4 ms·

I don't think any of this information was terribly secret though. I think any other nation's government that wanted this and had any intelligence service would

by tibbon 16y ago

I don't think any of this information was terribly secret though. I think any other nation's government that wanted this and had any intelligence service would be able to figure them out too. We teach children that honesty is a good thing right? Why does our government need so many secrets to really keep us safe? Without those things are we really unsafe, or is the simple perception of safety gone (but no one is actually harmed).

endtime 16y ago
The US isn't really under threat from governments so much as distributed guerrilla/terrorist organizations which might benefit materially from this intel.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  Any government with change in its couch cushions can buy the services of such organizations, either directly, or through proxies. Any government with the cash to directly train and fund even a mediocre group of operatives can do plenty more. Anyone with an axe to grind against the US can find something of value with a map indicating every testicle kick site on earth, I'd think.
danilocampos 16y ago
It's worth pointing out that while this may not have been truly secret, the work of pulling together this intelligence would have been significant for anyone seeking to act against US interests. It's one thing to take a guess at what might be valuable. It's quite another to, right from the horse's mouth, have a definite listing of everything that is valuable. Let's use a familiar comparison: MVC is hardly a secret design pattern. Still, it's a lot cheaper for me to get crackin' with Rails today than it would have been for me to roll my own MVC code ten years ago. That's a lot of legwork out of the way. In the same way, Wikileaks has democratized intelligence gathering, at least with regard to these targets. This multiplier could be significant, in that it lowers barriers to entry for coordinating attacks. I don't have a dog in this hunt – I don't side with Wikileaks but I'm also realistic enough to grasp that this is a post-secrecy world we're entering. Foreign policy, national security and government are going to have to learn, very quickly, how to exist here.
tzs 16y ago
> We teach children that honesty is a good thing right? Why does our government need so many secrets to really keep us safe? Ever bought a car or a house? If so, did you tell the seller upfront exactly how much you wanted it, and exactly how much you could pay? How about selling a house--do you put it up at the absolute minimum price you'll accept and tell that to buyers, providing access to your financial records to prove that you can't go lower? When applying for a job, do you tell the employer up front the lowest pay you will accept? In most negotiations, if you can't keep your position secret you will get screwed. The same goes for governments. As far as children go, teaching that honesty is good does not mean teaching that secrets are bad. Responsible parents teach their children that there are some things that are only meant for family members and friends, for instance, and should not be shared with strangers.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Discretion != dishonesty.

by tibbon 16y ago

endtime 16y ago

The US isn't really under threat from governments so much as distributed guerrilla/terrorist organizations which might benefit materially from this intel.

danilocampos 16y ago
Any government with change in its couch cushions can buy the services of such organizations, either directly, or through proxies. Any government with the cash to directly train and fund even a mediocre group of operatives can do plenty more. Anyone with an axe to grind against the US can find something of value with a map indicating every testicle kick site on earth, I'd think.

danilocampos 16y ago

It's worth pointing out that while this may not have been truly secret, the work of pulling together this intelligence would have been significant for anyone seeking to act against US interests. It's one thing to take a guess at what might be valuable. It's quite another to, right from the horse's mouth, have a definite listing of everything that is valuable. Let's use a familiar comparison: MVC is hardly a secret design pattern. Still, it's a lot cheaper for me to get crackin' with Rails today than it would have been for me to roll my own MVC code ten years ago. That's a lot of legwork out of the way. In the same way, Wikileaks has democratized intelligence gathering, at least with regard to these targets. This multiplier could be significant, in that it lowers barriers to entry for coordinating attacks. I don't have a dog in this hunt – I don't side with Wikileaks but I'm also realistic enough to grasp that this is a post-secrecy world we're entering. Foreign policy, national security and government are going to have to learn, very quickly, how to exist here.

tzs 16y ago

> We teach children that honesty is a good thing right? Why does our government need so many secrets to really keep us safe? Ever bought a car or a house? If so, did you tell the seller upfront exactly how much you wanted it, and exactly how much you could pay? How about selling a house--do you put it up at the absolute minimum price you'll accept and tell that to buyers, providing access to your financial records to prove that you can't go lower? When applying for a job, do you tell the employer up front the lowest pay you will accept? In most negotiations, if you can't keep your position secret you will get screwed. The same goes for governments. As far as children go, teaching that honesty is good does not mean teaching that secrets are bad. Responsible parents teach their children that there are some things that are only meant for family members and friends, for instance, and should not be shared with strangers.

anigbrowl 16y ago

Discretion != dishonesty.