ray

Nobody took to the streets. No weapons were discharged.

Yeah, but its not like either guy had won an NBA title.... Then we'd get to see some rioting and gunplay.

people who live in countries with glass arenas shouldn't throw stones (or pucks).

I was gonna mention hockey too, but thought no one would know what i was talking about..
And Vancouver was different. There were no guns. And they lost, didn't win.
(Besides any city that makes Wayne Gretzky ride in the back of a pick up truck, in the middle of a heavy rain, to light the Olympic flame....has demonstrated a clear inability to anticipate events and prepare for eventualities...)

"Flame" virus confirmed now as joint US-Israel cyber-sabotage according to unnamed "Western officials with knowledge of the effort," a "former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official", and "former officials".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-israel-developed-computer-virus-to-slow-iranian-nuclear-efforts-officials-say/2012/06/19/gJQA6xBPoV_print.html

This is a leak and perhaps a damaging one, since one of the bits of info is that "Cyber collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than [just Flame and Stuxnet]." While it seems likely that if that's true Iran is more than aware of it, it may be that other potential enemies/targets will find in this news a motive to beef up their cyber-security.

I'm not inclined to attribute these leaks to an effort by his partisans to get Obama reelected because the leaked info seems to include the fact that the cyber effort in general and "Flame" in particular originated in the Bush administration. On the other hand, it's hard to figure out any other reason to leak the info. Even with the Bush origin, this leak still shows Obama cooperating with Israel, and Obama's pro-Israel credentials might well need some buffing up.

I've heard that Stuxnet was leaked because an Iranian scientist took an infected file home from the lab (against policy) ... it infected his PC and spread throughout the world. That enabled the Russians to figure it all out. Flame has some key similarities with Stuxnet. Once the evidence is overwhelming, it is more harmful for a country to deny it than confirm it since it kills your credibility. This suggests that the leak happened spontaneously and wasn't planned for political reasons. Do I have that wrong?

Ray Jay wrote:I've heard that Stuxnet was leaked because an Iranian scientist took an infected file home from the lab (against policy) ... it infected his PC and spread throughout the world. That enabled the Russians to figure it all out. Flame has some key similarities with Stuxnet. Once the evidence is overwhelming, it is more harmful for a country to deny it than confirm it since it kills your credibility. This suggests that the leak happened spontaneously and wasn't planned for political reasons. Do I have that wrong?

That seemed to be the basis of a link that Doctor Fate pointed to a while back.

The thing about viruses is that if they are effective they will spread and cause problems and eventually someone will find it. Flame could be a collaboration, or it could be that someone else took Stuxnet and had a play.

Given that Obama didn't write the code, and that the programme appears to predate him, I'm not sure how that particular issue can be seen as some kind of 'deliberate' leak to make him look good.

Who cares who leaked it for whose benefit?

Is it wrong to leak information like this? I would say yes. If there is someone who is leaking information, it can be a punishable offense, and should be dealt with like the Scooter Libby case. Prison.

It does not matter whose side did this. You do not release sensitive information.

bbauska wrote:Who cares who leaked it for whose benefit?

Well, someone who started thread about it seems to care, making insinuations with a cuo bono argument.

But there are considerations about 'leaks' that do (perhaps not in this case) depend on why the leak was carried out and can be mitigating.

Is it wrong to leak information like this? I would say no.

Mainly because it's not a 'leak'. It's a discovery. It's a pretty much inevitable consequence of releasing a virus that it will be discovered, and there was no control over how it became apparent. That's why companies like Symantec exist (as well as to sell you AV software).

If there is someone who is leaking information, it can be a punishable offense, and should be dealt with like the Scooter Libby case. Prison.

It does not matter whose side did this. You do not release sensitive information.

I suppose one important aspect is who decides whether information is 'sensitive' or not. Of course, Libby did not go to prison for leaking - it was for obstructing justice in the investigation of the leak. Obstructing justice, like perjury, can often be dealt with more harshly than the original offence would be.

When it comes to 'sensitive' state information, there are two major issues. First of all, by rights data and information that is owned by 'the state' really belongs to all of the citizens. Hence Freedom of Information laws (FoI). The state has, under FoI, the burden to demonstrate why data and information should not be released. That may expire after some time, as well. So, a the government can't just declare information secret, it has to justify why it is.

