I always sort of suspected this of some of our "classified" information

[retdetsgt]

I've been dealing with classified information at various different levels since 1981 and I absolutely disagree with the author that Secret documents are "a lot of mindless and needless rubber stamping." In fact it makes those of us used to seeing the breadth of it laugh when some reporter writes such stuff. And again, the best stuff is classified in all those levels above Secret. If you want a good assessment of this world, google everything General Michael Hayden, former Director of both NSA and CIA has to say about anything to do with intelligence. In all my years of watching the leadership, to me, this guy was the smartest one we've ever had. His analysis, in my opinion, is almost always spot on about anything.

Classifying the summary of a political speech made in the UK is important to our national security?

I certainly haven't had your experience in classified documents, but I'm not a babe in the woods either, I had some in the 60's when assigned to S-2. Perhaps the government has gone through some huge metamorphosis since then and no longer engages in CYA and doing everything the easiest way possible, (e. g classifying material without even reading it). But I sure saw some of that going on then. That's why that article rang a bell with me. The intel community can get away with a lot of stupidity because of the nature of the beast. And Wikileaks doesn't appear to just be exposing important security matters, but also some of that inane behavior. It's a b!tch when you lose that impunity you've always had.

I can imagine a policy in place where every diplomatic cable is automatically classified no matter what the content. Of course, I don't know that's what's happening, but based on the way they do everything else, it make perfect sense.

And I don't care how much they're defended, common sense isn't rampant in government. They do things the easy way and that's not synonymous with cost effective way. Medicare is class example. If a private insurance company operated with the same cost safeguards in place, they would be bankrupt in a couple of months. Anyone who has worked even close to administration hears at least a couple of times a year, "We need to spend this money or we'll lose it".

On some level who cares if they classify a speech made in British Parliament as secret or even confidential except for the costs of doing silly stuff like that. And I realize a lot people think tax money is free money. The only time government worries about money is when they run out. The feds just borrow more then and other government levels raise taxes, no big deal.

I firmly believe that folks doing the peoples' work should have the best equipment available to do their job. That includes police, fire, water departments, etc. But so much money is wasted in goofy contracts (remember the $10,000 toilet seat from the late 60"s?), administrative costs or just doing something the easiest way possible such as classifying every document coming across your desk instead of using common sense.

There's a lot available for the government to learn from this Wikileaks episode. Let's see if they do.

[Kimble]

With this latest group of leaks related to diplomatic cables being released that give the world the views of those inside the USG (specifically the State Dept) on the rest of the world, I think Saturday Night Live said it best a week or 2 ago where this fiasco is basically akin to the USG accidently hitting the "Reply to All" button.

[retdetsgt]

What's also scary is, according to CBS news, they've only released 1/2 of 1% of the diplomatic cables they have. How the hell did they get so many????

[Trip]

Classifying the summary of a political speech made in the UK is important to our national security?

I certainly haven't had your experience in classified documents, but I'm not a babe in the woods either, I had some in the 60's when assigned to S-2. Perhaps the government has gone through some huge metamorphosis since then and no longer engages in CYA and doing everything the easiest way possible, (e. g classifying material without even reading it). But I sure saw some of that going on then. That's why that article rang a bell with me. The intel community can get away with a lot of stupidity because of the nature of the beast. And Wikileaks doesn't appear to just be exposing important security matters, but also some of that inane behavior. It's a b!tch when you lose that impunity you've always had.

I can imagine a policy in place where every diplomatic cable is automatically classified no matter what the content. Of course, I don't know that's what's happening, but based on the way they do everything else, it make perfect sense.

And I don't care how much they're defended, common sense isn't rampant in government. They do things the easy way and that's not synonymous with cost effective way. Medicare is class example. If a private insurance company operated with the same cost safeguards in place, they would be bankrupt in a couple of months. Anyone who has worked even close to administration hears at least a couple of times a year, "We need to spend this money or we'll lose it".

On some level who cares if they classify a speech made in British Parliament as secret or even confidential except for the costs of doing silly stuff like that. And I realize a lot people think tax money is free money. The only time government worries about money is when they run out. The feds just borrow more then and other government levels raise taxes, no big deal.

