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!

US Government Strategy To Prevent Leaks Is Leaked

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the who-leaks-the-leakers? dept.

Government 336

Jake writes "The US government's 11-page document on how to get various US government agencies to prevent future leaks has been leaked. It doesn't get any more ironic than that. After the various leaks made by WikiLeaks, the US government understandably wants to limit the number of potential leaks, but their strategy apparently isn't implemented yet. It's clear that the Obama administration is telling federal agencies to take aggressive steps to prevent further leaks. According to the document, these steps include figuring out which employees might be most inclined to leak classified documents, by using psychiatrists and sociologists to assess their trustworthiness. The memo also suggests that agencies require all their employees to report any contacts with members of the news media they may have."

cancel ×

336 comments

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

Yo dawg (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814388)

- Insert obligatory xzibit quote here -

Wikileaks (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814606)

Wikileaks does not 'leak' anything. They report leaks.

Whats next (5, Insightful)

Drivintin (917847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814396)

I think next they should try reverse psychology. Works well with me 5 year old.

Re:Whats next (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814658)

fine, DON'T try reverse psychology.

Re:Whats next (4, Funny)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814942)

Your ideas and opinions intrigue me, I would like to hear more from you.

Re:Whats next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34815096)

Your ideas and opinions intrigue me, I would like to hear more from you.

I believe you need to subscribe to his newsletter.

elephant in the room (5, Interesting)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815008)

or perhaps the number one thing the government could do to prevent leaks in future would be to... i don't know... *NOT DO ILLEGAL SHIT* or, and i know i'm way off base, *NOT SUBVERT ITS OWN IDEALS OF FREEDOM AND EQUALITY*

But, sadly James Earl Jones already played the US Government:

Whistler: "I want peace on earth and goodwill toward men."
Bernard Abbott: "We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing."

The PDf of the document (5, Informative)

Ndkchk (893797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814410)

Trashy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34815286)

That is a VERY poorly written and poorly edited document. It asks a lot of questions, giving the impression that the government doesn't know what the government is doing.

Ironic? (5, Interesting)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814414)

Encryption algorithms are also public, that doesn't mean they won't work.

Re:Ironic? (0)

urusan (1755332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814472)

Even if the leak has no negative impact on the effectiveness of the leaked policies, it is still ironic.

It also clearly demonstrates why such policies are being developed.

Re:Ironic? (5, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814562)

It's not ironic. If you look at the PDF of the document itself, every page of the policy is marked top and bottom with "Unclassified." It's not classified, it's not even Official Use Only, from scanning the document I didn't see anything indicating anybody was supposed to restrict its circulation.

If anything, it bothers me a little that techspot is treating this as a coup (it's not even on MSNBC's front page), since there's no reason this document should be kept secret, and thus it should not be, since the policy may affect many people and should therefore be a matter of public discussion. The default in government should be openness, not secrecy.

Re:Ironic? (0)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814590)

+1

Re:Ironic? (4, Interesting)

teachknowlegy (1003477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814738)

Are we really this dumb as a society? It's *supposed* to be public. Either it is intended to work while still publicly disclosed or it's a decoy. Of course it could be a test, someone could have forgotten to classify it, or any number of other things could have happened. Just because it is stated that it's to prevent leaks, doesn't mean they want to prevent it from being leaked. Our leaders are often smarter than you give them credit for (and yes, they are often dumber, too).

Re:Ironic? (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815114)

A colleague who used to work for defense contractors once told me this interesting trick : If you have a boring document that you need every employee to read, instead of just handling it to them, make it secret and give them clearance. That will make them more curious and everybody will read it. Maybe here is a similar strategy : "leak" a document stating how to prevent leaks, and more people will read it than if you just publish it on a governmental website.

Re:Ironic? (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814844)

the policy is marked top and bottom with "Unclassified." It's not classified

I'm not sure about the US system, but in the UK unclassified and not classified are not the same thing at all. I believe this is the same on both sides of the pond.

Re:Ironic? (1)

gilbert644 (1515625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815018)

If its not classified but should not be released to the public it's marked for official use only.

Re:Ironic? (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815048)

If a document is not classified it is unclassified by definition and can be subject to a FOIA request. It is also not illegal for a government employee to release such a document (though doing so to the embarassment of one's boss could be a career-limiting move).

