tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post6418034448811096469..comments2024-02-23T01:30:06.101-08:00Comments on Early Warning: Some Musings On the Bradley Manning ChargesStuart Stanifordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-37665148790623258962010-12-18T21:22:05.608-08:002010-12-18T21:22:05.608-08:00Stuart,
You describe a network operation that has...Stuart,<br /><br />You describe a network operation that has less security then my home LAN. This makes me suspect there's more to the situation than meets the eye. After all, what's the result of these "leaks?" More repressive censorship, more Internet content control; everything government wants to squelch "Amendment 1" is justified with this Wiki-situation.Mr. Sunshinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16137274372934160799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-26099599875616289002010-12-08T09:19:47.867-08:002010-12-08T09:19:47.867-08:00Sure. I've worked at them. I was also a securi...Sure. I've worked at them. I was also a security professional in my day job—I helped write the infrastructure that supported those efforts.<br /><br />But my take is that locking the information down harder is almost always a mistake. (Not always. It's important to lock down information about individuals, such as the identity of spies and private medical information.) I can't count the number of bad decisions that were made because people didn't have access to the information they needed. (Often after the right decision had already been reached by people who <i>did</i> have that information—except that even the fact that a decision had been made was kept secret, so somebody had to make the decision again.<br /><br />And certainly "dominating headlines" seems like a weak marker of harm—it just means that the secret emails were <b>interesting</b>.Philip Brewerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00663794711442047499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-19983134175270640872010-12-08T07:53:28.548-08:002010-12-08T07:53:28.548-08:00Philip:
From what I've seen so far, it looks ...Philip:<br /><br /><i>From what I've seen so far, it looks to me like the State Department had the security level just about right.</i><br /><br />Well, the fact that it's been dominating newspaper headlines for over a week now, suggests that it wasn't actually a very good idea to put it in a position to be accessed by very large numbers of people.<br /><br /><i>If the information is locked down more tightly, thousands of government officials will have a harder time doing their job well. Which is explicitly Assange's goal.</i><br /><br />Proper security certainly costs something in convenience/resources (installing controls, and figuring out who is supposed to have access to what). However, lots of organizations manage to operate ok notwithstanding a good deal more segmentation than is apparent here.Stuart Stanifordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-30878845276910554062010-12-08T07:20:13.495-08:002010-12-08T07:20:13.495-08:00You've put your finger on exactly what Assange...You've put your finger on exactly what Assange is trying to do. His whole point is that repressive governments need to keep secrets to be effective. Revealing their secrets may make them less effective at being oppressive—but at least as important, forcing them to hold their secrets ever more closely <i>definitely</i> makes them less effective.<br /><br />The US has networks that function as you suggest—that scrupulously limit access to each individual piece of information based on each individual user's demonstrated need-to-know. But that isn't the right level of security for all information.<br /><br />From what I've seen so far, it looks to me like the State Department had the security level just about right. None of the information that I've seen discussed in the media would have been particularly useful to foreign governments—surely their own diplomats were telling them that the Saudi king doesn't trust Iran. Even if some low-level spies were passing this information regularly to various foreign powers, I don't see that US security suffers.<br /><br />On the other hand, I can see this information being very helpful to other US diplomats—and even non-diplomats who have to interact with foreign officials.<br /><br />That's why the information wasn't more carefully secured: because it was useful to have it widely available inside the government. <br /><br />If the information is locked down more tightly, thousands of government officials will have a harder time doing their job well. Which is explicitly Assange's goal.Philip Brewerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00663794711442047499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-18553726340925769202010-12-08T07:13:27.473-08:002010-12-08T07:13:27.473-08:00Lack of competence and loss of competence at vario...Lack of competence and loss of competence at various levels of governence seems to be _one_ symptom of empires in decline...<br /><br />GlennGlennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509609643029842132noreply@blogger.com