WikiLeaks makes diplomacy difficult, says UN head

[struggle4progress]

Source: AP via Jerusalem Post

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
12/18/2010 05:44

Ban Ki-moon: World must find way to respect privacy of senior officials; alleged US document leaker's lawyer claims mistreatment of client.

UNITED NATIONS— UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday stated that WikiLeaks' release of US diplomatic documents will make the conduct of business, and especially diplomacy, "very difficult."

On Nov. 29, The Guardian newspaper in Britain published a document dated July 2009 instructing US officials to gather intelligence about Ban and other top UN officials and diplomats, including technical details on communication systems, biometric information, as well as credit card and frequent-flyer numbers.

At a new conference Friday, Ban said he is "quite transparent" but that there must be a way to respect the confidentiality of doing business as secretary-general or in any other senior position ...

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=199961

[Tunkamerica]

1. with diplomacy like this...

[JDPriestly]

2. We would all like to have our privacy respected, especially

in our e-mail and phone interactions and when we post and search things on the web.

Very few people pose a danger to others.

So, why does Ban limit his plea for respect for privacy to the "senior" diplomats? We should all enjoy the same privacy that the State Department wants to enjoy. We aren't doing nearly the wrongs that those in senior leadership positions do.

Good heavens! We don't have the means to do the kinds of evil that some of our "senior" leadership does. I can't order troops in or out of another country. I can't snoop other people's e-mails or personal business. I don't monitor people's bank accounts. Only the people in "senior" positions can do those things.

Do, it's not the privacy of the people in "senior" positions that is jeopardized most of the time. It's the privacy of those of us who have to go through security at airports, etc.

What nonsense.

[gateley]

4. +1

[cosmicone]

6. +1000 n/t

[boppers]

7. Privacy? Really?

When people exchange data in public venues, like the internet (or SIPRNET), and expect privacy, something is either broken about people understanding privacy, or understanding networks.

If you pass notes in school, if you post a web page, if you do anything where you go public with data, and somehow give it to others to handle, you risk your privacy.

[struggle4progress]

9. SIPRNET is not "a public venue"

[boppers]

11. It's public to all SIPRNET participants.

So, I once joined a "private chat" listserv, for dealing with alcohol use.

When a guy confessed, online, to murdering his wife and child, he was shocked that it wasn't "private".

Once it's on a network, it's not private. It's public. If you cannot control the possible recipients, that makes it public, in my mental framework.

[Tunkamerica]

14. phonetaps without warrants the same? Anytime you talk it's public? Anyone who's not you?

what about thoughts? have you gotten there yet?

[boppers]

20. Orwell didn't know about internet data.

This conversation, for example, is public.

And archived.

Archives are up for editing... and changing.

Did you know the Taliban were pissed about 9/11?

[bitchkitty]

26. You could say the same about Bradley Manning/Julian Assange

How can they be charged with passing secure information, when it wasn't secure?

[former9thward]

30. Because it is classified.

Whether it is "secure" or not passing classified information is a crime. Someone in Manning's position would have known that because of documents he signed before he was given access to the information.

[bitchkitty]

31. MIllions had access to that information.

That's not classified, honey. Not even the military is so STUPID as to think so. At least, I don't think they can be that stupid, can they?

[former9thward]

32. Honey, it was. But live in what ever fantasy helps you out.

[bemildred]

40. They can be that stupid, it's easy, it's the way to bet, it's what following orders is all about. nt

[EFerrari]

15. Right -- it's a small private network with millions of users.

[boppers]

21. Well said.

Of millions, what's the chance of a leak? One in a million?

Oops.

[Pavulon]

41. Just because a girl is passed out, does no mean you can take advantage.

just because a network is poorly secured does not mean you can legally steal. Decisions have consequences.

[JDPriestly]

43. If you want to keep a secret, you don't tell it to very many people.

It is just common sense. You are right that the fact that something is widely disseminated doesn't mean that a person can take advantage.

But the fact is that the person who wants to keep the secret should weigh how well he needs to secure it, just how carefully he needs to prevent the secret from being shared by how important it is to him to keep it.

It's like with money. When someone asks you for money, you have to ask yourself how much of a risk to you it would be to loan or give it to the person. You don't give or loan something to someone if you don't think they will make good use of it. You don't loan something if you don't think the person to whom you loan it will give it back.

The Wikileaks files were too widely disseminated.

And, by the way, having read some books about espionage during WWII, I do not believe that what I have seen exposed by Wikileaks is really all that secret. It's mostly rehashing of published news with some conjecture and gossip thrown in. Interesting but far certainly not our vital secrets.

[boppers]

50. So, the US Government gets how many girls passed out?

A quarter of a million? Many more?

And then cries foul that they're being taken advantage of?

