Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ministry of Defense's "How To Stop Leaks" Document Is Leaked

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the there's-no-fighting-in-the-war-room dept.

Government 141

samzenpus writes "A restricted 2,400 page-document put out by the MoD designed to help intelligence personnel with information security has been leaked onto the internet. Wikileaks notes that Joint Services Protocol 440 (JSP 440), was published in 2001 and lays out protocols to defend against hackers, journalists, and foreign spies. it says, 'Leaks usually take the form of reports in the public media which appear to involve the unauthorized disclosure of official information (whether protectively marked or not) that causes political harm or embarrassment to either the UK Government or the Department concerned... The threat [of leakage] is less likely to arise from positive acts of counter-espionage, than from leakage of information through disaffected members of staff, or as a result of the attentions of an investigative journalist, or simply by accident or carelessness.' " Looks like it's time to write JSP 441.

cancel ×

141 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

May I be the first to say (3, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654417)

Documentation security - you're doing it wrong.

Re:May I be the first to say (5, Insightful)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654443)

that causes political harm or embarrassment

Other than military secrets like we have a spy in such and such position. I'm going to call upon.. "If you don't act in a manner that would embarrass yourself/department you should have nothing to worry about." They have been using it to justify countless forms of monitoring.. let's see how they like it when the positions are switched.. Yes I know I'm living in fantasy land.

Re:May I be the first to say (1)

mrrudge (1120279) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654521)

I'm sorry citizen. 'If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide' is a rule we made for the hoi-polloi, we've been very careful to include exemptions for the ruling classes, now, please place a dna sample in the cup provided and move right along.

Flippantly aside, for some good examples of what ( has been allowed to be published about what ) goes on in the name of the people, a 'history' of MI5 ( Military Intelligence, Section 5. Counter Intelligence and Security in the UK. ) has just been published, yesterday I think. Regnum Defende / Defence of the Realm.

There are some BBC articles about it from here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8289962.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Smoke. Mirror. I'm looking forward to picking it up.

Re:May I be the first to say (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655015)

now, please place a dna sample in the cup provided and move right along.

I might need some magazines or an internet connection before I can accommodate your request ;)

Re:May I be the first to say (2, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655483)

The article on th efront page does not draw attention to the most remarkable - and horrible - aspect of the MoD document.

It consistently groups "investigative journalists" into a category with "terrorists", "criminals" and "computer hackers".

The document states "the "enemy" is unwelcome publicity of any kind, and through any medium". This is the military. "Enemy" is not a metaphor to these people.

Re:May I be the first to say (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656053)

That really hit me, as I read the article. By extension, any taxpaying citizen who would read the work of an investigative reporter would also be an enemy of the state. There is simply no way to justify the logic of their classification. Expect a new expose' in the US - people who request information under the FOI act are investigated by FBI/NSA/CIA etc ad nauseum.

in the name of the people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655595)

You hit the nail on the head with "in the name of the people." The real root of the problem is that the people give their proxy to someone else and expect that someone else to faithfully execute it. When we all know perfectly well that that almost never, ever happens.

If the people want the government to be truly representative of themselves, then they need to make it their own. Through open source [metagovernment.org] of course.

Re:May I be the first to say (4, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654591)

that causes political harm or embarrassment

Other than military secrets like we have a spy in such and such position. I'm going to call upon.. "If you don't act in a manner that would embarrass yourself/department you should have nothing to worry about." They have been using it to justify countless forms of monitoring.. let's see how they like it when the positions are switched.. Yes I know I'm living in fantasy land.

I think the UK government reached an all time low in this is when Thatcher's government tried to use the official secrets act to prevent it becoming public knowledge that they had encouraged Matrix Churchill and Sheffield Forgemasters to make Saddam Hussain's supergun [millbanksystems.com] , even though keeping it quiet would have resulted in the directors going to prison. So they were prepared to see innocent men who had cooperated with the intelligence services (even offering to fit a tracking device) go to prison rather than be embarrassed.

Re:May I be the first to say (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655035)

I think they reached their new all time low each time they took [wikipedia.org] rights [wikipedia.org] away [schneier.com] from their own citizens.

