Too much information? Speedo's - Britains new State Secret Exposed!

The information on the internet about any individual can always be used against them. Many have lost their jobs (or even court cases) when certain compromising posts or pictures have come to light. Quite rightly so in many cases, where obvious untruths come to light that would affect your ability to fulfil a role or where your honesty is in question. But it really saddens me that the world has to resort to secrecy to make sure that you or your family are kept safe. Would it affect you if someone found your address on the internet? Or if someone could find out what work you do? Are you happy about that? Well most of us are only too happy to put up this information across the social websites such as facebook, increasing our presence in the virtual world and reaching out and communicating with our friends, family and colleagues. However, if in the case of Sir John Sawers who is due to take over as Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, the fact that Lady Shelley Sawers, his wife, put up this information onto Facebook has caused deep embarrassment to MI6 and possibly put their whole family in danger. The Mail on Sunday reported this on Sunday where the pages where immediately taken down and the report titled 'New MI6 chief faces probe wife exposes life Net.html appeared at 06:57 on the Monday.

Take a look at the the report and think about this...

One thing that saddens me is of course the need in this world to hold these things as secrets, but it is understandable that under the current systems we live in we do ourselves put others in danger like this. We make them responsible for holding the keys to our own security, therefore having to hide them and not putting in the support to keep them safe. But this first point lives in the ideals of the BeyondOneWorld idea and is absurd to hold onto under our present systems of government.

Another point is that actually the information exposed on Facebook was not at all state secret. It was quite innocently the pictures and information that most of us tend to put up in our effort to reach out and connect with others doing the same. Gratefully, the Foreign Secretary, David Milliband appeared on BBC1's Andrew Marr Show and showed amazement at the excitement caused by pictures of Sir John Sawers apparently wearing Speedo swimming trunks the day after his appointment in the new role, pointing out that in fact this was not a state secret and national security had not been compromised. Interestingly after this the BBC dropped it as a leading bulletin at the top of the headlines.

Now, whether the innocent information, the holiday pictures or the fact that a family Facebook page appeared at all existed it is important that anyone in a secretive role like this should get all the support they need to ensure that they can fulfil their duties. It is still possible of course that with their location and family members known that it may be possible for someone to put any of them in danger and blackmail into compromising his duties. So, isn't there some policy, some guidance, or information for the family in this situation. Shouldn't the government support anyone who works for them in making sure they at least know what the dangers are? It was not Lady Shelley Sawer at fault here, I'm sure she would not ever wish to put her husband's job at risk or ever put any of her family in danger. She was acting innocently without any support doing something that comes perfectly naturally for anyone who has any social desire.

Now, for the main point. I know about all about this now. Luckily of course the pages have been taken down so I couldn't in fact check out all the information myself. How do I know? Because it has been reported by the Daily Mail and it is now widely known across a wider segment of the public. I would like to say that they were just reporting the news as it happened, but why then put pictures of Lady Shelley Sawer and her daughter Corrinne on the page!!! I know what they look like now and so do many others! Isn't this exposing them to more danger?

Think, who is the most guilty here...
The innocent social drive versus the revenue machine of publishing.

What about the government that obviously has the processes to put someone into a situation of danger but lacks the processes to attempt to protect them.

What do you think?