I play one of these silly online games. The draw is simple: my friends play it and it only takes a few minutes a day to move forward. I'm close to ditching it though because they've changed the game to be completely unable to progress without my attention and it's not good enough to justify more investment than I've already given it.
This is ridiculous. Once the children are off school property they no longer have a teacher/child relationship. The teacher is a citizen at that point and should have the same recourse as a citizen (e.g. alert the police if a fight is going to take place off school property). Suspending children for something they do on social networks on their own time? These teachers should lose their teaching licenses.
So as soon as the US classifies something it is no longer valid, in your view, for anyone to show it? I guess they can do whatever they like then! Just classify everything that would otherwise be illegal.
Is is no longer legal for anyone to show it. That's the definition of "classified".
Wikileaks is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to do illegal stuff for moral/philosophical reasons. On the other hand, they want the US government to stop treating them like they're doing illegal stuff. They're obtaining and releasing classified information, and at the same time complaining that the US government is spying on them. Doesn't this strike you as a little bit silly?
" Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! CIA is not law enforcement agency!"
Right. The Central Intelligence Agency doesn't have "jurisdiction" the same way a law enforcement agency does, because they're not law enforcement. They exist to "collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence [and] engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law."
"Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!"
Imagine what a reckless policy it would be for the CIA to decide "we do not investigate Wikileaks because they're just whistleblowers". Wouldn't that make them a possible haven for actual foreign spies? Put another way: how do you know Wikileaks is completely free of foreign spies?
The CIA, as an intelligence agency, has the duty to gather intelligence on groups like Wikileaks. They have the duty to have a clear understanding of what Wikileaks is doing, and to act against them (individually or as a group) if it is deemed necessary by the president or others in the chain of command.
Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction!
The article claims that US State Department was investigating a leak from the US embassy in Iceland. If the government of Iceland (an ally and NATO member) is cooperating with such an investigation, that is unsurprising.
Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!
Regardless of how you describe it, Wikileaks is of interest to people whose job is counterintelligence (i.e. secret-keeping). Suppose you have information you want to keep secret. I prevent you from keeping that information secret. How shall you regard me?
I guess I should re-evaluate why the information is secret and attempt to explain why the information is secret to the concerned individual before it's released. I guess that is a slippery slope, but I do not really understand the need for classification of any past air strikes that do not involve future missions.
There's already a procedure for evaluating classification of information, a built-in system for declassifying things after a particular period of time, and procedures for whistle blowers to follow when something is inappropriately classified or merely inappropriate. ("Alert the media" or "leak this to wikileaks" is, generally, a very-very-very last resort.)
I don't understand the classification of past missile strikes, but I'd bet someone who knows the list of classification criteria could explain it. (Or, if it's inappropriately classified, challenge it through the proper channels.)
I was just reminded of one example: if "they" knew that we knew such-and-such detail about an airstrike, they might (1) be able to identify our method for intel gathering, or (2) be able to identify our source, which would get our spy killed.
It's the same principle as "loose lips sink ships". Sometimes harmless-looking individual details are actually the key to keeping our guys safe in hostile environments.
"They are exposing things that are obvious cases of corruption."
1) Are you sure that's all they're exposing?
2) Are you sure none of their employees are passing things that don't meet those criteria on to other intel agencies, even if they don't put them on the official server?
3) Are you sure that, when they expose corruption, they're appropriately sanitizing incidental details that might otherwise get our spies killed etc.?
It's tremendously dangerous for a group that does not have a strong intelligence-analysis background to expose classified material. From what I've seen, they simply don't have the process in place to appropriately handle the material they're working with.
Afaik, wikileaks has never been about publishing launch codes. It's about revealing cover ups and there should be no government cover ups. If they are trying to hide something they've done then it's probably because it's illegal.
