View Full Version : WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security
I'm starting a new thread because this changes the whole ball game. I think this removes any doubt about Assange's true character and intentions.
Someone see the benefit in this release? I posted a quote in the other thread where Assange said he would not withold information that would cause harm.
In a disclosure of some of the most sensitive information revealed yet by WikiLeaks, the website has released a secret cable listing sites worldwide that the U.S. considers critical to its national security.
The locations cited in the diplomatic cable from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton range from undersea communications lines to suppliers of food, medicine and manufacturing materials.
The Pentagon declined to comment Monday on the details of what it called "stolen" documents containing classified information. But a spokesman, Col. David Lapan, called the disclosure "damaging" and said it gives valuable information to the country's adversaries.
"This is one of many reasons why we believe Wikileaks' actions are irresponsible and dangerous," Lapan said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_wikileaks_secret_sites#mwpphu-container
Someone see the benefit in this release?
I admit it's getting harder, but to speculate: maybe a possible rationale is to demonstrate that a even a very powerful military superforce has fatal weaknesses, that can not be cured by further force for the simple reason that we are all dependent on our environment for survival (not only the planets ecosystem but also environment as in "our neighbours"). So to build walls against our neighbours is unlikely to be the best option.
And ultimately, maybe the hope (naive or not) is to provoce the insight that the best defense is to not grow enemies; and maybe growing enemies is the result of some actions taken (secretly) by government. The question is if this is a democratic process.
Most probably, military force can never secure information leaks in long term. Perhaps it's better (for world security) to make sure there is a minimum of fatal information to leak in the first place. In order to accomplish that, certain methods for actions and negotiations may be needed.
For some reason I come to think of the final scene of "wargames" :)
/Fredrik
This action was wrong.
But, situation has turned so bad - with paypal canceling their donations, banks freezing their assets, death threats to the founder, arrest seen as politically motivated by wikileaks - I no longer expect any rational response from Wikileaks anymore that is: if they had any little concern about the US security (not diplomatic) before it is gone now. In other words, I would expect more aggressive actions from the organization.
This action was wrong.
But, situation has turned so bad - with paypal canceling their donations, banks freezing their assets, death threats to the founder, arrest seen as politically motivated by wikileaks - I no longer expect any rational response from Wikileaks anymore that is: if they had any little concern about the US security (not diplomatic) before it is gone now. In other words, I would expect more aggressive actions from the organization.
Root I haven't particularly been keeping up with the ongoing events in this incident could you explain what you meant by: "Arrest seen as politically motivated by wikileaks"?
I agree with everything you've said but I've seen this as intentionally harming USA from the beginning. I swear Assange said specifically he wants to harm the USA.
humanino
Dec6-10, 04:12 PM
Someone see the benefit in this release?No, right now I don't, and I regret to even have mentioned that wikileaks did some good in the past. The only thing I still think is that the most worrisome is what they may dare to release in the future. It seems they really need to stop or be stopped. Although I hear Fra's points, there is a limit to utopia.
I admit it's getting harder, but to speculate: maybe a possible rationale is to demonstrate that a even a very powerful military superforce has fatal weaknesses, that can not be cured by further force for the simple reason that we are all dependent on our environment for survival (not only the planets ecosystem but also environment as in "our neighbours"). So to build walls against our neighbours is unlikely to be the best option.
And ultimately, maybe the hope (naive or not) is to provoce the insight that the best defense is to not grow enemies; and maybe growing enemies is the result of some actions taken (secretly) by government. The question is if this is a democratic process.
Most probably, military force can never secure information leaks in long term. Perhaps it's better (for world security) to make sure there is a minimum of fatal information to leak in the first place. In order to accomplish that, certain methods for actions and negotiations may be needed.
For some reason I come to think of the final scene of "wargames" :)
/Fredrik
Eh, a simple note to the Pentagon letting them know about the security flaw might have sufficed.
Root I haven't particularly been keeping up with the ongoing events in this incident could you explain what you meant by: "Arrest seen as politically motivated by wikileaks"?
I agree with everything you've said but I've seen this as intentionally harming USA from the beginning. I swear Assange said specifically he wants to harm the USA.
Read the statements from Assange lawyer, which are something along the lines of "Hunt for WikiLeaks founder politically motivated"
Read the statements from Assange lawyer, which are something along the lines of "Hunt for WikiLeaks founder politically motivated"
OOOOHHH. I read that line as they were being politically motivated by WikiLeaks not that they were seen as politically motivated. My bad. :tongue:
Pfc Manning should be charged, tried, and executed by lethal injection, promptly, to put an end the game like atmosphere surrounding the outcome of his actions.
NobodySpecial
Dec6-10, 04:45 PM
Pfc Manning should be charged, tried, and executed by lethal injection, promptly, to put an end the game like atmosphere surrounding the outcome of his actions.
Right after Richard Armitage and just before the people that lied to get us into the war in the first place?
Dr Lots-o'watts
Dec6-10, 05:27 PM
Is there any country from which he didn't leak any info? How can someone live in hiding like he does? At some point, he has to go to the dentist, or a funeral or something. I mean, why hasn't Sweden snatched him already (for whatever exact reason they found)?
Would he go as far as to leak info from wherever country he's hiding in?
Is there any country from which he didn't leak any info? How can someone live in hiding like he does? At some point, he has to go to the dentist, or a funeral or something. I mean, why hasn't Sweden snatched him already (for whatever exact reason they found)?
Would he go as far as to leak info from wherever country he's hiding in?
Presumably Britain has started the process to arrest Assange it was supposed to begin today, haven't read anything further than that however.
Jack21222
Dec6-10, 05:37 PM
I don't understand why everybody is getting so angry at the messenger. Assange isn't the one who stole the documents, he's just the journalist.
I mean, why hasn't Sweden snatched him already (for whatever exact reason they found)?
You can't just go into another country and "snatch" someone. Still, a UK arrest warrant has recently been issued and, when court, he will be extradited to Sweden.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 06:38 PM
Oh hey, propaganda in action:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j1OPtIuzLrrJkZwzhJLYAZ-HPedw?docId=CNG.e49d8f7446a37c4bd9b779af911a7e43.7 d1
The news media just made Julian Assange the "most dangerous man in the world", even more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden. The list of sites is so confidential, a private 1st class had access to it; these sites are so essential to US security, they are located in foreign countries. Does anyone still doubt we are an empire?
The list of sites is ridiculous. Undersea comm lines, "irreplaceable" hydroelectric dam, maker of treatment for snake-bite venom, vaccines for smallpox and rabies, treatment for plutonium poisoning, among others.
So, are we now being threatened by rabies epidemic, nuclear fallout, or a national poisonous snake infestation? Are terrorists going to cut undersea comm cables now, using their terrorsubmarine? "Irreplaceable" dam? Could we not have built a nuclear power plant within the Northeast to replace the hydro dam?
Let us explore a few bits of the "article" linked in the OP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_wikileaks_secret_sites#mwpphu-container)
First, the title:
US: WikiLeaks release gives hit list to al-Qaida
Stop. Not to China, not to Russia, not to any other country that might have a grudge against the US. Specifically, To al-Qaida... because, apparently, only al-Qaida and terrorists can act on this information...
In the message, marked "secret," Clinton asked U.S. diplomatic posts to help update a list of sites around the world "which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States."
The list was considered so confidential that the contributors were advised to come up with the information on their own: Posts are "not being asked to consult with host governments in respect to this request," Clinton wrote.
Translation: write down a list of facilities that will affect the bottom line of our corporate donors and file it under "US National Security", security level: Secret. Because, apparently, "immediate and deleterious" effects to US National Security only deserve "Secret" status.
Folks, yet again, you have been fooled.
The list of sites is ridiculous. Undersea comm lines, "irreplaceable" hydroelectric dam, maker of treatment for snake-bite venom, vaccines for smallpox and rabies, treatment for plutonium poisoning, among others.Undersea cables are one of the most important things on earth as far as communications, you realize the internet is provided through those cables. Internet, phone calls, this includes cell phones, all data transmissions. You didn't know that? The locations and protection of these cables are taken very seriously.
As for the others, you seriously don't understand the importance?
You really need to do some research before you comment on things you don't know anything about.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 06:52 PM
The location of undersea cables is one of the most important things on earth as far as communications, you realize the internet is provided through those cables. Internet, phone calls, this includes cell phones, all data transmissions. You didn't know that?
As for the others, you seriously don't understand the importance?
You really need to do some research before you comment on things you don't know anything about.
Satellite and wireless communications. The military prefers those. Welcome to 2010. Joe Bob not being able to surf for porn or text his girlfriend is not a matter of national security.
As for the others, I am sure you will explain to me how a maker of snake-bite venom is relevant to national security, for example. It has to do with the rattlesnakes al-Qaida plans to release in Manhattan, I imagine.
Satellite and wireless communications. The military prefers those. Welcome to 2010.You really don't know what you're talking about. Satellite has very limited use for communications for voice, almost none for data because of latency. Wireless? 'Splain me how wireless is going to travel across the ocean.
As for the others, I am sure you will explain to me how a maker of snake-bite venom is relevant to national security, for example. It has to do with the rattlesnakes al-Qaida plans to release in Manhattan, I imagine.Oh, maybe if they are a lab that is set up to produce vaccines they might be called uopn in the case of an evironmental attack?
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 07:17 PM
BUWAHAHA You really don't know what you're talking about. Satellite has very limited use for communications for voice, almost none for data because of latency. Wireless? 'Splain me how wireless is going to travel across the ocean.
Mr. Evo, you need to remove emotion from this discussion. I am sure you are a learned man and a very patriotic citizen, but that does not mean your convictions and ideals are correct.
If we are still talking about US National Security, then satellite and wireless make perfect sense for the military. The US military can send encrypted information via satellite to any of its units worldwide, just like DirectTV beams your favorite show to your house. For in-theater operations, the military utilizes short-wave radios, wireless networks, and other goodies that do no require miles and miles of cable. For example, there are no cables attached to an UAV while it is in flight. :wink:
Most orders in the US military must be placed on paper, something satellite comms can do perfectly. No submarines, no aircraft carriers, no AWACS, nothing that needs to be deployed will ever stop in the middle of the ocean to plug in to a cable. No underwater cable reaches Iraq or Afghanistan. Air Force one does not need an underwater cable to transmit worldwide.
Oh, maybe if they are a lab that is set up to produce vaccines they might be called uopn in the case of an evironmental attack?
So, in case of environmental attack, you have a lab in a foreign country that needs to ship you vaccines..? Sure, you can stockpile those vaccines, but it would actually make more sense if you had this special lab within the US.
You need to open your eyes, my good sir.
Edit: in case you are unaware, the first thing transmitted through the world's first underwater cable was stock prices. If your military comms rely on a physical cable your enemy can cut, you are doing it wrong. Reason why satellite and wireless were developed. The more you know!
Mr. Evo, you need to remove emotion from this discussion. I am sure you are a learned man and a very patriotic citizen, but that does not mean your convictions and ideals are correct.I apologize for the snork, but I serioulsy spewed on my monitor when I read your post. I happen to be one of the people in this country that works with the government's communications network and am under non-disclosure to the Department of Homeland Security. This is my job, so I happen to know what I'm talking about.
And you don't know what you're talking about.
Evo is female.
Strange that I feel the need to address her as sir sometimes myself. :)
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 07:29 PM
Are the locations of undersea cables classified? Repairs on cable damage are performed from well-known commercial vessels (I can look up names on wikipedia - in the page on submarine cables). And it says the vessels typically identify break locations with a buoy. Even if the cable locations are not in the public domain, all one might have to do to find a cable is to follow one of these ships when they head out of port ... no?
If we are still talking about US National Security, then satellite and wireless make perfect sense for the military. The US military can send encrypted information via satellite to any of its units worldwide, just like DirectTV beams your favorite show to your house. For in-theater operations, the military utilizes short-wave radios, wireless networks, and other goodies that do no require miles and miles of cable. Obviously for on the move forces RF is used, but in theater at every opportunity, the US military prefers using cable to avoid having to take additional steps to prevent possible signal intercepts.
talk2glenn
Dec6-10, 07:34 PM
And she is quite correct. Satellite's are a poor substitute for undersea cables, due to bandwidth and latency. Ever tried satellite-enabled internet? The military reserves its communications satellites for battlefield communications, largely, supplemented by local networks. Everything else travels over the same networks you and I use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_Global_SATCOM_system#Capabilities
The DSCS system will be replaced by six fully operational WGS satellites, each of which will be able to downlink 2.4 Gbit/s of data to tactical users.
This is DOD's newest and fastest com sat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable#Importance_of_subma rine_cables
Also, the total carrying capacity of submarine cables is in the terabits per second while satellites typically offer only megabits per second and display higher latency.
Typical undersea cable.
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 07:34 PM
I happen to be one of the people in this country that works with the government's communications network and am under non-disclosure to the Department of Homeland Security. This is my job, so I happen to know what I'm talking about.
And you don't know what you're talking about.But that's just argument from authority.
Are the locations of undersea cables classified? Repairs on cable damage are performed from well-know commercial vessels. And I think the vessels typically identify break locations with a buoy. Even if the cable locations are not in the public domain, all one might have to do to find a cable is to follow one of these ships when they head out of port ... no?Some are actually well known, but yes, there is some secrecy as to the exact location where they are considered vulnerable.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 07:36 PM
I apologize for the snork, but I serioulsy spewed on my monitor when I read your post. I happen to be one of the people in this country that works with the government's communications network and am under non-disclosure to the Department of Homeland Security. This is my job, so I happen to know what I'm talking about.
And you don't know what you're talking about.
I am certain I do not have the full picture. But now I understand your position much better. You have a stake in the system and it will impact you negatively if the system collapses. Therefore, it is in your self-interest to buy into the system. Whatever the case, your underwater cables are not that critical to US national security, and not realistically accessible to al-Qaida.
I suspect you were a good citizen and reported me to the Stasi, no? :wink:
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 07:45 PM
So, wait a second... in a matter of minutes, a person provided a Wikipedia page that includes a map of anticipated submarine cables for Africa, information about protection zones created by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and information on how most fiber optic submarine cables were developed by a "consortia" of operators, using mostly private capital.
And this is supposedly a US secret? :confused:
And the cables are buried. How is al-Qaida supposed to access these cables again?
So, wait a second... in a matter of minutes, a person provided a Wikipedia page that includes a map of anticipated submarine cables for Africa, information about protection zones created by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and information on how most fiber optic submarine cables were developed by a "consortia" of operators, using mostly private capital.
And this is supposedly a US secret? :confused:
And the cables are buried. How is al-Qaida supposed to access these cables again?Mr. Evo has been unearthed by your nefarious Google searches. He is nonplussed.
So, wait a second... in a matter of minutes, a person provided a Wikipedia page that includes a map of anticipated submarine cables for Africa, information about protection zones created by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and information on how most fiber optic submarine cables were developed by a "consortia" of operators, using mostly private capital.
And this is supposedly a US secret? :confused:
And the cables are buried. How is al-Qaida supposed to access these cables again?
Some things are secret, some things are public.
If you want a nice map of the publicly known cables, here is one that will give you some idea of how essential underwater cables are.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 08:04 PM
I'm starting a new thread because this changes the whole ball game. I think this removes any doubt about Assange's true character and intentions.
Someone see the benefit in this release? I posted a quote in the other thread where Assange said he would not withold information that would cause harm. Evo, I think you're late on this one. The previous leak was a mass release of random government communications. It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it. The video of the helicopter gunship killing reporters qualifies as an intended "whistleblowing". This appears to me to be more an intent to inflict damage on the US.
[edit] The Afghan War Diary strains the concept of "whistleblowing" as well, but with Assange's politics, it is possible he reasonably believed he was whistleblowing the entire war. He probably saw a lot of potential crimes in it. But the mass release of diplomatic cables doesn't qualify. There is little in those cables that could show evidence of US crimes.
What good would come from cutting the ables anyways?
And intercepting them? I'm sure everything is encrypted and have tamper mechanisms or something.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 08:08 PM
Pfc Manning should be charged, tried, and executed by lethal injection, promptly, to put an end the game like atmosphere surrounding the outcome of his actions. The legal system doesn't do anything "promptly" - not that the legal system (even the military legal system) should have anything to do with this. 65 years ago, perhaps what you suggest would have happened, but not today. 65 years ago, his CO might have executed him himself.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 08:09 PM
I don't understand why everybody is getting so angry at the messenger. Assange isn't the one who stole the documents, he's just the journalist. If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 08:13 PM
Ok, I am dumber than what I suspected. Terrorists will be able to destroy submarine communications cables. I do not know how, but if the USG says so, it must be true.
Now, sell me the rabies and smallpox vaccine makers, the plutonium treatment maker, shipping lanes (beyond piracy), and whatever other I am forgetting. The only entry on that list that makes any sense, is the mineral mines. Everything else seems like it can be easily placed within the US.
If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?Money is just markers. Place-makers that allow us to pass "value" around. You know that.
If somebody grabs info that shows that our government is complicit in bribery/illegality, etc, that should be fair game. Daniel Ellsburg was a speed-bump in the path of oligarchy, but I'm glad that he was there.
Dr Lots-o'watts
Dec6-10, 08:18 PM
I don't understand why everybody is getting so angry at the messenger. Assange isn't the one who stole the documents, he's just the journalist.
Well if he cares at all for the stability of his own society, why the release? Obviously, he is serving the journalistic community much more than the governments. This in general is not wrong, but the reasons for these latest releases are not clear to me. There's always been good indications that Canadian resources were important for the US, but I don't see why I'd go shouting about it on rooftops.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 08:31 PM
Money is just markers. Place-makers that allow us to pass "value" around. You know that. How does that address my question?
If somebody grabs info that shows that our government is complicit in bribery/illegality, etc, that should be fair game. Really? Is it legal (or should it be) to steal money from a criminal? Or does your logic only apply to anti-government actions?
What if someone thinks the information they are stealing implicates the government in a crime, but they are wrong? Is is still ok to steal it?
Your logic leads to bad places if applied universally/objectively.
Evo, I think you're late on this one. The previous leak was a mass release of random government communications. It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it. The video of the helicopter gunship killing reporters qualifies as an intended "whistleblowing". This appears to me to be more an intent to inflict damage on the US.I must be losing my touch. I thought I was making it clear that harming the US was his intent.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 08:37 PM
I must be losing my touch. I thought I was making it clear that harming the US was his intent. No, I mean late in just recognizing it now :wink: ...this changes the whole ball game.
