First we have furries. Now we'll have bosies!
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If all that you say is true, then why bother having any kind of system for the classification of any information.
Everything should be published. Obama's travel schedule/routes, secret codes, locations, troop movements, etc. Everything. Because if someone can decide to leak something, for any reason at all, then anyone can leak anything.
But then, it's all for the greater good eh?
What you seem to be saying is that, if there is an opportunity to make an information leak and be published, most people would leak information and an organization would publish anything.
I think what you are trying to say is that sensitive information about important people and events should not always be published.
Lets assume that it would for the moment. What happens then, both good and bad?
- The information is in a centralized, publicly known place and the leak is known.
* A general would realize that there is a leak - a potential security breach - and tighten security
* The secret service might change plans
* Codes would be changed.
* Execs could know someone is on to them, and destroy documents.
* Interal organization witch hunts to route out the leaker
If you are going to badmouth one solution to the problem of high level corruption, it is incumbent on you to propose a better solution. Or maybe, you simply don't consider it a problem. I happen to.