In the communications world, there is always a struggle between those who believe that all information is and should be public, (many "hactivists" fall into this category), and those who think that all information should be under lock and key. And then there are those in the middle, who can appreciate the great benefits of open architectures and the resiliency of public knowledge, yet also appreciate the intricacies of information and operational security.
Furthermore, privacy in an age of swift and easy access to personal information is a constant challenge. The internet was founded with the emphasis on availability instead of security. This makes the challenge of providing information security that much harder. Furthermore, in the RF realm, it is assumed that all transmissions can and are intercepted, (though there are mitigating tools such as control of radiation beam and encryption of data which can limit the probability of intercept or compromise of confidentiality of the transmitted information).
There is a huge difference between the freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of the United States by the First Amendment to our Constitution, (of speech, of the press, of exercise of religion, and of assembly and petition) and the requirement for security of both government and privately owned information. Basically, if you have ownership rights to a piece of information, you can't be restricted in the dissemination of that information. This extends to matters of conscience and faith, which cannot be adjudicated by a civil court, because they are determined at the spiritual level and are only fully vetted postmortem. The other category of information is that which one has been given stewardship of, but not ownership. Those who have stewardship of the information that belongs to another, be it private, classified or copyrighted must honor the data owner's right to determine the audience and use of that information. That is where the Information Security industry has made its niche, as the trusted protector of the rights of individuals and organizations to determine for themselves the correct usage and dissemination of their information and knowledge. Thus, it reinforces the freedom of speech and of the press, by ensuring that the rights of the speaker or publisher are protected against compromise or corruption, and that the information that is communicated does so as the sender intends, to whom he or she intends, in the manner in which he intended, and is not corrupted or used in a manner other than he intends.
Furthermore, privacy in an age of swift and easy access to personal information is a constant challenge. The internet was founded with the emphasis on availability instead of security. This makes the challenge of providing information security that much harder. Furthermore, in the RF realm, it is assumed that all transmissions can and are intercepted, (though there are mitigating tools such as control of radiation beam and encryption of data which can limit the probability of intercept or compromise of confidentiality of the transmitted information).
There is a huge difference between the freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of the United States by the First Amendment to our Constitution, (of speech, of the press, of exercise of religion, and of assembly and petition) and the requirement for security of both government and privately owned information. Basically, if you have ownership rights to a piece of information, you can't be restricted in the dissemination of that information. This extends to matters of conscience and faith, which cannot be adjudicated by a civil court, because they are determined at the spiritual level and are only fully vetted postmortem. The other category of information is that which one has been given stewardship of, but not ownership. Those who have stewardship of the information that belongs to another, be it private, classified or copyrighted must honor the data owner's right to determine the audience and use of that information. That is where the Information Security industry has made its niche, as the trusted protector of the rights of individuals and organizations to determine for themselves the correct usage and dissemination of their information and knowledge. Thus, it reinforces the freedom of speech and of the press, by ensuring that the rights of the speaker or publisher are protected against compromise or corruption, and that the information that is communicated does so as the sender intends, to whom he or she intends, in the manner in which he intended, and is not corrupted or used in a manner other than he intends.
In light of the NSA leak... I'm very saddened that the guy did it. He billed himself as a whistle blower and a martyr, but he violated the trust that was placed in him. There are other ways of dealing with issues without breaking the trust which has been granted you. Secrets are secured for validated reasons.
ReplyDeleteSnowden has billed himself as anyone but a saint (not necessarily just "a Christian") would bill himself. Some of what he published should indeed have been published--Judge Andrew Napolitano opines on Fox that the conflict was not between his NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) and his conscience but between his NSA allegiance and his oath to uphold the Constitution--but throwing it to the press is a method of last resort when issues like this come up. Snowden used it, by all appearances, as a first resort. One should not trust the Fourth Estate any more than the Second or Third--or even the First, as often as not.
ReplyDeleteRight problem, Ed Snowden. Wrong solution.
("Estates of the Realm" as they were called, were in order Church, Nobility (or Government), and Commoners, to which was added the "fourth estate" of the Press.)