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 08:42 PM
It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it. Wikileaks does not fit the description of a whistle-blower in a more fundamental way, and in roughly the same way that the newspaper contacted by an insider leaking information is not the one referred to as the whistle-blower.
Jack21222
Dec6-10, 09:20 PM
If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?
Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.
When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.
I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.
Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.
When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.
I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.
Proton Soup
Dec6-10, 09:27 PM
so does this list also contain our petroleum assets in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the Middle East, and Caspian Sea Region?
Jack21222
Dec6-10, 09:36 PM
Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.
Assange didn't steal documents, he just spread information in the same way writing a story about a CIA informant's identity would.
Right after Richard Armitage and just before the people that lied to get us into the war in the first place?
Are we at war with Wikileaks??? Don't try to distract the thread away from the subject.
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 09:44 PM
Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.Novak published an article that revealed leaked classified information too (with a classification higher than "secret", I imagine).
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:50 PM
Wikileaks does not fit the description of a whistle-blower in a more fundamental way, and in roughly the same way that the newspaper contacted by an insider leaking information is not the one referred to as the whistle-blower. Point taken: Wikileaks leaks things for whistleblowers. The media has called it "the whistleblower website".
In any case, I'm not sure that changes anything about my point.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:53 PM
Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.
When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down. No, it really doesn't break down that way. You're not grasping the concept of ownership of information/intellectual property. Everything from patents to copy protected CDs work this way. For example copying a music cd and giving the copy to a friend is stealing even though you still retain your original copy and the artist who recorded it still has theirs. I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all. I am not claiming Assange can be successfully prosecuted.
Assange didn't steal documents, he just spread information in the same way writing a story about a CIA informant's identity would.
The military guy didn't know how to get the documents, he asked for help in doing it, that's how he got reported. The assumpition is that wikileaks told him how to do it.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 10:03 PM
Another assumption is that someone else besides Wikileaks told him how to do it. It works in many ways.
Another assumption is that someone else besides Wikileaks told him how to do it. It works in many ways.
Are you going to keep us in suspense?
Jack21222
Dec6-10, 10:27 PM
No, it really doesn't break down that way. You're not grasping the concept of ownership of information/intellectual property. Everything from patents to copy protected CDs work this way. For example copying a music cd and giving the copy to a friend is stealing even though you still retain your original copy and the artist who recorded it still has theirs. I am not claiming Assange can be successfully prosecuted.
Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.
CRGreathouse
Dec6-10, 10:29 PM
Are you going to keep us in suspense?
Mathnomalous pointed out an unsupported assumption that was about as plausible as the unsupported assumption Evo gave. I don't think there's any reason to feel suspense; I doubt either Evo or Mathnomalous intends to support the assumption they proffered.
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 10:32 PM
The military guy didn't know how to get the documents, he asked for help in doing it, that's how he got reported. The assumpition is that wikileaks told him how to do it.Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.
Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.No, it's a criminal offense. ICE has shut down 80 websites just recently for criminal copyright violation.
Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.I assume it will take time to build up a case. Maybe they didn't and the guy found another hacker to help him after he contacted wikileaks. I'm not privy to the investigation. All I know for sure is that the hacker he contacted for help turned him in at the time he contacted wikileaks. A very short time frame.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 10:41 PM
Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal. Copyright infringement is actually a more direct analogy, so....no, it doesn't break down. I just used physical theft because you seem to reject the concept of stealing information. Now it seems you accept that such things are illegal. You're arguing against your own point.
talk2glenn
Dec6-10, 10:51 PM
Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.
Id strongly suggest not taking legal advice from Jack.
CRGreathouse
Dec6-10, 11:05 PM
No, it's a criminal offense. ICE has shut down 80 websites just recently for criminal copyright violation.
It's worth mentioning that this leak is *not* a copyright violation, insofar as the leaked material is the product of US government employees. (Of course they would presumably be in violation of the National Security Act of 1947 and/or EO 13526 and/or the UCMJ.)
It's worth mentioning that this leak is *not* a copyright violation, insofar as the leaked material is the product of US government employees. (Of course they would presumably be in violation of the National Security Act of 1947 and/or EO 13526 and/or the UCMJ.)I think jack21222 knows that now.
Jack21222
Dec6-10, 11:24 PM
I think jack21222 knows that now.
I still maintain that it's largely civil, not criminal. I've found this website which cites US law, but, I cannot vouch for its accuracy.
http://stason.org/TULARC/business/copyright/3-3-Is-copyright-infringement-a-crime-or-a-civil-matter.html
However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A
copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement
is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain.
In my opinion, it's FAR more common for copyright violations to NOT be for commercial gain. The millions of people in the United States who have pirated music, movies, or software for personal use have not committed a crime according to that website, because it wasn't for commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Russ's example was copying a CD and giving away one copy for free. This is NOT a crime. If my source is wrong, please post a better source saying so.
Edit: My source is from 16 years ago, but I'm struggling to find more recent, credible answers. It's past midnight, and I have better things to do before bed than parse US code.
CRGreathouse
Dec6-10, 11:57 PM
IANAL
In my opinion, it's FAR more common for copyright violations to NOT be for commercial gain. The millions of people in the United States who have pirated music, movies, or software for personal use have not committed a crime according to that website, because it wasn't for commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Look at §506(a)(1)(B). If you hit a six-month total of $1000 retail value (probably not unreasonable, and extremely easy if they allow double counting -- I don't know the case law here) then it's criminal, not civil.
The penalties are also pretty severe even on the civil side. Statutory damages are between $750 and $30,000 per work. That probably means that one such lawsuit takes all your money.
I still maintain that it's largely civil, not criminal. I've found this website which cites US law, but, I cannot vouch for its accuracy.
http://stason.org/TULARC/business/copyright/3-3-Is-copyright-infringement-a-crime-or-a-civil-matter.html
In my opinion, it's FAR more common for copyright violations to NOT be for commercial gain. The millions of people in the United States who have pirated music, movies, or software for personal use have not committed a crime according to that website, because it wasn't for commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Russ's example was copying a CD and giving away one copy for free. This is NOT a crime. If my source is wrong, please post a better source saying so.
Edit: My source is from 16 years ago, but I'm struggling to find more recent, credible answers. It's past midnight, and I have better things to do before bed than parse US code.<sigh>
Last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seized over 80 websites for alleged copyright and trademark violations. Caught up along with many sites alleged to be selling counterfeit clothing and other products were five entertainment websites, including the popular hip-hop blogs OnSmash.com and dajaz1.com.
All that remains on their homepages is a stern notice from the government threatening steep fines and prison time under federal statutes. Even uploading something that is copyrighted and allowing downloads is illegal because it denies the owner the profit of a sale.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/01/homeland.security.rap.blog.ew/index.html?section=cnn_latest
But this is OFF TOPIC. THE END.
Eh, a simple note to the Pentagon letting them know about the security flaw might have sufficed.
I suspect the point is to show the world(=the democratic system), that weaknesses. Because the entire world is ultimately the democratic basis.
One of the points of wikileaks (as far as I understand their logic) is that too much secrecy (in particular that countries has governmentms and special forces that excecute actions that are in fact not know to the public) is a democratic problem, because the population will from the point of view of the environment be held responsible for any action executed by secret special forces as well. I personally would not want to be held responsible for stupid things my government does. What I am unaware if, means I don't even have a chance to vote against it.
/Fredrik
I suspect the point is to show the world, that weaknesses. Because the entire world is ultimately the democratic basis.
One of the points of wikileaks (as far as I understand their logic) is that too much secrecy (in particular that countries has governmentms and special forces that excecute actions that are in fact not know to the public) is a democratic problem, because the population will from the point of view of the environment be held responsible for any action executed by secret special forces as well. I personally would not want to be held responsible for stupid things my government does. What I am unaware if, means I don't even have a chance to vote against it.
/FredrikWell, we know now that was all garbage, his true intent is now known. We've moved past any good intent.
Well, we know now that was all garbage, his true intent is now known. We've moved past any good intent.
Which is? I you mean to say "damage US", which is somewhat obvious (but he has caused damage also to other countries, so US is not alone), the question is what is his motives for doing that?
Any ideas? That it's just pure evil is something I find utterly unlikely. That he would say be on al quaidas payroll I also find unlikely.
/Fredrik
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 12:28 AM
Well, we know now that was all garbage, his true intent is now known. We've moved past any good intent.
Whatever Assange's intentions are, they do not change the nature of the information Wikileaks is releasing. Also, it seems some influential people understood Assange's intentions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=2&hp
http://www.slate.com/id/2276857/
All you need to know about Assange is contained in the profile of him by the great John F. Burns and in his shockingly thuggish response to it. The man is plainly a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda. As I wrote before, when he says that his aim is "to end two wars," one knows at once what he means by the "ending."
I would like to correct a mistake I made before. I said Assange is Swedish. He is not. He is Australian.
Which is? I you mean to say "damage US", which is somewhat obvious (but he has caused damage also to other countries, so US is not alone), the question is what is his motives for doing that?
Any ideas? That it's just pure evil is something I find utterly unlikely. That he would say be on al quaidas payroll I also find unlikely.
/FredrikThe upload this thread is about was done specifically to harm the US. He has now threatened to upload documents that are, in his words, "a thermonuclear device in the information age.” He doesn't care about the harm he does, he now plans to upload all of the unredacted documents with the names and locations of all people. The guy is a scum bag.
I picture it like this: Yes he is causing damage, but the damange might be directed to an undemocratic and partly corrupt workings of a system. I don't think this refer to the country as such and it's people, it refers to the strategy.
Lets consider the following scenario. A big armoured system A, interacts with it's environment. A has gained confidence and used to using forced to bully development in a certain direction at the expense of others. This creates tension in the environment, enemies are grown. But A knows that it's big enough to handle this. So A's strategy works and is successful.
Until the point when someone reveals that A has a weak point, that can't be tightened with bullets. Then A is forces to revise it's survival strategy. The only way to secure it is to make sense there is noone that wants to hit on the weak point, because they see that they are also dependent on you.
/Fredrik
The upload this thread is about was done specifically to harm the US. He has now threatened to upload documents that are, in his words, "a thermonuclear device in the information age.” He doesn't care about the harm he does, he now plans to upload all of the unredacted documents with the names and locations of all people. The guy is a scum bag.
Sorry, maybe it's something I missed, is ther a link somewhere?
/Fredrik
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 12:35 AM
The upload this thread is about was done specifically to harm the US. He has now threatened to upload documents that are, in his words, "a thermonuclear device in the information age.” He doesn't care about the harm he does, he now plans to upload all of the unredacted documents with the names and locations of all people. The guy is a scum bag.
Can you provide specific examples of the kind of harm his actions are causing or will cause?
Can you provide specific examples of the kind of harm his actions are causing or will cause?Read the threads.
Mech_Engineer
Dec7-10, 12:48 AM
Can you provide specific examples of the kind of harm his actions are causing or will cause?
Off the top of my head:
Releasing names of confidential informants, putting their lives in serious jeopardy and reducing effectiveness of intelligence efforts worldwide.
Releasing strategic planning documents w.r.t. troops currently deployed abroad.
Sorry, maybe it's something I missed, is ther a link somewhere?
/Fredrikhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 12:53 AM
Off the top of my head:
Releasing names of confidential informants, putting their lives in serious jeopardy and reducing effectiveness of intelligence efforts worldwide.
Releasing strategic planning documents w.r.t. troops currently deployed abroad.
Those are your claims. For all we know, world governments may simply readjust and continue business as usual.
Mech_Engineer
Dec7-10, 12:57 AM
Those are your claims. For all we know, world governments may simply readjust and continue business as usual.
You asked for specific examples of possible harm, and I obliged. I'm not sure your reply actually makes any useful point w.r.t. my specific examples however...
humanino
Dec7-10, 01:00 AM
You asked for specific examples of possible harm, and I obliged. I'm not sure your reply actually makes any useful point w.r.t. my specific examples however...Your answer is speculative. It does not refer to actual events.
Mech_Engineer
Dec7-10, 01:04 AM
Your answer is speculative. It does not refer to actual events.
So you're looking for historical precedent, as in previously leaked similar documents that caused specific harmful events? That, I don't have on the top of my head, but I will look around.
Edit- it occurs to me that since classified leaked documents are "classified, " I suspect events occurring from their release (without subsequent declassification) would be classified as well. I'm not sure I'll be able to find the specific historical events you seek...
Edit more- I will also point out he asked for "specific examples of the kind of harm his actions are causing or will cause," the "will cause" part being speculative in nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/world-europe-11933089
Wikileaks: US-Nato plan to defend Baltics from Russia
Arguing that wikileaks is not delivering harmful information will be very hard.
The upload this thread is about was done specifically to harm the US. He has now threatened to upload documents that are, in his words, "a thermonuclear device in the information age.” He doesn't care about the harm he does, he now plans to upload all of the unredacted documents with the names and locations of all people. The guy is a scum bag.
I think you are neglecting the worst case scenario which is he or one of his aides pass this information to China/Russia/Al-Qeada quietly for big sum of money.
Capturing/killing him or his aides, shutting down wikileaks is a simple minded knee jerk reaction which wouldn't make data disappear. Problem is not him; problem is data is in the hands of people who are not US officials. The US government failed to protect its data; and is trying to pass the blame on people who stole data which is rational and legitimate but that doesn't help undo the mistake. China/Russia/anyone else with people like Assange could also have done this.
humanino
Dec7-10, 01:18 AM
So you're looking for historical precedent, as in previously leaked similar documents that caused specific harmful events?No. I do not claim to doubt the leaks will be harmful. In fact Assange himself does not reject the harm, he rather claims for a "greater good". Like they say "one does not make an omelette without breaking eggs"... I am asking whether we have already identified victims, or other form of harm.
I did not ask earlier, but if anybody knows of evidence for anything good resulting from the leaks, it would also be interesting to post them
Edit- it occurs to me that since classified leaked documents are "classified, " I suspect events occurring from their release (without subsequent declassification) would be classified as well. I'm not sure I'll be able to find the specific historical events you seek...I had not realized this.
Edit more- I will also point out he asked for "specific examples of the kind of harm his actions are causing or will cause," the "will cause" part being speculative in nature.I noticed the same.
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 01:20 AM
So you're looking for historical precedent, as in previously leaked similar documents that caused specific harmful events? That, I don't have on the top of my head, but I will look around.
Edit- it occurs to me that since classified leaked documents are "classified, " I suspect events occurring from their release (without subsequent declassification) would be classified as well. I'm not sure I'll be able to find the specific historical events you seek...
Edit more- I will also point out he asked for "specific examples of the kind of harm his actions are causing or will cause," the "will cause" part being speculative in nature.
In other words, any harm that occurs from these releases will probably be kept classified and we may possibly continue living normal lives. Here is an information release that actually caused harm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Dispatch
The Ems Dispatch (French: Dépêche d'Ems, German: Emser Depesche), sometimes called the Ems Telegram, caused France to declare the Franco-Prussian War in July 1870. The actual dispatch was an internal message from the Prussian King's vacationing site to Bismarck in Berlin, reporting demands made by the French ambassador; it was Bismarck's released statement to the press that became known as Ems Dispatch. The name referred to Bad Ems, a resort spa east of Koblenz on the Lahn river, then situated in Hesse-Nassau, a new possession of Prussia.
Here is another classified document leak that caused harm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
The Zimmermann Telegram (or Zimmermann Note; German: Zimmermann-Depesche; Spanish: Telegrama Zimmermann) was a 1917 diplomatic proposal from the German Empire to Mexico to make war against the United States. The proposal was declined by Mexico, but angered Americans and led in part to the declaration of war in April.
The Zimmermann Telegram was intercepted and decoded by the British cryptographers of Room 40.[2] The revelation of its contents in the American press on March 1 caused public outrage that contributed to the United States' declaration of war against Germany and its allies on April 6.
I think you are neglecting the worst case scenario which is he or one of his aides pass this information to China/Russia/Al-Qeada quietly for big sum of money.
As opposed to those foreign countries waiting for the information to be released for free.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/
Thanks.
From that information it seems the motive seems to be simply an insurance against responses to the previously released information that means attempting to terminate wikileaks. It seems they have on purpose not published that because the "temporary conflict" that may arise due to revealing it, risk beeing fatal - in accordance with the rationale that the purpose is to strengthen and develop the global democracy - not destroy it.
Somehow this is the only defense they have. My hope is that, development quickly takes the turn so that these overly sensitive documents does not have to be released.
My impression is still that it's not wikileaks goal to release fatallysensitive information. I don't think they will publish this if the threats against wikilekas ang assange is dropped.
I think it's a mistake to try to shutdown wikileaks and Assange. It's not the response I hope for. It's clear however that it's politically incorrect to approve assange, so I fully understand the protests. But I think trying to shutdown and kill this guy is irrational.
/Fredrik
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/
Mr. Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens warned that if Mr. Assange were to be brought to trial on rape accusations he faces in Sweden, or for treason charges that have been suggested by U.S. politicians, he would release the encryption key. The tens of thousands of people who have downloaded the file would instantly have access to the names, addresses and details contained in the file.
This is disgusting.
Galteeth
Dec7-10, 01:57 AM
This is disgusting.
Why?
Lets not forget that Assange is now in a desperate situation. Anyone with some ability to project how other people think and act would expect no less than a desperate REaction.
Press anyone into a corner and see what happens. He will take actions that otherwise he would never think of. This is rational indeed.
Rational <> Right, though. To see the rational in something doesn't mean you agree. But it certainly helps analyse the situation in order to for yourself take the right actions.
Edit: Assange is most certainly not afraid to respond to his sex charges in Sweden. This is a peanut in the context. He is afraid that someone will arrest him here and bring it to countries that will do bad things to him. Completely understandable. His actions are again rational, given the situation.
/Fredrik
Why?
He's using the classified cables as leverage against the allegations of a sex offense, putting lives at risk for his own purposes.
He's using the classified cables as leverage against the allegations of a sex offense, putting lives at risk for his own purposes.
Post #3:
This action was wrong.
But, situation has turned so bad - with paypal canceling their donations, banks freezing their assets, death threats to the founder, arrest seen as politically motivated by wikileaks - I no longer expect any rational response from Wikileaks anymore that is: if they had any little concern about the US security (not diplomatic) before it is gone now. In other words, I would expect more aggressive actions from the organization.
...
Galteeth
Dec7-10, 02:02 AM
He's using the classified cables as leverage against the allegations of a sex offense, putting lives at risk for his own purposes.
I'm assuming his position is that the charges are bogus and retaliation for wikileaks.
I'm assuming his position is that the charges are bogus and retaliation for wikileaks.
