The comparison isn't a bad one, from a purely logical standpoint. I'll copy/paste the appropriate quote from the article: "Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident, but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure."
It's a response to the question "why is it illegal to release harmless information?". The analogous question would be "why is drunk driving illegal even if it doesn't cause an accident?". The answer to both questions is that it's because you don't know
that it won't cause harm beforehand, and you can't undo the harm once it's happened, so we have to minimize the possibility of causing harm in the first place, instead.
Of course, making the comparison is a stupid move from a PR perspective, if only because the exact attitude displayed by Culminus.
edited 23rd Mar '14 10:06:09 AM by NativeJovian