US Gov't Strategy To Prevent Leaks Is Leaked

from the not-quite-getting-it-yet dept

There's something rather ironic that the US government's document on how to get various US government agencies to prevent future leaks (a la Wikileaks) was quickly leaked to the press. But, it's not really that surprising, is it?

Of course, the main thrust of the document isn't to question whether or not so much secrecy is really necessary, but to send out a memo to various government agencies suggesting they use psychiatrists and sociologists to sniff out workers who might be disgruntled (full memo embedded below). Among a variety of (pretty unsurprising) suggestions for keeping confidential information confidential, the checklist of things that organizations are supposed to do includes:
  • Do you use psychiatrist and sociologist to measure:
    • Relative happiness as a means to gauge trustworthiness?
    • Despondence and grumpiness as a means to gauge waning trustworthiness?
I didn't realize that you needed to use such professional help to figure out if you had a disgruntled worker on your hands. Isn't it the role of managers themselves to have a sense as to whether or not their employees are disgruntled? Though, I'm somewhat amused by the idea that the US government thinks that a psychiatrist or sociologist can accurately pick out who's likely to leak documents.

Not that it's a bad thing to try to figure out if there are disgruntled workers or to make sure secure systems really are secure. I'm all for that. I just think it's a bit naive to think any of this will actually prevent future leaks. You just need one person to get the info out, and there's always someone and always a way to do so -- as demonstrated by the fact that this document itself "leaked" so quickly. It seems a better situation would be to focus on making sure that any damage from such leaks is minimal.

Filed Under: disgruntled workers, leaks, strategy, us government


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 4:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BETTER IDEA

    My, my. Such hostility and insults. Very unbecoming.

    We have been debating one thing and one thing only: whether you trust the government to any degree. You said you do not to any degree, and I said that the fact that you voluntarily permit the government to have secrets by definition means that you trust the government to act in your best interest a sufficient amount to justify that trust.

    Please point out where I have said even once that secrecy is 100% unnecessary, that I have 0 trust the government, that government is unnecessary, or anything else that expresses "anti-establishment", not living in "the real world", etc. Of course, you can't. I merely pointed out the irony that you argued that the government must be trusted using as evidence examples of secrets that harm those they are kept a secret from, and you've been raging ever since, for reasons that are unclear. Whenever you made an argument, I responded to it, and nothing more. Perhaps you could show the same courtesy, or is courtesy only for people who need to "grow the hell up"?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.