Re:Ironic? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814950)

It's not ironic. If you look at the PDF of the document itself, every page of the policy is marked top and bottom with "Unclassified." It's not classified, it's not even Official Use Only, from scanning the document I didn't see anything indicating anybody was supposed to restrict its circulation.

BUT IT'S STILL LEAKED BECAUSE IT WASN'T PUBLISHED BY THE GOV'T, MR KILLJOY!

Re:Ironic? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814584)

How is it ironic? The memo is about actions taken to protect CLASSIFIED information. The memo itself is not classified, nor is there any reason it should be.

Re:Ironic? (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814546)

And I'm listening to Alanis Morissette right now. How ironic is that?

Re:Ironic? (3, Funny)

Shemmie (909181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814592)

A little too ironic...and, yeah, I really do think...

Re:Ironic? (4, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814732)

That's perfect. You're listening to a song called "ironic", in which nothing is actually ironic, while responding to an article which misuses the word "ironic".

Re:Ironic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814828)

Not at all, it's just coincidental.

That's not irony! (1, Funny)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814428)

Actually, it is. I just know how inevitable it is that some dipwad who doesn't know what irony is will post that it's not, so I thought I'd go ahead and get it out of the way. Please proceed with your regular comments!

Re:That's not irony! (0)

yotto (590067) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814456)

Also, just because they had a strategy to prevent leaks, and that strategy to prevent leaks itself was leaked, does not mean that one caused the other.

Geez, people, correlation =/= causation! /leaks.

Re:That's not irony! (4, Interesting)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814508)

Isn't irony ("Situational irony" as Wikipedia calls it seems to be what most folks mean when they say it) when the opposite of what you expect to happen happens? For example, if I implemented a set of policies to prevent leaks and then those policies caused a leak - very ironic. That's not what happened here, what is the irony in this situation?

Re:That's not irony! (1, Offtopic)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814624)

Romeo killing himself was ironic.

Re:That's not irony! (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815222)

The most ironic thing is rain on your wedding day, clearly.

Re:That's not irony! (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815312)

Or freedom fries, when you already ate.

That's not a leak! (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815298)

The fact that a document that was never classified as a secret is published is neither ironic nor a leak.

Wait a minute... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814442)

Everyone, big brother. Big brother, well... you already know everyone here, no introductions are necessary!

National Security (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814448)

This all makes sense. Because simply reporting any media contact isn't a violation of any of their basic human rights. It's perfectly reasonable that who they talk to be monitored, and all government employees should be subjected to regular mental health screening. They have to make sure these people are the right type and not some crackpots who will leak information that the government doesn't want its people to know.

Silly that anyone would write an article about this, as if it shouldn't be common practice anyhow. They should just go ahead and make these things mandatory for the entire populace!

Re:National Security (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815336)

Who decides what is "the right type" though? In my books, you have to be a crackpot to work for the government. Which makes me a crackpot in their books. Who is right? The one with the bigger sacks of money and the heavier array of disinfo catapults.

I Wouldn't Worry (5, Insightful)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814458)

I'm sure that if anyone were falsely accused of being a leaker, they would no doubt have swift access to just recourse. This is the West, after all.

If someone ends up in a such a situation and reports the contrary, their testimony is likely tainted because they are a dirty rotten leaker.

Ultimately, we are all safer somehow.

This is going to backfire (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814478)

Just wait. This is going to backfire. Federal employees are going to resent being treated as suspected criminals and probably will react negatively to the profiling and suspicion.

Re:This is going to backfire (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814576)

Not only that, does psychological profiling even work reliably? How reliable is it? It just strikes me as one of those HR fads that large organizations rush implement before it's really tested.

Re:This is going to backfire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814756)

first wikileaks destroys their expectation of privacy, and now this? throw in an airport nut-fondling or two, and they'll be getting the same treatment as a common citizen, for christ's sake

it's fine to treat the populace like suspected criminals, but when you do it to federal employees, that's just going too far

Re:This is going to backfire (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814764)

Nonsense. During the Cold War it was standard to brief military and government employees to be wary of espionage attempts and trust no one.

If there is anything the internet age should reaffirm about security, it's that trust is naive and stupid, not admirable.

Re:This is going to backfire (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814824)

Nonsense. During the Cold War it was standard to brief military and government employees to be wary of espionage attempts and trust no one.

If there is anything the internet age should reaffirm about security, it's that trust is naive and stupid, not admirable.

