"Jim Backus" wrote in message
news:TpquPuPd0tCd-pn2-fi01iI13dd0j@localhost...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:09:44 UTC, "Oppie"
wrote:

I would assume that the military is even more particular about enforcing
the
chain of command and protecting classified information. Beats the heck
out
of me though that an Army Private would have the necessary credentials to
access and steal the range of documents that were released. Something in
the
network was either not properly secured or the Pvt was a good hacker. In
either case, it was not legal.


The key principle of security is 'need to know'. The way the story is
being told in the UK is that after the Sept 11 attack the US
government widened access to secret material to help fight terrorism.
So a reported 2,500,000 people have access to this material. I'm not
condoning the leaking of classified information but it does appear
that the US government that opened up access is largely responsible
for this material being available for leaking. It also seems to me
that classification is increasingly being used to save politicians
embarrassment instead of protecting vital information.
Over-classification is as much a problem as failing to protect the
real secrets.


I had forgotten about the need to share information initiative as a result
of 9/11. That makes sense then. Still, the military takes an oath of service
to the country (not sure of the exact wording - I had a high draft number
for the lottery). 'Service to the country' can have different meanings to
different folks (revolutions are always legal in the first person).