5 ms·

The TechDirt article was very distracting, but it seems that they way the US Military tells its own members "don't send secret information to a given third-part

The TechDirt article was very distracting, but it seems that they way the US Military tells its own members "don't send secret information to a given third-party or we will hang you by the neck until you are dead" is by declaring that third-party an enemy. The documents are entirely about how they are prosecuting "Subject." Saying "enemy of the state" is sure good link bait, but it doesn't mean the US is in a state of war.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
And do the US newspapers have this same classification? I could see declaring Iranian state run TV as an enemy, they are the propaganda engine for Iran, I could see them declaring "The Center for Holy Jihad and the Complete Destruction of the US and Israel" an enemy. But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get, whether its US secrets or Australian secrets or what ever. So tell me the Times and the Washington Post are on the same list or have the same standing in the eyes of the US Government and I'll agree that this is a non-story and over blown.
- tptacek 14y ago
  No. No newspaper has that classification, including Al Jazeera. The US military isn't terrified that Reuters is trying to socially engineer whole databases of diplomatic cables out of them.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Wikileaks socially engineered Bradley Mannings?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I do believe that, yes.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Seems kind of odd to throw the guy in solitary, if that was the case.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Why? Because anyone I think was victimized by someone else must legally not be culpable for their own actions? It would be neat if the world worked that way.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        In your opinion, was he aware of the nature of his actions, and the nature of their potential consequences?
        plugger 14y ago
        I think he was fully aware of the nature of his actions but incorrect in his expectations as to how he would be perceived. In the chats between Lamo and Manning it was apparent he thought he'd be seen as some sort of hero for his actions by the majority of the US population. Obviously this isn't the case.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    You're right, we are going to agree to disagree :-) I think the US Military has every reason to be terrified that Reuters might successfully social engineer entire databases of sensitive data out of them in pursuit of a story. We disagree on the response, I'd advocate the State department and Military need to give better training and supervision of their staff. Not, if Reuters is successful, declaring Reuters an enemy.
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  > But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get Of course "even-handed" can be read as "non-discerning", and I think that's one of the biggest problems with the attempts to classify what Wikileaks is doing as "journalism." The NYT, for instance has released "state secrets" (the Pentagon Papers), but they did so because it revealed policy errors in the government's prosecution of the Vietnam war, which were clearly in the interests of the U.S. public to know. They carefully judged the value of the data, and released it because they felt the value of the making the information public in that specific case out-weighed the value of keeping it secret. Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to have applied almost no judgement at all: they just released an enormous "bluh" of data, much of which is both problematic diplomatically (and so actually has the potential to harm U.S. interests) and yet of little obvious value to the U.S. public. [An example being all the various cables where an ambassador says something like "The public here thinks president Y is a doodyhead, and we should be careful when talking about subjects A and B." In many cases this is essentially common wisdom, and yet seeing it explicitly stated by U.S. representatives may enrage "president X" and cause diplomatic problems for the U.S. in his country.] Unless Wikileaks actually tries to follow journalistic practices, I don't think they can reasonably be called journalists. Journalism entails responsibility and judgement as well as freedom, and Wikileaks has shown little stomach for the former despite claiming the benefits of the latter.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

And do the US newspapers have this same classification? I could see declaring Iranian state run TV as an enemy, they are the propaganda engine for Iran, I could see them declaring "The Center for Holy Jihad and the Complete Destruction of the US and Israel" an enemy. But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get, whether its US secrets or Australian secrets or what ever. So tell me the Times and the Washington Post are on the same list or have the same standing in the eyes of the US Government and I'll agree that this is a non-story and over blown.

tptacek 14y ago
No. No newspaper has that classification, including Al Jazeera. The US military isn't terrified that Reuters is trying to socially engineer whole databases of diplomatic cables out of them.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Wikileaks socially engineered Bradley Mannings?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I do believe that, yes.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Seems kind of odd to throw the guy in solitary, if that was the case.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Why? Because anyone I think was victimized by someone else must legally not be culpable for their own actions? It would be neat if the world worked that way.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        In your opinion, was he aware of the nature of his actions, and the nature of their potential consequences?
        plugger 14y ago
        I think he was fully aware of the nature of his actions but incorrect in his expectations as to how he would be perceived. In the chats between Lamo and Manning it was apparent he thought he'd be seen as some sort of hero for his actions by the majority of the US population. Obviously this isn't the case.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  You're right, we are going to agree to disagree :-) I think the US Military has every reason to be terrified that Reuters might successfully social engineer entire databases of sensitive data out of them in pursuit of a story. We disagree on the response, I'd advocate the State department and Military need to give better training and supervision of their staff. Not, if Reuters is successful, declaring Reuters an enemy.
snogglethorpe 14y ago
> But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get Of course "even-handed" can be read as "non-discerning", and I think that's one of the biggest problems with the attempts to classify what Wikileaks is doing as "journalism." The NYT, for instance has released "state secrets" (the Pentagon Papers), but they did so because it revealed policy errors in the government's prosecution of the Vietnam war, which were clearly in the interests of the U.S. public to know. They carefully judged the value of the data, and released it because they felt the value of the making the information public in that specific case out-weighed the value of keeping it secret. Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to have applied almost no judgement at all: they just released an enormous "bluh" of data, much of which is both problematic diplomatically (and so actually has the potential to harm U.S. interests) and yet of little obvious value to the U.S. public. [An example being all the various cables where an ambassador says something like "The public here thinks president Y is a doodyhead, and we should be careful when talking about subjects A and B." In many cases this is essentially common wisdom, and yet seeing it explicitly stated by U.S. representatives may enrage "president X" and cause diplomatic problems for the U.S. in his country.] Unless Wikileaks actually tries to follow journalistic practices, I don't think they can reasonably be called journalists. Journalism entails responsibility and judgement as well as freedom, and Wikileaks has shown little stomach for the former despite claiming the benefits of the latter.