Wikileaks.

bits and pieces of nerdom.

All content © NFGworld, unless otherwise noted, except for stuff we stole. Contact the editor-in-chief : baldbutsuave@thissitesdomain, especially if you are an attractive young female willing to do nude photography modelling. All rights reversed. 907

Forum Search Members The Bedroom About

Forum: NFGworld Forums › Science, Tech and Such › Social Studies

Hot Wikileaks.

Now: the official Wikileaks thread

(Administrator) 2010-08-01, 11:14 #1

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Subject: Wikileaks.

When I was younger I read a lot of cyberpunk fiction, near-future stuff that described a believable world of computers and espionage and networks that really appealed to me. They were worlds filled with action and drama and, as a computer geek, I felt as if these were not just possible futures, but likely ones.

And now, thanks to wikileaks, the news is full of real-world cyberpunk action. Founder Julian Assange and security researcher Jacob Appelbaum (who is high-ranking supporter of wikileaks) are making headlines in mainstream media for their activities. This is fascinating to watch.

The internet has always made it easy for individuals to find a massive audience, and it has always been possible for people to blow the whistle on government or corporate corruption. Now though we have wikileaks, which is providing a one-stop place for whistleblowers to release, and an audience to devour these releases.

And it's freaking people out: the American military and government both are on the record as against wikileaks. Jacob Appelbaum was recently detained at an American airport, his phones seized, his laptop examined (and returned 'cause wisely he didn't have a HDD in it!) and told he was under surveilance. Julian Assange has been advised by his lawyers that visiting the USA might not be in the best interests of his continued freedom.

The rebel in me loves disturbing the peace. I love seeing these secrets revealed, and watching assholes squirm as their machinations are exposed to the daylight.

Quote by Julian Assange:
There is a legitimate role for secrecy, and there is a legitimate role for openness. Unfortunately, those who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy.

That is relevant to everything in our modern lives. The Australian is intensely secretive. Their internet black list, kept secret to prevent people from seeking out the very things AusGov was trying to block, contained sites that seemed blocked for political reasons:

Quote by TIME Magazine:
And while the list in many cases appeared arbitrary at best, some selections appeared politically motivated at worst. Sites advocating legal euthanasia, Satanism and even Christianity were blacklisted.

If you give someone the power to keep secrets, the kinds of things kept secret tend to become a matter of convenience, not actual need.

So, for several reasons, I support wikileaks.

You might also be interested in this post, regarding the Wikileaks Collateral Murder Video

BLEARGH

This post was edited 2 times, last on 2010-08-03, 10:35 by NFG.

(Administrator) 2010-08-03, 10:53 #2

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Subject: Washington Post editorial goes overboard.

What the hell is this asshole ranting about? Marc Thiessen, frothing at the mouth in a Washington Post editorial, no doubt dying for just a little bit of attention, discusses wikileaks:

Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business.

Allow me to translate that into English: Because he's not one of us, we can nail his ass with military power, rather than relying on these sissy laws n shit.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. Wikileaks has broken no laws - the people submitting the information might have, but there's no law against publishing them. For certain, there's no international law that covers the publishing of American secrets. Thiessen goes on to suggest the American Justice Department should secretly indict Assange, then send the FBI on a secret mission to arrest him, even if it contravenes international laws.

This sort of exceptionalism is exactly why America's reputation is in the shitter. You were special because of your laws and freedoms. If you throw those away when they're inconvenient, you're no longer the beacon you once were, and we'll be looking towards those European countries you dislike for behavioral examples:

Quote by Thiessen:
[Assange] leads a nomadic existence, operating in countries such as Sweden, Belgium and Iceland, where he believes he enjoys the protection of "beneficial laws." (He recently worked with the Icelandic parliament to pass legislation effectively making the country a haven for WikiLeaks).

And this from a newspaper that exposed the Watergate scandal.

BLEARGH

2010-08-03, 17:50 #3

Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

The Washington Post isn't the paper it used to be. It's taking a conservative role now, as a counter-balance to the perceived liberal intent of the New York Times. I hasten to add that those are the American terms for its political spectrum specifically, as opposed to the UK or EU labels.

But back on topic, there's always been a disconnect between the way America treats its own citizens versus how it treats everybody else. Visitors and resident aliens aren't entitled to the same due process of law, which is always a diplomatic sticking point. Most of Europe hates extraditing criminals back to the United States partly due to this double standard (and partly because of the inconsistent stand on the death penalty.)

