(Page 2 of 2)
"If I'm in the government and charged with plugging holes or catching leaks over the long term, my attention is going to turn to watermarking," says Jonathan Zittrain, founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and an Internet law professor there. "It wouldn't take much effort within the government to personalize a document to identify its recipient," so that this person could be identified if they later leaked that document.
Zuckerman adds that it's also probably safe to say that the basic cryptography that's widely used on the Internet--automatically deployed on banking websites and others via Web addresses that start with "https"--is also fairly secure. "It's impossible to say whether [the National Security Agency] has broken them, but most people who aren't unhealthily paranoid tend to believe that if [encryption] were badly broken ... we'd see theft of credit-card information on a massive scale."
While the outcome of Holder's investigation is hard to predict, it's a safe bet that the saga will result in an overhaul of how the government protects information. In addition to using watermarking, government agencies could adapt existing digital-rights-management technologies.
Such technologies can perform various tasks that might be relevant: generally, they can identify when the same computer is downloading voluminous amounts of material, restrict downloading to authorized users, and stop users from copying or passing restricted files to other computers. For example, a song purchased and downloaded onto one iPod in a protected format cannot easily and legally be transferred to other iPods.
"If you think about the technology of digital-rights management: How is it that the recording industry is able to hang on to the stuff in a way that the military can't?" says John Pike, director of Global Security.org, the national security think tank. "It's hard to understand."
Successors to WikiLeaks are springing up, but they face a range of obstacles.
Information shared with troops may be restricted.
Wonderful instrument to frame a competitor
If a document will be watermarked will be watermarked for recipient by a sender - then the system needs to be very complex to secure against local exploit for abuse (i.e. sender leaking the recipient's document to frame them). If a document will be watermarked upon arrival then the system needs to be even more complex to secure against the local exploit for interception (i.e. receiver getting hands on a yet-to-be-watermarked copy). And complex stuff is never reliable.
ha! thats all i can really say at this point in time, i find this a bit worrisome and rather hilarious all at the same time...
Mr. Talbot, the person who sent all those classified documents to Wikileaks is no simple whistle-blower. She/he is a criminal and you shouldn't elevate him/her with a misplaced "whistle-blower" meme. Those of us who have access to our nation's secrets have sworn an oath not to disclose those secrets and understand the penalties that go with unauthorized disclosure. If we cheapen that oath by excusing criminal conduct as some sort of noble "whistle-blowing" we put our national security and the lives of those who defend us at risk.
I think you're mixing up the criminals here. When a government lies to it's people then they are the criminals. Perhaps you're too young to remember Vietnam and Daniel Ellsberg. Daniel is applauding this revelation. Sam
So you defend your assertion that the current Wikileaks disclosure is a noble deed by citing the previous seditious acts of a loony octogenarian?
We are a nation of laws that must be respected in order for that nation to survive. When one person, whether it be Daniel Ellsberg or PFC Manning, decides to unilaterally disclose classified information, that person undermines all the judicial and legislative checks we, the people, have over the actions of a bad executive. I have enough gray on my head to know that.
there is nothing intrinsically sacred about information deemed "secret" by the government. The sprawling mess that is our system of classifying information is well documented.
When information is deemed secret for political purposes, as might be the case with some of the leaked documents, then shooting the messenger under the rubric of "national security" and "lives are endangered" betrays what we are supposed to be about: an informed citizenry participating democratically to shape policy based on facts at hand.
You are correct in your assessment that there is nothing particularly "sacred" about classified information -- but you miss the point altogether. This isn't so much about what bits of data are disclosed, though in publishing something today it is instantly available to our enemies. This is about something much more important over the long haul: a person's sacred honor and his/her duty to keep the secrets with which they were entrusted and swore an oath to protect. No matter whether they like the secrets or not. A PFC (or some disillusioned hippie schmuck) is in no position to declassify or disclose our nation's secrets. Period.
I will not argue that there is a tendency to overclassify information in the military. I'm certain I did my share of it during my 25-year career. I suspect, at least on my part and from what I gathered from others, that overclassification is to some degree a response to the media and mindless fops like Julian Assange who have little or no restraint or decency in what they'll publish... and little care for the fallout from publishing it.
Based on the volume of materials released, it must have been mailed to WikiLeaks in a CD. In this case watermarks and encrypted identifiers might be available to track the source. Otherwise, Homeland Security may be storing web traffic everyday and scouring the contents for terrorist 'chatter'. If they keep the records for over a month period then it may be very easy to track down the perpetraitor.
It is simply not that clear cut - there is more to this than just the oath the person took.
I do understand chain of command, and the necessity to safeguard secrets - second guessing orders is always a serious problem one way or another.
On the other hand, you have the nuremberg defense. you would be duty bound to act if the nature of the secrets you safeguard are an egregious violation of the constitutional principals we live by. I don't know how bad it is in this case - i haven't read all the dox ;-) but systematic lying to the public about how the war is going is criminal. seriously criminal.
Maybe the leaker is a publicity whore and maybe he/she was so disturbed by the level of deception and lawbreaking that they could not keep silent - I hope we find out the truth.
