Wikileaks and the USA diplomatic cables

[Mishka]

Are you donating? To me, that's aiding and abetting a criminal organization. They stepped way over the line.

Another unsupported claim.

Tell me, is the New York Times a criminal organization? What about the Washington Post?

Both published exposés on the Pentagon Papers(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers), which were also leaked classified material, with informants, objectives and damning proof that the US routinely lied and concealed illegal activity throughout multiple presidential administrations.

There is no difference here. Unless you can prove something. But that would mean evidence now, wouldn't it?

If Bush had had any gonads, he would have had the DOJ charge the Times and Lichtblau and others for exposing several classified govt. operations. Including the one where we were monitoring the banking activites of terrorists. The one the Supreme Court found legal. They would have been locked away for doing what Wikileaks is doing now.

[theVOID]

Just because something is labeled *classified* by an organisation internally does not by default mean that it cannot be distributed by independent parties outside of the jurisdiction of the organisation in question.

[Mishka]

Just because something is labeled *classified* by an organisation internally does not by default mean that it cannot be distributed by independent parties outside of the jurisdiction of the organisation in question.

Are you to be the one to determine the validity of the classification? LOL!!!

[Autumnlicious]

Are you going to be the one who actually contributes to a discussion?

[theVOID]

Would you like to point out where I claimed to be the Arbiter of classification? I'll think you'll find I said nothing like that.

Classified is not a legal term in any absolute sense, it is an assignment within an organisation (state or independent) pertaining to access rights, part of the internal security policy if you like. There can be punishment for breach of the security policy within the organisation but from outside these policies simply do not apply.

For a computer analogy, it would be like me expecting your Hard Disk to follow my Chmod/NTFS permissions after you obtain some content that was created on my computer - That suggestion is plainly absurd but the analogy is sound.

Julian would have been charged with "Breaching US Govt security Policies" just like Sgt Manning if that was the case, but since he has not and cannot be charged internally it makes my point perfectly clear.

For the record, I am not a "Wikileaks supporter", I do to an extent think that their publications of these documents was a good thing but I fear the consequences of some of their actions, only time will tell if the negative will outweigh the positive and my opinion will be more solid at that point in time.

[Mishka]

Would you like to point out where I claimed to be the Arbiter of classification? I'll think you'll find I said nothing like that.

Classified is not a legal term in any absolute sense, it is an assignment within an organisation (state or independent) pertaining to access rights, part of the internal security policy if you like. There can be punishment for breach of the security policy within the organisation but from outside these policies simply do not apply.

For a computer analogy, it would be like me expecting your Hard Disk to follow my Chmod/NTFS permissions after you obtain some content that was created on my computer - That suggestion is plainly absurd but the analogy is sound.

Julian would have been charged with "Breaching US Govt security Policies" just like Sgt Manning if that was the case, but since he has not and cannot be charged internally it makes my point perfectly clear.

For the record, I am not a "Wikileaks supporter", I do to an extent think that their publications of these documents was a good thing but I fear the consequences of some of their actions, only time will tell if the negative will outweigh the positive and my opinion will be more solid at that point in time.

It was a question, one that went way over your head.

[Autumnlicious]

[theVOID]

It was a question, one that went way over your head.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you are far less sophisticated than you think.

I answered your question did I not? Either show me where I am wrong in my use of "classification" or admit you were wrong, it's really that simple.

[Jaysyn]

Just because something is labeled *classified* by an organisation internally does not by default mean that it cannot be distributed by independent parties outside of the jurisdiction of the organisation in question.

Are you to be the one to determine the validity of the classification? LOL!!!

Thank you for letting the rest of us know that you have no idea what you are going on about.

Also, Daniel Ellsberg says you are wrong.

[leo-rcc]

Meanwhile Nasa is doing a great job of leaking information by itself:

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-009.pdf

In addition, we found computers at the Kennedy disposal facility that were being prepared for sale on which NASA Internet Protocol information was prominently displayed. Internet Protocol information could provide a hacker with the details needed to target specific NASA network assets and exploit weaknesses, resulting in the compromise of sensitive information.

We found that some of these weaknesses had resulted in the inappropriate release of NASA data. Specifically, Kennedy released to the public 10 computers that had failed verification testing and therefore still contained NASA data. We confiscated four other computers (pictured in Figure 1) that had also failed the testing but were still being prepared for release or sale from the Kennedy Reutilization, Recycling, and Marketing Facility (property disposal facility). When we tested the confiscated computers, we discovered that one contained data subject to export control by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).