FA+
Shop
It's called OPSEC, morons.
15 years ago
(x-posted from LJ)
Due to the nature of where I work, as well as the volunteer work I do with Civil Air Patrol, there is a common theme between them that I practice constantly: operational security. In short, if other people don't need to know information that I possess, I don't tell them. It's nothing personal, it's quite simply that they don't need to know. I may trust them on a personal level, but NASA or the AIr Force might not, and giving out information that's deemed sensitive to people that aren't cleared to know such things can put not only their welfare at risk, but my job security as well.
I've heard lots of things on the news about people supporting WikiLeaks, to the extent of launching cyberattacks on PayPal and Visa because they cut all ties with the website. I even heard today on the news that the City Council of Berkeley, CA is entertaining the idea of a resolution to declare Pfc. Bradley Manning, the American soldier who took 250,000 documents into his own personal custody without authorization and gave them to WikiLeaks, as a "hero" and "patriot who deserves a medal."
I'm going to take what seems like a very hard tack on this. WikiLeaks claims it's a journalistic organization; I say that's complete and utter bullshit. Allow me to parse this down a bit more.
First off, with regard to Pfc. Manning, he is not a hero. I won't go so far as to say he is a traitor, but he did not do something noble and patriotic. He violated the trust that the military put in him to safeguard official documents. Taking personal possession of all these documents was bad enough. To then turn around and hand over all of this official information to as "reputable" a source as WikiLeaks showed gross negligence and dereliction of duty. I doubt very much he read all 250,000 of these documents before handing them over to WL, so there's no way he knew how important or unimportant the information contained in them might be. Now while I doubt he had access to such thing as identities of clandestine CIA agents, there could've been information about troop movements, supply transfers; information that had it gotten into the wrong hands could've given any enemy a glimpse into our operations and put American lives in serious jeopardy. Quite simply, he made a really, really bad fucking choice, and we may not know the damage he's caused by handing all of this information over to WL for years to come.
Now, with regard to WikiLeaks itself, they are not a journalistic organization. One thing they teach you in any operational security course is that just because you have sensitive information does not mean you should release it. Conceivably, WikiLeaks could've come out the hero in this if they turned to the US Govermnent after Manning gave them this information and said "hey, we got this information and we're not sure what's safe for release and what's not. Can you clarify?" Now, that may be a somewhat unrealistic expectation, but WL could've considered what risk releasing these documents to the Internet could've had for the lives of Americans and our allies serving abroad. Recently, PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard cut any strings they had to WikiLeaks to avoid the backlash that could surely come down on the site once an attorney general somewhere in the world gets their shit together. Now supporters of WL are giving the middle-finger to these companies because "they don't support free speech." Let's get one thing straight... these companies have every right to cut ties with an organization that they look at as risky. Launching cyberattacks against them because you're throwing a tantrum is not the way to bring people into your camp, it only makes you look like a douche. WikiLeaks itself is acting like a douche too, as if they are releasing this sensitive information in the name of nobility and free speech. Again, I call bullshit.
In my profession at the NASA site, I do not work with classified material, however I do work with sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information. This means that while not classified, it's not something that should be released to the general public because there's no telling whose ear it might land in.
An easier example would be from the work I do in Civil Air Patrol. The radio frequencies we use for communication are considered SBU, and as such we use channel designations instead. In fact, CAP members don't even know what the exact frequencies are for each channel. With enough time and effort, someone with the public using a radio scanner could figure out our frequencies; while that wouldn't be the end of the world, it does compromise our communications security. For instance, say we are searching for a lost hiker in the woods, and he has been missing for three days in bad weather. Eventually one of our ground teams find him and discover he has already expired, and thus radio this information back to our operations center. Were the press listening to our radio channel, they would know the subject was dead before word had even been brought to his family; this is a scenario to obviously be avoided if we can help it.
The crux of this rant is thus: Manning acted dishonorably for taking information he had no right to have into his own hands. WikiLeaks is clothing themselves in the mantra of freedom of information and transparency as an excuse to release sensitive information that they themselves also have no right to possess. Pfc. Manning and WikiLeaks are not heroes, they are not noble, and they are not patriotic.
Due to the nature of where I work, as well as the volunteer work I do with Civil Air Patrol, there is a common theme between them that I practice constantly: operational security. In short, if other people don't need to know information that I possess, I don't tell them. It's nothing personal, it's quite simply that they don't need to know. I may trust them on a personal level, but NASA or the AIr Force might not, and giving out information that's deemed sensitive to people that aren't cleared to know such things can put not only their welfare at risk, but my job security as well.