Re:May I be the first to say (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655473)

Pah!, guns are irrelevant if the SIS are deceiving us as to who should be shot! We would need Govt transparency to figure out that, and a sack of NH4NO3 (readily available in the UK, AFAIK) would take care of the rest.

Government corruption (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655203)

In both the U.K. and U.S., the government is heavily influenced by people who want war so that they can make easy weapons profits.

Re:May I be the first to say (1)

koolfy (1213316) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654465)

can't stop laughing... tears... can't breathe... heart stopped... death by Recursive Fail.

October 6, 2009. Today, a comedian died in Slashdot.

Re:May I be the first to say (1)

Hucko (998827) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654657)

October 6, 2009. Today, a comedian died in Slashdot.

yep, that was a recursive fail

They got it WRONG - See Plamegate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654685)

Ministerial Advisers leak.
Ministers Leak. And at the worst possible moments.

Not journalists - They have the legal editor in their pay, and FOI requests are fair go. Even the truth sometimes becomes self evident. If anything, leaks have gone down.

The REAL failure is not getting the Chinese to copy the Banking Failures or do an Enron or even GM bailout. Oh well, they did buy lots of US Shares ;-).

Re:May I be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654949)

sigh...everybody knows that it's false information put out there on purpose.

Re:May I be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654959)

Haha, wikileaks is slashdotted.

Not twisted enough (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654437)

Declare an inexistent document the ultimate reference on how to stop leaks, put references to it in selected internal documents and even build fake leaks about its existence. As noone will be able to find it, will really work, even against the human factor. You can make a gigantic library of such documents, and put all of them in the unexistent parallel library of congress, where noone will be able to see what countain all those leak-proof documents against sensible matters of national security. Next time someone will try to make problems, will be so sure that will be a full non-existent document about him in that library where everything is afraid of become known is written that will discard that idea, making the world a safer place.

Re:Not twisted enough (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654665)

This Noone must be a real good agent then. If he's on weed, is he then called "High Noone"? And is he in any way related to the German singer "Heinoone"? Or rather to "Nooneien Soong"?

Re:Not twisted enough (1)

st0nes (1120305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655013)

Noone is the one who left his laptop with the secrets in a taxicab.

Re:Not twisted enough (1)

ravenlock (693538) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655419)

Noone knows.

Re:Not twisted enough (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656497)

Those documents make a very interesting reading too, though you need a thaumic computer to get at them. It's a pain dealing with all the Out Of Cheese errors though...

It's like.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654441)

It's ironic, almost like rain on your wedding day.

Re:It's like.. (1)

garompeta (1068578) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654467)

Overflowed with ownage!

Re:It's like.. a good idea (1)

infolation (840436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654553)

Surely leaking this document is good practice? It's the opposite of 'security through obscurity'. Like peer-review, comments from the wider world would only help harden their leak-prevention methods.

Re:It's like.. a good idea (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654617)

Surely leaking this document is good practice? It's the opposite of 'security through obscurity'. Like peer-review, comments from the wider world would only help harden their leak-prevention methods.

They can't prevent leaks, they are just too stupid to realize it.

What they can do is control the media and that alone controls the majority.

Re:It's like.. a good idea (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654655)

Security through leakage?

Excuse me BigBrother, but FUCK YOU (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654445)

Who the fuck said National Security Equals Political Harm or Embarrrasment? It is of the utmost importance that this person if found and shot immidiatly.

Re:Excuse me BigBrother, but FUCK YOU (-1, Flamebait)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655053)

It is of the utmost importance that this person if found and shot immidiatly.

Good luck with that in the UK. They don't allow the sheep^Wcitizens to own firearms. They might hurt themselves, don't ya know?

Britain (5, Funny)

gijoel (628142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654455)

Now with 50% more irony.

Re:Britain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654725)

wait, is that irony, or does it just suck? :D

Re:Britain (0, Troll)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654795)

Unfortunately they still don't understand it.

Re:Britain (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654859)

Our anti-leak memo leaked.

That... that's ironic, right?

Yeah, that's the motherfucking definition of irony.

(http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/3/9/)

Re:Britain (1)

WoRLoKKeD (1142351) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655031)

But...But...That makes 150%!

Re:Britain (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655367)

The ironing is delicious.