[NavyDem]

37. I'm glad someone gets it...n/t.

[Tunkamerica]

23. No one expects privacy on a message board, but they do in a private correspondence like email.

To say that email shouldn't be private because it is possible to read it is like saying paper mail shouldn't be private because you can just open it, phone calls shouldn't because the technology exists to tap phone lines... It kind of misses the point of privacy. If there were no way to invade privacy then we wouldn't need the right.

[boppers]

34. Do you think the mail carriers can't read post cards?

If you want privacy, you should put things in envelopes, rather than just putting it on post cards that anybody with access to them can read.

[NavyDem]

36. Good Analogy...

SIPRNET uses encryption and access is granted only to cleared personnel who have undergone background investigations. Foreign nationals are NOT granted access to SIPRNET.

Encryption + clearance = "Envelope"

[Pavulon]

42. It does not work with the information should be free crowd.. We should all be able

to have access to fire control for the tridents, makes perfect sense to that gaggle. The location of SSBN's should be public domain, and the procedure to arm fuse and fire a w8x warhead should be on wikipedia. Information is power man..

You can't stand in the way of freedom.

[NavyDem]

44. A Challenge...

Those who believe that they should have free access to classified government documents, should give me their full bank account information, social security number, and pins/passwords to all accounts for which they access any kind of information system. Damn, suddenly there is a reason to protect such information.

If you think there should be no government secrets, you should fully support not having any of your own. Live your life like an open book.

Edit: I do not want anyone to actually provide data as discussed above. I just want to point out that people do not want to release information about themselves that might potentially be damaging. Think about it. If you emailed your parent or spouse and spoke about your employer in a bad light, would you want someone with access to that information to steal it, and post it publicly?

[boppers]

49. I live an open life, with some caveats.

I don't post my SSN or passwords, but last I checked, there were more documents on the internet by, and about, me, than leaked State Department Cables. For three years (before I switched ISP's), I had a webcam in my living room with no access control. I've lived this way for ten years now, assuming *everything* I said, or did, was logged. (Which came in quite handy when I was getting probed about writing security software with high-profile clients.)

I'm not ashamed of any of my life, perhaps that's the difference. Privacy is needed for those recovering from trauma (think raped children, and the criminal records that lead to them), because they have reason to fear being shamed.

[NavyDem]

51. Seems we might be on the same page.

The SSN is a good example. When I speak of damage, I am referring to things such as identity theft, or monetary loss as a result of the exposure.

I'm not at all ashamed of my life. That being said, there are still things that I consider to be off limits to people that do not know me. I don't have too much a problem with what Wikileaks is doing, but do not feel the same way about PVT Manning, should he be found guilty of stealing and releasing classified documents. The whole whistle-blower defense goes out the window with any evidence of a release that did not directly pertain to illegal acts committed by the government or any of its representatives.

[boppers]

54. I believe you are correct.

The documents that don't detail crimes are different than those that do, and different privacy levels are appropriate for each.

[boppers]

48. Nobody's risked that kind of data.

Personality assessments aren't launch codes, and comparing the two is flawed.

[boppers]

47. Per-message encryption is an envelope.

Checking postal workers (or intelligence agents) and then giving them the access to all those messages was a serious blunder.

[NavyDem]

52. Not necessarily.

Postal workers (as an example) are entrusted with hundreds if not thousands of pieces of letter mail. Should they open the envelopes and read the contents, they have committed a crime. With post cards, they may be able to read them but that does not mean that they should. Private conversations are generally not conducted on post cards. To carry this example to SIPRNET, it's quite simple. The SIPRNET is a classified encrypted network that is a closed system (thus my description of the envelope). When you've taken the letters out of the envelope, you have violated the law.

On an unclassified network, do you use encrytpion and digital signatures for each email you send? The bulk of people do not. Still there is the expection of privacy in those communications.

[boppers]

55. If you encrypt on the network level, but not on the message level, you've defeated the encryption.

It's Enigma all over again, where key access defeats an entire system.

WRT public networks, (which you refer to as "expection of privacy in those communications"), I encrypt and sign private messages, which occur once every year or so. I also split deliver content as needed.

I have no expectation of privacy on port 25, 110, or 143.... and 80 is just giggle-worthy.

[NavyDem]

56. Possibly

However, in order to obtain that key, it would have to be stolen or otherwise provided. It changes on a regular basis, and a digital key using various digital encryption devices to protect the secured data channel. As with any type of encryption system, if a private key is compromised or stolen, the encryption can be broken or at least decrypted. In the case of a closed system, the exploiter would have to have a way to tap into the system, and also have the encryption keys to read the traffic.

On public networks, yes you can sign and encrypt email, but in most cases (not all) you will still be sending over port 25 (SMTP), and recieving access to your mailbox through port 110 (POP3) or 143 (IMAP). If your message is intercepted and the interceptor has access to your key-pair, your message is going to be able to be read. Granted, it's not going to be so simple to accomplish as described, but it is also not impossible.

