If one cannot communicate private information without worrying about its release to the public, one may be pressured internally NOT to speak as one would wish.
So only in the case that all those conditions are met and the person we're talking about is embarrassed to the point where they'd rather shut up than speak out (in which case I'd call them a coward) does that come true.
That's skirting the edge of an ad-hominem attack, maybe even crossing the line. For someone of your stature that is a pretty bad example to set.
> whoever was charged with protecting this information was negligent, and whoever actually leaked it is responsible for their own actions.
Neither of those are Assange.
So, the new world we live in: if information is leaked it will instantly reach an audience of millions. Plan accordingly.
I'm not close to the scariest person breaking systems. And I'm appalled on a biweekly basis by what I can manage to get software to cough up. One person's "basic precaution" is another's "failure so spectacular it demands an example be made of its author".
You aren't OK with a world governed by the ethic you just alluded to. You're only OK with invoking it to make a haphazard argument.
I absolutely do place blame on the people charged with protecting the information that got leaked. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with WL's culpability.
The American Government and it's diplomatic services are currently being made an example of.
> You aren't OK with a world governed by the ethic you just alluded to.
That's an assumption.
> You're only OK with invoking it to make a haphazard argument.
I think it's pretty solid. If you are in charge of material that you deem important enough to stamp it 'secret' then you should take basic precautions, if you do not then you only have yourself to blame. Not locking your house is stupid, even if burglary is wrong.
> I absolutely do place blame on the people charged with protecting the information that got leaked.
Good.
> But that has nothing whatsoever to do with WL's culpability.
Indeed, it doesn't because as far as I know they're not culpable. The investigation in to the leak has so far been limited to those in the employ of the US government, and again, as far as I know wikileaks and its associates have not been charged with any crimes or even misdemeanors related to these leaks.
The 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' mantra cuts both ways. I don't agree with it when applied to the general public, and I just as much don't agree with it when applying it to the government. The difference is that I would expect the government to at least be somewhat capable when it comes to dealing with data that is deemed sensitive.
So maybe your point is that crypto is pointless because no matter what information will be leaked and therefore the recipients of the leaked data should have culpability but that is a world governed by an ethic that I'm not ok with.
Information security people in the US government were apparently negligent with information they were charged with protecting. But those people weren't information owners or stakeholders.
Not everybody that disagrees with you is incoherent.
> People who leave their front doors unlocked are not themselves responsible for burglary.
I agree with that and I would like to live in a society where that was true. However, the insurance company and the police in the region where I live consider living in an unlocked house reason enough to lay at least part of the blame with the owner of the premises, insurance companies respond to this by refusing to pay out, the police responds to this by saying they will not spend time investigating the case.
> Burglars are responsible for buglary.
Yes, they are, they are the perpetrators. But locking your door makes it harder for burglars to do their deeds. We also have a proverb here that illustrates some of the culpability of the keeper of the resource, 'the opportunity creates the thief'. Not giving people opportunities significantly cuts down on the risk.
> Information security people in the US government were apparently negligent with information they were charged with protecting.
And not for the first time. They also support leaking information when it suits their purposes, such as the Valerie Plame scandal.
> But those people weren't information owners or stakeholders.
I have no knowledge of that.
Of course, in the real world, "unlocked door" is as moot a point as "properly encrypted data". The people you really worry in the city about just take a cinderblock to your doors and windows (our car and garage doors are never locked for exactly that reason), and the people you really worry about online don't care what you did to encrypt your data, because they already own your kernel.
The end points can be encrypted by every techonology imaginable, that only prevents people who shouldn't be able to access the data from accessing it.
The guy who leaked this stuff was granted access to it. He had the passwords to open everything he leaked, so the problem is not (a possible) lack of encryption but the fact that he was able to access so much without anyone noticing. He seemingly downloaded more files than one person could read in a year, how was this not noticed?
Encryption works fine for trusted communication, but it's not a solution when the people posting the information are also potential valid recipients.
Eventually it will hit the street and eventually it will be abused, you can pretty much count on it.
That's also the reason why I have yet to get a new passport because I don't think the government should have my fingerprints on file, given their history with respect to data loss and internal abuse cases.