Re:Britain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656091)

"Capt'n, the country cannae take it!"

Re:Britain (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656233)

it's like raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain on your wedding day

Outdated spook mentality (3, Interesting)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654461)

These people are unable to adapt to a world where information can be sent around the world in seconds. They are the stupid, violent policemen who might punch you for looking at them but won't stop crime, terrorism, or anything else because they belong to some WW2 era not the current world.

They want to play stupid games with hidden codewords so they can pretend they are more important than 'civilians', all they really do is waste resources.

Re:Outdated spook mentality (3, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654615)

I'm sorry that you struggle to accept the fact that not all information belongs in public view. Perhaps you can explain your position to me while you hand over your bank account numbers and routing codes.

I hate to shatter your world view, but sometimes keeping things from certain groups of people is the right thing to do and that doesn't change just because one of the entities is a government. Yes, it will be abused. Yes, abuse should be punished. No, that does not mean the concept is without merit or that it's not worth trying.

Information security is definitely harder in this day and age, and it would be a colossal blunder to rely on mere obfuscation or concealment to protect things. That doesn't mean they don't have their places, nor does it mean that proper use of such in appropriate situations somehow makes them WW2-era codeword-loving spooks. Frankly, suggesting it just makes you sound like an idiot. Couple it with your ever-so-reasonable comments about police beating people but ignoring crime and, well, that cinches it up pretty firmly doesn't it?

Re:Outdated spook mentality (5, Insightful)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654965)

I'm sorry that you struggle to accept the fact that not all information belongs in public view. Perhaps you can explain your position to me while you hand over your bank account numbers and routing codes.

Don't be ridiculous, they just admitted they were hiding dirty secrets "political harm or embarrassment", and generally destroying political transparency, and that is corrupt and undemocratic. Also using your bank account analogy their job Is not just to protect their account number, but also to steal yours (they call this information gathering). and all without any public or even legal oversight into their actions.

Re:Outdated spook mentality (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654987)

Also see the Ahmed Zaoui [wikipedia.org] case for some insight into how this lack of legal transparency is so fucked up.

Re:Outdated spook mentality (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655221)

Duh. You do realise that political embarrassment in the context of the military generally doesn't mean the Permanent Undersecretary having an affair, rather that they're doing things that they'd rather other countries didn't know about (and therefore there is the risk of embarrassment if the other country does find out) or that need to be secret and would simply look incompetent if they leaked, e.g the position of the on-watch SSBN. Or construction details of a particular kind of armour, which would be embarrassing if they became public (incl. terrorist) knowledge.

Re:Outdated spook mentality (3, Interesting)

slarrg (931336) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655081)

Gee, it seems to me that the banks already give your account information to reporting agencies who will sell it to anyone with the money to buy it. So, despite my desire to keep the information secret, the governemt has already decided that we do not deserve this privacy.

The problem with government secrecy is that rather than concentrating their efforts on information that is vital to keep secret, they mark almost everything as secret with very little justification. The more pieces of information you claim are secret, the more likely that some of that information will leak through the cracks. Meanwhile the attempt to keep many secrets removes focus from the truly vital pieces which makes any given secret more likely to slip out from divided attention.

Couple this with the technology and recent government directives and we end up collecting even more public and private information, networking the information together for easy retrieval, and not focusing on the most important secrets which leads to a total mess.

Re:Outdated spook mentality (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656075)

The problem with government secrecy is that rather than concentrating their efforts on information that is vital to keep secret, they mark almost everything as secret with very little justification. The more pieces of information you claim are secret, the more likely that some of that information will leak through the cracks. Meanwhile the attempt to keep many secrets removes focus from the truly vital pieces which makes any given secret more likely to slip out from divided attention.

On the other hand you don't want to draw attention to the information you are most worried about leaking. e.g. putting your confidential trash in a bag marked "confidential waste". Thus it can make sense to classify everything as "secret". So long as you don't have different levels of "secret". Once you have multiple levels you run a risk akin to someone not shredding something by mistake, which is less of an issue if the policy is to shred everything (and ditribute between several trash bags).

Re:Outdated spook mentality (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655779)

I hate to shatter your world view, but sometimes keeping things from certain groups of people is the right thing to do and that doesn't change just because one of the entities is a government. Yes, it will be abused. Yes, abuse should be punished. No, that does not mean the concept is without merit or that it's not worth trying.

