| > I do disagree with the conclusions you draw Can you tell me which conclusions I've drawn? I'm just stating fact here. Accessing secret information via public channels is still breaking the law. Is it right? That's a very difficult question to answer since the people whom this affects (people without need-to-know) have entered into that world willingly and presumably know what they've signed up for. > The common soldier does not possess a
> security clearance. I'm not sure I follow this. Laws against reading privileged information apply to everyone no? Again, I'm not saying that's right or wrong, only that's the condition that we live in. > This makes reading certain public domain
> a criminal act. No one has been charged with anything. The have Internet filters set up to block that site from certain government machines. I'm not sure that this extends to being prosecuted for reading the Guardian recipes section at home. > want to strip them of something They are not stripped of anything. They were never allowed to read classified information that they were not given explicit access to. That the entire Guardian site is blocked is more likely a matter of laziness than evil. > you volunteered and signed your life away That's a bit dramatic and I never said that. My only point is that they signed up knowing that they are barred from accessing information not meant for them. > I charge this is unlawful My point is that I don't think that it is. It sucks for sure. > what would you suggest is done by the soldier? I've never been a soldier, so I don't know what their channels of recourse happen to be. |