It's worth seeing this from the point of view of the US Government for a moment. They don't see the Wikileaks action as an argument for transparency, but as an attack on American sovereignty. The US traditionally decides when information of this nature becomes declassified and publicized (usually decades after anybody could be affected by it) and to have it out in the world early could be a strategic disadvantage. To people who see international relations as a zero-sum game, this is unambiguously the act of a foreign aggressor. To be clear, I don't agree.

At the same time, I don't much like Assange's methods either. His intent is certainly noble, but his tactics are ham-handed and he's got no talent for journalism. There's a precedent for doing what he wants to do in technology, where white-hat hackers contact a manufacturer or developer to get them to plug a security hole before it gets publicized. Why not do the same for the US Government in this case, so that it looks like everybody's on the same side? It would probably have been more productive to nudge America into transparency, rather than shoving them into a spotlight and pulling down their trousers.

(Administrator) 2010-08-03, 18:01 #4

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

That's a very good point. Assange does seem to have an inability to present his message without seeming to be mean-spirited and uncaring. I very much enjoy the results: de-pantsing governments and corporations is awesome to watch.

I cannot really imagine that working with AmeriGov (or any other) would really accomplish much in our lifetimes. Both governments and large corporations have an historical reluctance to deal with their flaws. Yanking them from their bunkers and shoving them blinking and roaring into the internet's sunlight might be more likely to have an actual effect, don't you think?

If Assange wins, if the result of all this drama is increased transparency, even if only to avoid being outed later, we all win. Wikileaks is a genie that will not easily go back into the bottle.

BLEARGH

2010-08-03, 18:25 #5

Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

But if the Wikileaks thing is being treated as an attack, then it becomes an arms race. My fear is that if the US Government has to be truly transparent, then more questionable activities will simply be outsourced. The Blackwater/Xe scandal of the past ten years is just one small illustration of how the American system could have complete and total deniability because of the actions of a rogue contractor. Never mind that the 'rogue' contractor is perfectly sanctioned and understands its mandate clearly. Oliver North writ large, as it were.

There's an old Chinese saying: fish leave water that's too clean. If any government is forced to operate completely in the open, then they'll do so while others do their bidding in secret, and the only paper trail is a series of identical paychecks. I do prefer transparency, but I'd rather not see escalation of this sort of fight.

(Administrator) 2010-08-03, 19:55 #6

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

I dunno, that just doesn't seem like a course of action they could pursue indefinitely, and it only takes one large or two smaller scandals to ensure that company doesn't get any more gov't business. So they rename themselves, try again, get caught, and the gov't swaps out some staff and finds another contractor. I'm under no illusions that they'll run out of options in this regard, but similarly I'm in no way convinced we're likely to see an end to gov't secrecy either. Expose one web of lies and they'll just find other ways to hide their activities. It's already an arms race.

Rather, I see these sorts of exposing activities as a sort of housecleaning. You'll never clean your house for the last time, but you can't stop cleaning it. Similarly, you can't let these bastards rest. I think perhaps the pendulum has swung too far their way, it's encouraging to see it swinging back a little.

BLEARGH

(Administrator) 2010-08-07, 20:02 #7

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Subject: Pentagon vs Wikileaks: Strategy or stupidity?

The pentagon demanded Wikileaks return all of their digital documents the other day. At first blush this seems to be a perfect example of an organization that totally fails to understand how digital works, the idea of returning a digital file is laughable. Their spokesman fairly bristled when someone called him on this. One boingboing commenter said:

Quote by defunctdoormat:
Why do you guys think he looks so angry? HE KNOWS what he's asking to do is ludicrous. HE KNOWS he looks like a buffoon. He got the short straw to go out there and say this stuff. These people aren't complete idiots. They do things for reasons which APPEAR stupid, but they have a motive in mind. What is it? I have no way of knowing. For all I know it's comedy relief so when they do something truly horrible, they can say at least we were entertained.

Techdirt's take on this is short and sweet.

I have to wonder if an organization of that size and power could really be run by such ridiculous old men who believe this sort of demand could possibly be legitimate. At face value, it's ridiculous innit? So one starts to wonder what they're really up to.