Hiding evidence that western governments have funded racist killers and dictators isn't in anyone's interest. If they have done wrong the evidence should be given to the public so democracy can work its magic. This document is about how to keep dirty secrets private from the very people who funded them, i.e. me and you.

If people are allowed to hide wrongdoing it will only encourage them to do wrong.

Re:Outdated spook mentality (1)

koolfy (1213316) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654629)

because they belong to some WW2 era not the current world.

If you are also referring to the inability to keep an information secret, I should point out that during that WWII, the research on Enigma done by Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] was kept secret for years after the end of the war, including to his close friends or relatives.

Re:Outdated spook mentality (1)

dword (735428) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655009)

This reminds me of the last released episode of Family Guy (S08E02) when Quagmire finds out about Internet Porn. We should make these people more aware of the fact that there is lots and lots of porn on the Internet and maybe they'll learn a thing or two about it out of "need".

Re:Outdated spook mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655653)

William Gibson's latest comes to mind... 'Spook Country' speaks volumes to how the spook mentality is changing (in the U.S. at least). It's not anything groundbreaking - but I'd recommend it just the same (this is my second read-through and I'm catching things I didn't the first time). Namely - I draw attention to 'Brown', an 'old-age' contracted spook in the book, with his target - the 'IF', part of a small family of very 'new-age' spies. A very interesting read indeed.

Oh man (2, Funny)

Intoblivion (1331485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654475)

The Irony Department is going to get it for this.

2400 pages? (5, Insightful)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654491)

Seriously? Who the fuck would read something that long? How can they expect a document that long to have any effect on anything aside from bureaucracy? If the document had only been two or three pages people probably would have read and understood it.

Whoever drafted and approved the document should be shot. Same with all the people that write bills that are hundreds or thousands of pages long, and doubly so for the people that vote for and sign them without having ever read them.

Re:2400 pages? (3, Funny)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654535)

I ran the text of the DMCA -- yes, all untold pages of it -- through an advanced semantic data compression algorithm.

The output was just the string "CITIZENBENDOVER".

Re:2400 pages? (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654639)

Let me guess: It went something like this (pseudo-code):


while (!stdin.eof) buf = stdin.read();
print("CITIZENBENDOVER");

Re:2400 pages? (1)

known_ID (1629159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654543)

There is a thing called index....

Re:2400 pages? (1)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654557)

There's an even more important thing called tl;dr

Re:2400 pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654547)

I doubt whoever approved this read ALL of the 2400 pages. If i was part of such approval circle Id stick a lewd limerick in there just to see if somebody does read it before signing.

Second thought, its quite possible somebody did, but damned if I will bother to read all of THAT to find out.

Re:2400 pages? (1)

ace123 (758107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654605)

This strategy to stop leaks is brilliant! While we waste our time reading and discussing this document, we won't have time to notice any other leaked documents.

Re:2400 pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654613)

Still far better than 6000-page-long OOXML specification!

Re:2400 pages? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654827)

I could be wrong, but I don't think the intention is for anyone to read all of it. I think in general even people who are Security Checked [wikipedia.org] tend not to have access to all of the document, even though it is only Restricted and SC lets you have regular access to Secret material.

Doesn't quite excuse 2400 pages, but it does make it seem more like "we've mashed what could have been lots of documents in to one".

Re:2400 pages? (1)

tcdk (173945) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654855)

I stopped on a random page and read six page of nonsense on how to make a security taskforce of some kind - it was mostly concerned with titles of the members...

Re:2400 pages? (5, Funny)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654869)

Robert Jordan fans.

Re:2400 pages? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655893)

Ow. That hit close to home. I'm re-reading the entire series in prep for the final books. ;D

Re:2400 pages? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656707)

It's okay... masochism is becoming more and more accepted these days. As such, there's no need to be ashamed of your choice of lifestyle. ;)

Re:2400 pages? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656687)

2400 pages is barely enough for introducing the basic premise. A 2400 page volume is nice and everything but where are the volumes 2 through 13? And, of course, the diminutive (at just 300ish pages) volume 0?