The same thing happened in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, so what else nis new?

The people hired... (5, Funny)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814482)

...to stop the leaks after the first leaks, have just been sacked. The leaks will now be stopped in a new, and completely different fashion.

Re:The people hired... (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814498)

.... to be replaced by a bunch of llamas in technicolor dreamcoats!

Those responsible... (2)

JaySSSS (859968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815032)

for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

Perhaps they should study the KGB? (5, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814486)

I love knowing how America keeps creeping to become more and more like the Soviet Union with a similar kind of loss of privileges.

Where the debate really needs to be centered is on two things:

  • What items ought to be kept secret?
  • Does the federal bureaucracy really need to be so big in the first place?

By far and away too much is classified material. I don't mind having things like the locations of military units and certain other generally time-sensitive information being classified, but there certainly is a whole bunch of stuff being labeled as classified material mainly because it would be embarrassing if the information was disclosed. That stuff should not be protected under an official secrets act and I wish that a harder evaluation would result in trying to decide what exactly should be considered classified material in the first place.

Speculating that the King of Saudi Arabia is an ass should not be considered an official secret.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814502)

I;m sure the people of Saudi Arabia wouldn't really like it if the official US policy towards them is "Their king is an ass". Just saying. I'm sure the King won't like it either.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814552)

Then maybe... and I'm going out on a limb here... the king should not be an ass.

Most likely, though, the king thinks "I'm the king, I don't care what other people think!" and doesn't give a damn, and will continue to be an ass.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814644)

Given that most people in Saudi Arabia aren't citizens because of extensive use of foreign labor, and the per-capita income of regular citizens is pretty low, I wonder if the citizens are really sympathetic to their king.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814908)

Maybe the US foreign policy needs to evolve beyond "their king is an ass" then, rather then covering it up and trying to hide it.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815170)

US foreign policy is not "the king is an ass". The opinion of an employee of the US government is that the king is an ass. Or aren't those people allowed to have opinions?

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814560)

Thats a good approach, emulate practices and institutions of long lasting totalitarian regimes. That US is becoming one don't mean that have a clue on how to make it last.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814588)

yes the federal bureaucracy does need to be it's size. It has to manage 300 million people of conflicting ideals, ideology, desires,etc.

What most people forget, is that the majority of the laws on the books are there because someone abused someone else, and we seek to prevent it from happening again.

Common Sense isn't really that common.

And yes speculation that the king of Saudis arabia is an ass should be kept secret. Your official position is that he is a good king, you can't contradict that view point without you yourself looking like an ass. Unless he does it himself first. How many secrets about your friends do you keep?In any given circle of friends you have that one who you let come along even though very few actually like them. Gossip like that is needed to understand the person behind the power. Such understanding is far beyond your abilities though.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815220)

What most people forget, is that the majority of the laws on the books are there because someone abused someone else, and we seek to prevent it from happening again.

Laws are not equivalent with money spent or the size of the bureaucracy. There are huge distortions in the US economy because of government spending and bureaucracy. A particularly big one is the obstacles to forming a company with 50 or more employees. A lot of onerous regulation kicks in at that point. There's also a host of rent-seeking and other parasitism. For example, US drink companies have used corn syrup for decades because sugar has been made too expensive by nonsensical government subsidy.

I also speculate that the vast offering of government and municipality debt in the US has hurt businesses who also try to borrow. After all, why lend to a risky business that is hurting when you can lend to the US government? Similarly, there's little point for a business to offer job security when government offers a far better and safer deal.

A large bureaucracy also is an obstacle to proper enforcement of law and a threat to freedom. When the members of the bureaucracy don't know what's going on, then agile criminal or terrorist networks can more ruthlessly exploit their weaknesses. Further, such bureaucracies are notorious for overreach their allotted power and using it in ways that harm the freedom of their citizens.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (3, Insightful)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815224)

No, I think the majority of the laws on the books are because some rich people wanted to further abuse the peasants. Look at marijuana law, it was enacted to prop up the forests of William Randolph Hurst. Another angle, they restricted the right to vote from felons, and then made a whole bunch of innocuous acts into felonies. Read the book "Three Felonies a Day", which talks about exactly that; the average citizen commits three felonies a day because the laws are so vaguely written. I disagree with the premise, and I also disagree that the federal government needs to be so large. Or exist at all. I wonder how the EU member states' citizens feel about their (relatively) new overlord?