Some have suggested they're laying the foundation for serious legal action. "Why yes, we exhausted all possible avenues to resolve the problem" they might now say to the judge. It's all to easy to believe that they're up to something, but we might recall Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I mean, smart people wouldn't prevent their military from seeing documents their military created when these same documents are available to the rest of the world, including their enemies. Seriously, what's the point of that!?

Quote by US Marines Special Security Office:
By willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material - these actions constitute the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information, meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.

Say what? You wrote the damn things! (OK, it might not have been the marines, but the Washington Times reports other military branches have issued similar directives).

BLEARGH

This post was edited on 2010-08-07, 20:20 by NFG.

2010-08-17, 16:00 #8

User title: Kitten Blaster
Member since Feb 2010 · 90 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

i also enjoy seeing organizations squirm when they are exposed. the only thing about this that bothers me is that this is putting informants in legitimate danger. i think exercising caution in exactly what is release would be as to exclude the very specifics (names and addresses/locations) of informants. i'm not saying remove paragraphs but rather replace "Abu Harshim" with "[Informant 0005]" and the like. that would allow you to keep names connected but mask them.

there has to be some consideration for safety. there are some legitimate reasons for secrecy at times. it's a bit like exposing the people in the witness protection program.

(Administrator) 2010-11-30, 09:44 #9

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Subject: Wikileaks.

I'm utterly fascinated by the ongoing Wikileaks saga. That a small group of talented geeks can expose entire governments just thrills me. It might be my youthful naïveté that makes me value transparency over secrecy, but I absolutely do. Putting the fear of exposure into the minds of our politicians seems to me a good thing.

The American reaction is exactly what I and many expected. The latest exposure of 250,000+ diplomatic communications is causing all sorts of ill-considered outrage, as if Wikileaks itself was somehow responsible for their escape from government servers. Blaming the messenger instead of fixing the problem, as is the MO of modern America (and indeed much of Western society).

As far as I'm concerned a government left to operate in secrecy is one that will not operate with the best interests of its people for very long. Uncover their shenanigans from time to time and keep the fuckers honest, I say. I don't trust them to consider my interests, and I am unsurprised to find this distrust reinforced by Wikileaks' revelations.

BLEARGH

This post was edited on 2010-12-15, 09:04 by NFG.

2010-11-30, 10:13 #10

Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Look at this from the opposite point of view. We've all had private discussions about people we otherwise like, in which we're honest with those closest to us about what we really think. Who's fat, who's stingy, who's petty, who's thoughtless. Is it reasonable to be transparent about all those discussions? Would you want your great-aunt Doris to know that you really didn't like that awful brown sweater she gave you for Christmas? If you care at all about her feelings, you'll say you love it but only wear it when she's in town. It hurts no one, and benefits everyone to be diplomatic in that way. It helps no-one, and hurts everyone to be completely honest about it. The choice seems pretty clear-cut.

For diplomatic communications to be made clear in this way doesn't seem to help anybody. But I don't really care about the international relations as much as I do about Assange's piss-poor analysis skills. Instead of combing through the cables for relevant information, he's simply released the whole collection into the wild with no context or point of reference. It's lazy and misleading, and will cause Aunt Doris to think that you're sending assassins after her.

I've said before that Wikileaks demonstrates no talent for journalism and has a ham-handed way of handling publicity. There's nothing else to say on that particular subject.

This post was edited 2 times, last on 2010-12-15, 09:05 by Unknown user.

(Administrator) 2010-11-30, 10:19 #11

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Well Wikileaks doesn't claim to be filtering the information for the interesting or important bits. Rather, they act as a conduit for the raw data, leaving the analysis to others (ie: the international press, who are doing a solid job of combing through the data).

As for private conversations, well I really believe honesty will get us farther than secrecy. And I do realize that I am unusual in this, but I do not ever say things I'm unprepared to defend. Sure, I'll say things to others I wouldn't say to you, but if that comes out then I'm fine with it. And the people I know seem to respect this honesty. By way of an example...

A while back a girl I knew was talking to me about her boyfriend. One thing I said during the conversation that I did think her boyfriend was a great guy, but that he had some serious issues to work out before he could really be a good partner for her. Well he found out, and the next message I got from him was a word of thanks for being up front about it, and admitting he had some issues.

Would that we could all do that, eh?