I have to admit that my expectation is that they ARE likely bogus constructions too.
So does a large portion of the public (not everyone of course). In particular the proven history, that some people do construct "bogus reasons" to justify actions, this sceptsisims is in fact justifed. This is indeed sad, but this is yet just another reason rational reason why information needs to be exposed to the democratic system - hidden strategies threaten democracy. The fact that he is so afraid to answer to his charges of sex charges because he has a justified fear to be abducted or taken away in despite of promisies of the contrary is a severe sign of corruption. When the justice system can 't be trusted to be fair, then it's really bad.
/Fredrik
xxChrisxx
Dec7-10, 04:23 AM
Mr. Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens warned that if Mr. Assange were to be brought to trial on rape accusations he faces in Sweden, or for treason charges that have been suggested by U.S. politicians
Treason? How can the US try an Austrailian for treason? Either thats made up or whoever said it doesn't understand the word.
I've no doubt there is a case he could be done in the US for espionage (which i'm fairly sure carries the same level of penalites as treason), but you can't be a traitor to someone you don't have alleigence to.
You could try the bloke who stole the documents for treason.
Pengwuino
Dec7-10, 04:55 AM
He has been detained in Britain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
LONDON — British police arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Tuesday on a European warrant issued by Sweden, London's Metropolitan Police said.
Pengwuino
Dec7-10, 05:05 AM
Treason? How can the US try an Austrailian for treason? Either thats made up or whoever said it doesn't understand the word.
I've no doubt there is a case he could be done in the US for espionage (which i'm fairly sure carries the same level of penalites as treason), but you can't be a traitor to someone you don't have alleigence to.
You could try the bloke who stole the documents for treason.
I'm fairly sure the video of the politician saying it was him saying it fairly tongue and cheek. Treason, espionage, whatever, the idea is that he should be charged for what he did, released secret government documents.
You can point out all the technicalities and morality and freedom of the press issues you want, bottom line is he is an enemy of the united states, released secret documents, and should be treated just as if a Taliban member released secret documents. Just because he did it in a high tech manner and has lots of nice media coverage and tons of stock footage of him doing respectable presentations doesn't change this fact.
xxChrisxx
Dec7-10, 05:10 AM
I certainly hope it was tongue in cheek, because a politicain who doesn't understand a word like that kind of worries me a little.
I really don't care what goes on regarding the outcome of this, it's interesting (a bit like a soap opera), but at the end of the day I couldn't give a toss.
Very interesting indeed.
It will be very interesting to see how this develops further!
/Fredrik
I really don't care what goes on regarding the outcome of this, it's interesting (a bit like a soap opera), but at the end of the day I couldn't give a toss.
But alot of people do care (wherever the symphaty lies) and alot of people will take actions based on either outcome I am sure.
it's interesting (a bit like a soap opera)
I think it's better than super bowl :)
/Fredrik
Money is just markers. Place-makers that allow us to pass "value" around. You know that.
If somebody grabs info that shows that our government is complicit in bribery/illegality, etc, that should be fair game. Daniel Ellsburg was a speed-bump in the path of oligarchy, but I'm glad that he was there.
Ellsburg has commented.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=3&hp
"“I’ve been waiting 40 years for someone to disclose information on a scale that might really make a difference,” said Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed a 1,000-page secret study of the Vietnam War in 1971 that became known as the Pentagon Papers.
Mr. Ellsberg said he saw kindred spirits in Mr. Assange and Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old former Army intelligence operative under detention in Quantico, Va., suspected of leaking the Iraq and Afghan documents.
“They were willing to go to prison for life, or be executed, to put out this information,” Mr. Ellsberg said. "
I'm not so sure he's correct in his assumption of their willingness to go to prison or be executed though.
Dr Lots-o'watts
Dec7-10, 11:53 AM
Can you provide specific examples of the kind of harm his actions are causing or will cause?
The information given out is stuff some non-US intelligence agencies would pay large amounts to try to obtain. The US has also spent large amounts to maintain it classified. See the imbalance?
The information given out is stuff some non-US intelligence agencies would pay large amounts to try to obtain. The US has also spent large amounts to maintain it classified. See the imbalance?
People are so focused on terrorist being the enemy and used to world peace that they forget there are very real enemy nations out there and very real possibilities of future enemies. This is not information that should be released.
Dr Lots-o'watts
Dec7-10, 12:20 PM
If they were to release similar loads of information from large, industrialized Asian or European countries, they would have more sympathy. Personally, I don't smell that coming around.
The information given out is stuff some non-US intelligence agencies would pay large amounts to try to obtain. The US has also spent large amounts to maintain it classified. See the imbalance?
You make a valid point - perhaps the US should bring suit for it's financial losses - could be hundreds of billions of dollars - all expenses considered?
If they were to release similar loads of information from large, industrialized Asian or European countries, they would have more sympathy. Personally, I don't smell that coming around.If Wikileaks released a similar info-dump of Russian dispatches, he'd probably be dead already. Just my opinion, but they don't seem to fool around.
If Wikileaks released a similar info-dump of Russian dispatches, he'd probably be dead already. Just my opinion, but they don't seem to fool around.
I wouldn't try it in China either.
nismaratwork
Dec7-10, 04:04 PM
I agree with the killing Assange concept when it comes to other country's policies, but it's important to remember that doing so still wouldn't have changed the outcome for them. This information is out there, it's done... and it's not something Assange could have done on his own. I'm sorry, but how often to eggheads such as ourselves laugh about the state of our civilian and military information infrastructure? I'm only surprised a Pfc. Manning didn't pop up sooner.
Now, an effective tactic with a proven history would be to make credible threats against the lives of people Assange or Manning (or other relevant parties) hold dear, up to and including torturing and execution. Now... ask yourself if you want to live in that country... I know I don't. Assange seems like a creep to me, but he's a creep who's got the fail-deadly device...
Dr Lots-o'watts
Dec7-10, 05:39 PM
You make a valid point - perhaps the US should bring suit for it's financial losses - could be hundreds of billions of dollars - all expenses considered?
I'm wondering if any "classical spy" has ever gotten hold of so much information. There is consolation in that the information is made public rather than being funneled directly to a single non-ally government.
I mentioned it before. I am appalled that the US Government had nothing in place to detect unusual activity such as huge amounts of data being accessed and downloaded. If I attempted something like that where I work, I'd have been cutoff and one of those Segway riding guards would have been at my office before I could get up. Even repeated visits to certain files would have raised a red flag. When we access sensitive files, we are logged off every 15 minutes. And every time i access the file, it's logged where I can see it to remind me that I'd better have a really good reason to be in there. A pain in the @ss, but we deal with the government. We have more security than they do, apparently.
Gokul43201
Dec7-10, 05:48 PM
I mentioned it before. I am appalled that the US Government had nothing in place to detect unusual activity such as huge amounts of data being accessed and downloaded. If I attempted something like that where I work, I'd have been cutoff and one of those Segway riding guards would have been at my office before I could get up. Even repeated visits to certain files would have raised a red flag. When we access sensitive files, we are logged off every 15 minutes. And every time i access the file, it's logged where I can see it to remind me that I'd better have a really good reason to be in there. A pain in the @ss, but we deal with the government. We have more security than they do, apparently.I heard on the radio a week or so ago, something about vulnerabilities in data access or transfer that came about due to some changes made in the early days of the Iraq War. I only just caught a couple of sentences, so don't really know what was being said. I've since tried to find any reporting on this but haven't been able to - if someone else knows what I'm talking about, please share your source.
Dr Lots-o'watts
Dec7-10, 05:50 PM
An interview with the suspected "leaker" would be insightful as to where he thought he'd end up.
Galteeth
Dec7-10, 06:21 PM
If they were to release similar loads of information from large, industrialized Asian or European countries, they would have more sympathy. Personally, I don't smell that coming around.
What some people forget is wikileaks has been around awhile. They have and do release plenty of non-US stuff. The recent controversy has been focused on US documents.
For example they have released stuff from Peru, Kenya, Cuba, Paraguay, Portugal, Iran.
I mentioned it before. I am appalled that the US Government had nothing in place to detect unusual activity such as huge amounts of data being accessed and downloaded. If I attempted something like that where I work, I'd have been cutoff and one of those Segway riding guards would have been at my office before I could get up. Even repeated visits to certain files would have raised a red flag. When we access sensitive files, we are logged off every 15 minutes. And every time i access the file, it's logged where I can see it to remind me that I'd better have a really good reason to be in there. A pain in the @ss, but we deal with the government. We have more security than they do, apparently.
When I was working for government utility company, I also had to go through very tedious procedures to get something. People couldn't just go access anything without taking approval. Our activities were tracked and there was big emphasis on protecting the data. We also had to use special USBs and encryption... etc
nismaratwork
Dec7-10, 08:26 PM
Lets be blunt... you can use a simple program to track what a given user on a secure network is doing, and it doesn't take heuristic genius to figure out that Manning at least deserved a look.
Assange is an opportunistic creep, but we shouldn't waste our focus on the end of the rat line, but the beginning.
People forget that all of the information Wikileaks is currently releasing WAS handed to the US Government, they were asked to go over it beforehand. They declined.
Proton Soup
Dec9-10, 10:03 PM
People forget that all of the information Wikileaks is currently releasing WAS handed to the US Government, they were asked to go over it beforehand. They declined.
you're right, i don't remember that happening
nismaratwork
Dec9-10, 10:14 PM
you're right, i don't remember that happening
Nor I... and I can't find a reference to support that.
you're right, i don't remember that happening
Well I know that no one will believe me, since none of the bookmarks I had on it are working right now.
I am trying to find references online about it right now. The best I can offer is a denial on the US Defense website: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60254
So there is a reference in there about it, but they are denying it took place.
Back when this first started to come about, prior to the media and international explosion that occurred, around June - there was a video on TED with Julian Assange discussing that he had contacted the United States officials, they declined to review the documents and demanded he hand them over in their entirety. Of course by then it was too late, since they were compromised the minute they left the "whistle blowers" hands and there is no giving them back after that.
I'll keep looking, if I can find anymore references I will surely return with them.
Dr Lots-o'watts
Dec9-10, 10:22 PM
What some people forget is wikileaks has been around awhile. They have and do release plenty of non-US stuff. The recent controversy has been focused on US documents.
For example they have released stuff from Peru, Kenya, Cuba, Paraguay, Portugal, Iran.
So? What about China, Russia, Germany, England, France, Syria, Brazil, Israel, Japan, India, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Australia?
Hmm? What about Australia?
Why is there ONLY U.S. info these days?
So? What about China, Russia, Germany, England, France, Syria, Brazil, Israel, Japan, India, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Australia?
Hmm? What about Australia?
Why is there ONLY U.S. info these days?
There isn't.
Go read the cables themselves, they release stuff on every major country all the time.
It's just this stuff about the US is so big because the US makes it so big.
Office_Shredder
Dec9-10, 11:35 PM
So? What about China, Russia, Germany, England, France, Syria, Brazil, Israel, Japan, India, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Australia?
Hmm? What about Australia?
Why is there ONLY U.S. info these days?
There's a thread about a wikileaks thing on England on this very forum
Well I know that no one will believe me, since none of the bookmarks I had on it are working right now.
I am trying to find references online about it right now. The best I can offer is a denial on the US Defense website: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60254
So there is a reference in there about it, but they are denying it took place.
Back when this first started to come about, prior to the media and international explosion that occurred, around June - there was a video on TED with Julian Assange discussing that he had contacted the United States officials, they declined to review the documents and demanded he hand them over in their entirety. Of course by then it was too late, since they were compromised the minute they left the "whistle blowers" hands and there is no giving them back after that.
I'll keep looking, if I can find anymore references I will surely return with them.
You need not look further than earlier this thread. Both sides distorted the truth about whether or not the USG was contacted prior to release. There is no proof, only that AFTER one batch was released, an offer was made and rejected concerning a small portion of unreleased documents. (this is documented) and ONE lawyer claims to have tried to give the USG Assange's contact info regarding it prior to the initial release.
Basically you can't get anywhere arguing either side, as there is no real evidence.
Proton Soup
Dec10-10, 09:12 PM
Well I know that no one will believe me, since none of the bookmarks I had on it are working right now.
I am trying to find references online about it right now. The best I can offer is a denial on the US Defense website: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60254
So there is a reference in there about it, but they are denying it took place.
Back when this first started to come about, prior to the media and international explosion that occurred, around June - there was a video on TED with Julian Assange discussing that he had contacted the United States officials, they declined to review the documents and demanded he hand them over in their entirety. Of course by then it was too late, since they were compromised the minute they left the "whistle blowers" hands and there is no giving them back after that.
I'll keep looking, if I can find anymore references I will surely return with them.
yeah, it kind of sounds like they want to have it both ways. my guess is that they didn't want to implicitly assert the documents' authenticity by reviewing them.
yeah, it kind of sounds like they want to have it both ways. my guess is that they didn't want to implicitly assert the documents' authenticity by reviewing them.If you read back on what was posted, Assange was wanting information on why certian names or information should be redacted, something that the US obviously could not do. The USG could not give more classified information to a criminal illegally holding documents.
Proton Soup
Dec10-10, 10:49 PM
If you read back on what was posted, Assange was wanting information on why certian names or information should be redacted, something that the US obviously could not do. The USG could not give more classified information to a criminal illegally holding documents.
criminal is yet to be determined. but if it's too much to ask to say that person X is an afghani civilian, then what exactly? would the government not even provide that much reason to the new york times, or do they actually just submit redactions without comment and wait to see what happens?
criminal is yet to be determined.No the US came out with a statement saying it was illigeal to even wilfully hold the files. Illegal. How or if they decide to press charges is yet to be determined. I'm sure they're biding their time to make sure iof the dom press charges, it's going to stick. Haste makes waste.
zomgwtf
Dec10-10, 11:49 PM
When did the first leak happen? for this set of leaks that is.
http://documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov
Galteeth
Dec11-10, 03:13 AM
So? What about China, Russia, Germany, England, France, Syria, Brazil, Israel, Japan, India, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Australia?
Hmm? What about Australia?
Why is there ONLY U.S. info these days?
The current controversy has been surrounding the leaks of US diplomatic cables. This is what wikileaks is currently releasing. The previous releases did not receive the same level of coverage.
There was in fact a major release pertainting to Australia in 2009. It revealed the names of sites on the government's internet black list. The list was in theory to prevent access of child pornography, but many of the sites tuned out to be unrelated to child pornography, and some were even political.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1888011,00.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/wikileaks-expos/
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/296161/australia_web_blacklist_leaked/
Mathnomalous
Dec11-10, 05:39 AM
Not only that, one only needs to go to The Guardian's website (guardian.co.uk) to follow the Wikileaks releases. It seems The Guardian reports many of the Wikileaks releases that the US news media seems not to cover.
Here is some of the stuff The Guardian picked up from the releases:
• Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.
• China is ready to accept Korean unification and is distancing itself from North Korea which it describes as behaving like a "spoiled child". Cables say Kim Jong-il is a "flabby old chap" losing his grip and drinking.
• Spain's El País focuses on repeated attempts by the US to curb court cases in Spain against American soldiers and politicians accused of involvement in Iraq war crimes or torture at Guantánamo. It highlights a series of cables relating to the possibility of Spain accepting former Guantánamo prisoners. Spain's political situation and public opinion made this "almost impossible", an official said.
• US and British diplomats fear that Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme could lead to terrorists obtaining fissile material, or a devastating nuclear exchange with India. Also, small teams of US special forces have been operating secretly inside Pakistan's tribal areas, with Pakistani government approval. And the US concluded that Pakistani troops were responsible for a spate of extra-judicial killings in the Swat Valley and tribal belt, but decided not to comment publicly.
• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with rampant corruption and scant separation between the activities of the government and organised crime. Vladimir Putin is accused of amassing "illicit proceeds" from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas. And he was likely to have known about the operation in London to murder the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko, Washington's top diplomat in Europe alleged.
• Russia armed Georgian separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and carried out a wave of "covert actions" to undermine Georgia in the runup to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, according to US diplomats.
•The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is erratic, emotional and prone to believing paranoid conspiracy theories, according to frustrated diplomats and foreign statesmen. He has also been accused by his own ministers of complicity in criminal activity, including ordering the physical intimidation of the top official in charge of leading negotiations with the Taliban.
•US diplomats have reported suspicions that Silvio Berlusconi could be "profiting personally and handsomely" from secret deals with the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, according to cables released by WikiLeaks. They centre on allegations that the Italian leader has been promised a cut of huge energy contracts. Another memo quoted a friend of Berlusconi saying the Italian prime minister's fondness for partying had taken a physical and political toll on him.
•The US military has been charging its allies a 15% handling fee on hundreds of millions of dollars being raised internationally to build up the Afghan army. Germany has threatened to cancel contributions, raising concerns that money is going to the US treasury.
•Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Colombia's Álvaro Uribe "almost came to blows" at a Latin America unity summit, according to a US memo, which described it as "the worst expression of banana republic discourse".
Mathnomalous
Dec11-10, 05:42 AM
Here are some useful links, with plenty of information:
Main Page:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
Day-to-Day Key Points:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points
Interactive Database (World Map):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks
NeoDevin
Dec11-10, 01:35 PM
No the US came out with a statement saying it was illigeal to even wilfully hold the files. Illegal.
The US can come out with whatever statement it wants. Assange is not a criminal according to the laws where he lives.
By your logic, since in fundamentalist religious states it's homosexuality is illegal, homosexuals all over the world are criminals.
mheslep
Dec11-10, 04:51 PM
It seems The Guardian reports many of the Wikileaks releases that the US news media seems not to cover.
Is this some personal opinion of conspiracy? Based on what?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html
The US can come out with whatever statement it wants. Assange is not a criminal according to the laws where he lives.
We're talking about classified documents, if you do not hold a clearance with a "need to know" and if you are willfully in possession of said documents, you are illegally in possession. What the US decides to do is the question. It doesn't matter that he might not have broken any Australian laws, do you think agents that steal or recieve classified documents are tried based on the laws of their home country or the country they have commited the crime against?
Some reading.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001
NeoDevin
Dec11-10, 05:04 PM
We're talking about classified documents, if you do not hold a clearance with a "need to know" and if you are willfully in possession of said documents, you are illegally in possession. What the US can do to you is the question, not the fact that you have stolen classified dosuments in your possession.
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possess documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.
Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.
nismaratwork
Dec11-10, 07:20 PM
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possess documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.
Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.
Do you not grasp the concept that if you commit a crime in another country, you'll be held to their standards of justice as long as you're in their custody? As of this moment, Assange is bearing up to the standard of England's extradition laws, and their interaction with Swedish law.