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

zm (257549) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814616)

Agreeing with everything except for the last sentence. Remember, diplomats are paid to lie, deceive, and cheat, all the while keeping the other side happily ignorant of the reality. The diplomatic leak makes for an entertaining read, but I understand why the gov't has their knickers in a knot over the significant portions of that stuff.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

mustPushCart (1871520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814642)

Firstly, in the context of this story leaking is no way to give out information that you consider unnecessarily secret. There is way too much collateral damage when something gets leaked as opposed to getting declassified.

Secondly, 'the SA king is an ass' is in no way an official diplomatic position of any sort. These are private cables between embassies and their home base. Declassifying this would be akin to saying opinions that an employee shares with his coworkers about management should not be kept secret.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (4, Interesting)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814704)

Classification was originally evolved for military intelligence. Do military intelligence right, and you report only on capabilities, not intentions, opinions, or personalities. A proper MI report describes what assets and liabilities Saudi Arabia has, and stays away from speculating about whether the King or anyone else will use them a certain way. Civilian oversight decides whether someone is an enemy and will use their military assets to attack, not the military (at least that's the way it's supposed to be in the US). If a trained observer notes that the Saudis are selectively putting crews to work at sites that produce lower grade crude oil, that might actually be classified secret, if only to make it harder for the Saudis to figure out who the person generating the report is. But that report shouldn't speculate about why the Saudis might be selectively marketing their lower grade crude and conserving their top grade, let alone go into the observer's opinion of the King's personality.
Part of the problem here is that civilian persons, including both diplomatic personnel and decision makers, are using the classification system that is only built to work for military intelligence and only built to work if the m.i. process is done right up to the time the decision to classify is made. The civil oversight is using classification to cover their asses, and they go to that mode easily because they're already misunderstanding how classification should work just by thinking it will work for the kind of stuff they put in a report.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814716)

Why should items be kept secret?

Because outside forces would take advantage of that information, or because it's too much of a hassle to take responsibility for those things?

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814768)

I don't mind having things like the locations of military units and certain other generally time-sensitive information being classified, but there certainly is a whole bunch of stuff being labeled as classified material mainly because it would be embarrassing if the information was disclosed.

The problem arises when we allow them to control the what is a secret and what isn't in the first place. We can't rely on the government to tell its people when it has done something wrong. If we don't rely on the government, then we are essentially back to leaking information to the public (in which case anyone can read it). Is there even a trustworthy middle ground here?

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814862)

What do you mean by "more"? The security measures for the flights inside USA are much more obtrusive than these which were for the flights inside USSR.

Re:Perhaps they should study the KGB? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815304)

"Speculating that the King of Saudi Arabia is an ass should not be considered an official secret."

Chilling Effects apply to diplomacy, not just whistleblowers.

I understand the Slashdot preference that all official communication be shouted from the rooftops and general hatred of government, but don't expect people charged with negotiation and alliance building to share those ideas.

Here is another suggestion... (2, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814504)

How about the United States do a house cleaning on their policies? And how about the United States go back to what the constitution was all about? Maybe then you would not need to worry about this crap! Oh wait that's too simple and all of the agencies would be out of a job. Can't have that now can we!

Re:Here is another suggestion... (1)

ego centrik (1971902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814532)

_agree here!

Don't tell any lies and you don't have to fear, hide or remember anything. Works very well in small communities, so why not in bigger ones. It's the baseline for an open minded dialog to face a future with upcoming problems you cannot hide.

Re:Here is another suggestion... (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814724)

Ha! Where is this magical place where there are no lies? Even in communities as small as two people there are plenty of lies. Not necessarily big, life-affecting lies, but certain small, keep-the-peace type lies.

Re:Here is another suggestion... (1)

ego centrik (1971902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814996)

_ the magical place is in my head. self-respect without pretending. did take years to act without lies even white ones. finally it works out like magic. originally the idea came from a "the streets" lyric + it says " don't tell any lies to her + you don't have to remember anything".

Re:Here is another suggestion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34815268)

You must be a real joy to live and work with then. You never tell another person "good to see you", when you really don't care? You never say "I don't care" when someone asks if you have a preference for lunch, even though you do care? You never give a person a false compliment just to brighten their day a little?

One Acronym, PCI DSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814538)

It's a standard used for credit card information that requires any computer on a secure network to have removable storage devices disabled (among other things). Having it implemented on the classified network would have prevented the WikiLeaks leak. Not having it implemented on the classified network borders on criminal negligence.