Secondly, there is the question of 'whistleblowing' and the 'Public Interest Defence*'. A leak can Knote the 'can', so it's a judgement call) be justified as being in the public interest. So, for example, a state may decide that information about it's military undertaking torture is 'sensitive'. However, there is an argument that there is a Public Interest in the actions of the miltary in the name of that state's citizens, and that a leak of such knowledge is not simply a breach of confidentiality, because what's really happening is someone is blowing the whistle on dodgy actions.

So, this is why I don't necessarily agree with a blanket assertion that all leaks are the same and that all should be treated as crimes and the leaker punished.

Not that I am saying that in these cases there are mitigating circumstances, or condoning the release of information about security agencies or details of espionage. But there may be. Equally, there could be.

Investigate, yes. Of course. But let's not (as DF seems to, and you bbauska do not) assume some Executive conspiracy without some real evidence.

Has anyone else noticed the irony of executive privilege for drug enforcement policy gone awry vs. (what I assume to be intentional) leaking of the targeted drone program?

The use of executive privilege in the Holder case seems more like a response to a congressman who's out of control...
At least if this view is correct:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/168505/da ... stitution#

danivon wrote:
Investigate, yes. Of course. But let's not (as DF seems to, and you bbauska do not) assume some Executive conspiracy without some real evidence.

Well now, that right-wing wacko and noted Obama-hater, Senator Joe Lieberman says there should be an independent counsel.

"Special counsels - independent counsels before them - were created for situations exactly like this where people might reach a conclusion that investigators, U.S. attorneys even, working for the attorney general - who was appointed by the president - cannot independently and without bias investigate high officials of their own government."

The secrets, revealed in media stories, have included reports on U.S. cyber warfare against Iran, procedures for targeting militants with drones and the existence of a double agent who penetrated a militant group in Yemen.

"Trust us" seems to be the Administration's motto. Transparency? Not so much.

RickyP,
Try to not be partisan. Is this a proper use of the "Executive Privilege"? If so, then Obama and Holder had discussions about Fast and Furious. If not, then EP is not usable in this case.

Which is it?

BTW, who cares what the reason Issa is investigating. Is it right or wrong to use EP?

Also, if there is nothing to hide, why not comply with the request, and point out the continued harassment by the Congress? The administrations actions show me that they are hiding something.

Your point about Issa being "out of control" sounds like "Holder may have done something wrong, but look at Issa! He is out of control. Is this the transparency that Obama spoke of?

b

BTW, who cares what the reason Issa is investigating

.

Everyone should. Its the difference between responsible use of the power of invetigation provided the committee and abuse of power.

If this were a genuine attempt to investigate the use of "gun walking", , there would be an open investigation,” he said, and the committee would call witnesses involved in the program over the past six years. Issa never sought public testimony from people in the Phoenix ATF office who ran the operation, or from the former head of the ATF, who told committee investigators that he never informed Justice Department higher-ups of the operation because he didn’t know about

b

Is this the transparency that Obama spoke of?

I refer you to the actual facts. Issa is suing over documents produced AFTER the murder of the ATF agent. If he were interested in the issue of gun walking as a technique of law enforcement he'd want to have a complete investigation that included its genesis. (During the Bush administration).
Something good might come out of that. What he's doing is using his position to promote himself and attack his enemies.
It might be good politics (though thats doubtful too) but its lousy governance.
Besides, a sane, responsible committee chair could have accomplished something with support from Democrats who shared genuine concern about a program that seems ill advised.
But what he's done now is nothing. Who has to choose to prosecute the contempt citation B? Holder.
Think it'll happen or will this just wither?
A major reason contempt for Congress is so high, is the abuse of power by people like Isaa. (Quite a character by the way. An indepth article about him in Esquire a year or so ago as much as accussed him of criminal enterprise in his private businesses. )

Ricky, is it your view that it is okay for the justice department to not provide such documents? What is their motivation?

bbauska wrote:Is this a proper use of the "Executive Privilege"? If so, then Obama and Holder had discussions about Fast and Furious. If not, then EP is not usable in this case.

Not true. Here's the first paragraph under the subject from Wikipedia, with my underlining added to help you:

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

In theory, emails between two lowly clerks at the Dept. of Agriculture might legitimately be subject to EP (though it's very unlikely in practice!).