WikiLeaks

[deermagnet]

I consider Julian a hero. There's no way they can stop this now. WikiLeaks is mirrored in hundreds of locations around the world.

Here's one mirror if you've never seen this stuff- http://wikileaks.ch

Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing any government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.

These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.

No one has ever been harmed by anything they released. Even in the past when spies have been named, they just get a new identity and disappear.

Mark

[vt_maverick]

Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing and government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.

I bet he does have it, and keeps it right beside the President's Book of Secrets and the Ark of the Convenant. I guarantee you it won't take years to break the code, and I doubt very seriously anything in that file will change the world. Despite leaks, wars, etc., governments still execute their business in the same way they did 3000 years ago, so there's no reason to believe it will change over one file. Sounds like a conveniently timed myth to keep the media interested.

These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.

"Hack-proof" is a pipe dream. That's like saying doctors should have made the world disease-free by now. Hackers find holes and exploit them; security experts close the holes and develop new ways to track the hackers; hackers find new ways to evade detection and in turn find new holes. It's an arms race fought in cyberspace. Nothing will ever be hack-proof.

No one has ever been harmed by anything they released.

Come on Mom, why can't I play football in the street? No one's hit me so far!

Consider this scenario: North Korea knows it has enemies in the West, and the overwhelming disapproval of the international community for it's nuclear program. Until now they've felt safe in China's shadow, assured that any attack by South Korea or the US would be repulsed not only by their Army, but also by the overwhelming air power of the Chinese Air Force.

Then Wikileaks releases diplomatic messages indicating that the Chinese might turn their back on North Korea in a conflict, and may already be working out a plan with the US on how to handle the aftermath. Where does that leave the North Korean government? Unable to rely on a superpower's protection but unwilling to back down from their conflict with the South, they have to choose one of two directions: (1) back down on all fronts to avoid a conflict (unlikely), or (2) become more belligerent and aim to do the most civilian damage possible since the situation is hopeless anyway.

It's easy to cast all governments and politicians as inherently evil and naively believe that truth conquers all. But the reality is that governments need to be able to discuss matters in a private context to achieve any honest dialogue and to ensure proper context behind any official release. For example, the quotes from Chinese diplomats regarding North Korea may very well be the ramblings of a disenchanted public servant, rather than the feeling of the Chinese government as a whole. But without that context North Korea might assume those opinions to be official (but disavowed) Chinese policy and execute option #2 above.

If Assange wants to leak stuff, let him leak stuff going on now in 10 years. By then it's less likely to cause a conflict, but still recent enough to generate the change he purports to advocate. Does anyone really believe that a file capable of "changing the world" would be irrelevant in 10 years?

[Marlin]

If you think for one second so low ranked enlisted guy had access to dimplomatic cables, you are wrong. The kid that is imprisoned right now gave him the video of the journalists being killed and some other minor stuff, this stuff coming out came from much higher.

I am waiting to see what happens as they pull the string to find out where it all came from.
I can't get anything in or out where I work, and we only go to Confidential, way low on the totem of information security. We can't even bring in radios that have any feature other than AM/FM. No alarm, no digital display...we have been this way for a few years. Wherever this stuff is coming from, it came from the upper eschelon of access.

[Triathlete]

Marlin, I am sure things have changed some since my time in but as an E2 I had the highest security clearance available. As our equipment got older and less "secret" they slowly downgraded the clearance as needed. Of course we didn't have computers back then either...good old paper!

[Marlin]

Marlin, I am sure things have changed some since my time in but as an E2 I had the highest security clearance available. As our equipment got older and less "secret" they slowly downgraded the clearance as needed. Of course we didn't have computers back then either...good old paper!

I was not referring to the clearance level, but rather the accessibility to the information. I have secret clearance, but no access to it. You have to have a special computer, in a vaulted room where no PED (personal electronic device) are allowed. I just can't see this private having the access to those types of communications. The spread of the topics would be more like things saved on an entire server or encrypted digital vault of some type.