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/documents.php?category=saqs

Re:One Acronym, PCI DSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814812)

Classified networks do not connect to unclassified networks or other classified networks.

How are you supposed to move information to a classified network (or properly sanitized information from a classified network) if removable storage is disabled?

Re:One Acronym, PCI DSS (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814934)

Via printer on insecure and scanner on secure network, or keyboard (manual data entry).

the amount of classified information is astounding (5, Interesting)

nblender (741424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814596)

I do some work for a military contractor and the sheer amount of classified information that's flying around is simply beyond astounding... A lot of things that are banal and boring are marked Top Secret in order to prevent sub-contractors from hiring foreign workers... It's not that the information itself is or needs to be Top Secret but marking it so is a way to keep jobs local...

Re:the amount of classified information is astound (3, Informative)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815192)

Can't the armed forces make rules that subcontracted work cannot be exported out of the country? It's the same effect with less insanity. Hell, even if something like this needed congressional approval or a law of some sort, it's not as though it would be difficult to get it passed.

How about (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814608)

not doing things that would hang heavy on the conscience of people, causing them to leak stuff ? not betraying them ? not misusing their trust ?

then the need for finding 'trustworthy' people who would have to go through security audits, psychiatrists, sociologists, would be at a minimum.

we are not the age of empires in which dumb lackeys blindly do whatever they are ordered to. people of this age, have conscience compared to the dark ages. you wont be able to make them do evil shit, and then keep their mouth shut, if there is a way for them to blow the whistle.

but maybe the problem in the recruitment strategy. touting being a democracy that protects freedom, you recruit people to that cause, with patriotic lines. then, they discover that, what they do actually go against what they had had joined the force for .... basically, they are being deceived with shallow excuses and justifications.

only dumb enough people would buy bullshit. the rest, will leak, regardless of whether you employ armies of psychiatrists, or not.

Re:How about (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815236)

I've long thought military recruitment strategies were targeted at lesser brains...

Re:How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34815320)

I myself joined for those very reasons of promoting freedom and democracy. I truly believed the U.S. was the beacon of freedom that the rest of the world looked to for guidance. After 4 years of service in the military I am completely disillusioned. The very freedoms I thought I was defending, are being taken away from all of us by the people that are giving the orders. I just look at myself now as a pawn to some self interested bastards who don't give a shit about this country or the everyday people that make it a great place to live.

I swore an oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. If I ever decided to fulfill that oath to the absolute definition of it, I would be labeled a traitor and end up where PFC Manning is. I whole heartedly agree with your argument, because I find myself in the exact situation you have outlined.

Unclassified document (3)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814652)

From Wikipedia (which agrees with my military background)
Unclassified
Technically not a classification level, but is used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above. Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.

This document is at the same level as a menu from the kitchen of the White House. Show me documents with Noforn or better and then I'll be concerned.

They just don't get it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814654)

...post-WikiLeaks environment.

Because this sort of thing never happened before WikiLeaks? This just shows that all their security responses are purely reactive and never pro-active, just like the TSA. The threats have always existed, it just goes to show that whoever has been doing risk analysis for these agencies have been completely clueless and still doesn't get it. Although, if anything, by trying to fix the causes and just blaming Wikileaks there is the benefit of at least getting a stronger system which is why I agree with what Wikileaks did.

As effective as you'd expect (1)

naasking (94116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814702)

According to the document, these steps include figuring out which employees might be most inclined to leak classified documents, by using psychiatrists and sociologists to assess their trustworthiness.

Sure, as long as politicians submit to tests assessing their sanity, compassion. raionality and penchant to accumulate power and trample civil rights.

The memo also suggests that agencies require all their employees to report any contacts with members of the news media they may have.

Yes, because a leaker is going to report his own activities. All this does is punish who they consider the "honest" people. Which I suppose will just lead to more disgruntled workers, which is good for the people.

Re:As effective as you'd expect (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814946)

Sure, as long as politicians submit to tests assessing their sanity, compassion. rationality and penchant to accumulate power and trample civil rights.

Sure as long as these same politicians submit random drug and alcohol testing by an independent testing lab as well as public disclosure of their voting compared to their promises, disclosure of all banking accounts, disclosure of all relationships with members that are being regulated by the congress and let's not forget about attendance.
Most of the above mentioned requirements are made of every employed person, those that are not, are necessary due to the position of power these people have.

