Does Security Glitch Mean Less Heat for Wikileaks?

Share/Save Share this

Wikileaks LogoThe Web site Wikileaks has been drawing criticism for publishing 90,000 classified documents about the war in Afghanistan, some of which reveal the names of Afghan citizens who have provided information to the U.S. The Obama Administration has said this could endanger the lives of those informants. But it turns out that prior to their publication, the documents had already been widely disseminated across a kind of Pentagon classified Internet called "SIPRNet," which makes information widely available within the defense and intelligence communities. SIPRNet was set up to encourage greater information-sharing among defense and intelligence agencies, according to former CIA director Michael Hayden. The posting of the classified documents on SIPRNet means the real identities of the Afghan sources were already available to thousands of people, albeit people who have security clearances themselves. The leak of the documents to Wikileaks calls into question the overall security of the system, and begs the question of whether Wikileaks has highlighted the failings of this system.

Comments

Uuuuhhh...SIPRNET is a

Uuuuhhh...SIPRNET is a secure network. Therefore that information was only made available to those who have access to the network, not the general public. Those people must have a security clearance to get access.

Sorry, I am not understanding the intent of the story.

I believe they are saying

I believe they are saying that even though it is required to have a security clearance to use SIPRNET that thousands of people who use it can leak information of the classification of that leaked in Wikileaks.

Uuuuhhh...SIPRNET is a

The original leaker had a top secret security clearance too. You starting to get the point now :)

Nope. Is the article trying

Nope. Is the article trying to defend Wikileaks?

It sounds to me like the article is saying this, 'Wikileaks is taking heat for info that was already widely available, so why the heat?' That argument makes no sense because the info was on a classified system.

If, on the other hand the article is saying that we have an issue with keeping classified info out of the public domain, I get it.

Sorry, I guess the article is kind of pointless to me. We got bigger fish to fry.

Thanks for the response.