re: "Wikileaks"

The Armorer at Castle Argghhh! gives a pretty professional assessment.

Money quote(s):

"I for one, am not stunned by what PFC Manning managed to get access to, as anyone with a modicum of ability with access to the SIPRnet can attest. The goodness from this will probably be quicker tightening of security within the classified networks, by the expanded institution of some simple-to-implement checks on the "need-to-know" side of things.

Access to classified information has two parts - clearance at the appropriate level, *and* need-to-know. All "clearance" does is vet that your life-to-date has been examined and there are no huge warning signs that you aren't trustworthy to be considered for access to defined levels of information."

"Manning clearly had access to things he had no "need-to-know" reason to be accessing. For those who have been operating in that environment there has been steady and stuttering-but-inexorable movement to stitching up those seams, all tempered by a real desire to make information available to people who need it without going through a huge number of hoops to get it in a timely fashion in a time of war."

&

"It has been an interesting look into the State Department's world, and how things going on behind the scenes oft-times have little bearing to what's happening on the public side of things, as all governments have reason to present a public face that differs from the private. Sausage-making isn't pretty, but there didn't strike me that there was/were horrible revelations in there. More of it was along the lines of, "Yep, okay, that doesn't surprise me." and "People still don't get that some things should be said face-to-face and not in potentially record communications." But I don't believe that exposing what amounts to working papers is a good idea."