The Irony Overwhelms (4, Interesting)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814742)

From the summary...
"...these steps include figuring out which employees might be most inclined to leak classified documents, by using psychiatrists and sociologists to assess their trustworthiness. "

McCarthy, Stalin, and Mao would all be proud. Those who do not, fundamentally, "think right", will be treated... differently. Never mind the fact that screening of the type were talking about here has a dismal record at predicting behavior. It was designed to predict pathology. The two are, believe it or not, rather different things.

Re:The Irony Overwhelms (0)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814992)

Is it too much to expect people who took an oath to protect government secrets to abide by that oath?

Re:The Irony Overwhelms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34815082)

After 1945? Fuck yes, it is too much. Some people should stop sleeping in history class.

Re:The Irony Overwhelms (3, Insightful)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815264)

Is it reasonable to restrict people because the doctor/ideological officer says that they might break that oath because they are expressing unhappiness about work conditions or managment?
Thoughtcrimes, anyone?

comma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814746)

samzenpus, doesn't understand commas.

The next step for government.... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814836)

...and that is through making sure it is as homogenious as possible through the use of psychiatrists and sociologists to judge character. The government is of the people indeed.

News media contact (1)

terraformer (617565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814894)

The memo also suggests that agencies require all their employees to report any contacts with members of the news media they may have.

What happens when you are married to one, or related to one. You have to file a daily report or do they just fire these people. Manning got this because he had unfettered BULK access to information. Focus on how the technology works.

Problem Solved! (1)

blackbeak (1227080) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814904)

If the government sector continues to increase it's percentage of the total employment pie, soon there will be nobody outside of government to leak to. Problem solved!

I feel safer that the US cannot keep a secret (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814910)

in light of what Wikileaks has shown, the US Government is doing a lot of things that are not in the best interests of their Citizens.

News @... (1)

HogGeek (456673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814938)

U.S. Government hires the over educated, at below market rates, and wonders why they "leak", steal and sell at the drop of a hat on todays broadcast...

You call them psychiatrists and sociologists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34814964)

I call them inquisitors

Bad headline(and it's not just the comma) (1)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34814982)

If the source code for a super secret firewall program designed to protect secrets were leaked, THAT would be ironic. This is an unclassified memo.

You can't leak something that's not a secret (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34815012)

This document is CLEARLY marked UNCLASSIFIED.

Not FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (not for public consumption).
Not SECRET ( would cause "serious damage" to national security)
Not TOP SECRET ( would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security)

This is a non story.

US is turing into China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34815016)

Chinese govt has an internal "ideology/loyalty" police - that does wire-tapping, surveillance, interviews to ensure the party workers' loyalty to the Communist Party. This latest move to quash leaks is just another indicator that US govt is spiraling toward a Chinese-like control. Whereas Chinese capitalistic economic has exceeded US's model, the US's security/govt secrecy models is more and more like that of Chinese. Sad.....

This doesnt sound like a leak. (1)

Javajunk (1957446) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815022)

This sounds like a reassuring statement issued by the US, trying to say "look, We did have a problem, this is how we're fixing it" rather than a leak.
I cant see any negative side effect of the general public knowing that they plan to be more careful selecting who can see their their secret information.

Missing from the list: (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815106)

0. Stop classifying stuff that does not need to be secret.

He could just "grab a beer" (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815180)

Obama could just get all of them together and "grab a beer" and talk it out. seems to have worked for him in the past. LOL

Be a trustworthy Government (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815210)

And having trustworthy people takes care of itself.

Flaws (2)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815316)

"using psychiatrists and sociologists"

They must be 100% accurate, 100% of the time, or their advice is worthless.

"agencies require all their employees to report any contacts with members of the news media"

Maybe, just maybe, the person that leaks something will come up with a way around this rule. Like not reporting the contact.

takes care of itself (1)

dresses100 (1973356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815332)

takes care of itself

Backwards (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34815362)

Problem is, the kind of people who will pass such a test with flying colors are exactly the people who should not be given any kind of power - they are the people who do whatever is ordered. Give a psychopath money to do a dirty job and keep her mouth shut and she'll do it. Those are precisely the people that the public has an interest in keeping away from positions of power and authority. Eliminating the whistle blowers is eliminating the non-psychopaths.
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>