It was clear to me that Evo was making this point... was it not to you? I also have to ask, are you unaware of this crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receipt_of_stolen_property
Receipt of stolen property is a type of crime in the legal code of the United States. It is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2315 to knowingly receive, conceal, or dispose of stolen property with a value at least $5,000 that is part of interstate commerce (i.e., been transported across state lines).
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possess documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.
Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.Ah, so spying and espionage against the US can only be committed by US citizens. So all of those foreign spies are all make believe.
Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possess such documents. What would be the point to classify documents to keep them out of the hands of other nations?
Post your source.
This is the only way documents can be declassified.
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html#three
This is one of the laws against obtaining or holding classified information.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793
Here is another http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798
Both of these are under consideration for charges against Assange.
Anyway, back to your claim, post the sources that back you up please.
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. 18 U.S.C.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i058.htm
And Classified Information Appearing in Public Media: The fact that classified information has been made public does not mean it is automatically declassified. Information remains classified unless and until it is formally declassified. If you become aware of classified or other sensitive information appearing in the public media, bring it to the attention of your security office.
http://rf-web.tamu.edu/security/security%20guide/S1class/Classif.htm
To everyone who has contributed so far, this will be my only post on this touchy subject, see link (http://dailyator.com/wikileaks-posts-mysterious-%E2%80%98insurance%E2%80%99-file/29397/) from what limited information I have been able to glean and filter, consider this, and I have no corroborating sources besides what I have read online, the mysterious "insurance" 1.4 GB file that is supposedly in the hands of many individuals without access to the AES 256 bit encryption scheme (reportedly one of the US's most secure methods of protecting sensitive material), and access to that file that has been reported to be known only to the accused, Julian Assange, as a means of holding the rest of the world "hostage" if you will in the event anything bad befalls him, he can supposedly communicate to have the information spilled from many sources at once, thus thwarting any organized means to stop the release of it, which could cause harm to not only the US but many foreign countries, friend and foe alike.
It has been reported by a number of sources that the only quick and reliable way to obtain access to the file is to apply, "extraordinary means" to Assange to obtain access to the data, and you know what that means. Unwittingly, Assange may have contributed to his own suffering if those methods are applied to obtain access to the material in the massive data file.
Rhody... :frown: :mad:
P.S. How did all of this sensitive and damaging material get in this precarious predicament in the first place ? This is scary stuff, and many as yet unforeseen and unintended consequences may result from it. I know someone fairly close who may be deployed in the middle of whatever mess this creates. It gives me cause for great concern.
CRGreathouse
Dec11-10, 09:18 PM
Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possess such documents.
Evo, a clarification... are you claiming that it is against (e.g.) Australian law for an Australian to view a document classified by the US?
Evo, a clarification... are you claiming that it is against (e.g.) Australian law for an Australian to view a document classified by the US?No, that was in response to NeoDevin's incorrect post that once a classified file is leaked it is no longer classified. I've said that you can't get into trouble for reading the news. Now if you go to a server that's illegally hosting the unredacted files, I honestly don't know. I seriously doubt anything will happen to the average citizen as long as they don't download anything.
NeoDevin
Dec11-10, 09:49 PM
NeoDevin's incorrect post that once a classified file is leaked it is no longer classified.
Never claimed that, sorry. Please try again.
NeoDevin
Dec11-10, 09:54 PM
Evo, from your post
Activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. 18 U.S.C.
1) Violent acts: nope
2) Dangerous to human life: debatable, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that this is the case. I'm open to your evidence.
3) Violation of criminal laws of the US...: Nope, see the precedent of other media publishing classified documents.
4) Intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population: Nope, just to inform
5) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion: Debatable, the "insurance" package is there, supposedly, to keep the US gov't from coming after him illegally.
Again, he's not a criminal. The people who gave the classified documents to Wikileaks are criminals. Assange has not done anything that is illegal in the country he lives in. Ergo, not a criminal. It is not illegal in the UK to release documents which are classified in the US.
You can argue the merits and morality of releasing the documents, but to say that it was criminal is preposterous.
NeoDevin
Dec11-10, 10:02 PM
Ah, so spying and espionage against the US can only be committed by US citizens. So all of those foreign spies are all make believe.
Generally they would have operated within the US at some point, and are therefore subject to its jurisdiction.
Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possess such documents. What would be the point to classify documents to keep them out of the hands of other nations?
Never claimed that. Please post your source that the UK has laws against possessing materials classified by the US. To clarify: I'm not, and haven't, claimed that it is legal to possess these documents, or even necessarily to view them, within the US. What I am claiming, is that the UK or Australia have no laws with respect to documents classified by the US. The point of classifying documents is to prevent people operating within the US from giving them to other nations. Whoever leaked the documents is the criminal, not Assange. The UK almost certainly employs people to spy on the US. These spies are not criminals in the UK.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that US law applies everywhere in the world. It doesn't. The US can apply for extradition (to a country they have an extradition treaty with) assuming that a crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the US. Further, most of the extradition treaties stipulate that the crimes in question cannot be of a political nature. The case against Assange fails on both counts. I sincerely hope that no country would extradite him for this contrived and illegal prosecution.
I'm still waiting for you to post sources that back you up. You said
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possess documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.
Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.
Also read my post about classified documents and International Terrorism.
And post your sources to back up your claims.
I never posted the UK has laws against possessing materials classified by the US.
Never claimed that.I just reposted where you claimed that (look up).
You seem to be operating under the assumption that US law applies everywhere in the world.I quoted US law, I have made no claims about the laws of any other nation.
Evo, from your post
1) Violent acts: nope
2) Dangerous to human life: debatable, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that this is the case. I'm open to your evidence.
3) Violation of criminal laws of the US...: Nope, see the precedent of other media publishing classified documents.
4) Intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population: Nope, just to inform
5) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion: Debatable, the "insurance" package is there, supposedly, to keep the US gov't from coming after him illegally.
Again, he's not a criminal. The people who gave the classified documents to Wikileaks are criminals. Assange has not done anything that is illegal in the country he lives in. Ergo, not a criminal. It is not illegal in the UK to release documents which are classified in the US.
You can argue the merits and morality of releasing the documents, but to say that it was criminal is preposterous.I'm sure that the US government will change their mind after they read your post. :tongue2: I'll bet that'll be a double face palm moment for them.
mheslep
Dec11-10, 10:45 PM
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possess documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.
.It is also not against Australian law for Assange to come to the US and rob a liquor store or sexually assault somebody, but it is in the US, and he can be held accountable for that or violation of US law by agreement between the US and Australia.
mheslep
Dec11-10, 10:49 PM
4) Intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population: Nope, just to inform
I think it very likely you were aware Assange called for the US Sec of State to resign. Yet you post this?
Again, he's not a criminal. The people who gave the classified documents to Wikileaks are criminals. Assange has not done anything that is illegal in the country he lives in. Ergo, not a criminal. It is not illegal in the UK to release documents which are classified in the US.
You can argue the merits and morality of releasing the documents, but to say that it was criminal is preposterous.
That's why we have extradition treaties with other countries. Where it is an equivalent crime in his own country, if he commits that crime against another, his country may honor the extradition treaty they have with the U.S. and let the U.S. try him for the equivalent offense.
If I publish my government's classified documents, I can be tried here for the offense. If I commit the same act against another government in another country, and it is within the bounds of an existing treaty between them and us, then the U.S. may honor the treaty and hand me over - because it is an equivalent offense. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is sometimes international, and these treaties help to outline what can and can not be pursued. In Assange's case, I see very little jurisdictional arbitrage that he could claim in his defense.
Here's a video explanation by Douglas McNabb that explains the treaty specifically as it applies to Assange. Links to the treaties are below the video.
http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/08/julian-assange-sweden-and-u-s-extradition-treaty/
Mathnomalous
Dec12-10, 12:14 AM
Julian Assange will likely end up in a US Federal Court some time in the near future, unless Sweden or the UK muster up some courage and deny the extradition request to the US (very unlikely). I think the next group of people who manage to obtain classified info will avoid publicity and just mass distribute it over the Internet or sell it to the highest bidder.
Proton Soup
Dec12-10, 01:37 AM
No the US came out with a statement saying it was illigeal to even wilfully hold the files. Illegal. How or if they decide to press charges is yet to be determined. I'm sure they're biding their time to make sure iof the dom press charges, it's going to stick. Haste makes waste.
he's not under US jurisdiction. and making a statement is not how we determine criminality in the US.
It's a new, digital world, where privacy is forfeit. Kinda sucks in my opinion but a witch hunter's paradise. There are plenty of folks, bored of themselves, unconcerned whether they will find food tomorrow, or simply bored with their lives, with nothing better to entertain them than seeking witches with pitch forks, flaming torches, and sadistic glee in their eyes.
There is a biblical quote worth remembering about casting stones in this new world.
Monique
Dec12-10, 03:25 AM
This reminds me of the Australian government who threw a Dutch crime reporter and his college in jail. They were trying to speak to an international fugitive: a murder-suspect on the list of interpol for extradition. The police took the person (wanted by interpol) in protection. Apparently Australia doesn't extradite murder suspects to Honduras and an attempt to contact such an individual for an interview will land you in jail.
Outside court, de Vries told reporters he found it strange he was put in a cell when he had tracked down a murder suspect in Australia and just wanted to ask him some questions and hand him a letter.
"It's very strange, I thought I was in Australia, a free country with free press, but it looks like I'm in China or Korea.
"I'm very surprised the police decided this."
He said he explained to police what happened.
"I didn't touch him, I didn't insult him, I didn't threaten him," he said.
"This is a homicide case and I tracked him down and now you're putting me in jail. That's the world upside down."
De Vries said he was stripped for his overnight detention.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/dutch-crime-reporter-slams-wa-police/story-e6frg6pf-1225908190397
It doesn't matter that he might not have broken any Australian laws, do you think agents that steal or recieve classified documents are tried based on the laws of their home country or the country they have commited the crime against?
Some reading.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001
It does matter. It's not like anyone should submit himself to the might of US laws, regardless of his presence on US soil or not, and his citizenship status. If US wants him, they should follow extradition procedures and see if Sweden will be willing to hand them this man or not.
cobalt124
Dec12-10, 04:35 AM
To respond the opening post. My (limited?) understanding concludes that what Wikileaks is doing is wrong and should be stopped. I recall reading somewhere that Wikileaks stated they would not release anything that would risk lives (this seems to be the opposite of what the opening post is saying though?). This implies selectivity of what to release and this implies an agenda. A principled stand (which is what I believed they had) would either release it all, or not bother at all, anything else IMHO is wrong.
As for what constitutes national security, if you trust your government, surely you would want them to take no chances. I see no problem with the list quoted in this context. We certainly do not know everything that is going on, so any comment is valid only to a point, and an element of trust is always there. If you don't trust your government, then you may be inclined to feel that Wikileaks is doing a good job.
Al-Quaeda is not the only threat.
Cutting a cable or any sort of vandalism costs resources to repair and has consequences. It will always benefit hostile organisations who are playing a long game (Al-Quaeda, or whoever).
Evo, rootX, good to see a place of employment where data is treated as such. I deal mainly with personal information, but from since I started working, when information was completely respected, we seem to be now well down the path to it being public/commercial property. Only in recent years are we starting to get back to protecting data.
There is no way any respectable government could have any communication with Assange and legitimize him, the USG has already made the mistake security wise, no point making another.
nismaratwork
Dec12-10, 06:13 AM
It does matter. It's not like anyone should submit himself to the might of US laws, regardless of his presence on US soil or not, and his citizenship status. If US wants him, they should follow extradition procedures and see if Sweden will be willing to hand them this man or not.
If we have a mutual treaty with a country that allows for us to rapidly get our hands on this individual, or even a diplomatic understanding, that's enough for me. Sweden is just one country he's alleged to have committed crimes... and since he's with the British right now you can bet that the reason he's going to the Swedes first is mutual agreement.
This isn't as one sided or high-handed as it seems... if something similar occurred to the British or Aussies, we'd hand them the person they wanted as well. This isn't an issue of a country's law (except in cases where many countries won't extradite to us for a death penalty case), but rather international treaties, and diplomatic agreements of the moment.
If we have a mutual treaty with a country that allows for us to rapidly get our hands on this individual, or even a diplomatic understanding, that's enough for me. Sweden is just one country he's alleged to have committed crimes... and since he's with the British right now you can bet that the reason he's going to the Swedes first is mutual agreement.
The problem is that all this is empty talk. First of all we need to know in details the legislation governing the extradition process in Sweden.
Diplomatic understandings have to defer to the laws of the land, i.e a man only can be extradited in legal conditions. As far as I know, but I might be mistaken, laws in Sweden only allow extradition for a criminal offense which is punishable by the laws of both states involved. Also I believe one can reach Supreme Court of Sweden if it opposes extradition. So no diplomatic understanding will allow you to get your hands rapidly on the individual.
The Nordic states in EU are the world foremost democracies. I believe the person will have a wide legal base to fight the extradition process.
The individual in question is Australian though, so in fact we have to know details of extradition Australian laws too.
cobalt124
Dec12-10, 06:49 AM
Quote - "This isn't as one sided or high-handed as it seems... if something similar occurred to the British or Aussies, we'd hand them the person they wanted as well. This isn't an issue of a country's law (except in cases where many countries won't extradite to us for a death penalty case), but rather international treaties, and diplomatic agreements of the moment."
This isn't as clear cut as some would like:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11226673
nismaratwork
Dec12-10, 08:24 AM
Quote - "This isn't as one sided or high-handed as it seems... if something similar occurred to the British or Aussies, we'd hand them the person they wanted as well. This isn't an issue of a country's law (except in cases where many countries won't extradite to us for a death penalty case), but rather international treaties, and diplomatic agreements of the moment."
This isn't as clear cut as some would like:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11226673
That only has relevance when and if those laws are changed... a process I gather would take quite some time since we'd be talking about drafting a new treaty.
The problem is that all this is empty talk. First of all we need to know in details the legislation governing the extradition process in Sweden.
Diplomatic understandings have to defer to the laws of the land, i.e a man only can be extradited in legal conditions. As far as I know, but I might be mistaken, laws in Sweden only allow extradition for a criminal offense which is punishable by the laws of both states involved. Also I believe one can reach Supreme Court of Sweden if it opposes extradition. So no diplomatic understanding will allow you to get your hands rapidly on the individual.
The Nordic states in EU are the world foremost democracies. I believe the person will have a wide legal base to fight the extradition process.
The individual in question is Australian though, so in fact we have to know details of extradition Australian laws too.
If you think that Assange is going to find refuge under the usual diplomatic protections, it will only be so as long as all aggrieved parties want it to be. As for Australian laws, they don't matter in the least, and since this isn't a death penalty case there would be little resistance. In fact, the USA seems to be happy to allow Swedish authorities to extradite to their "formeost democracy", where Assange can face charges of "Sex By Surprise" http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/19741444 .
If for some reason the Swedes don't want him I'm fairly sure that you'll find he makes his way to the US, or to a country which is less democratic... then the USA.
It may be that right now the US is being blamed for the wikileaks event in the international community, but if you think any government wants Assange near them, you're barking mad. There will be posturing, but in the end he's proven willing to use measures that would make any government wary.
If you think that Assange is going to find refuge under the usual diplomatic protections ...
.
Its not diplomatic protection, it's extradition laws which are pretty specific to each country.
Diplomatic protections only apply to very specific personal, and are ANYTHING but usual.
nismaratwork
Dec12-10, 09:52 AM
Its not diplomatic protection, it's extradition laws which are pretty specific to each country.
Diplomatic protections only apply to very specific personal, and are ANYTHING but usual.
No, not protections by virtue of diplomatic credentials, protections as a result of diplomatic efforts to secure a treaty. You've completely misunderstood.
Watching this discussion progress, I've become more aware of the slippery slope ahead with regards to internet regulation.
Assange is not a journalist - he didn't write or edit the information posted - given the sheer volume it's doubtful he even read all of the content.
Assange is also not an individual (like a PF member) freely exchanging ideas.
Assange is in a class of his own. He doesn't seem to care where or how information is obtained and apparently doesn't care about consequences to individuals.
While it's important to address this specific situation, I'm in no hurry to call for a central regulatory authority over internet content - identity protection and theft/fraud is a separate topic.
nismaratwork
Dec12-10, 10:12 AM
Watching this discussion progress, I've become more aware of the slippery slope ahead with regards to internet regulation.
Assange is not a journalist - he didn't write or edit the information posted - given the sheer volume it's doubtful he even read all of the content.
Assange is also not an individual (like a PF member) freely exchanging ideas.
Assange is in a class of his own. He doesn't seem to care where or how information is obtained and apparently doesn't care about consequences to individuals.
While it's important to address this specific situation, I'm in no hurry to call for a central regulatory authority over internet content - identity protection and theft/fraud is a separate topic.
This is a lesson to everyone, teaching a fundamental truth that has been the case for over a decade: once something hits the internet there are NO MEASURES that can be taken that will stop determined users from disseminating the information. If you want to protect your diplomatic cables, it has better be at the source. You'd think this would be instinctual for people who live by the adage that, "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." (Benjamin Franklin)
You'd think this would be instinctual for people who live by the adage that, "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." (Benjamin Franklin)
...and sometimes that doesn't even work.:uhh:
Proton Soup
Dec12-10, 05:18 PM
Watching this discussion progress, I've become more aware of the slippery slope ahead with regards to internet regulation.
Assange is not a journalist - he didn't write or edit the information posted - given the sheer volume it's doubtful he even read all of the content.
Assange is also not an individual (like a PF member) freely exchanging ideas.
Assange is in a class of his own. He doesn't seem to care where or how information is obtained and apparently doesn't care about consequences to individuals.
While it's important to address this specific situation, I'm in no hurry to call for a central regulatory authority over internet content - identity protection and theft/fraud is a separate topic.
Assange is running a press. is the journalism distinction really important?
Assange is running a press. is the journalism distinction really important?
IMO - it's important in the context of future discussions regarding regulation of the "press" on the internet.
Office_Shredder
Dec12-10, 09:53 PM
Just saw this on BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092
After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.
NeoDevin
Dec12-10, 10:52 PM
Evo, I am withdrawing from my discussion with you pending external review of your moderation decisions. I do intend to return to that discussion later, if possible.
It is also not against Australian law for Assange to come to the US and rob a liquor store or sexually assault somebody, but it is in the US, and he can be held accountable for that or violation of US law by agreement between the US and Australia.