I am sure that Ash is right about some assistant maybe having access, and they do have those at the Pentagon level, they are called 06s. Guys that are in command of entire units in the field, and some congressman's aid on shore duty.

If a command was allowing E2s to be able to access a broad spectrum of info to this level, then we deserve any fallout that may arise, and those in charge should be held accountable for those repercussions.

We were talking about this at work today, the whole thing seems too convenient, I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but its like a magic show, "Look over here, watch this hand", meanwhile, what is happening with the other hand? Its all too pretty.

[circmand]

I consider Julian a hero. There's no way they can stop this now. WikiLeaks is mirrored in hundreds of locations around the world.

Of course not kill him anyhow make him your martyr. Its like the death penalty at least he wont ever do it again

[/QUOTE]Here's one mirror if you've never seen this stuff- http://wikileaks.ch[/QUOTE]

just because some of stuff isnt that sensitive doesnt mean other stuff isnt. He released names of people who told us where terrorists were planning attacks and murders of children. This hero allows them to continue to kill children. Yeah I underrstand why you like him so much he is a child killer

[/QUOTE]Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing any government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.[/QUOTE]

That makes them guilty to. Kill them too. They may have access but they cant release it when they are dead or wont once they start dieing. This is simply extortion. Yu dont deal with terrorists you kill them.

[/QUOTE]These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.[/QUOTE]

Really? How smart do you have to be to have someone copy informaion from a file and paste it into a new location?

[/QUOTE]No one has ever been harmed by anything they released. Even in the past when spies have been named, they just get a new identity and disappear.[/QUOTE]

And your proof of this statement is? You know all the thousands and thousands of pages of info linked and you know every name mentioned and have checked on their well being and personally know and have verified that everyone is safe do you? I hope I dont have to explain to you why that statement is ludicrous.

[Stephen Biko]

They may have access but they cant release it when they are dead or wont once they start dieing. This is simply extortion. Yu dont deal with terrorists you kill them.

Creeping authoritarianism has destroyed the rule of law when speech is considered terrorism.

It is important to understand the purpose of the "insurance" file - it isn't 'extortion' to insure that Assange or others won't be killed or prosecuted, it is to insure that all of the information that has been leaked to wikileaks is published. That's a promise the wikileaks organization made to any and all whistle-blowers - if you risk your butt to get the information to wikileaks, they absolutely promise to make sure it gets published. They would prefer to review it and edit it for safety first, but if the wikileaks organization is somehow disrupted, they intend to keep their word if it's the last thing they do.

That's not to say plenty of political pundits have sensationalized the insurance file, but neither wikileaks nor Assange have made any threats about using it for retaliation.

And your proof of this statement is? You know all the thousands and thousands of pages of info linked and you know every name mentioned and have checked on their well being and personally know and have verified that everyone is safe do you? I hope I dont have to explain to you why that statement is ludicrous.

Really its ludicrous to claim that people have died as a result when even the Pentagon's own review found otherwise. The wikileaks organization has gone to great pains to redact that kind of information from the documents they publish. In cases where the government has released the same documents under FOIA it's turned out that wikileaks did an even more thorough job of removing potentially sensitive information than the pentagon did.

But, ultimately wikileaks is not about leaking information. It's about fighting conspiracies. Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays explaining the motivation for the creation of wikileaks. Assange's operational plan is a form of jiu-jitsu.

He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organizations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organization will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organization cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organization must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

The US government is not his only target, it's just the one that's currently getting the most press.

Furthermore, plenty of legitimate public figures in the business of government and security have expressed support for Assange and Wikileaks include Ron Paul, Daniel Esllberg (of the Pentagon Papers), Veterans for Peace president Mike Ferner, former long-time CIA counter-terrorism expert Michael Scheuer, Republican congressman Connie Mack of Florida and former Australian Prime Minister (currently Foreign Minister) Kevin Rudd just for starters.

[Marlin]

The information he posts is still illegal, like it or not. There is no difference between what he is doing and if a bank robber gave you a bag of money, and you went and spent it knowing where it came from. It is still against the law!!