Seriously, it's no wonder this was leaked. 2400 pages would barely be enough to describe the proper procedures for the handling of braids, much less information security.

Re:2400 pages? (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654879)

How do you think WikiLeaks got a hold of it in the first place? Obviously someone fell a sleep reading the fine manual, and someone else came along and lifted it from them. Unfortunately for the reader, he hadn't gotten to that chapter yet. I'm absolutely sure that chapter 2 would have covered that topic thoroughly. </sarcasm>

Re:2400 pages? (1)

hughk (248126) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655317)

You have got it wrong.

The MOD produced this document that apparently nobody was reading. It doesn't really contain much that is contentious, so why not leak it and have everyone reading it.

Re:2400 pages? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655019)

Seriously? Who the fuck would read something that long?

Nobody in the DoJ. Obviously.

Re:2400 pages? (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655115)

I would read the full 2,400 pages. If you want to understand something fully, you have to read all of it, not just read a few pages and think you understand something when clearly you don't! IMHO this is the difference between a professional soldier and one that is amateur and cannot be arsed. Can you be arsed? http://www.arrse.co.uk/ [arrse.co.uk] you will find more indepth banter about this topic there than on wikileaks from people who really are in the know :) Regards, NSN

Re:2400 pages? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655253)

I've become convinced that long government/corporate/thinktank documents exist so as to conceal unpleasant information. For example, the notorious 'Rebuilding Americas Defences' document bleats on about nothing for ages before it gets to "wouldn't another Pearl Harbor be awesome" and "lets make ethnically-targeted biological weapons".

Re:2400 pages? (1)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655889)

Who the fuck would read something that long?

Nobody..Hence the leak.

Re:2400 pages? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656481)

Seriously? Who the fuck would read something that long? How can they expect a document that long to have any effect on anything aside from bureaucracy? If the document had only been two or three pages people probably would have read and understood it.
Whoever drafted and approved the document should be shot.


Or maybe their document should be printed out and dropped on them. Which might encourage them to write less or at least get them use duplexing printers :).

Surprised? Not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654515)

Are we really surprised? This is the country where politicians visit the Prime Minister in Downing Street holding confidential documents face out for the paparazzi to photograph - on more than one occasion

D'oh.

Re:Surprised? Not. (1)

V4L3R4 (1526175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654533)

Now i'm curious, any examples?

Re:Surprised? Not. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654567)

this is a fairly googleable event. Example coverage: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004412250_brits14.html [nwsource.com]

Re:Surprised? Not. (1)

V4L3R4 (1526175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654573)

Why thank you, good sir, I am forever indebted to you

PDF or ODF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654551)

I'll take mine odf... less err security issues.

Quick solution (2, Insightful)

s1lverl0rd (1382241) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654575)

A quick solution would be to just have less secrets. Telling everyone what you are doing isn't that hard - and the foreign spies, hackers and journalists will find out anyway.

Re:Quick solution (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654601)

A quick solution would be to just have less secrets. Telling everyone what you are doing isn't that hard - and the foreign spies, hackers and journalists will find out anyway.

Creating and looking after secrets is whats keeping half the organization employed.

Re:Quick solution (3, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654695)

But there's a problem with that.

You see, s1lverl0rd, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with secrets. Whoâ(TM)s gonna do it? You, s1lverl0rd? They have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the truth and you curse the government.

You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know: that secrets, while tragic, probably save lives. And their existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want them on that wall. You need them there.

moded interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655109)

You can't handle the truth!

Re:Quick solution (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655127)

You see, s1lverl0rd, we live in a world that has walls.

If the walls are porous by design, should we care?

Re:Quick solution (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655327)

You see, s1lverl0rd, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with secrets.

If they had less secrets, they wouldn't need so many walls. And most of those secrets were caused by greed and resulting corruption, or perhaps I have that backwards.

Re:Quick solution (5, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655427)

I think we all understand the need to for the intelligence services to keep some secrets.

What most of us are worried about is their focus on protecting information:

that causes political harm or embarrassment

- When people find out that MPs submitted expenses to parliament for buying duck-houses or cleaning moats ... that's politically embarrassing.
- When people find out that sitting ministers are evading taxes ... that's politically embarrassing.
- When people find out each and every situation of waste, incompetence and pure and simple disregard for the money that we pay in taxes on the part of politicians or people directly nominated or overseen by politicians ... that's politically embarrassing.

