow into secured facilities. Cellphones with cameras are irrelevant when they aren't allowed into secure locations.
what a banal list it is, is that the best they could do?.
Obviously not. Do you really think the list that was leaked is the only such list? More detailed lists would obviously be classified at TS.
It looks to me as though the big lesson of this leak (besides a bunch of important details in the cables themselves) is that this process is currently failing.
The stuff that's been leaked is relatively low level Secret stuff. To claim that recent events prove that the government's ability to protect classified information is failing is ridiculous.
--
Why the standard of debate so low for this particular issue?
Comments
Even though Umberto Eco probably does not realize that mr. Mannings activities do not really qualify as hacking he's right on the money in that any large trove of data will sooner or later become public.
There is a ratchet action at work here which causes information to be disseminated even when you really don't want to. The mere existence of information that more than just a very few people have access to almost guarantees a leak and eventual publication, with some direct numerical link between the number of people that have access and the chances of the information being leaked.
Those tasked with guarding our privacy are worried about all this precisely because they seem to be incapable of doing so, even when dealing with stuff that would never have seen daylight 20 years ago.
With every advance in telecommunications technology, computing and storage the amount of information explodes further and avenues through which it may leak out multiply.
Cellphones with cameras are one nice example of this effect.
When you put together a 'list of sensitive installations' you need to realize the impact of just creating such a list. Once created you have to assume that eventually it will fall in to the hands of those that you don't want to have it (and what a banal list it is, is that the best they could do?).
Spy novels have been preaching 'need to know' for a long time, and governments the world over have always struggled with finding the right balance between being able to do their jobs as well as not helping their perceived enemies or other parties to the information they so painstakingly collected.
It looks to me as though the big lesson of this leak (besides a bunch of important details in the cables themselves) is that this process is currently failing.
Jacques your rhetoric on Wikileaks is quite frankly awful. Here are some specific pieces I take issue with:
The mere existence of information that more than just a very few people have access to almost guarantees a leak and eventual publication
Empirically not true. What percentage of classified information has been leaked in the course of history? It's infinitesimally small.
With every advance in telecommunications technology, computing and storage the amount of information explodes further and avenues through which it may leak out multiply. Cellphones with cameras are one nice example of this effect.
The government can control what technology they allow into secured facilities. Cellphones with cameras are irrelevant when they aren't allowed into secure locations.
what a banal list it is, is that the best they could do?.
Obviously not. Do you really think the list that was leaked is the only such list? More detailed lists would obviously be classified at TS.
It looks to me as though the big lesson of this leak (besides a bunch of important details in the cables themselves) is that this process is currently failing.
The stuff that's been leaked is relatively low level Secret stuff. To claim that recent events prove that the government's ability to protect classified information is failing is ridiculous.
--
Why the standard of debate so low for this particular issue?