He is knowingly publishing classified information, it is a form of terrorism.

Let's say you murdered someone, and then told the police that if they tried to arrest you or investigate the crime, you would kill their family, that is the same thing he is doing with his "poison pill", we should not negotiate with hostage takers...it sets a bad example.

[Stephen Biko]

It is still against the law!!

Except it is not. He's not an american citizen and not subject to american laws. Furthermore it isn't necessarily illegal for american citizens to publish classified information, see New York Times vs United States. Finally, if that line of reasoning is true, why aren't the newspapers like The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times that are also publishing the same information equally culpable?

He is knowingly publishing classified information, it is a form of terrorism.

No, at worst it is espionage. Over use of the terrorism label just waters down the meaning of the word.

we should not negotiate with hostage takers...it sets a bad example.

Wikileaks is NOT negotiating - the information is going to be released no matter what. The insurance file's purpose is to insure the "no matter what" part.

[Marlin]

No, at worst it is espionage. Over use of the terrorism label just waters down the meaning of the word.

Playing semantics does not change the fact that it is wrong, terrorism, espionage, the fact that you know what I mean is enough.

Wikileaks is NOT negotiating - the information is going to be released no matter what. The insurance file's purpose is to insure the "no matter what" part.
This is in direct contradiction to what was posted earlier about how well they (wikileaks) has done by scrubbing their info to minimize risk to others. So they are threatening to release non-scrubbed info? Still a threat, still holding information hostage.

So if he were a citizen of a country that had legalized murder, it would be ok for him to murder Americans? Your logic or lack there of makes no sense. Once again, I go back to the bank robber analogy, lets say the stolen money given to you was Canadian, does it make it an more legal for you to spend it?

[Marlin]

I just readthrough the Wiki you posted and you are incorrect about the concept of the publishing of classified info:

The most recent incarnation of the exception was the grave and probable danger rule, established in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). During this case, the wording was changed to the grave and irreparable danger standard. The idea behind the numerous versions of the rule is that if a certain message will likely cause a “grave and irreparable” danger to the American public when expressed, then the message’s prior restraint could be considered an acceptable infringement of civil liberties. The Supreme Court was therefore charged with determining if the Government had sufficiently met the “burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint”

This is exactly the goal of wikileaks, as stated by themselves, that these documents would topple banks (the ones that needed 9 trillion in aid or else our economy would fail), and cripple government operations. They stated on their own one thing that is actually not legal and could result in censure.

Don't get me wrong, I am against a big government, there are so many leeches (you democrats know who you are ), but what he is doing is wrong. I think the government threatening folks for even looking at the documents is ridiculous, but to say that Assange is a hero is out there and just plain ridiculous. Its almost as if the whole thing is staged to allow the implementation of an internet censureship branch of the government. Add that up with TSA:
A few years ago, we threw a fit about taking off our shoes at the airport, now we would be grateful if that was it. How many bombs has TSA stopped? None. The only two in a decade that were stopped were stopped by the individual's error and other passengers. Now they want to add the scanners to sporting events, train/bus stations, and how many bombs have been exploded there? None. This is all a gambit to get the average idiot to accept control by the government.

Any man willing to trade freedom for safety deserves neither.-Ben Franklin. Give me my guns, my helmetless motorcycle riders, my caffeine impregnated alcoholic drink (rum and coke) and let me make my own choices. Give me warnings (like on cigarattes) and set me free. Hold me accountable for my choices (no public healthcare for lung cancer ridden smokers, fatty heart attack victims and so on)
So in a way, I agree with your point of view, just not when it comes to this douche clown.
There is more at risk than some hokey internet prank.

[vt_maverick]

He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organizations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organization will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organization cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organization must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

The community has been that way for decades, and I think it's safe to say that our government is no closer to either curbing its tendencies or collapsing.

[Marlin]

I just thought of something funny, Anonymous, is all about the transparency of information and no secrecy, yet ironically they will not share their identity or their plans? Transparency of info for everyone except them?