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. Ha Ha, UN!

too fucking bad :)

[struggle4progress]

10. You find it hilarious, huh?

[Tunkamerica]

16. I think the joke is that now they all know Clinton wants their DNA and frequent flyer miles.

Kojack haircuts and nails to the quick. No cigarettes and drink out of containers you take with you.

[struggle4progress]

17. Nah. It was boilerplate CIA wishlist added to cables in the Bush era; diplomats routinely ignored it

Diplomats ignored spying requests, former officials say
December 2, 2010, 2:59 p.m

... Cables containing the guidance were sent in 2008 and 2009 ...

Former diplomats, however, say the guidance was treated the way satellite offices the world over often treat missives from headquarters deemed misguided: It was rarely if ever followed.

"No one ever reads the HUMINT tasking reporting," said a former diplomat who did not want to speak for attribution about a sensitive matter. "Probably if an adult pair of eyes had looked at it, they'd say, `wait a minute, we're not going to get anyone's frequent flier number—give me a break.'"

The guidance was written by the CIA, the former official said, but was sent under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name because the CIA and other agencies cannot directly task State Department embassy personnel ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1203-wikileaks-spying-20101202,0,6105024.story

The diplomats weren't going to poke around trying to get somebody's frequent flier miles: it doesn't make sense

[boppers]

5. Not lying and being deceptive to each other would make diplomacy easier.

Wikileaks basically exposed it all as a bunch of duplicitous bullshit.

[liberation]

12. Pretty much.

Basically all these institutions are saying this much: without being able to LIE and DECEIVE we can't carry out our mission. People should be questioning then what are the merits of such missions to begin with.

I hope situations and realizations like these start making some people aware that for a democracy to work, a government can't keep secrets from its citizens, period.


And furthermore if secrecy apologists think it is reasonable for a government to create black boxes which are funded by tax payers but are kept away from the tax payers' due diligence or oversight... that is a very very big case for taxation without any representation whatsoever. I seem to recall a few American patriots flipped their shit over that over a couple hundred years ago....

[L. Coyote]

8. NO, dishonesty does. Truth makes things easier and Peace more likely.

[Voice for Peace]

13. yes yes yes

absolutely agree with you.

[bemildred]

18. So? nt

[earcandle]

19. The stealth and duplicitious nature of our money trails and our influence require that we be exposed

through some form of media. Be grateful wikileaks exists.

and clean up the politics so no one is so damn ashamed.

and btw, if secrets enables mass genocide through massive mercenary funding then its best to rid ourselves
from such leadership and prosecute perpetrators and fundees and put back the regulations and rules of law,
if we want this to stop or if we want to have any self respect. ...or safety.

Stop Torture

[ixion]

22. awww, poor babies... it's so hard to be 'diplomatic' when your lying and malfeasance

is exposed. Damn that wikileaks. :sarcasm:

[SemperEadem]

24. the truth always surfaces when it is most inconvenient for it to surface

[dipsydoodle]

25. Yeh - life's a bitch

.

[Wilms]

27. Were it not for Wikileaks we'd have had world peace by now.

Try again, Ban.

[ronnie624]

28. "I think there needs to be a balance ...

between freedom of expression, right to know as well as to preserve the necessary and confidential conduct of diplomacy."

Political elites are always trying to place limits on democracy by keeping the working class ignorant. "Balance" in this context, is what allows them to conduct 'our' business in secret, thus perpetuating a system that is in dire need of fundamental change.

As a member of the global political elite, the Secretary-General has a vested interest in keeping secrets from the working class. He owes his position to the status quo. His opinion doesn't mean much to me.

[DCKit]

29. K&R for the redefinition of the word "diplomacy".

The terms "diplomacy" and "espionage" used to be exclusive.

[tekisui]

33. Funny he doesn't voice concern at the revelation that the US was spying

on him.

[Uncle Joe]

38. He probably knew it but didn't want the U.S. to know that he knew, the U.S. probably knew that he

knew but didn't want him to know they knew that he knew or something like that.

[struggle4progress]

46. You can bet he and Secretary Clinton had a discussion about it

[downeyr]

35. This is one of the dumbest things

I've heard come from the UN. Truth making diplomacy difficult? It truly is a brave new world...

[bemildred]

39. Yeah, diplomats have to lie or they won't be able to help us.

:rofl:

[daleo]

45. Well, diplomacy is difficult

Real diplomacy, that is.

[SoCalDem]

53. No.. LYING and writing childish, cheesy cables & emails

makes "diplomacy" difficult.

Also, trying to bully other countries into doing things OUR way, instead of the ways they have become used to over...well ....maybe THOUSANDS of years, could be an "issue" with them:)