The obvious difference is that people who join Facebook do so voluntarily (and for free) and shouldn't have an expectation of privacy if they're voluntarily providing that information on an open forum.
The information that WikiLeaks provides was basically stolen; no one volunteered that information, and in the case of foreign sources, much of the information they provided was done so under the strictest of confidence. How is our government expected to maintain an reliable intelligence base to make informed decisions if our sources feel threatened by a third party hacking into the data they provide?
If you don't want Mark Zuckerberg making billions off of your personal information, take down your Facebook page, or better yet, don't join Facebook to begin with. But if you have valuable information that may help the U.S. government, you can no longer divulge that information without the threat of it being plastered all over the Internet.
I've tried to take down my facebook page and you can't do it. Maybe no one else can 'see' it but it is still there for any hacker to get too. And if any gov'mint don't like wikileaks then stop doing dishonest acts that violate your own laws and be honest. No!? does not apply to gov'mint!? well don't expect me to be honest either!
"...if you have valuable information that may help the U.S. government, you can no longer divulge that information without the threat of it being plastered all over the Internet."
Valuable information? How was it valuable? Your administration got caught bad mouthing other people and countries. I'd say it was more embarrassing than valuable? No surprise that your Govt sees the release of the information as wrong. Maybe learn from this and don't bad mouth people you are going to use at some point.
Have you ever worked in the intelligence business? I did, for nine years as a strategic debriefer during the Cold War.
Raw intelligence consists of a lot of information, some accurate, some not. It's the analyst's job to take that raw intelligence, separate the wheat from the chaff and create a finished intelligence product that allows decision makers to make informed decisions.
It's shouldn't be the job of some computer geek to take the chaff and spread it all over the Internet to titilate the masses, embarass governments and reek havoc with international relations.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
The obvious difference is that people who join Facebook do so voluntarily (and for free) and shouldn't have an expectation of privacy if they're voluntarily providing that information on an open forum.
ReplyDeleteThe information that WikiLeaks provides was basically stolen; no one volunteered that information, and in the case of foreign sources, much of the information they provided was done so under the strictest of confidence. How is our government expected to maintain an reliable intelligence base to make informed decisions if our sources feel threatened by a third party hacking into the data they provide?
If you don't want Mark Zuckerberg making billions off of your personal information, take down your Facebook page, or better yet, don't join Facebook to begin with. But if you have valuable information that may help the U.S. government, you can no longer divulge that information without the threat of it being plastered all over the Internet.
I've tried to take down my facebook page and you can't do it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe no one else can 'see' it but it is still there for any hacker to get too.
And if any gov'mint don't like wikileaks then stop doing dishonest acts that violate your own laws and be honest. No!? does not apply to gov'mint!? well don't expect me to be honest either!
"...if you have valuable information that may help the U.S. government, you can no longer divulge that information without the threat of it being plastered all over the Internet."
ReplyDeleteValuable information? How was it valuable? Your administration got caught bad mouthing other people and countries. I'd say it was more embarrassing than valuable? No surprise that your Govt sees the release of the information as wrong. Maybe learn from this and don't bad mouth people you are going to use at some point.
Aussie4WL,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever worked in the intelligence business? I did, for nine years as a strategic debriefer during the Cold War.
Raw intelligence consists of a lot of information, some accurate, some not. It's the analyst's job to take that raw intelligence, separate the wheat from the chaff and create a finished intelligence product that allows decision makers to make informed decisions.
It's shouldn't be the job of some computer geek to take the chaff and spread it all over the Internet to titilate the masses, embarass governments and reek havoc with international relations.