First: Wouldn't the person who leaked the news of the Chinese hacking have a reasonable expectation that his leak would come back to the Chinese through their hacking?
Second: Every nation is spying on every other nation all the time and diplomatic communication is one of the first targets. That is why diplomats are ... diplomatic. They know they are always being watched even when they supposedly aren't.
Perhaps Wikileaks got far more than any other nation could expect to get through all the spying that goes on. But I doubt it.
What's out so-far hasn't been especially embarrassing to the US. That could be because the US is all sweetness and light. Or it could be because there's difference between 'secure' and 'secret'. Secure channels for things that shouldn't get out but wouldn't be a disaster to let out.
On the subject of Wikileaks itself, this brings up the point that whatever wikileaks winds up with through "humanitarian" leaking is going to be less than enemies of the US will wind-up through adversarial hacking.
Shouldn't the US public know at least as much about US behavior and motivations as the Chinese Polit Bureau?
Wouldn't the person who leaked the news of the Chinese hacking have a reasonable expectation that his leak would come back to the Chinese through their hacking?
If the informant believed that the Chinese government had full access to US State Department communications, he forgot to mention it. On the contrary, the NYT article describes a failed phishing attack on State department employees, in what sounds distinctly like a tip-off. That's a few notches down from the movie-caliber pervasive espionage you suppose.
Or it could be because there's difference between 'secure' and 'secret'. Secure channels for things that shouldn't get out but wouldn't be a disaster to let out.
You seem to be implying that none of the information made public so far has been secret (or rather, classified "SECRET"). This is false. Most of the cables are unclassified, many are CONFIDENTIAL, and about 5% (IIRC) are SECRET. Those released thusfar are a mixture.
whatever wikileaks winds up with through "humanitarian" leaking is going to be less than enemies of the US will wind-up through adversarial hacking
If the informant believed that the Chinese government had full access to US State Department communications, he forgot to mention it.
Sure, but there's a difference between what you know to be the case and what you can easily imagine. You know X hacking happened. You can or at least should imagine that Y hacking also can occur.
-- I should have noted that my other comments were more speculative. Let me know if you've got concrete information to refute my speculation. My "secure" versus "secret" distinction wouldn't necessarily correspond to the bureaucratic classifications used. I'm hardly an expert but even I know that all of sorts of BS can become classified secret.
First: Wouldn't the person who leaked the news of the Chinese hacking have a reasonable expectation that his leak would come back to the Chinese through their hacking?
Second: Every nation is spying on every other nation all the time and diplomatic communication is one of the first targets. That is why diplomats are ... diplomatic. They know they are always being watched even when they supposedly aren't.
Perhaps Wikileaks got far more than any other nation could expect to get through all the spying that goes on. But I doubt it.
What's out so-far hasn't been especially embarrassing to the US. That could be because the US is all sweetness and light. Or it could be because there's difference between 'secure' and 'secret'. Secure channels for things that shouldn't get out but wouldn't be a disaster to let out.
On the subject of Wikileaks itself, this brings up the point that whatever wikileaks winds up with through "humanitarian" leaking is going to be less than enemies of the US will wind-up through adversarial hacking.
Shouldn't the US public know at least as much about US behavior and motivations as the Chinese Polit Bureau?