This is true. The difference there is that the crime would have been committed within US jurisdiction. You can only be held accountable to the laws of whoever has jurisdiction.
In the case of Wikileaks, the "crime" was releasing documents which were deemed classified by the US. In the UK (the country under who's jurisdiction Assange currently finds himself), this is not against the law, to my knowledge.
That's why we have extradition treaties with other countries. Where it is an equivalent crime in his own country, if he commits that crime against another, his country may honor the extradition treaty they have with the U.S. and let the U.S. try him for the equivalent offense.
Most current extradition treaties require that the crime being extradited for have been committed within the jurisdiction of the country requesting the extradition. They also frequently have an exception that alleged crimes that are political in nature are not eligible for extradition. If/when the US makes a formal extradition request, then we will have to take a look at the treaty with whichever country Assange is in at the time.
Office_Shredder
Dec12-10, 10:57 PM
This is true. The difference there is that the crime would have been committed within US jurisdiction. You can only be held accountable to the laws of whoever has jurisdiction.
This isn't strictly true. For example
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_960.html
There are also some things that might be legal in the country you visit, but still illegal in the United States, and you can be prosecuted under U.S. law if you buy pirated goods or engage in child pornography.
NeoDevin
Dec12-10, 11:01 PM
This isn't strictly true. For example
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_960.html
This is true, but you can't be extradited for them (to my knowledge), only charged upon your return.
Digitalism
Dec12-10, 11:21 PM
I'm rather surprised that many seem to so quick to jump to the defense of the US government and to villify Assange. Personally, I try to keep in mind the old saying "Both the family with children and the family without feel sorry for one another" when engaging in potentially controversial discussions such as this. I hope that Assange's revelations may be the the first steps to a world in which governments are more open with and accountable to one another and their citizens.
mugaliens
Dec12-10, 11:48 PM
Just saw this on BBC...
They're missing the point, which is that intelligence operations are risky enough as it is, and do not need the signficant additional risk cause by a very rich person who's only concern is increasing his wealth, regardless of the cost or damage resulting from his actions.
If informants lose their lives, that would be tragic enough. Whether or not that happens, however, is largely immaterial, as most damage involves the loss of the intelligence channels, highly useful in thwarting the activities of terrorists and insurgents. Their efforts are either stopped, avoided, or minimized, in large part due to intelligence channels.
Without those channels, many more terrorist activities will be successful, resulting in increased casualties to Iraqi/Afghanistan civilians, police, government officials, as well as to our own sons and daughters over there.
Oh, by the way: Yeah! He's being prosecuted by the Pentagon (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_wikileaks_assange)!
About time.
I'm rather surprised that many seem to so quick to jump to the defense of the US government and to villify Assange.
Assange notified our government of possession of the documents long before he made them public. Our government notified Assange that would be a global "no-no" if he went ahead and did so. I therefore have no sympathy for Assange for his choice to make a buck regardless of the damage he's caused.
Most current extradition treaties require that the crime being extradited for have been committed within the jurisdiction of the country requesting the extradition. They also frequently have an exception that alleged crimes that are political in nature are not eligible for extradition. If/when the US makes a formal extradition request, then we will have to take a look at the treaty with whichever country Assange is in at the time.Bold mine.
Please demonstrate this for me, because I can't find such a requirement in the Swedish-U.S. treaty as necessarily outlined in Article IV. I can't say for the U.S.-U.K. treaty, but I would like to see that as well. Anyway, the only provision I see is if the crime being charged calls for at least a two-year sentence regardless where it occurred.
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 12:14 AM
Bold mine.
Please demonstrate this for me, because I can't find such a requirement in the Swedish-U.S. treaty as necessarily outlined in Article IV. I can't say for the U.S.-U.K. treaty, but I would like to see that as well. Anyway, the only provision I see is if the crime being charged calls for at least a two-year sentence regardless where it occurred.
I stand corrected, and withdraw the claim. Interestingly, in my reading, I found that the US-UK extradition treaty allows for the extradition of UK citizens who have violated US law within the UK. If I were a UK citizen, I would find this very worrying.
Edit: See Canada's extradition policy (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-99/Extradition-Law--Canada.aspx), for example:
The first step is the receipt by Canada of evidence from another state that the alleged conduct of the person sought while that person was in the jurisdiction of the requesting country, would have been a crime if committed in Canada ("dual criminality") and which could have been punishable by two or more years of incarceration.
Which is what I based my assumption on.
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 12:34 AM
Further reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Restrictions) has revealed something interesting:
In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. Parties to the European Convention also cannot extradite people where they would be at significant risk of being tortured inhumanely or degradingly treated or punished
Note that the European Convention on Human Rights applies to both UK and Sweden.
Given the US recent history with torture, and the fact that many in the US are calling for Assange's death, this will likely drag on for years and ultimately prove futile if the US requests extradition.
Also from the same link:
Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime.
This is a lesson to everyone
...
If you want to protect your diplomatic cables, it has better be at the source.
The lesson wikileaks are trying to teach us is deeper than that. The lesson is that ALL sources do leak eventually.
So the real lesson, that wikileaks try to teach us is that democracy must build on transparency with a minimum of sercret sources in the first place. It's that fact that there exists secrets (in particular about foreign relations, corruption, military abuse or other "doubtful" actions that) that is the real threat to democracy.
As far as I understand, this is the major lesson of wikileaks, and what we now see is the proof, the hard way.
We must be careful to not response to this "event" in a way that weakens democracy. MORE secrecy, more violent measures to eliminate leaks is a measure in an unfortunately direction IMO.
/Fredrik
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 12:52 AM
From the Supplementary Convention on Extradition Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Sweden (http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf) (Article II.1):
An offense shall be an extraditable offense only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting States by deprivation of liberty for a period of at least two years.
Since publishing documents classified by the US is not an offense "punishable under the laws" of Sweden, I think the US will have trouble getting Assange extradited from Sweden.
I stand corrected, and withdraw the claim. Interestingly, in my reading, I found that the US-UK extradition treaty allows for the extradition of UK citizens who have violated US law within the UK. If I were a UK citizen, I would find this very worrying.
Edit: See Canada's extradition policy (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-99/Extradition-Law--Canada.aspx), for example:
Which is what I based my assumption on.
Here's what I think is worrying:
Whether there is an extradition treaty in place or not, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that it is legally proper for a U.S. federal agent to kidnap an individual from a foreign country, even if in contravention of that country’s local law. The kidnapping is not the basis for dismissal of the U.S. charges. Tricking, lying, and deceiving by federal agents is also allowed. http://www.mcnabbferrari.com/international-extradition-cases.html
I'm sure there is similar attitude and precedence with many of our allies toward us. Well, I'm not too worried since I'm not hostile toward any country, but wow.
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 12:59 AM
I'm sure there is similar attitude and precedence with many of our allies toward us.
Don't suppose you could find any support for that (the "many of our allies do the same" claim)? I just did a quick google search and couldn't find anything, all that came up are cases of kidnapping within a particular country.
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 01:00 AM
Here's what I think is worrying:
http://www.mcnabbferrari.com/international-extradition-cases.html
Has this actually ever been attempted by the US, against an ally? Or even another "first world" country?
Don't suppose you could find any support for that (the "many of our allies do the same" claim)? I just did a quick google search and couldn't find anything, all that came up are cases of kidnapping within a particular country.Nope. Only an assumption. But if our SC is willing enough...
Has this actually ever been attempted by the US, against an ally? Or even another "first world" country?http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4384/shrugsmiley5.gif
Office_Shredder
Dec13-10, 02:23 AM
I'm wondering what the actual decision was.
After much googling the closest I've been able to find is
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2250/in-international-waters-are-you-beyond-the-reach-of-the-law
Even if none of these exceptions apply, U.S. courts have held that arrest in violation of international law doesn't necessarily bar prosecution. For example, in United States v. Postal, the defendants were U.S. nationals arrested on board a vessel registered in the Grand Cayman Islands, 16 miles from shore (which at the time was the high seas). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that though the arrest violated the Convention on the High Seas (1958), the treaty violation didn't impair the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit followed suit in 2002. So on the high seas not only are you not beyond the reach of any nation, sometimes you're with the reach of two.
Since publishing documents classified by the US is not an offense "punishable under the laws" of Sweden, I think the US will have trouble getting Assange extradited from Sweden.
Even if they were, there is another issue. Sweden usually should not exchange anyone that risk facing the death penalty, or by any means risk facing a unfair trial. Alot of people outside US seriously doubt that Assange would get even close to a fair trial in US. Where "fair" is a measure defined by the world, not by US domestic measures.
So even IF, US would come up with a charge, if Sweden has insufficient confidence that he will be treated fairly by swedish standards, he can't be exchanged as that would be in violation to swedish humanity law.
/Fredrik
The problem is it seems that Assange does not TRUST that the swedish justice will work, as wikileaks has revealed that thus has happened in the past.
Because no matter what the law is like, there are workarounds, or secret missions outside the law.
The trick used in the past is that as long as the illegal activites are kept secret from the public, and apparently even to selected parts to leaders. And what's known, obviously never took place. This is the type of democratic problems wikileaks is fighting.
So apparently, laws can and are violated, in conflict with democracy, as long as they are kept secret. Now that's a dangerous game, which most obvious when such infomration is leaked.
/Fredrik
nismaratwork
Dec13-10, 05:02 AM
The lesson wikileaks are trying to teach us is deeper than that. The lesson is that ALL sources do leak eventually.
So the real lesson, that wikileaks try to teach us is that democracy must build on transparency with a minimum of sercret sources in the first place. It's that fact that there exists secrets (in particular about foreign relations, corruption, military abuse or other "doubtful" actions that) that is the real threat to democracy.
As far as I understand, this is the major lesson of wikileaks, and what we now see is the proof, the hard way.
We must be careful to not response to this "event" in a way that weakens democracy. MORE secrecy, more violent measures to eliminate leaks is a measure in an unfortunately direction IMO.
/Fredrik
I don't believe that Wikileaks showed us anything that wasn't already known, discussed, or suspected... these are hardly The Pentagon Papers. I'll grant that all security, given enough time, is bound to fail. I won't grant that all security is bound to fail in the form of a catastrophically LARGE leak. The trick isn't an attempt at perfect security, but to ensure that measures are in place to constantly screen for a breach. I mean, if a CIA station chief decides to defect to another country, that would be unfortunate, but even they have a limit to what they know. Essentially nobody made a similar decision between high level diplomats, and teenagers in the army.
We SHOULD be saying, "We were betrayed, but the scope of the betrayal was made possible by our own incompetence... lets learn from this." I don't think that requires a more strict or invasive government, unless you have a security clearance.
You've also characterized Wikileaks as part of a fight, but I'm not seeing that their work-product forwards the cause of liberty... just knowing details that are mostly already known. I look at hacking groups inside of the PRC, or Iran, who work with groups such as the Cult of The Dead Cow to bypass national firewalls. If Assange could do something of similar import then we'd be talking more about the papers than the people who got them (as with the Pentagon Papers).
nismaratwork
Dec13-10, 05:09 AM
Hmmm... this is interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/12/wikileaks.rival/index.html?hpt=T2
russ_watters
Dec13-10, 06:04 AM
I stand corrected, and withdraw the claim. Interestingly, in my reading, I found that the US-UK extradition treaty allows for the extradition of UK citizens who have violated US law within the UK. If I were a UK citizen, I would find this very worrying. Why? IMO, one of the requirements of a civilized world is that civilized countries recognize each other's laws - especially if those laws are similar to their own laws. The concept is generally recognized internationally, it's just the application is still problematic.
Right now the US is having trouble with two international kidnapping cases, one where a minor child ran away to Brazil (?) with an adult boyfriend and was taken-in by the Brazilian family. In another, a Japanese (-American?) mom kidnapped her American kid and moved to Japan. In neither case is the other country recognizing the American claim. Could you imagine the US not returning a kidnapped British kid?
We also have corporate espionage problems with Japan and Polanski who escaped his statutory rape punishment because France doesn't recognize statutory rape.
Is the issue here really that people are not grasping the concept of international reach of law or is it this specific case that people object to? Would people still object to extradition if it was their own country's secrets platered on the net and their own country's soldiers at risk due to them?
I don't believe that Wikileaks showed us anything that wasn't already known, discussed, or suspected...
I agree. But they added more explicit proof. And increased global awareness. It's the public (ie. the voters) that should be informed.
Also some people are slower than others are learning a certin lesson.
Also, to simply speak for myself, I have learned things that I didn't know, that will change the way i act/vote in the future.
You've also characterized Wikileaks as part of a fight, but I'm not seeing that their work-product forwards the cause of liberty... just knowing details that are mostly already known.
I see it. To suspect, and to know are different. There is also a difference that some government people konws something, and that everyone knows it.
I don't see it necessarily as a "fight" as I see it as part of development. Sure, wikileaks seem to want to change the world indeed. But they do so without military weapons. And they don't just leak US secrets, their objective (as expressed by Assange himself) is to show that it's not a tenable situation to hide doubtful and immoral acts from the democratic system. And the point is that many of this doubtulf actions simply would not take place, if people understood that they can' be kept secret. One possible conclusion is that the price for keeping it secret at all cost will again WEAKEN democracy, not strenghten it. So the solution is not to secure all leaks, the solution is to make sure there are not explosive information to leak in the first place.
What I find most interesting in this, is to simply study WHICH lessons certain parties make from the given event and what their logic is. There are different conclusions one can draw as well. The question is which of them that is likely to lead to a better world for most people?
/Fredrik
JaredJames
Dec13-10, 06:53 AM
NeoDevin, I don't think it's as simple as "you broke a US law in the UK, therefore we'll deport you there for trial".
When they say violated a US law, I believe it is similar to the current extradition case in the UK with the hacker who got into the pentagon looking for aliens. The violation of law has to have been against the US. Otherwise it's like the US saying theft is illegal, the UK saying theft is legal and so when someone steals something they can be sent to the US for trial. It doesn't work like that.
nismaratwork
Dec13-10, 07:17 AM
I agree. But they added more explicit proof. And increased global awareness. It's the public (ie. the voters) that should be informed.
Also some people are slower than others are learning a certin lesson.
Also, to simply speak for myself, I have learned things that I didn't know, that will change the way i act/vote in the future.
I see it. To suspect, and to know are different. There is also a difference that some government people konws something, and that everyone knows it.
I don't see it necessarily as a "fight" as I see it as part of development. Sure, wikileaks seem to want to change the world indeed. But they do so without military weapons. And they don't just leak US secrets, their objective (as expressed by Assange himself) is to show that it's not a tenable situation to hide doubtful and immoral acts from the democratic system. And the point is that many of this doubtulf actions simply would not take place, if people understood that they can' be kept secret. One possible conclusion is that the price for keeping it secret at all cost will again WEAKEN democracy, not strenghten it. So the solution is not to secure all leaks, the solution is to make sure there are not explosive information to leak in the first place.
What I find most interesting in this, is to simply study WHICH lessons certain parties make from the given event and what their logic is. There are different conclusions one can draw as well. The question is which of them that is likely to lead to a better world for most people?
/Fredrik
Well, I believe we agree on the facts, but not at any point philosophically, which is fine... there's no requirement that we all sing the same tune. Personally, I believe that when someone makes a choice (here I'm thinking of Pfc. Manning) to commit treason, there should be a damned good reason which obviates the act... or it's just spying. The Pentagon Papers showed that we were in Laos and bombing Cambodia, and so much more that was denied at the presidential level.
Assange got his hands on intra-diplomatic dirty laundry and evidence of events which are admitted to have happened, such as drone strikes fatal to civilians. I don't think that increasing public awareness of already-known quantities is a good enough reason to take such drastic action. You do... I don't see how this can end except in a simple disagreement between the two of us.
NeoDevin: Let me get this straight... countries regularly negotiate the exchange of prisoners, spies, and more... but you think that Sweden and the USA couldn't come to an understanding concerning Assange? That's tipping the scales on naive.
russ_watters
Dec13-10, 07:27 AM
Just saw this on BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092
Not surprising: It may never be possible to prove Assange committed murder unles the Taliban announces it. The military doesn't employ CSI teams to investigate every civilian death in war and can't easily arrest and interview suspects.
This is one of the pitfalls to trying to apply civilian standards of justice here - and likely why espionage itself carries such harsh penalties.
nismaratwork
Dec13-10, 07:34 AM
Not surprising: It may never be possible to prove Assange committed murder unles the Taliban announces it. The military doesn't employ CSI teams to investigate every civilian death in war and can't easily arrest and interview suspects.
This is one of the pitfalls to trying to apply civilian standards of justice here - and likely why espionage itself carries such harsh penalties.
I'd rather see information which could burn a source not tossed around in cables available for secret and no-foreign users of a HUGE network. If someone dies because of this leak, Assange or others will share in blame, but ultimately the people who couldn't be bothered to use a secure code-designation for a source bear the most.
russ_watters
Dec13-10, 07:58 AM
So the real lesson, that wikileaks try to teach us is that democracy must build on transparency with a minimum of sercret sources in the first place. It's that fact that there exists secrets (in particular about foreign relations, corruption, military abuse or other "doubtful" actions that) that is the real threat to democracy.
As far as I understand, this is the major lesson of wikileaks, and what we now see is the proof, the hard way.
/Fredrik Rediculous. There is no country in the world that would consider such releases acceptable - even the most liberal of democracies (which the US is).
I believe that when someone makes a choice (here I'm thinking of Pfc. Manning) to commit treason, there should be a damned good reason which obviates the act... or it's just spying.
There isn't much discussino about Manning in non US media so I don't have much opinon.
It's probably because the actions of Manning and the actions of wikileaks are two separate.
The only thing I've seen in media is a wikileaks trace of a communicating manning had with a collegue admitting he sent the secret files to wikileaks and that he raised concern of what he did, but that he had to do it due to conscience.
I see two cures:
US solders should not should not have access to unneccesary information?
Or make sure to selected solders as to now have so much conscience?
After all, the command structure in the military is based on following orders. The real question is if a soldier that refuse to follow orders or rules, due to his own conscience is good or bad?
I have to admit that as a general statement I think it's good. People that think on their own are rare.
/Fredrik
Rediculous. There is no country in the world that would consider such releases acceptable - even the most liberal of democracies (which the US is).
I think this is painful lesson that due to the inertia in these systems will change slowly. I think no-one would want to reveal all secrets to everybody. That's not what I think is the point - this is just a method of provocation wikileaks uses.
I think the idea is that awareness that whenever there is a secret operation, you better follow laws and moral standards because it may be revealed. In the long term this will increase the awareness of all actors in the world.
