Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DDOS Ethics
f0dder:
Once again, the drawing talents of the marvelous Mr. Fish helps put it all in perspective:-40hz (December 13, 2010, 03:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's pretty awesome, 40hz.
40hz:
^Yeah.. his real name is Dwayne Boothe.
His stuff just slays me sometimes. :Thmbsup:
Stoic Joker:
Gotta fix the quote tags on that last one man, I'm gonna have a hell of a time trying to stitch this back together.
These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.-wraith808
--- End quote ---
It's an analogy, not a direct reference. The point being if you don't want to risk being quoted on something, don't say it.
In the interest of full disclosure all internal correspondence are to be stored for a period of time just in case they need to be reviewed by a committee of unknown people. So, tossing derogatory comments about foreign dignitaries around (which was "the rub" according to the main stream news reports) in that atmosphere is really pretty dumb ... As there is no actual expectation-of-privacy.-Stoic Joker (December 12, 2010, 12:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
I understand the incorrect analogy (;)), it's just that it's incorrect.-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 08:47 AM)
--- End quote ---
Just because you missed the connection doesn't mean it's not there. :)
Drunken ramblings tend to be a bit too honest (tactless) - Which the commentary was (according to the story). And they tend to be a bit too sure of their surroundings (as in the-walls-have-ears) - Expectation of privacy being a foolish notion with certain types of information. Like the type of information that may, at some time, need to be read aloud in some committee hearing. Solely because it was available-to-be-read because it was stored electronically, according to policy, for a small eternity.
Never make a record of something that you can't destroy if the situation calls for it.
Now back in the Good Ol' Days, before idiots were allowed to use computers, any truly sensitive information dealing with a confidential source that was written down used a code name for the purpose of protecting said sources identity (Like Deep-Throat from Watergate - What was his real name?) ... Just in case it got found or confiscated.
The secrets game is just that, a game. And a damn dangerous one at that. It's not a bunch of frumpy old women at a coffee clutch who have to state their sources to lend credence to their tales of gossip. Once you decide to be a source you become a commodity pawn in a large game where you could easily be traded for another more tantalizing piece of information. Or you could just trust the wrong person who doesn't handle your identity in an appropriate fashion and blabs in an indiscreet manner. There is no guarantee of privacy on a corporate network. There are measures in place, there are policies, there are all the best of intentions ... But There Are NO Guarantees.
Now as far as what if anything was gained from said leakage... I've not a clue. It could be nothing, it could be the staff in DC learn that loose lips sink ships in glass houses.
@40Hz - Love the cartoon!
wraith808:
Gotta fix the quote tags on that last one man, I'm gonna have a hell of a time trying to stitch this back together.
These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.-wraith808
--- End quote ---
It's an analogy, not a direct reference. The point being if you don't want to risk being quoted on something, don't say it.
In the interest of full disclosure all internal correspondence are to be stored for a period of time just in case they need to be reviewed by a committee of unknown people. So, tossing derogatory comments about foreign dignitaries around (which was "the rub" according to the main stream news reports) in that atmosphere is really pretty dumb ... As there is no actual expectation-of-privacy.-Stoic Joker (December 12, 2010, 12:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
I understand the incorrect analogy (;)), it's just that it's incorrect.-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 08:47 AM)
--- End quote ---
Just because you missed the connection doesn't mean it's not there. :)
Drunken ramblings tend to be a bit too honest (tactless) - Which the commentary was (according to the story). And they tend to be a bit too sure of their surroundings (as in the-walls-have-ears) - Expectation of privacy being a foolish notion with certain types of information. Like the type of information that may, at some time, need to be read aloud in some committee hearing. Solely because it was available-to-be-read because it was stored electronically, according to policy, for a small eternity.
Never make a record of something that you can't destroy if the situation calls for it.
Now back in the Good Ol' Days, before idiots were allowed to use computers, any truly sensitive information dealing with a confidential source that was written down used a code name for the purpose of protecting said sources identity (Like Deep-Throat from Watergate - What was his real name?) ... Just in case it got found or confiscated.
The secrets game is just that, a game. And a damn dangerous one at that. It's not a bunch of frumpy old women at a coffee clutch who have to state their sources to lend credence to their tales of gossip. Once you decide to be a source you become a commodity pawn in a large game where you could easily be traded for another more tantalizing piece of information. Or you could just trust the wrong person who doesn't handle your identity in an appropriate fashion and blabs in an indiscreet manner. There is no guarantee of privacy on a corporate network. There are measures in place, there are policies, there are all the best of intentions ... But There Are NO Guarantees.
Now as far as what if anything was gained from said leakage... I've not a clue. It could be nothing, it could be the staff in DC learn that loose lips sink ships in glass houses.
-Stoic Joker (December 13, 2010, 06:12 PM)
--- End quote ---
Still not a direct analogy. These people have to share information for the purposes of doing their jobs- it's not just a game of gossip at the company party. Wasn't that one of the main criticisms that were leveled after 9/11? That they didn't share information? And now that they are, we're saying that they're wrong for it? It's classified for a reason- it's not supposed to be shared. And as I said, knowing this, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I don't think that Assange broke this expectation- whomever gave him the documents did. Once that happened, it was up to his moral compass to decide what to do with it. But whomever did break the contracts that they signed to allow them to have access to this documentation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Renegade:
Once again, the drawing talents of the marvelous Mr. Fish helps put it all in perspective:
(see attachment in previous post)
-40hz (December 13, 2010, 03:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
Simply awesome~! A wonderful analogy.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version