And, to be clear, we're not talking about exposing the clandestine affairs of nice people. These are the conversations between assholes, already viewable by two and a half million people cleared to read them.

Also, what I find more interesting than the documents themselves is the reactions from those who are most affected by them. American policy is, IMHO, revealed to be amateurish and ham-handed, as much an indication of collective regression of sophistication and maturity as any other daft thing they've done lately.

BLEARGH

This post was edited 2 times, last on 2010-12-15, 09:05 by NFG.

(Administrator) 2010-12-01, 10:11 #12

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Subject: Death of the Press, and Wikileaks

Over on Salon, Dan Gillmor asks some very pertinent questions, of wikileaks, of the press, and of politicians.

I found this one particularly pointed. He asks the press:

Quote by Dan Gillmor:
Why does it take WikiLeaks to get the information you agree is so worthy of public exposure? Why aren't you doing your own jobs better in the first place?

Yes, indeed. Why the hell aren't you doing your jobs anymore? Why does it take a small, shoestring organization to break the stories for you? No doubt because you're struggling to attract advertising money in an age that's dooming most print news. But does that mean you shrink back and do less when it could be argued the world has never needed you more?

Fuck you then. Do your jobs or die a deserved death.

BLEARGH

This post was edited on 2010-12-15, 09:05 by NFG.

(Administrator) 2010-12-01, 20:31 #13

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Subject: This is some powerful stuff right here.

Damn. I mean, wow. This article on Salon is some seriously powerful stuff.

Simply put, there are few countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government authorities than the U.S.

Those who demand that the U.S. Government take people's lives with no oversight or due process [...] are just morally deranged barbarians.

I mean, check this transcript out,

In the below quote, Keller is the executive editor of the new york times:

HOST (incredulously): Just to be clear, Bill Keller, are you saying that you sort of go to the Government in advance and say: "What about this, that and the other, is it all right to do this and all right to do that," and you get clearance, then?

KELLER: We are serially taking all of the cables we intend to post on our website to the administration, asking for their advice. We haven't agreed with everything they suggested to us, but some of their recommendations we have agreed to: they convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.

ROSS: One thing that Bill Keller just said makes me think that one shouldn't go to The New York Times for these telegrams -- one should go straight to the WikiLeaks site. It's extraordinary that the New York Times is clearing what it says about this with the U.S. Government[...]"

The rest is as good. Go read it. Be outraged.

BLEARGH

This post was edited on 2010-12-15, 09:05 by NFG.

2010-12-02, 08:06 #14

Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Responsible journalism includes verifying sources, or at very least allowing the subjects of inquiry to have a say. I don't know that the New York Times is clearing what they say with the government, or even getting permission. We only have the word of the person who obtained the documents that they're genuine, which is (to me) more worrying. The fact that this is all out in the open now means it's even more important to get confirmation; even if the government issues denials or contradicts what's in the cables (as they did with the apparent State Department spying orders) that's news too. I don't perceive that the New York Times is bowing to pressure, so much as they're simply being polite.

I think the unspoken part of the story here (insofar as the story is about the leak and not about the diplomatic communications, of which it turns out very little was new to anyone) is that Wikileaks is depending on others to verify. They're not actually the source, and for them to make themselves part of the narrative is a little vain. That's why I'm stopping short of the level of admiration others have expressed.

This post was edited on 2010-12-15, 09:06 by Unknown user.

(Administrator) 2010-12-02, 12:56 #15

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

It's a fine line to walk. The problem with most leaks is exposure: No point leaking things to your dog, leaking them to your mom is only marginally better. Leaking them to uncaring authorities doesn't work, so you need the press, and when the press doesn't care...

I am not a huge fan of Wikileaks' MO, but I am a massive fan of a one-stop shop for leaks. It makes exposure easier, and when you're trying to raise the alarm you need people to notice.

So Wikileaks is our one-stop-shop for all things leaked, and I think that's good. The masses know about it, and that's good. That they have created a name for themselves is not really important (though it will become so if they start/continue being dickheads about it).

Cryptome was putting up secret info for years, and I bet no one I know offline ever heard of it. Wikileaks is getting this shit heard, and good on 'em for that.

BLEARGH

This post was edited on 2010-12-15, 09:06 by NFG.

Page: 1 2 next ›

RSS Feed for this thread

We love UNB by Yves Goergen!