It's basic psychology that people in fact DO things, when they think it will not be discovered, that they would otherwise not do. This is a problem when it happens in democratic systems. Because the lack of transparency, may allow things to happen that build up tension in the world.
For example abuses that takes place in foreign territory, could be dangerous as it feeds terrorist and fanatis. Obviously the logic is understandale. See your family get killed for whatever reason and there is a good chance, that with the lack of proper education you grow up with strange ideas. These things must nto be supressed, the supression feeds more tension. To deny bad acts feeds it more.
To admit and apologize, reduces tension.
I certainly want to know if my government misbehaves. This is critical feedback for ME then next time I vote.
I think there is a big difference between what the official statements are of politicians, and what alot of the public think.
/Fredrik
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 09:18 AM
Why? IMO, one of the requirements of a civilized world is that civilized countries recognize each other's laws - especially if those laws are similar to their own laws. The concept is generally recognized internationally, it's just the application is still problematic.
I haven't been able to find a copy of the US-UK treaty yet, but my understanding (from Wiki, so possibly incorrect) is that there is no requirement for "dual-criminality" (that the offense in question be against the laws of both US and UK). That is: You can perform an action which is legal in the UK, and then be extradited to the US for it.
Could you imagine the US not returning a kidnapped British kid?
I have a harder time imagining a case where the US would recognize the foreign claim. I could be mistaken, feel free to find some examples.
We also have corporate espionage problems with Japan and Polanski who escaped his statutory rape punishment because France doesn't recognize statutory rape.
I'm not familiar with this case. Presumable the statutory rape was committed within US jurisdiction?
Is the issue here really that people are not grasping the concept of international reach of law or is it this specific case that people object to? Would people still object to extradition if it was their own country's secrets platered on the net and their own country's soldiers at risk due to them?
Do you really not understand that, while you are in the UK you are not (should not?) be subject to US laws? It is not this specific case that I'm objecting to, it's the idea that, while in UK/Sweden/etc. Americans believe that Australian citizens should be bound and punishable by US laws, despite having committed no crime within the jurisdiction of the US.
russ_watters
Dec13-10, 09:29 AM
I don't believe that Wikileaks showed us anything that wasn't already known, discussed, or suspected...
What?! Let's not lose sight of the facts here folks: names and locations of informants in a war zone is not information we already knew!
nismaratwork
Dec13-10, 09:38 AM
What?! Let's not lose sight of the facts here folks: names and locations of informants in a war zone is not information we already knew!
That really has nothing to do with my point... that information doesn't somehow add to the public discourse, and it is harmful. I was saying, and in context it's clear, that Wikileaks hasn't shown us anything scandalous that was not already generally available.
edit: To be sure, I think that compromising sources in the name of journalism is pretty unforgivable unless the story is worth a life. Some are... this one wasn't. I would like to know why information that could compromise 100 sources in-country was being fired about in cables available in a horribly insecure network available to hundreds of thousands of people?
Do you really not understand that, while you are in the UK you are not (should not?) be subject to US laws? It is not this specific case that I'm objecting to, it's the idea that, while in UK/Sweden/etc. Americans believe that Australian citizens should be bound and punishable by US laws, despite having committed no crime within the jurisdiction of the US.This thread is specifically about the actions of Assange. You continue to drag this thread off topic with your opinions about people going about their daily lives. Please do not continue this tactic here. Either post specifically about Assange's case or please do not post.
You also still need to cite the previous sources which were requested. You cannot just keep making statements without backing them up. Have you read the guidelines for P&WA?
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 01:28 PM
This thread is specifically about the actions of Assange. You continue to drag this thread off topic with your opinions about people going about their daily lives. Please do not continue this tactic here. Either post specifically about Assange's case or please do not post.
You also still need to cite the previous sources which were requested. You cannot just keep making statements without backing them up. Have you read the guidelines for P&WA?
I am leaving this discussion before I end up banned. I hereby retract any and all claims allegedly made in this thread, since I cannot provide sources for claims I didn't make.
Sorry to everyone I was having productive discussions with, but this thread is not worth being banned over.
Mathnomalous
Dec13-10, 01:33 PM
Relevant. It is very unfortunate that CNN decided not to extend this interview.
MM_IdfPPmEY
That really has nothing to do with my point... that information doesn't somehow add to the public discourse, and it is harmful. I was saying, and in context it's clear, that Wikileaks hasn't shown us anything scandalous that was not already generally available.
edit: To be sure, I think that compromising sources in the name of journalism is pretty unforgivable unless the story is worth a life. Some are... this one wasn't. I would like to know why information that could compromise 100 sources in-country was being fired about in cables available in a horribly insecure network available to hundreds of thousands of people?
Are you referring specifically to the cables? Or Wikileaks' regular coffee and donuts?
I am leaving this discussion before I end up banned. I hereby retract any and all claims allegedly made in this thread, since I cannot provide sources for claims I didn't make.
Sorry to everyone I was having productive discussions with, but this thread is not worth being banned over.You're not being threatened with being banned, nor are you close to being banned, you got a single infraction for violating the guidelines, so stop the melodrama and misinformation.
You know which information you were specifically asked to cite, I furnished you copies of the post numerous times in this thread.
Relevant. It is very unfortunate that CNN decided not to extend this interview.
Thanks for the link.
IMHO, Ray McGovern seems to balance the discussion in a healthy way.
/Fredrik
nismaratwork
Dec13-10, 03:07 PM
Are you referring specifically to the cables? Or Wikileaks' regular coffee and donuts?
The cables... I admit to being generally unfamiliar with Wikileaks regular fare.
NeoDevin
Dec13-10, 03:19 PM
Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possess such documents. What would be the point to classify documents to keep them out of the hands of other nations?
Post your source.
This was never claimed by me. My claim was that it was not against UK law for an individual to possess/publish documents classified by the US.
I have tried to find any treaty between the US and UK regarding classified material, and it being against UK law to possess American classified material, and come up with nothing. I am forced to conclude that such a treaty doesn't exist (unless of course, someone else can reference it, it's entirely possible that I simply couldn't find it).
I further tried to search for any mention that the UK laws have anything to say with respect to US classified documents, or more generally with respect to documents classified by any foreign government. Again I couldn't find anything, and concluded that such a law doesn't exist. I don't know how to back up this claim, short of posting the entirety of the UK legal system to demonstrate that it's not there.
Based on these two assumptions, I concluded that Assange has not broken any UK laws, and is therefore not a criminal in the UK.
This thread is specifically about the actions of Assange. You continue to drag this thread off topic with your opinions about people going about their daily lives. Please do not continue this tactic here. Either post specifically about Assange's case or please do not post.
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to go off topic, just to discuss the case more generally, then one comment lead to another. Could you please split off the side discussion about extradition treaties, etc. into a new thread for me? Thanks.
This was never claimed by me. My claim was that it was not against UK law for an individual to possess/publish documents classified by the US.
I have tried to find any treaty between the US and UK regarding classified material, and it being against UK law to possess American classified material, and come up with nothing. I am forced to conclude that such a treaty doesn't exist (unless of course, someone else can reference it, it's entirely possible that I simply couldn't find it).
I further tried to search for any mention that the UK laws have anything to say with respect to US classified documents, or more generally with respect to documents classified by any foreign government. Again I couldn't find anything, and concluded that such a law doesn't exist. I don't know how to back up this claim, short of posting the entirety of the UK legal system to demonstrate that it's not there.
Based on these two assumptions, I concluded that Assange has not broken any UK laws, and is therefore not a criminal in the UK.If you couldn't find a source for your claim, that's all you needed to say.
No one, that I am aware of, said Assange broke any laws other than US laws and did so as a foreign national. This is why he may be tried for Espionage. As I've said, if and when that ever happens, no one knows.
Could you please split off the side discussion about extradition treaties, etc. into a new thread for me? Thanks.I might be able to copy them to a new thread, however they are also pertinent to this thread since that is the only likely way the US would be able to procede with charges. I'll try to move them later today when I have more time.
nismaratwork
Dec13-10, 04:02 PM
If you couldn't find a source for your claim, that's all you needed to say.
No one, that I am aware of, said Assange broke any laws other than US laws and did so as a foreign national. This is why he may be tried for Espionage. As I've said, if and when that ever happens, no one knows.
I might be able to copy them to a new thread, however they are also pertinent to this thread since that is the only likely way the US would be able to procede with charges. I'll try to move them later today when I have more time.
re B... Well they had a closed grand jury in VA. pertaining to Assange, so I think it's safe to say that there's at least one closed espionage indictment. How that translates to Assange ever seeing trial is still a, "who knows" situation as you say.
mugaliens
Dec13-10, 07:27 PM
Relevant.
Are are the opinions of a single, outspoken ex-CIA officer-turned-activist more relevant than the opinions of the tens of thousands of other ex-CIA officers who've chosen to remain silent on the issue?
Are are the opinions of a single, outspoken ex-CIA officer-turned-activist more relevant than the opinions of the tens of thousands of other ex-CIA officers who've chosen to remain silent on the issue?
Isn't that 1 ex-military guy that does the UFO shows considered a kook? Ummm...there wasn't any alien information leaked - was there?:surprised
Are are the opinions of a single, outspoken ex-CIA officer-turned-activist more relevant than the opinions of the tens of thousands of other ex-CIA officers who've chosen to remain silent on the issue?
From a democratic perspective, certainly not. He is just one voice. But isn't it good for a balanced discussion to hear all arguments pro as well as con?
I think it's also quite logical, that an ACTIVE officer/politician or so, probably won't say everything he thinks. It's easier for a drop-out, retired, or ex to be more open because people prefer not to loose their job. In this sense, the drop-outs may, in a certain sense, be more relevant after all as it's more likely to be honest.
/Fredrik
nismaratwork
Dec14-10, 04:43 AM
From a democratic perspective, certainly not. He is just one voice. But isn't it good for a balanced discussion to hear all arguments pro as well as con?
I think it's also quite logical, that an ACTIVE officer/politician or so, probably won't say everything he thinks. It's easier for a drop-out, retired, or ex to be more open because people prefer not to loose their job. In this sense, the drop-outs may, in a certain sense, be more relevant after all as it's more likely to be honest.
/Fredrik
I don't know Fra... maybe someone who has something to lose, like a career is a better source? It's also easier for someone to change details of a strange experience over years and decades, and to be adamant about something they once may have been uncertain of.
I don't know Fra... maybe someone who has something to lose, like a career is a better source?
I guess there are both pros and cons on that. Someone that has something to loose are less inclined to take actions that put this as risk. Sometimes this can prevent making up risky lies, but sometimes it can also prevent the truth, if the truth is explosive. Then it's safer to be quiet because noone wants to get his head chopped of for claming the emperor is naked, even if its true :)
I think the main point anyway is to hopefully agree that putting all arguments, and views up for reflection is healthy and more more likely to result in a good conclusion.
/Fredirk
Bobbywhy
Dec14-10, 06:04 PM
I see a clear parallel between J. Assange leaking classified documents to news media and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971. This was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread. The documents were classified "Top Secret", one level higher than the "Secret" documents now from Wikileaks. The document exposed deception, coverups, and lies by our government regarding War in Indochina (mainly Vietnam).
The US Government brought suit to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing them. The Supreme Court, in 1971, found that First Amendment Free Speech guarantees outweighed the Governments contention.
"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
—Justice Black
nismaratwork
Dec14-10, 06:11 PM
I see a clear parallel between J. Assange leaking classified documents to news media and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971. This was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread. The documents were classified "Top Secret", one level higher than the "Secret" documents now from Wikileaks. The document exposed deception, coverups, and lies by our government regarding War in Indochina (mainly Vietnam).
The US Government brought suit to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing them. The Supreme Court, in 1971, found that First Amendment Free Speech guarantees outweighed the Governments contention.
"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
—Justice Black
I'm sorry, but no. If these documents had been the means by which the false premise of the war of search for WMDs had been exposed, then MAYBE. From Wikipedia, here is the impact of the Pentagon Papers... which is incomparable next to the minute "revelations" of Wikileaks cables.
The Papers revealed that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which had been reported by media in the US.[7] The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions. For example, the John F. Kennedy administration had planned to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1963 coup. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[3] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.[8]
In another example, a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:
70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.
20% - To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.
10% - To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.
ALSO - To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.
NOT - To 'help a friend'[3][9]
Another controversy was that President Johnson sent combat troops to Vietnam by July 17, 1965, before pretending to consult his advisors on July 21–July 27, per the cable stating that "Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance informs McNamara that President had approved 34 Battalion Plan and will try to push through reserve call-up."[10] In 1988, when that cable was declassified, it revealed "there was a continuing uncertainty as to [Johnson's] final decision, which would have to await Secretary McNamara's recommendation and the views of Congressional leaders, particularly the views of Senator [Richard] Russell."[11]
mheslep
Dec14-10, 06:13 PM
I see a clear parallel between J. Assange leaking classified documents to news media and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971. ...The parallel would be between Ellsberg and PFC Manning, both of who removed the information in the first instance illegally, and not Assange.
nismaratwork
Dec14-10, 06:15 PM
The parallel would be between Ellsberg and PFC Manning, both of who removed the information in the first instance illegally, and not Assange.
Ellsberg also took actions to rectify illegal acts being taken by our government at the highest levels... Manning just stole some stinky socks, diplomatically speaking, and risked the lives of some hapless Afghans.
So... radical revelations about a war... vs. making the USA look like a dick....
You know, I wouldn't dignify Manning's actions with a comparison to Ellsberg.
Assange strikes me as a guy that really doesn't have a plan. He was apparently capable of obtaining large amounts of information. But it's doubtful, given the volume, that he had any idea as to the content - and apparently either didn't care to or (more likely) didn't know how to evaluate and process the information in his possession. If he'd handled the information more professionally (as a journalist would) perhaps this discussion would not be focused on how he might be prosecuted.
mheslep
Dec14-10, 07:08 PM
Ellsberg also took actions to rectify illegal acts being taken by our government at the highest levels... Manning just stole some stinky socks, diplomatically speaking, and risked the lives of some hapless Afghans.
That can only be true if you consider diplomacy a parlor game with no consequences, and dismiss US allies as hapless, that is, their lives are also with out consequence.
Assange strikes me as a guy that really doesn't have a plan. He was apparently capable of obtaining large amounts of information. But it's doubtful, given the volume, that he had any idea as to the content - and apparently either didn't care to or (more likely) didn't know how to evaluate and process the information in his possession. If he'd handled the information more professionally (as a journalist would) perhaps this discussion would not be focused on how he might be prosecuted.Here is an official US press conference from August, before this event.
You know, they claimed initially to have, you know, reviewed these documents. Then we learn afterwards, they’ve only looked at 2,000 of them, so they don’t really know what’s in all of them. They claim to have reached out to -- you know, to the United States government to assist in -- you know, for assistance in harm minimization. Then we find out, no, it was through their partner, The New York Times. I don’t know The New York Times would describe themselves as their partner.
There is -- there have been a lot of contradictory and conflicting statements along the way, which certainly cause us to question their motivation, their intent, their credibility.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001
I don't know if this question is already answered.
As many mentioned here that the document are still classified even if it is leaked to the public. Why CNN or BBC is able to copy the content and display in their website? Is it ok to show the content (as excerpts), as long as you are not the second one to make it public?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11914040
nismaratwork
Dec14-10, 08:20 PM
That can only be true if you consider diplomacy a parlor game with no consequences, and dismiss US allies as hapless, that is, their lives are also with out consequence.
Intelligence assets aren't allies, and are always subject to being burned when the information they provide is used. As for diplomacy, I consider it a parlor game WITH consequences.
Ivan Seeking
Dec14-10, 08:49 PM
As for diplomacy, I consider it a parlor game WITH consequences.
And for now, a necessary one, don't you think?
I see a lot of idealism out there suggesting that everything would be okay if everyone just told the truth and fully disclosed all matters of global and national politics. I would like to think that day may come eventually, but it cannot happen overnight. Those who push forward too quickly with this naive and idealistic view are playing with fire and putting us all at risk. The average person doesn't have the time or the knowledge to understand all of the complexities, and often, the highly sensitive nature of global politics. Instead of a global democracy, if you will, more likely the response would be mob-like, emotional, ill-considered, uninformed, completely unpredictable, and global. Given the highly inflammatory nature of the media today and the serious and legitimate problems that we face, I shudder to think of the range of possibilities for this all to spin out of control. It is fallacious to assume that all secrets are designed to protect those in power. There are plenty of good people who keep big secrets, who do so in good faith and as a matter of dedicated public service.
I am reminded of the movie, Contact: Small steps, Ellie, small steps
Galteeth
Dec14-10, 10:16 PM
Assange strikes me as a guy that really doesn't have a plan. He was apparently capable of obtaining large amounts of information. But it's doubtful, given the volume, that he had any idea as to the content - and apparently either didn't care to or (more likely) didn't know how to evaluate and process the information in his possession. If he'd handled the information more professionally (as a journalist would) perhaps this discussion would not be focused on how he might be prosecuted.
I disagree. He could have just dumped all the cablegate info at once. Wikileaks choose to release it in pieces to make it more digestible and made arrangements to release directly to three media outlets. Also, keep in mind Assange has been doing this for years. He has grown wikileaks into the most successful leaks organization in existence.
Proton Soup
Dec14-10, 11:16 PM
Here is an official US press conference from August, before this event.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001
i find it credible that they've not been able to read most of what they've acquired. and they've claimed to have acquired quite a bit ( i remember reading somewhere they'd stopped storing it when they hit a terabyte of data ).
as for motivation:
To: funtimesahead[at]lists.riseup.net
From: Hanna De Jong <snow[at]xs4all.nl>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:42:37 +1100
Subject: [WL] Copy of WL letter to Ellsberg.
This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.
Dear Mr. Ellsberg.
We have followed with interest and delight your recent statements on
document leaking.
We have come to the conclusion that fomenting a world wide movement of
mass leaking is the most cost effective political intervention
available to us* We believe that injustice is answered by good
governance and for there to be good governance there must be open
governance. Governance by stealth is governance by conspiracy and
fear. Fear, because without it, secrecy does not last for long.
Retired generals and diplomats are vociferous, but those in active
service hold their tune.
Lord Action said, "Everything secret degenerates, even the
administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it
can bear discussion and publicity".
This degeneration comes about because when injustice is concealed,
including plans for future injustice, it cannot be addressed. When
governance is closed, man's eyes become cataracts. When governance is
open, man can see and so act to move the world towards a more just
state; for instance see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders which shows a
striking correlation between press freedom and countries known for
their quality of life.
us*: some attributes may have been swapped to protect selected
identities,
no particular order.