I've heard lots of things on the news about people supporting WikiLeaks, to the extent of launching cyberattacks on PayPal and Visa because they cut all ties with the website. I even heard today on the news that the City Council of Berkeley, CA is entertaining the idea of a resolution to declare Pfc. Bradley Manning, the American soldier who took 250,000 documents into his own personal custody without authorization and gave them to WikiLeaks, as a "hero" and "patriot who deserves a medal."
I'm going to take what seems like a very hard tack on this. WikiLeaks claims it's a journalistic organization; I say that's complete and utter bullshit. Allow me to parse this down a bit more.
First off, with regard to Pfc. Manning, he is not a hero. I won't go so far as to say he is a traitor, but he did not do something noble and patriotic. He violated the trust that the military put in him to safeguard official documents. Taking personal possession of all these documents was bad enough. To then turn around and hand over all of this official information to as "reputable" a source as WikiLeaks showed gross negligence and dereliction of duty. I doubt very much he read all 250,000 of these documents before handing them over to WL, so there's no way he knew how important or unimportant the information contained in them might be. Now while I doubt he had access to such thing as identities of clandestine CIA agents, there could've been information about troop movements, supply transfers; information that had it gotten into the wrong hands could've given any enemy a glimpse into our operations and put American lives in serious jeopardy. Quite simply, he made a really, really bad fucking choice, and we may not know the damage he's caused by handing all of this information over to WL for years to come.
Now, with regard to WikiLeaks itself, they are not a journalistic organization. One thing they teach you in any operational security course is that just because you have sensitive information does not mean you should release it. Conceivably, WikiLeaks could've come out the hero in this if they turned to the US Govermnent after Manning gave them this information and said "hey, we got this information and we're not sure what's safe for release and what's not. Can you clarify?" Now, that may be a somewhat unrealistic expectation, but WL could've considered what risk releasing these documents to the Internet could've had for the lives of Americans and our allies serving abroad. Recently, PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard cut any strings they had to WikiLeaks to avoid the backlash that could surely come down on the site once an attorney general somewhere in the world gets their shit together. Now supporters of WL are giving the middle-finger to these companies because "they don't support free speech." Let's get one thing straight... these companies have every right to cut ties with an organization that they look at as risky. Launching cyberattacks against them because you're throwing a tantrum is not the way to bring people into your camp, it only makes you look like a douche. WikiLeaks itself is acting like a douche too, as if they are releasing this sensitive information in the name of nobility and free speech. Again, I call bullshit.
In my profession at the NASA site, I do not work with classified material, however I do work with sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information. This means that while not classified, it's not something that should be released to the general public because there's no telling whose ear it might land in.
An easier example would be from the work I do in Civil Air Patrol. The radio frequencies we use for communication are considered SBU, and as such we use channel designations instead. In fact, CAP members don't even know what the exact frequencies are for each channel. With enough time and effort, someone with the public using a radio scanner could figure out our frequencies; while that wouldn't be the end of the world, it does compromise our communications security. For instance, say we are searching for a lost hiker in the woods, and he has been missing for three days in bad weather. Eventually one of our ground teams find him and discover he has already expired, and thus radio this information back to our operations center. Were the press listening to our radio channel, they would know the subject was dead before word had even been brought to his family; this is a scenario to obviously be avoided if we can help it.
The crux of this rant is thus: Manning acted dishonorably for taking information he had no right to have into his own hands. WikiLeaks is clothing themselves in the mantra of freedom of information and transparency as an excuse to release sensitive information that they themselves also have no right to possess. Pfc. Manning and WikiLeaks are not heroes, they are not noble, and they are not patriotic.
First, that Wikileaks is not simply dumping the cables out for everyone to see, but carefully going over them and redacting the names of people and places they feel would be put at risk if they become generally known. They are doing this of their own volition, after having appealed to the US government for help—and receiving none.
Another interesting fact, but Wikileaks is not the only organization publishing these documents: the New York Times has also published a selection of these documents. And if you keep reading it gets even more complicated. Quoted from the article:
…Times offered "expertise and perspective" on American diplomacy for the British newspaper, Keller said. The Times also vetted the most sensitive material with the U.S. State Department and redacted information that might have compromised the security of American personnel.
The [New York] Times agreed to coordinate the release of its stories about the cables with the Guardian and three other news organizations that received WikiLeaks' blessing: the French newspaper Le Monde, the Spanish paper El Pais and Der Spiegel. The release was moved up a few hours on Sunday when early copies of Der Spiegel were spotted by a man in Switzerland, who began tweeting its revelations.
It's not just Wikileaks that's breaking this egg: it's newspapers all over the world. One of the things that bothers me about the amount of backlash against against Wikileaks is that they seem to be singling it out and ignoring everyone else.
Now, I'm all for subversiveness, so I take a kinder view of Wikileaks's actions. I understand your points, but from my point of view it seems like no one, on either side, is behaving perfectly rationally, and until things have calmed down I'm not forming any hard and fast opinions of the case.