One can argue whether the privacy provisions were weakened or not. In the case of the WikiLeaks, Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, got to the heart of the matter when she said, "What WikiLeaks shows you is how security information is all about the integrity of individuals."
The bottom line is that someone in the State Dept. leaked the documents. No iron-clad privacy provision in the world can protect against a person leaking information - whether it's paper based or computerized. Brase went on to say, "Once you get information on any kind of electronic format, it is very easy to take it, to access it, to share it, to download it."
The silver lining in the WikiLeaks scandal is that it puts a laser focus on privacy and security issues, which are things we need to keep working on to make it right.
An interesting view of WikiLeaks through the perspective of health care and privacy information. Argues that security information relies on integrity of individuals.
This is kind of confusing. Why is it that this more technological discussion on the internet is uncommon. If it is important that we understand these concepts to understand technology, privacy etc., why isn't it always accessible? Do those you understand these concepts purposely make it inaccessible to those who do not?
The question he didn't even know
to ask is, "What are safe and secure computing and online practices?"
how to think about adversaries online, what is ssl, what it means, what
are phishing, viruses, botnets, and state-sponsored malware. By the
end of the 4th hour, he understood how tor is different than a simple
vpn or proxy server, and when to use tor and when it isn't needed. 3.5h
of that discussion was basic operational, computer, and online security
and safe practices.
Is it a problem when even people who you would except (or at least hope) understand how the internet works do not? This really highlights the lack of education surrounding th internet.
Look at the infrastructures of google, facebook,
yahoo, and microsoft to see the challenges that lie ahead for these tools.
technology exists to circumvent internet censorship
Technology is agnostic, who uses and how they use it matters.
Circumvention, anonymity, and privacy tools used in a free world can be
a minor annoyance,
i.e. wikileaks used wikis, ssl, email, and yes, tor,
but in the end, it's an annoyance. We don't have people in the streets
rioting trying to overthrow our govt. Wikipedia uses the same technology
in wikis, ssl, and email. Everyone loves Wikipedia and considers it a net positive.
technology exists to circumvent internet censorship
In the 1930s, the feds and police warned of mass chaos if the interstate
highway system was built in the US. The ability for criminals to quickly
transit between cities was of grave concern.
How exactly would the U.S. government hold WikiLeaks responsible (i.e. Would they identify a person within the organization, the entire organization etc.) Who determines whether WikiLeaks "are part of a criminal conspiracy or a political discussion"?
Interesting brief talk about Internet security and the role of proxy technologies, esp under repressive regimes. Though check out the comments too. Clearly there are downsides and social hazards to proxy technologies too.
The web is no longer just an integral part of our lives; the web significantly defines the way we engage with the world. To be a wholly educated leader, a successful and effective member of an organization or business, and or an engaged citizen, it is now vital to understand web technologies beyond the level of a consumer. Instead of seeing the web as something that "happens behind the computer screen," the liberally educated person must understand how the web works and shapes our lives. This means understanding how data travels, what happens to your personal information on the web, how the definition of privacy is changing, how the web serves as a publishing and authoring platform, how media is shared and remixed, and how an online economy is changing the way we learn. In Spring 2011 we will launch a Design Seminar to begin mapping out integrated academic approaches to the Web, modeling the ways that multiple disciplines and perspectives are necessary to really comprehend the technological and cultural landscape.
Not exactly sure how a president being on medication is information of top importance to the US but still an interesting article on progress towards governement transparency that wikileaks has made.
A slew of diplomatic messages from South America, where the United States has had testy relations with several leaders, reveal U.S. concerns over issues ranging from terrorism to a spat over oil between Argentina and Britain. But private messages released by WikiLeaks also highlight Washington's focus on the personalities on a continent largely ruled by leftist presidents, some of them European-style technocrats and others virulently anti-American populists.
The huge cache of diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks contain frank assessments of many top geopolitical players – and predictions as to how their personalities might affect US politics.
Interesting comments and opinions of world leaders. previously confidential material now seem's like the US's underwear when referring to international relations
This article really shows how leaks can control government relations. I'm confused as to why this expressed frustration at mexican security of drug cartels could considered serious enough for Pascual's resignation of his post. It almost seems like he was looking for an excuse to go?
Mr. Pascual’s resignation — less than two weeks after President Obama met with Mr. Calderon at the White House — appeared to be the biggest fallout yet from thousands of sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables from around the world released by WikiLeaks. It was the first such public departure by a U.S. ambassador during the Obama administration.
WikiLeaks, the controversial whistleblowing site that exposes secrets of governments and corporations, bootstrapped itself with a cache of documents obtained through an internet eavesdropping operation by one of its activists, according to a new profile of the organization’s founder.
The activist siphoned more than a million documents as they traveled across the internet through Tor, also known as “The Onion Router,” a sophisticated privacy tool that lets users navigate and send documents through the internet anonymously.
This is an interesting note about something that isn't taled about very often -- where did Wikileaks come from in the first place?
The siphoned documents, supposedly stolen by Chinese hackers or spies who were using the Tor network to transmit the data, were the basis for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s assertion in 2006 that his organization had already “received over one million documents from 13 countries” before his site was launched, according to the article in The New Yorker.
I write to remind our users, and people in search of privacy enhancing technology, that good software is just one part of the solution.
We hear from the Wikileaks folks that the premise behind these news articles is actually false -- they didn't bootstrap Wikileaks by monitoring the Tor network.
Reading the New Yorker’s piece on WikiLeaks, it’s hard to decide whether I’m reading about freedom fighters, skilled propagandists, or as is often the case, both.
The Tor Project blog responds, pointing out that Tor doesn't magically encrypt text, it simply allows for the anonymous transfer of files. So if you use unsecure connections and send data in plain text, it's just as safe as writing down the information on a piece of paper, folding it into an airplane, and throwing it across the street.
A small number of names and passages in some of the cables have been removed (———) by The New York Times to protect diplomats’ confidential sources, to keep from compromising American intelligence efforts or to protect the privacy of ordinary citizens.
In the "About" section, wikileaks says "from time to time we may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents to protect life and limb of innocent people." While it doesn't appear the cable wires put anyone's life in immediate danger, it it interesting to note that the Times additionally censors the documents... Why didn't wikileaks censor these documents already, or why did the Times feel the need to censor them when wikileaks didn't?
Below are a selection of the documents from a cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. A small number of names and passages in some of the cables have been removed (———) by The New York Times to protect diplomats’ confidential sources, to ke