There are finite encryption codes and when one considers how fast computers work it is odd to consider there is any security at all.
The only way there is cyber security is for a bank of computers or one computer to be used offline. As long as there are 'personnel' made responsible for security there will always be those that don't believe it is important.
The 'elements' that play into some strange 'idea' of cyber security are too many to guarantee any isolation from the rest of the world.
So, today The Guardian is the latest hero, while the man that tried to end wars is on trial. This entire idea of having a government records online and it will be impenetrable is about as stupid as it comes.
By Jared Feldschreiber
Jun 03, 2013 11:19 AM EDT
...Manning said that he passed (click here) on information that both "upset" or "disturbed" him but reiterated that he did not give anything he thought would harm the United States if it were made public.
"I believed if the public was aware of the data, it would start a public debate of the wars," he told the court.
Adrian Lamo, a former hacker turned in Manning, when he learned about the leaking of record. In the statement to the court, Manning said he initially contacted newspapers The Washington Postand The New York Times to provide information. When he was unable to speak to anyone directly, he then gave the material to Wikileaks.
While some deemed Manning as a traitor, even a threat to U.S. national security, he is also seen as a hero, many of whom rallied for him outside Fort Meade on Monday.
"People came from great distances to stand with a true American hero. From Bradley's demeanor in court, it's clear he takes strength from the outpouring of support," Jeff Paterson, director of the Bradly Manning Support Network said.
Some see him as necessary whistle-blower to confront the U.S. military's apparatus, including Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked what became known as the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. Those papers documented the government's systematic misleading of the public about American involvement in the Vietnam War....
There have been government leaks since there have been governments, cyber or otherwise. To think there is some kind of absolute security that will protect citizens from any false claims by their government is about as ridiculous as it comes.
In the early weeks after September 11th a Pakistani man died in a prison in New Jersey because of medical neglect. The government literally rounded up people and put them in cells. Did anyone care? Hell, no. Just one of those things, he was in the "W"rong place at the wrong time. The reason this level of stupidity exists, no different than Japanese internment camps, is because there is the 'mind think' that the government has to have control over everything in order to have a nation. Tell that to Iraq.
If a person is too scared to venture on the internet for fear of 'being caught,' consider yourself caught before you do it.
If Google, Facebook and others were cooperative with the USA government to obtain data, why did they? What was their incentive to cooperate. The fact of the matter is the data on social media is always available, it is simply easier to have it provided in lump sums in a way the government subscribes to the form of the information. Personal e-mail will never be secure. If one writes to another than the thoughts are out there. Everyone needs to decide for themselves how they want their thoughts transferred and if cyber leaks are the most disturbing sense of that reality, then don't do it. Just that simple.
It is like smoking cigarettes, if you don't want the health risk then don't do it.
What worries more than anything else though, is that media thinks they have the godly assignment to take information and distribute it at all regardless of the danger to citizens.
Ellsberg never put anyone at risk unless it was a political interest, but, that didn't stop the AP, hell it was only a few million people over the outcome of an election.
Manning never endangered anyone. He was a whistleblower. There were no CIA agents embedded with al Qaeda involved, but, yet he stands trial after years of incarceration for protecting the USA from more war without end.
Either a country of people can trust their government or they can't. You can say the same thing about your spouse and "The Clap.'
If a person is too scared to venture on the internet for fear of 'being caught,' consider yourself caught before you do it.
If Google, Facebook and others were cooperative with the USA government to obtain data, why did they? What was their incentive to cooperate. The fact of the matter is the data on social media is always available, it is simply easier to have it provided in lump sums in a way the government subscribes to the form of the information. Personal e-mail will never be secure. If one writes to another than the thoughts are out there. Everyone needs to decide for themselves how they want their thoughts transferred and if cyber leaks are the most disturbing sense of that reality, then don't do it. Just that simple.
It is like smoking cigarettes, if you don't want the health risk then don't do it.
What worries more than anything else though, is that media thinks they have the godly assignment to take information and distribute it at all regardless of the danger to citizens.
Ellsberg never put anyone at risk unless it was a political interest, but, that didn't stop the AP, hell it was only a few million people over the outcome of an election.
Manning never endangered anyone. He was a whistleblower. There were no CIA agents embedded with al Qaeda involved, but, yet he stands trial after years of incarceration for protecting the USA from more war without end.
Either a country of people can trust their government or they can't. You can say the same thing about your spouse and "The Clap.'