Personally, i am appalled by the lies that were the basis of, and continue to sustain, this war. We now find ourselves with nothing but bad choices to support decisions which should never have been made.
So yes, some oath breaking is in order. Or we will get more of the same - over and over.
It doesn't really need to be said, but just to be explicit - I'm not a liberal who thinks there is no enemy. there is - but the war in iraq/afghanistan sure as f**k isn't the answer.
If you call your criminal conducts your national secrets, obscuring those behind your oaths, you are no less than obnoxious nations and no less than Jewish practices. Understanding the term NOBLE is way beyond your imagination then.
discovery or not, the victims of the recent Pakistani aircraft disaster won't be coming back anytime in the near future....now if cloning was understood well enough...crates full of body parts would have a chance to return a generation from now to their bereaved loved ones....a pity the offbeat spiritualists, tying laces of both shoes together...Wikitwits and Wikiwiks don't make wiki knits
The information leaked is already well known to those who read the newspapers.
So, saying the usa lies, is misplaced and agenda driven, and of no value. good thing these people did not exist during WWII.
Oh Yeah, read yesterday, 25 civilians were murdered by troops by blowing up a bus. Surely this is a hateful crime of greed, power and lust for violence....designed on purpose to kill civilians,
We must have war crime investigations and strong penalities for those responsible. Not to mention the imperialistic leaders that propagated this crime.... the UN must investigate and immediate action is necessary...
USA Army? Noooooo,... NO THIS ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE TALIBAN.
People talk about the government as if it is some alien entity running the US. The people running the government are full blooded Americans just like you and I. They have been either elected by votes or have been promoted by the system. They are tasked with the great responsibility to make the difficult decisions and carry out the dirty work to defend the American way of life--freedom and security. In war, just like driving a car, there will be unintended side effects and consequences but the American system--if you believe in it--will guide those in charge to ensure that mistakes are reduced or eliminated. But in time of war the government's task is to win a war not to appease some crybabies who can't handle the truth but keep clamoring for them. What rights do they have for knowing every info about the war and every details about the battles? They should consider themselves lucky to have rights that they don't have to grow beards or wear burqa if they don't want, or sing any songs they like and not limited to two. Lets leave Aghanistan so that it could become a haven for AlQuaida and they can launch waves of attacks on Western societies. Who will those people blame then? People's rights may be unalienable and free to some but to some others it comes from sacrifice in blood.
The gentleman who is head of Wikileaks is an Australian amateur. He has spoken out against the war before. His country was not attacked and its citizens jumping out of two flaming skyscrapers to escape the flames the way it was on 9-11. He is trying to satiate his fashionable agenda by revealing these sensitive information no matter the potential cost in human lives similar to a crybaby slamming its head against the wall to gain attention.
The internet should be doubly linked so documents can be traced to the originator.
Sir, your well mannered tone does conceal some of the very far right policies it alludes to. I will not discourse with similar tenderness, but instead just right out point to the Fascism, as it was very skillfully, and maybe ingenuously, put by you. You have characterized an autocratic regime, in which few must know, and have the trust of the people in fear of loosing some precious "right". You have characterized yourself as a supporting fascist, and pointed to a whole Nation basically saying "Let us not loose focus, fellow fascists, victory is at sight", now with a bit o drama. I think the questions that all Americans should be asking are "What am I really supporting, and what does that makes me?" and "How does the rest of the world sees me, as an American?" If sought with a investigative mind, the answers will shock many.
I went to vote for the presidential and congressional candidates in the last Presidential Election, but was too lazy to go vote for the local elections. Now I find out that the government is really a fascist and autocratic government. Shocking!
Many people simply fail to understand how much effort the military puts in making as much information as possible available to the public. The problem is that many news agencies don't care about distributing informations as much as a good story. What wikileaks has done is gotten a hold of information pulled out of context, the reader has no concept of the full story, yet believes themselves justified in drawing conclusions and distributing accusations. If you truly have a burning desire to know what is going on, and to know these secrets go down to your local enlistment office and sign up, you might gain a unique perspective.
Also, think about this. The US military employs very expensive high tech weapons designed to minimize collateral damage. We pay a lot of money to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Now, do you think the people we are fighting over there do the same? No, they employ cheap weapons designed to end as many lives as possible per $. When people fail to understand the context behind information certain agencies can take significant advantage of sensitive information by portraying it in whatever way will net the biggest response from the public, regardless of where that response will lead.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
jorgejch
7 Comments
DRM and Society
We'll I certainly hope we find new ways to crack DRM technologies, not Tor. The Afghan logs are one more example of the immeasurable need of anonymity and courageous organizations such as Wikileaks for a shot at a more transparent world, were war crimes are not cowardly hidden at some pentagon data server.
Reply
tazdelaney
10 Comments
Re: DRM and Society
so agreed. as jefferson said, "any government which makes a policy of long keeping secrets from its own public is no longer working in the interests of the people." and also jefferson, "onnly criminals and tyrants require secrecy." and what we have long had here in the land of fiefdom and demockery is both criminals and tyrants ruling from wall street to brainwashington.
if i had my way, every grisly secret of every government, religio or corporation would be spread across the world and let the chips fall where they may. nothing vaporizes a vampire like exposure to sunlight!
Reply