I firmly believe that folks doing the peoples' work should have the best equipment available to do their job. That includes police, fire, water departments, etc. But so much money is wasted in goofy contracts (remember the $10,000 toilet seat from the late 60"s?), administrative costs or just doing something the easiest way possible such as classifying every document coming across your desk instead of using common sense.

There's a lot available for the government to learn from this Wikileaks episode. Let's see if they do.

Yep, government never does things with optimal efficiency, which is why I've talked at length on this forum about being a Republican, about wanting smaller government, dissing socialistic thinking, about disliking this Administration, and about allowing people to keep their money instead of taxing them more and giving it to government. But as I also said in another thread, security is the one absolute job of government and all the rest is debatable. So if knowing govt is never the most efficient, yet I believe govt is the only one that can handle national security, it would follow that even I would have to put up with a certain amount of inefficiency in the national security arena, wouldn't it? Sure I'd love to demand that an aircraft carrier satisfy all my demands and be able to carry awesome power AND be able to turn around on a dime, but I just ain't going to get it. I'd like to cut 100% inefficiency out of security operations but you can't cut all the fat out without cutting muscle. You have to be realistic and push for something in the 90 percentile range. In some cases 99%, some cases 95%, etc.. You can keep pushing for cutting inefficiency, which as an economist is one of my forte's, but you can't reach 100% when the government is involved, and not in the corporate world either for that matter, cause I'm used to doing it there too.

And then there's the aspect that what may seem completely unclassified to you and Kimble on the surface, doesn't always track in reality.

As for WikiLeaks, there's not one thing anyone will learn from WikiLeaks on the intel side. As I've said adnoseum, the debate goes back and forth in govt all the time about what it is you're trading off when you settle on one particular policy. There is ALWAYS a tradeoff. The only thing WikeLeaks is going to cause is 1) the extensive damage it's causing to include DoD admitting that a scary amount of their sources are drying up, which means more troops get killed in an operation instead of less, and that bad guys are starting to figure out who's ratting them out, putting them at risk, 2) everything is going to become more secretive, more closed off - doing the OPPOSITE of what the techno-anarchists claimed their goal was, and 3) dry up loads of potential informants in the future who will now think twice about trusting the US with their secrets.

And the people who are doing something wrong that leads to CYA are always the ones who are more paranoid than the rest anyway, and usually think to themselves, "better not put this in writing." You see it in the corporate world as well. No, everything about WikiLeaks is disgusting. Today I hear their supporters are shutting down police sites in the Netherlands. Let's see how police feel once it starts affecting their operations.

[MikeG]

What's also scary is, according to CBS news, they've only released 1/2 of 1% of the diplomatic cables they have. How the hell did they get so many????

I think it's all part of the WOT strategy to give troops as much raw intelligence as possible. You see what they consider "classified" so imagine the same bureaucrats making decisions about what the field troops don't need to know.

By the same reasoning, they don't restrict access to front line units. Where I think they failed is that these documents are apparently unencrypted and untracked. Technology exists that would have given this person all the access and also alowed him to take copies for remote access but at the same time prevented him from sharing those documents. Everyone has seen those RSA keys that fit on a keyring. Those documents should have authenticated every view and logged every access. Typically this level of encryption isn't authorized for all classified info but it beats "in the clear". And adding authentication makes it possible to revoke access. With the amount of computing power available today, there is no need to ever store SIPRNET level information in the clear. Keep the thumb drives for front line folks, just make sure the person accessing the data has his key generator and password. They don't need network access for that, just the key generator and their password. Assange should have inherited just a bunch of encrypted docs that he had no method of decrypting.

[MikeG]

One other thing that might be relevant is that it's not just the information.

"Operation Deark Heart" book is an example. I think one of the redactions was about the NSA intercepting phone calls. Everyone knows the NSA intercepts phone calls. But as a method of intelligence it is apparently classified under a very broad umbrella to the point where they don't even acknowledge it. It seems silly but they just draw the line so it pushes the debate back to before it becomes an issue.