Interesting assessment of Wikileaks, I think.

[MikeG]

Need to know is the key, the other is intelligence germane to the operational task. Where that info came from, etc. isn't part of that. When I worked fairly briefly in S-2 in Vietnam, evaluation and dissemination of intelligence to operational units was my assignment. I gave it to officers in the bush with only a grade scale of how reliable we believed it to be. Nothing else was a need to know for them. If higher ranking officer wanted more info, I referred him to one of my superiors of at least equal rank.

Although it's constantly pointed out to me that I know nothing about today's world of intelligence gathering, 43 years ago when it was all on paper, that was the policy. Need to know was hammered into everyone. Although I had the clearances, etc., I didn't have carte blanche access to everything contained in the S-2 files where I worked. And I wasn't a PFC, I was 1st Lt., but it was still made clear to me that I stay within the realm of my responsibility. I shudder to think what would have happened to me if I'd been caught snooping through files that didn't concern me or my assignment.

the same thing that happened to the soldier .

It would seem that perhaps with technology being what it is, it's much easier to breech that and apparently walk out with it.

That's what tics me. This whole fiasco reaks of an implementation and policy issue rather than one of technology. Technology should have made it both easier to get the needed information and also secure it.

[Trip]

Need to know is the key, the other is intelligence germane to the operational task. Where that info came from, etc. isn't part of that. When I worked fairly briefly in S-2 in Vietnam, evaluation and dissemination of intelligence to operational units was my assignment. I gave it to officers in the bush with only a grade scale of how reliable we believed it to be. Nothing else was a need to know for them. If higher ranking officer wanted more info, I referred him to one of my superiors of at least equal rank.

Although it's constantly pointed out to me that I know nothing about today's world of intelligence gathering, 43 years ago when it was all on paper, that was the policy. Need to know was hammered into everyone. Although I had the clearances, etc., I didn't have carte blanche access to everything contained in the S-2 files where I worked. And I wasn't a PFC, I was 1st Lt., but it was still made clear to me that I stay within the realm of my responsibility. I shudder to think what would have happened to me if I'd been caught snooping through files that didn't concern me or my assignment.

It would seem that perhaps with technology being what it is, it's much easier to breech that and apparently walk out with it.

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to you and Mike's good points right now, but one thing I can tell you is that the older I get, the more I see technology with bigger downsides than upsides. And I'm not talking as a luddite who isn't around technology. I'm talking about someone who has been involved in the operational use of our most cutting edge technologies. As I mentioned, I ran the largest program at AOL, exposing me to the downsides of the internet even back in the late 90s, I did the Y2K Contingency Plan for the NASDAQ stock market, I helped run a business incubator for technical startups trying to finance and then sell their inventions, and I work around and have to operate with systems all the time in government-related work. The more time progresses, the more cynical I get about all of it. Common sense and the KISS principle have gone out the window, and you find fewer and fewer people with those qualities all the time. I submit we live in a world of over-reliance on technology, and I bet you'll see a move at some point away from it. Here's one example. Glen Beck loves to write on a chalkboard when he's doing his show on Fox. I've noticed more and more business anchors using small chalkboards with old fashioned chalk to make their points. Then last week, Obama's head Econ guy did the weekly internet thing using a whiteboard with old fashioned chalk! I would like to see a move back to the KISS principle and common sense, and technology only have a supporting role, but right now, we live in a world where technology is all the rage and the lesson of over-reliance hasn't hit yet.

[Trip]

the same thing that happened to the soldier .


That's what tics me. This whole fiasco reaks of an implementation and policy issue rather than one of technology. Technology should have made it both easier to get the needed information and also secure it.

Now that's where we fundamentally disagree about the operational use of technology. It is a tradeoff. Theories sound great but don't work that way in the real world of implementation.

[retdetsgt]

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to you and Mike's good points right now, but one thing I can tell you is that the older I get, the more I see technology with bigger downsides than upsides.

There we agree. As I said, I believe technology makes us lazier. It's too easy to push a button and assume we have all the info available in the case of background checks particularly.

When I got my top secret clearance, to my knowledge, they interviewed my high school principal (who surprisingly must have given me a good recommendation) and an uncle. They might have talked to someone else, but I never heard of it.

Conversely, before they were sealed, I got a look at my background investigation when I was hired. The only listing beside the names of my references were the names, addresses and phone numbers of people they told them about. And they were interviewed extensively regarding my character, etc. And as a cop, I could do a lot less damage to this country than most people with top secret clearances in the military.

People are always going to slip through, Hanssen was a classic case. He was no doubt given a thorough BI when he was hired, but that was probably the one and only time. I would be surprised if they did a recheck on him before he was given that counter intelligence position.

It was kind of funny, an FBI SA came to my door several years ago investigating a young police officer neighbor of mine who was assigned to some Homeland Security job. I bet they did a lot better BI on him when he was initially hired than this one was. The questions I was asked were pretty mundane and it appeared to me they were simply going through the motions.

And yeah, we put stuff on computers because it's easier to access it that way. But if we don't put in proper safeguards, then we have a monster on our hands. And human nature being what it is, those safeguards become inconvenient and they are soon discarded.

[MikeG]

Now that's where we fundamentally disagree about the operational use of technology. It is a tradeoff. Theories sound great but don't work that way in the real world of implementation.

Then it's a problem with the theory and theories can and need to be corrected. There are ways to implement technology that work operationally. We see it done effectively all the time. Security can and should complement human nature not rely on it or hinder it. If the end result is that security is thrown out because it's operationally too difficult to implement, then that security implementation sucks. In simple terms, SIPRNET with all it's hardware and physical security features was compromised by a private in the Army with little technical knowledge. That's a crappy implementation.

It's the same with weapons systems and other gear. If I said reflex optics and navigation electronics would be routine gear for soldiers 40 years ago, your argument would be the same. But the implementation adapts and changes so that the technology can be delivered in the real world. That's the whole point.