1) Retired new york architect and notorious intelligence leak
facilitator
2) Euro cryptographer/programmer
3) Pacific physicist and illustrator
4) A pacific author and economic policy lecturer
5) Euro, Ex-Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer
6) Euro businessman and security specialist/activist
7) Author of software than runs 40% of the world's websites.
8) US pure mathematician with criminal law background
9) An infamous US ex-hacker
10) Pacific cryptographer/physicist and activist
11) US/euro cryptographer and activist/programmer
12) Pacific programmer
13) Pacific architect / foreign policy wonk
New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us to not only encourage
document leaking, but to facilitate it directly on a mass scale. We
intend to place a new star in the political firmament of man.
We are building an uncensorizable branch of Wikipedia for leaked
documents and the civic institutions & social perceptions necessary to
defend and promote it. We have received over 1 million documents from
13 countries, despite not having publicly launched yet!
We have approached you now for two reasons.
Firstly, we have crossed over from `prospective' to `projective'. The
basic technology has been prototyped and we have a view as how we must
proceed politically and legally. We need to move and inspire people,
gain volunteers, funding, further set up the necessary political-legal
defenses and deploy. Since you have thought about leaking more than
anyone we know, we would like you on board. We'd like your advice and
we'd like you to form part of our political armor. The more armor we
have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age,
history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get
away with it.
Secondly, we would like to award "The Ellsburg Prize for Courageous
Action" and "The Ellsburg Prize for Courageous Action (USA)", for the
two leaks submitted in the past year which most assist humanity. The
regionalization of the second prize is to encourage patrons of similar
awards in other countries. Although it is premature to go into detail,
we have designed a scheme were this can be meaningfully awarded to
anonymous leakers. We have been pledged substantial initial funding.
Please tell us your thoughts. If you are happy, we will add you to our
internal mailinglist, contacts, etc.
Solidarity!
WL.
NobodySpecial
Dec14-10, 11:54 PM
Isn't that 1 ex-military guy that does the UFO shows considered a kook? Ummm...there wasn't any alien information leaked - was there?:surprised
Well the US is busy trying to extradite a UK computer hacker (well he just typed random urls into a DoD web server) who was trying to prove the US was covering up UFOs.
By making it an anti-terrorism matter they don't have to provide any evidence - so it's not clear if the aliens are terrorists.
Proton Soup
Dec15-10, 12:20 AM
Well the US is busy trying to extradite a UK computer hacker (well he just typed random urls into a DoD web server) who was trying to prove the US was covering up UFOs.
By making it an anti-terrorism matter they don't have to provide any evidence - so it's not clear if the aliens are terrorists.
wait, are you saying that he simply guessed a URL? i don't find anything criminal in that, but i suppose a tech-illiterate jury might.
I don't know if this question is already answered.
As many mentioned here that the documents are still classified even if it is leaked to the public. Why CNN or BBC is able to copy the content and display in their website? Is it ok to show the content (as excerpts), as long as you are not the second one to make it public?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11914040
For a judge who handles the espionage case for Assange, what's the bigger crime that wikileaks.org have done compared to bbc.co.uk? Both are non US companies, doing journalism, and made public some of the leaked US classified information. The espionage case looks much weaker than many Americans would hope for.
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817
"Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it,"
Espionage is seen as a political crime, and political offences are not subject to extradition under the US-UK, US-Sweden and UK-Sweden treaties.
I disagree. He could have just dumped all the cablegate info at once. Wikileaks choose to release it in pieces to make it more digestible and made arrangements to release directly to three media outlets. Also, keep in mind Assange has been doing this for years. He has grown wikileaks into the most successful leaks organization in existence.
Do you think Assange knows the content of the information released - that he took precautions to protect innocent lives?
nismaratwork
Dec15-10, 06:34 AM
Do you think Assange knows the content of the information released - that he took precautions to protect innocent lives?
It seems pretty clear that he didn't, would you agree?
It seems pretty clear that he didn't, would you agree?
I believe - when all is said and done - not knowing the specific content will be his downfall. This is very irresponsible behaviour.
nismaratwork
Dec15-10, 07:42 AM
I believe - when all is said and done - not knowing the specific content will be his downfall. This is very irresponsible behaviour.
Yeah, vetting your content less than rags they sell at the checkout queue is no way to establish yourself as a serious journalist. Taking that same approach when you could be putting lives or international relations at risk just adds to the outrage. They could have changed names of FOBs and some other elements without in any way compromising the release. They didn't... and as Ivan points out we NEED diplomacy now... and I don't see how publishing tonnes of what amounts to water-cooler talk (referring to diplomatic cables now) at Foggy Bottom does anything except throw grit into the gears.
Proton Soup
Dec15-10, 02:45 PM
Yeah, vetting your content less than rags they sell at the checkout queue is no way to establish yourself as a serious journalist. Taking that same approach when you could be putting lives or international relations at risk just adds to the outrage. They could have changed names of FOBs and some other elements without in any way compromising the release. They didn't... and as Ivan points out we NEED diplomacy now... and I don't see how publishing tonnes of what amounts to water-cooler talk (referring to diplomatic cables now) at Foggy Bottom does anything except throw grit into the gears.
why exactly? apparently all the gov't elites know these things, but for some reason it is considered bad if the common man knows them.
nismaratwork
Dec15-10, 04:04 PM
why exactly? apparently all the gov't elites know these things, but for some reason it is considered bad if the common man knows them.
So do you tell everyone you notice is ugly, or smells bad, or has a disability, "Hey, you're ugly!", or, "Everybody thinks you stink,"? Of course not, because while it's important to note differences and similarities we have on an individual, national, any level in between... it's not important that we post a list of those issues online.
I would add that giving up sources and methods, actively BURNING sources, and the risk to unstable governments which are now on record expressing private concerns is a bit more than fodder for everyday discussions. This isn't about being elite, but need to know something which in no way changes how we view a single situation I can think of in the world.
What have we learned from Wikileaks that changes the major issues with these wars? NOTHING! The "common man" already figured out the big stuff such as W's administration's lies to the UN, the people of the USA, and each other. This whole thing makes me think of outing Watergate, then leaking nude photos of Nixon a year later... sensational and upsetting for some, but not really consequential.
Oh, and Proton... I think we both know that if a Pfc. in the army had access to this, it's not for the "elite"... that's just fallacious. The issue here is better control over the information and reducing potential outlets, not spreading it around. You may not understand why other world leaders are sensitive to the tone and nature of diplomacy, but they are, and we are too.
Proton Soup
Dec15-10, 04:51 PM
Oh, and Proton... I think we both know that if a Pfc. in the army had access to this, it's not for the "elite"... that's just fallacious. The issue here is better control over the information and reducing potential outlets, not spreading it around. You may not understand why other world leaders are sensitive to the tone and nature of diplomacy, but they are, and we are too.
wikileaks was given a lot more than simply what manning gave them. but i would answer you by saying that if a Pfc. had access to it, then it can't be terribly important.
nismaratwork
Dec15-10, 07:05 PM
wikileaks was given a lot more than simply what manning gave them. but i would answer you by saying that if a Pfc. had access to it, then it can't be terribly important.
What you say at the end SHOULD be true, but it isn't. That's obviously one of the major flaws in the network (SIPRnet?), that there is a single access level with no download controls. It seems that he did in fact have access to somewhat important information, albeit not the nuclear codes.
As to what Wikileaks does or doesn't have that remains unreleased, I don't know much about that.
Proton Soup
Dec15-10, 08:28 PM
As to what Wikileaks does or doesn't have that remains unreleased, I don't know much about that.
well, i only know what i've read that wikileaks has claimed. and i posted the gist of that earlier, which is simply to say that they collected "a lot". and whatever is in "insurance" is only 1.5GB, which is only a 1/1000-th of the total volume they claimed to have collected a few years ago before they even went public.
there is apparently a lot more over at Cryptome that John Young is releasing (is he trying to cover his own *** so he isn't next?) from the internal private wikileaks mailing list, but i'm not sure how much time i'd want to invest in that.
JaredJames
Dec15-10, 08:41 PM
Can they not run a brute force attack on the insurance file to open it?
I find it hard to believe that with all the computing power held around the world, they haven't run it with some form of attack to discover the pass key.
NeoDevin
Dec15-10, 08:49 PM
Can they not run a brute force attack on the insurance file to open it?
I find it hard to believe that with all the computing power held around the world, they haven't run it with some form of attack to discover the pass key.
Cracking well encrypted data is virtually impossible.
JaredJames
Dec15-10, 09:05 PM
Cracking well encrypted data is virtually impossible.
If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?
I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.
mugaliens
Dec15-10, 10:50 PM
But isn't it good for a balanced discussion to hear all arguments pro as well as con?
Not if they're given equal voice, but the representation is like 100 to 1 (i.e., 100 pro, 1 con, yet the pro arguements get equal time as the con artists).
I think it's also quite logical, that an ACTIVE officer/politician or so, probably won't say everything he thinks. It's easier for a drop-out, retired, or ex to be more open because people prefer not to loose their job. In this sense, the drop-outs may, in a certain sense, be more relevant after all as it's more likely to be honest.
Then why aren't the tens of thousands of other retired CIA officers speaking out in support of this guy? Or for that matter, against him? The point is, they're not speaking out at all, because the issue's only credence was that lent to it by the media. It has no palpable relevence of its own, much less importance. "What? You want me to comment on grasshoppers? Excuse me, I'm late for a haircut..."
If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?
I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.
Not necessarily. In fact, not at all, if the number of possible solutions equals or exceeds the keyspace. One-time ciphers, for example, are absolutely uncrackable provided the cipher pad is truly random (or sufficiently pseudorandom) and its length is equal to or greater than the message. Other means of recursive encryption require such large numbers of iterations it would take all the world's computational power (including the NSA's top computers) a million years to crank through half the possible solutions.
Possible? Yes. Practical? No.
nismaratwork
Dec15-10, 10:53 PM
If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?
I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.
When it comes to sound encryption you run into problems of factoring large prime numbers... so brute force would take more time than the universe has been in existence. Barring a breakthrough in the factoring of prime numbers or computer hardware, that's a locked file.
whatever is in "insurance" is only 1.5GB, which is only a 1/1000-th of the total volume they claimed to have collected a few years ago before they even went public.
there is apparently a lot more over at Cryptome that John Young is releasing (is he trying to cover his own *** so he isn't next?) from the internal private wikileaks mailing list, but i'm not sure how much time i'd want to invest in that.
Proton,
Got a link for this ?
Rhody...
NeoDevin
Dec16-10, 11:03 AM
If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?
I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.
The keyspace is too large, and each attempt takes some finite amount of time. If you have a 256bit key, then that's 2^{256} = 1.158\times 10^{77} possible keys. If each attempt takes 1 microsecond, then that's 1.158\times 10^{71}\mathrm{s} = 3.672\times 10^{63}\mathrm{years} to try every key. This means on average, to guess a 256bit key by brute force will take 1.836\times 10^{63}\mathrm{years}/\mbox{No. of CPUs}. There simply aren't enough CPUs in the world to make this a manageable number.
CAC1001
Dec16-10, 11:26 AM
What have we learned from Wikileaks that changes the major issues with these wars? NOTHING! The "common man" already figured out the big stuff such as W's administration's lies to the UN, the people of the USA, and each other.
They weren't "lies."
NeoDevin
Dec16-10, 11:29 AM
They weren't "lies."
Which ones weren't "lies"?
Mathnomalous
Dec16-10, 11:32 AM
They weren't "lies."
Misstatements, I suppose.
nismaratwork
Dec16-10, 12:39 PM
Misstatements, I suppose.
Carefully chosen ones!
CAC1001:Yes, statements made with the intent to be truthful, but somehow ended up being about nonexistent weapons programs. I hate when I slip up and concoct a cause for war... I mean the last time I was just yachting in The Gulf of Tonkin, and then all hell breaks loose... :rolleyes:
CAC1001
Dec16-10, 02:06 PM
They weren't lies or mis-statements, they were what the administration thought were statements of fact. A guy like General Colin Powell, one of the most respected men on the planet at the time, wasn't going to just go and "lie" to the United Nations and the world, over such an issue.
When it comes to sound encryption you run into problems of factoring large prime numbers... so brute force would take more time than the universe has been in existence. Barring a breakthrough in the factoring of prime numbers or computer hardware, that's a locked file.
I can factor large prime numbers in my head. :wink:
nismaratwork
Dec16-10, 04:32 PM
I can factor large prime numbers in my head. :wink:
Oh thank god, I have this supposedly one-way hash function I need cracked, and you're just the brain- er... man... I need to put in a jar in my new machi- ahhh... to operate my new computer. Here... drink this while I get a striker saw and a jar... :biggrin:
CAC1001: You're entitled to your religious beliefs. Wait, wrong response, but it applies pretty well.
CAC1001
Dec16-10, 04:54 PM
CAC1001: You're entitled to your religious beliefs. Wait, wrong response, but it applies pretty well.
I would say it is a "religious belief" among the people who claim President Bush lied the nation into war.
When it comes to sound encryption you run into problems of factoring large prime numbers
Factoring large prime numbers? I'm sure you will run into problems. I tried even smaller ones, but didn't succeed.
Proton Soup
Dec16-10, 05:16 PM
Proton,
Got a link for this ?
Rhody...
sure, not exactly a 1/1000-th mind you, but same order of magnitude.
http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-lash.htm
To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>
From: Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org>
Subject: martha stuart pgp
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:20:25 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: None
J. We are going to **** them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention
abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor
chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we.
Inxhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We're going to
crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will
assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and
other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half
a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank,
apec, UN sections, trade groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and... russian
phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We're drowing. We don't even know a tenth
of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.
sure, not exactly a 1/1000-th mind you, but same order of magnitude.
http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-lash.htm
These WikiLeaks people sound like little kids sitting in an upstairs closet, planning to sneak down the stairs to listen to an adult conversation taking place around a card table (a 1950's or 1960's retro example). Then once they hear something they run back to the closet and giggle, then maybe tell their friends about it the next day.
The difference is that while a story including Bob's dad said a bad word, and Matt's dad had gas, and Bill's mom wanted another drink might have been entertaining, it didn't really injure anyone.
If your link is real, maybe the hackers should start to worry about ALL of the players. Everyone will not be restricted by the rules applicable to the US. Personally, I'll find it ironic and even humorous if the unintended consequences of this leak is the retaliation onto the hackers themselves - by their "info hosts".
Bragging often gets people into more trouble than the act itself - IMO.
Proton Soup
Dec16-10, 06:01 PM
These WikiLeaks people sound like little kids sitting in an upstairs closet, planning to sneak down the stairs to listen to an adult conversation taking place around a card table (a 1950's or 1960's retro example). Then once they hear something they run back to the closet and giggle, then maybe tell their friends about it the next day.
The difference is that while a story including Bob's dad said a bad word, and Matt's dad had gas, and Bill's mom wanted another drink might have been entertaining, it didn't really injure anyone.
If your link is real, maybe the hackers should start to worry about ALL of the players. Everyone will not be restricted by the rules applicable to the US. Personally, I'll find it ironic and even humorous if the unintended consequences of this leak is the retaliation onto the hackers themselves - by their "info hosts".
Bragging often gets people into more trouble than the act itself - IMO.
wikileaks isn't even the story. the real story is that you've got a hacker mafia in russia breaking in everywhere getting dirt on everyone off public networks. and i guess chinese too. and nobody cares about that, or dealing with it. the only thing anyone cares about is the appearance, the public relations aspect. Assange is a convenient scapegoat that you can publicly flay while conveniently ignoring that the barn door is wide open.
nismaratwork
Dec16-10, 06:18 PM
This isn't hacking... it's script-kiddy bull****. They're just saying they watch the activity of people who DO have the talent to enter databases, and then packet sniff them! Our security is SO BAD, that it just takes a bunch of script kiddies being supported by a handful of talented and generally anonymous black-hats.
nismaratwork
Dec16-10, 06:20 PM
wikileaks isn't even the story. the real story is that you've got a hacker mafia in russia breaking in everywhere getting dirt on everyone off public networks. and i guess chinese too. and nobody cares about that, or dealing with it. the only thing anyone cares about is the appearance, the public relations aspect. Assange is a convenient scapegoat that you can publicly flay while conveniently ignoring that the barn door is wide open.
Proton, we have the NSA and Echelon, and more... we do the same thing. This isn't hacking, as I mentioned previously, just another form of semi-active sigint. The issue isn't that this is being done, but that we're sucking at it.
Proton Soup
Dec16-10, 07:05 PM
This isn't hacking... it's script-kiddy bull****. They're just saying they watch the activity of people who DO have the talent to enter databases, and then packet sniff them! Our security is SO BAD, that it just takes a bunch of script kiddies being supported by a handful of talented and generally anonymous black-hats.
i'm not sure whether you're saying our security is good or bad.
This isn't hacking... it's script-kiddy bull****. They're just saying they watch the activity of people who DO have the talent to enter databases, and then packet sniff them! Our security is SO BAD, that it just takes a bunch of script kiddies being supported by a handful of talented and generally anonymous black-hats.
misnara,
Since Proton did not address my original question in Post #242 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3032729&postcount=242) I will pose the question to you, to separate fact from fiction, isn't that what PF is supposedly all about ?
whatever is in "insurance" is only 1.5GB, which is only a 1/1000-th of the total volume they claimed to have collected a few years ago before they even went public.
there is apparently a lot more over at Cryptome that John Young is releasing (is he trying to cover his own *** so he isn't next?) from the internal private wikileaks mailing list, but i'm not sure how much time i'd want to invest in that.
Proton, errr. Misnara,
Got a link for this ?
I respect your opinion and insight hopefully backed by multiple, verifiable sources...
Thanks in advance...
Rhody...
P.S. BTW from the information I have been able to obtain even if they were to crack the AES 256 bit encrypted cipher (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/how-secure-julian-assanges-thermonuclear-insurance-file), and text is scrambled and would be of no use anyway.
see text from the link:
There are three variants of AES, which differ in the size of their keys (128, 192, or 256 bits), though they all use the same 128-bit block size. The size of the key has other implications within the algorithm itself (and slightly increases the encoding time), but mostly, it increases the amount of time needed to break it with what's called a "brute force attack" (more on that in a bit). The three variants also carry different numbers of "rounds" protecting their keys. Each round is sort of like a layer of further obscurity, making the original data all the more disguised. AES-128 has ten rounds, AES-192 has twelve, and AES-256 has fourteen.
