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."
Nicholas Adams on 19 Mar 11This article brings up a good question regarding whether the United States military has been honest in their reports of "enemy" casualties. Another important question is posed at the end of the article with a pentagon statement: "Condemning this fresh leak, however, the Pentagon said: "This security breach could very well get our troops and those they are fighting with killed. Our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment." Where do we draw the line between the citizens' right to know and the safety of government operations? Is it acceptable to allow secrecy to protect citizens or do the citizens have a right to know all that the government does? These are interesting questions given that the government is to be responsible to the citizenry, however, what if included in that responsibility is keeping certain information classified?