And what about government employees with access to sensitive information who can't keep the secrets they agreed to when they signed up? Do you think the public should get to know who they are so they can decide whether the leakers can still be trusted to hold government jobs?
if nuclear launch codes are compromised and leaked, then public needs to know that their government can't keep nuclear secrets safe. hopefully said government at least has procedures for mitigation of said leak (nuclear weapons and associated facilities are sufficiently secured physically)
So I'm the Russian intelligence community, and I've had the U.S. launch codes for several decades.
I decide to wreak some havoc inside the National Command Authority, possibly as part of some larger strategic objective. So I go to Wikileaks and release the codes.
In this case, in whose interest is Wikileaks acting? Not the U.S. citizen's. Not the rest of the world. Clearly their acting as an agent for the Russians. (Russians are used here as a prop. Substitute any players you like)
The more I think about it, the more the idea of anonymous information leaking seems fraught with lots of problems. Overall, yes, a great idea. But I have some serious questions. As a third party with access to sensitive information, I can play all sorts of games using Wikileaks.
EDIT: I'll add a couple more examples so we don't get lost out in the weeds.
The Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. As part of that, over a period of several weeks Wikileaks "discovers" several documents detailing how certain Taiwanese officials were caught doing drugs/molesting children/robbing banks/beating old people. Most of these stories are true (but old), and generate quite a bit of negative press in the United States. Mixed in at the end, however, are totally false stories guaranteed to cause the greatest public outrage. The MSM has no time to vet the stories just before the Chinese invade, and since it's a 24/7 cable news world and since Wikileaks has a good track record so far and it runs them the MSM runs them too. Public opinion is sternly against giving Taiwan any assistance, creating a decisive edge for the Chinese.
The Israelis decide they are going to have to attack Iran to prevent it from developing nukes. Over a couple of weeks, suddenly documents are found from the French and Saudis "proving" Iran has a nuclear prototype bomb. More documents are "found" showing that the Iranians are prepared to use it on Israel. Let's assume these docs are real, although from the Israelis standpoint it doesn't matter. Finally docs are found that show the Israelis have decided to go through the United Nations and have given up trying to stop Iran with force. These last docs are released just a day or two before the attack.
The difference between a newspaper and Wikileaks is that a newspaper deals in credibility. Wikileaks just deals in leaks. That makes the model horribly broken and easy to manipulate. Just think of the fun an intelligence agency could have with something as simple as marital infidelities. Used to be you'd have to set up an entire operation to get stuff published with some kind of authority. Not anymore.
I'm sympathetic to your overall argument, but not to this specific example. It's very much in US interests to know that someone else knows the launch codes. The consequences of having them made public (a public scandal, the cost of changing them, internal investigations, etc.) are much less dire than the alternative - when your potential enemy knows them and you're not aware of the fact.
Alternatively, WikiLeaks may find that it's in the public's best interest to alert the DoD that someone submitted launch codes. And hey, it ends up resetting the other country's advantage.
Or it may find that in the second case the documents originate from China and ignores them - or finds that they are from the past and unimportant now. Officials get churned in and out, so this could be easy to disprove.
I think they'd likely be better off NOT getting involved with nuclear technology related posts in general, though. They really just need to do VERY due diligence on other factors. Perhaps they should have paid people be able to review documents prior to mainstream release (sort of a "Beta" release) with a big red alert stating that the leak is pending Beta public review for facts.
Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers. No such resource can be nor is trusted blindly, no matter what past track record shows. Every leak is evaluated on it's own merit.
It is also public, which means it's there for public benefit. Of course governments or other parties can and do fiddle with it, but information that's in the open will be evaluated and eventually will either be confirmed or denied to fit into larger picture.
If you want to be a really incredible programmer you need to spend time programming, but that isn't remotely required to be successful, even in programming. For example, I wouldn't consider any of the creators of the top 3 scripting languages good programmers. They're known, I'm not.
>Or a better major. Perhaps you're making the mistake of letting your chosen career dictate your choice of classes. The universal secret to school is: Take the best classes you can find, from the best people, regardless of subject.
I think this is great advice. If I had the opportunity to do college now I would probably try to major in my second (or third!) career choice. Having mobility in where you could have a career could turn out important.