[MilCom] Re: RR.com and security issues

[Tom Swisher]

--- jeff <jeffv at op.net> wrote:

> I agree, but things are different these days. 
> Newspapers are getting hit for what they publish. 
> I don't know if it applies online also, but 
> you have to be aware that it's going on.

I should clarify/qualify my remarks, and this is going
to be pretty lengthy...

If the submitter determined the information via
monitoring, no one has broken any laws unless the
frequencies in question are specifically verboten, and
there isn't much the government can do, not to say
they wouldn't try. If, on the other hand, the person
who divulged the information received it through the
course of their duties and gave it out in violation of
a non-disclosure agreement, they are solely
responsible for that violation.

In such an instance, I don't believe the publisher of
the information can be forced to remove it, or held
liable, UNLESS it was known full well by the recipient
of the data that the information being provided was
classified.

Therein lies another angle to the story. Although most
will actively dispute the idea, news organizations do
bear some responsibility for security. In the course
of their investigative reporting, they are actively
seeking out government employees and obtaining
classified data from them under the guise of
"confidential source." This amounts to suborning a
violation of the law and could easily get the news
organization slapped with a conspiracy charge. But if
they don't publish the information, no one is the
wiser and security has only been partially compromised
(if you care to look at it that way).

However, in their zeal to scoop the other guy and sell
papers, sometimes they go too far and publish too much
information. In certain cases of government wrongdoing
(Watergate is a good example), perhaps the
confidential source business is a good idea; however,
when it wrongly gets the name of a CIA officer
released, thus endangering intelligence sources and
perhaps the life of that officer, the news
organization is going too far.

I personally believe strongly in the First Amendment
and the people's right to know. In our case, if it's
freely available through monitoring and the agencies
in question aren't using their encryption devices, I
would  fight any attempt to make me remove the
information. However, I'm not going to go out and
actively encourage someone to violate the law in order
to provide me with information.

If I do unknowingly end up with legitimate classified
information, obtained through monitoring, I might
consider a request to remove it, but I would also pose
some very pointed questions, in print, as to why the
agencies who shalt not be named are not using their
encryption devices. This would include pointed queries
to Congressional representatives.

If agencies wish for their comms to be secure, they
should invest in encryption technology. Period. There
is no excuse for not doing so.

Tom WA8PYR

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com