Those leaks are often also politically damaging for those responsible for the problem.

And here we have the intelligence services' manual for protecting information from the which amongst other things directs them to protect "information that causes political harm or embarrassment" from the prying eyes of such evil people as ... journalists.

If I didn't already believe that the UK is a corrupt and decadent nation, this would convince me.

Re:Quick solution (1)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655701)

Actually, the problem inherent in the system is that you, jimicus, believe that there are truths so terrible that we are better off never knowing them. Looking back at history, the holocaust and countless other genocides were not terrible enough to hide from the common man. So, you believe that our government is hiding something far worse than the genocide of millions...and that it's better that we don't know.

If you're too weak to handle reality, then someone failed at raising you. Terrible, unspeakable crimes happen every hour, and you honestly believe some crimes to be so horrible that it's better to be lied to about it? Giving them such freedom, meanwhile, means that they can choose to hide commonplace atrocities from us because the common man is afraid of atrocity X

Or, in layman's terms: Terrorism. Give them all the power they want so long as they make the scary bad men go away, right?

Grow up.

Re:Quick solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655729)

s1lverl0rd: I want the truth!

jumicus: You can't handle the truth!

I can't believe people didn't get the reference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655805)

were I not an anonymouse coward, I'd mod you up for "Funny" for the brilliant use of Tom Cruise references

Re:Quick solution (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655907)

Its scary when a Tom Cruise movie quote gets rated 3-interesting... Strange things are happening.. We're jolly green giants, walking the earth, with guns!

Re:Quick solution (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656123)

Even scarier is the replies I'm getting.

Re:Quick solution (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655771)

"A quick solution would be to just have less secrets."

fewer secrets, or
less secrecy

Sorry, had to. Just had this conversation with my daughter.

Yo dawg.. (3, Funny)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654587)

I heard you like leaks...

To be followed up by a secondary document.. (4, Funny)

Goodl (518602) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654597)

How not to be seen (Caption on screen: 'HM GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC SERVICE FILM NO. 42 PARA 6. "HOW NOT TO BE SEEN"') Voice Over: In this film we hope to show how not to be seen. This is Mr. E.R. Bradshaw of Napier Court, Black Lion Road London SE5. He can not be seen. Now I am going to ask him to stand up. Mr. Bradshaw will you stand up please In the distance Mr Bradshaw stands up. There is a loud gunshot as Mr Bradshaw is shot in the stomach. He crumples to the ground Voice Over: This demonstrates the value of not being seen.

WikiLeaks slashdotted (1)

darkob (634931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29654603)

It's already clogged and impossible to get. So in essence MoD may yet find another way to prevent general public from getting the documents. Create rule to "slashdot" web site hosting documents..

Re:WikiLeaks slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29654881)

Not true. At the bottom of the wikileaks page are links to *several* download sites. Not all are dead. I just downloaded it from the first in the list ("fastest (Sweden)") with 140 kb/s. Not blazingly fast, but does the work.

Hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655007)

Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy of a government that keeps invading more and more of citizens privacy in the name of corporate and so called national interests all the while trying to keep their own embarrasing secrets from leaking?

In my opinion, anything a government would be embarressed about deserves to be leaked to the public.

How to find your own arse still secret (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655161)

It's only 1100 pages, and suggests using both hands.

You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655219)

It's like rain on your wedding day, or a green light when you're already late. Maybe some good advice that you just didn't take...

(obligatory)

tag (1, Funny)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655409)

epic fail

No value in leaked doc (1)

xezas (213596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655649)

One scenario is that this removes any value in the security document....so it's no big issue if it is leaked.

(yes, there's a difference between method and implementation)

hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29655841)

"It's like rain on you wedding day..."

can't...resist (1)

roggg (1184871) | more than 4 years ago | (#29655935)

Fail classified document is fail?

Simple... (1)

FlopEJoe (784551) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656453)

Stop letting congress-critters have the information. When Bush was president, Democrats selectively leaked classified information to harm him. I have no doubt it will happen the other way around now with Obama and the Republicans.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>