Those rounds make it effectively impossible to compare the ciphered data with its key and divine any sort of pattern, since the data has been so thoroughly mangled by, in this case, 14 rounds of highly sophisticated manipulation that it's unrecognizable. The rounds make an already secure algorithm that much more secure.
Proton Soup
Dec16-10, 07:21 PM
Proton, we have the NSA and Echelon, and more... we do the same thing. This isn't hacking, as I mentioned previously, just another form of semi-active sigint. The issue isn't that this is being done, but that we're sucking at it.
that's the same thing
nismaratwork
Dec16-10, 07:53 PM
i'm not sure whether you're saying our security is good or bad.
Our security is wretchedly bad.
I think you need to check what 'hacking' originally meant, came to mean, and really means in practice; there's no way that someone using someone else's programs to scan ports or sniff packets is a hacker... they are a script-kiddy. Hacking is actively creating your own code, and entering where you're not welcome... not managing botnets, not packet-sniffing, and not even massive signal intercepts. It may be that this is a semantic issue, I'm not sure.
nismaratwork
Dec16-10, 07:59 PM
misnara,
Since Proton did not address my original question in Post #242 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3032729&postcount=242) I will pose the question to you, to separate fact from fiction, isn't that what PF is supposedly all about ?
I respect your opinion and insight hopefully backed by multiple, verifiable sources...
Thanks in advance...
Rhody...
P.S. BTW from the information I have been able to obtain even if they were to crack the AES 256 bit encrypted cipher (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/how-secure-julian-assanges-thermonuclear-insurance-file), and text is scrambled and would be of no use anyway.
see text from the link:
Well that's a tough question, although it strikes me as a bad idea to torture such a (newly) public figure for a passcode. Anyway, on the technical side AES256 is extremely secure, and if you're saying that beyond that he may have used PGP encryption or more hash functions on the cleartext...
...The bottom line is that as I said, that file is only going to be opened if:
1.) There's a flaw found in the encryption scheme used (collision errors, doubtful)
2.) Computers or methods advance beyond current expectations allowing for a means to bypass the protection.
3.) Luck on an astronomical scale.
Personally I think the major flaw here is that I'm not clear that Assange or anyone else knows what's in that file. If it's meaningless crap, then what a waste, right? On the other hand, if it's terribly sensitive and clearly gets people killed... whoops. No, this isn't something the US is looking to open, it's a fail-deadly device for Assange to use in a manner he's yet to make clear.
Proton Soup
Dec16-10, 08:18 PM
I think you need to check what 'hacking' originally meant, came to mean, and really means in practice; there's no way that someone using someone else's programs to scan ports or sniff packets is a hacker... they are a script-kiddy. Hacking is actively creating your own code, and entering where you're not welcome... not managing botnets, not packet-sniffing, and not even massive signal intercepts. It may be that this is a semantic issue, I'm not sure.
yeah, not really interested in that debate. and as i understand it, hacking originally had to do with hardware reverse engineering. and wasn't even a negative term i think until people started building phone "blueboxes" or whatever kind of boxen they were called. blah blah blah 2600 blah...
nismaratwork
Dec17-10, 05:37 AM
yeah, not really interested in that debate. and as i understand it, hacking originally had to do with hardware reverse engineering. and wasn't even a negative term i think until people started building phone "blueboxes" or whatever kind of boxen they were called. blah blah blah 2600 blah...
Yes... exactly...
*goes off to cry nerd-tears alone*
CAC1001
Dec17-10, 08:26 AM
From my understanding of it, hacking is refers to people who like to solve problems and build and create things, and applies to people who have an obsession with learning everything about something. So a person may learn to program in all the major languages, they will read technical manuals, they will learn electronics to an advanced level, they'll learn the telephone and Internet infrastructure, they'll load individual operating systems up onto their computer and read the manuals to each operating system and study them to find the holes, etc...a hacker is not interested in doing anything malicious or destructive (unless maybe defending their country by doing bad things to foreign countries trying to do the same to their country).
"Hacking" got a negative connotation when people started using these skills for destructive and criminal purposes however. From what I have read, the term for such malicious hackers is/was actually "crackers."
However, outside of the hacker culture, the general term used by the media and so forth is "hacker" and also cracker is known as being a racist term to others, so one can see how people would be reluctant to use it. Today it seems more the terms are White Hat hacker and Black Hat hacker (white hat is good, black hat is bad).
Although referring to technology, the hacker philosophy can really apply to any art or science. If you study music and learn everything you can about music, all the instruments, all the major works, etc...then you are applying the hacker philosophy to music. Or if you learn everything there is to know about automobiles, you're applying it to autos. If you are obsessed with economics and learn everything there is to know about how economies work, you're basically applying it to economics as well. Hacking is about figuring out how things work.
Script kiddies are just people who download software that has already been written by others and use these tools to perform malicious activities. But a script kiddie has no real knowledge of how to actually program or how things actually work. The really dangerous "hacker" is the kind who knows in-depth all about the technology, and has no qualms about doing bad things.
nismaratwork
Dec17-10, 08:28 AM
From my understanding of it, hacking is refers to people who like to solve problems and build and create things, and applies to people who have an obsession with learning everything about something. So a person may learn to program in all the major languages, they will read technical manuals, they will learn electronics to an advanced level, they'll learn the telephone and Internet infrastructure, they'll load individual operating systems up onto their computer and read the manuals to each operating system and study them to find the holes, etc...a hacker is not interested in doing anything malicious or destructive (unless maybe defending their country by doing bad things to foreign countries trying to do the same to their country).
"Hacking" got a negative connotation when people started using these skills for destructive and criminal purposes however. From what I have read, the term for such malicious hackers is/was actually "crackers."
However, outside of the hacker culture, the general term used by the media and so forth is "hacker" and also cracker is known as being a racist term to others, so one can see how people would be reluctant to use it. Today it seems more the terms are White Hat hacker and Black Hat hacker (white hat is good, black hat is bad).
Although referring to technology, the hacker philosophy can really apply to any art or science. If you study music and learn everything you can about music, all the instruments, all the major works, etc...then you are applying the hacker philosophy to music. Or if you learn everything there is to know about automobiles, you're applying it to autos. If you are obsessed with economics and learn everything there is to know about how economies work, you're basically applying it to economics as well. hacking is about figuring out how things work.
Script kiddies are just people who download software that had already been written by others and use these tools to perform malicious activities. But a script kiddie has no real knowledge of how to actually program or how things actually work. The really dangerous "hacker" is the kind who knows in-depth all about the technology, and has no qualms about doing bad things.
I could hug you if your conservative ideology didn't irk me so much. Oh what the hell, lets hug it out you big galoot!
edit: "And my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps!" (R. Lee Ermy as Drill Sgt. Hartman, 'Full Metal Jacket')
I offer you: Bruce Schneier (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/real-world_acce.html)
Schneier on Security (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/real-world_acce.html)
I used to get his Crypto-Gram Newsletter forwarded by a friend at work and this month has started again.
Interesting, and I might add very credible expert on security issues:
From the link above:
RBAC is very hard to implement correctly. (http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/digital/Research/ResearchProjects/DataFinancial.pdf)
A sample of credible research, with background, assessment, and risks, clearly laid out, which for me is critical in separating fact from speculation or fiction.
I will keep my eye open for insight, information missed or overlooked by mainstream media and toss it over the fence for review and discussion.
Fox News talking heads Oreilly et al frequently quote information cited in the News Letter, but that is about all the attention it gets in mainstream media. IMHO Schneier is worth following, and frequently is weeks and in some cases months ahead of developing security issues and trends.
Rhody...
Proton Soup
Dec18-10, 12:16 AM
Schneiner is great. i've got his 1st ed. Applied Cyptography laying around someplace.
that RBAC stuff sounds like they're trying to make things as complicated as possible. and yes, it's a lot of work and costs a lot of money. and no, nobody wants to pay for it.
Galteeth
Dec18-10, 03:39 AM
Personally I think the major flaw here is that I'm not clear that Assange or anyone else knows what's in that file. If it's meaningless crap, then what a waste, right? On the other hand, if it's terribly sensitive and clearly gets people killed... whoops. No, this isn't something the US is looking to open, it's a fail-deadly device for Assange to use in a manner he's yet to make clear.
What would lead to you to believe Assange doesn't know what's in the file? The purpose to me seems pretty clear. He said he would only release the password if he were killed or imprisoned for life. It's leverage against that happening. The file could be pictures of cats for all we know. The point is, that if people believe it could be something that might damage them (which is why you don't say what's in it, because you're not sure who might want to jail or kill you) it might dissaude them from jailing or killing Assange.
nismaratwork
Dec18-10, 06:41 AM
What would lead to you to believe Assange doesn't know what's in the file? The purpose to me seems pretty clear. He said he would only release the password if he were killed or imprisoned for life. It's leverage against that happening. The file could be pictures of cats for all we know. The point is, that if people believe it could be something that might damage them (which is why you don't say what's in it, because you're not sure who might want to jail or kill you) it might dissaude them from jailing or killing Assange.
You expect me to believe that beyond this overview, Assange has read the vast number of documents described as being in this file? You can't go around assuming that every gun isn't loaded, so the 'cats' concept is probably wishful thinking. Here is what is claimed to be in the file, at least:
The military papers on Guantanamo Bay, yet to be published, believed to have been supplied by Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May. Other documents that Assange is confirmed to possess include an aerial video of a US airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP files and Bank of America documents.
I'm sure he watched the video and read some of it, but unless he's smuggling HD movies in the original 720-1080 he could have a LOT of pictures of cats in a compressed file of that size.
Galteeth
Dec18-10, 04:01 PM
You expect me to believe that beyond this overview, Assange has read the vast number of documents described as being in this file? You can't go around assuming that every gun isn't loaded, so the 'cats' concept is probably wishful thinking. Here is what is claimed to be in the file, at least:
The military papers on Guantanamo Bay, yet to be published, believed to have been supplied by Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May. Other documents that Assange is confirmed to possess include an aerial video of a US airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP files and Bank of America documents.
I'm sure he watched the video and read some of it, but unless he's smuggling HD movies in the original 720-1080 he could have a LOT of pictures of cats in a compressed file of that size.
No, that is stuff that he has either already released or is planning to release. The insurance file wouldn't be that.
nismaratwork
Dec18-10, 04:05 PM
No, that is stuff that he has either already released or is planning to release. The insurance file wouldn't be that.
That was a quote from the NY Post, and represents the only CONFIRMED files that he has. Given however that he hasn't bluffed yet I'm shocked that you feel you can predict his behaviour so confidently.
Galteeth
Dec18-10, 05:43 PM
That was a quote from the NY Post, and represents the only CONFIRMED files that he has. Given however that he hasn't bluffed yet I'm shocked that you feel you can predict his behaviour so confidently.
I'm not saying he's bluffing. I think you misunderstood my post. People were asking what the point of the insurance file was. It probably is something damaging. I was explaining why he hasn't explicitly stated what's in it. The video of the civilian deaths has already been released, and the other stuff the NY post mentioned wikileaks has said they are going to release. It wouldn't make sense for the insurance file to contain stuff he already released or was planning on releasing (unless it was a bluff).
The idea of an insurance file is you don't know who might be after you. It could be a government of some country or a corporation or criminal organization who thinks you have info they don't want to get out. If they think killing you may cause a release of that info, it is disincentive to kill you. Hence insurance. I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a bluff. The point is, as you accurately realized, people can't assume he's bluffing, so the threat of an "insurance file" seems to serve its purpose.
Pointing out that it could be a bluff was only to illustrate the psychology behind its purpose.
nismaratwork
Dec18-10, 06:10 PM
I'm not saying he's bluffing. I think you misunderstood my post. People were asking what the point of the insurance file was. It probably is something damaging. I was explaining why he hasn't explicitly stated what's in it. The video of the civilian deaths has already been released, and the other stuff the NY post mentioned wikileaks has said they are going to release. It wouldn't make sense for the insurance file to contain stuff he already released or was planning on releasing (unless it was a bluff).
The idea of an insurance file is you don't know who might be after you. It could be a government of some country or a corporation or criminal organization who thinks you have info they don't want to get out. If they think killing you may cause a release of that info, it is disincentive to kill you. Hence insurance. I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a bluff. The point is, as you accurately realized, people can't assume he's bluffing, so the threat of an "insurance file" seems to serve its purpose.
Pointing out that it could be a bluff was only to illustrate the psychology behind its purpose.
Yes, that's exactly why I initially referred to this file as a 'fail-deadly device', which it is! Whether it's Semtex or soap, if a guy claiming to be wearing a bomb has a dead-man's switch, it's a very difficult situation.
There is a flaw here however, which is that Assange seems very intent upon maintaining a particular image in the media, an that one doesn't fit with such a blatant threat. He can claim self-defense, but he also wants to release the truth right? If there is something in that file that 'the world needs to know' under the Wikileaks philosophy, then using it as a fail-deadly is counter to that philosophy. Really, this only works if they're UNEDITED versions of documents already released, or if he just took a chunk of what he believed to be meaty material, compressed and encrypted it without ever having the time to look through it.
A bluff or not, the people who love him and this site (who are now the keepers of this file!) are going to want to know what's in it, don't you think? How is it going to look for Assange's crusade when he uses secrets that important as a means of blackmail to save his rear, and that such secrets could die with him! No, I think he just took a chunk of unfiltered or edited cables that would be damaging, but not necessarily interesting or "criminal" in the way he feels the air-strike was. Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man.
I'm not saying he's bluffing. I think you misunderstood my post. People were asking what the point of the insurance file was. It probably is something damaging. I was explaining why he hasn't explicitly stated what's in it. The video of the civilian deaths has already been released, and the other stuff the NY post mentioned wikileaks has said they are going to release. It wouldn't make sense for the insurance file to contain stuff he already released or was planning on releasing (unless it was a bluff).
The idea of an insurance file is you don't know who might be after you. It could be a government of some country or a corporation or criminal organization who thinks you have info they don't want to get out. If they think killing you may cause a release of that info, it is disincentive to kill you. Hence insurance. I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a bluff. The point is, as you accurately realized, people can't assume he's bluffing, so the threat of an "insurance file" seems to serve its purpose.
Pointing out that it could be a bluff was only to illustrate the psychology behind its purpose.
On the other hand, an enemy of someone he holds "insurance" against might kill him to trigger the release. Wouldn't that be ironic?
nismaratwork
Dec18-10, 06:15 PM
On the other hand, an enemy of someone he holds "insurance" against might kill him to trigger the release. Wouldn't that be ironic?
You know, I hadn't considered that? Hmmmm... I could see someone obsessed by curiosity alone doing at some point in this whole mess, never mind something international!
Galteeth
Dec18-10, 07:30 PM
Yes, that's exactly why I initially referred to this file as a 'fail-deadly device', which it is! Whether it's Semtex or soap, if a guy claiming to be wearing a bomb has a dead-man's switch, it's a very difficult situation.
There is a flaw here however, which is that Assange seems very intent upon maintaining a particular image in the media, an that one doesn't fit with such a blatant threat. He can claim self-defense, but he also wants to release the truth right? If there is something in that file that 'the world needs to know' under the Wikileaks philosophy, then using it as a fail-deadly is counter to that philosophy. Really, this only works if they're UNEDITED versions of documents already released, or if he just took a chunk of what he believed to be meaty material, compressed and encrypted it without ever having the time to look through it.
A bluff or not, the people who love him and this site (who are now the keepers of this file!) are going to want to know what's in it, don't you think? How is it going to look for Assange's crusade when he uses secrets that important as a means of blackmail to save his rear, and that such secrets could die with him! No, I think he just took a chunk of unfiltered or edited cables that would be damaging, but not necessarily interesting or "criminal" in the way he feels the air-strike was. Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man.
The secrets don't "die with him," the encryption key is released (a few of his wikileaks people have it) if he dies. It's pretty speculative to say what will happen to the data eventually. He seems to think of himself as a historian, so at this point it would seem like he would make some plan for its eventual release, but who knows what the years will bring?
'Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man" I'm still bit confused here by what you're saying. If the file is decrypted, he's already dead.(or maybe in jail for life with no possibility of parole)
nismaratwork
Dec18-10, 07:50 PM
The secrets don't "die with him," the encryption key is released (a few of his wikileaks people have it) if he dies. It's pretty speculative to say what will happen to the data eventually. He seems to think of himself as a historian, so at this point it would seem like he would make some plan for its eventual release, but who knows what the years will bring?
'Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man" I'm still bit confused here by what you're saying. If the file is decrypted, he's already dead.(or maybe in jail for life with no possibility of parole)
My point is that he's in a bind... he has to have something amazingly damaging in that file, is making a HUGE bluff, or it's just a dump for random files. If it's the first then the element of blackmail using stolen material is fairly obviously criminal. No government is going to accept this kind of threat and set such a precedent, and it's pretty likely that he's going to end in a prison, if not for life then a very long time.
In the meantime, what of the file? He's likely to be in prison, not dead, so how does a site dedicated to disseminating 'truth' justify using something so potent as a secret for leverage? I'm saying that as WhoWee has pointed out, he's really screwed no matter what he does at this point, and having created and spread the file it's only a matter of time before the very people who support him demand to know what's in the file.
This file has made him LESS safe, but more notorious... that's all. Given what he's said about his love of attention I suspect that he cares more for fame than safety.
Proton Soup
Dec18-10, 08:02 PM
if it's a bluff, i think it would never be released.
otherwise, whatever is in there would likely be released at some future date no matter what happens. that is the whole purpose of wikileaks, after all.
nismaratwork
Dec18-10, 08:39 PM
if it's a bluff, i think it would never be released.
otherwise, whatever is in there would likely be released at some future date no matter what happens. that is the whole purpose of wikileaks, after all.
If it's going to be released anyway, how is it a deterrent? Wikileaks isn't about waiting 50 years for declassification, and neither are their followers. If this is bound to be released, why make a locked file at all, and if it isn't... how DO they square that with their purpose?
Proton Soup
Dec18-10, 09:16 PM
If it's going to be released anyway, how is it a deterrent? Wikileaks isn't about waiting 50 years for declassification, and neither are their followers. If this is bound to be released, why make a locked file at all, and if it isn't... how DO they square that with their purpose?
i think it's about long-term survival.
not to mention it's great marketing for the brand. it's certainly interesting when people who are in IT security are themselves seeding torrents for the files.
nismaratwork
Dec19-10, 04:42 AM
i think it's about long-term survival.
not to mention it's great marketing for the brand. it's certainly interesting when people who are in IT security are themselves seeding torrents for the files.
You may be right in the first... maybe this was the best he felt he could do? For the rest, I completely agree, although I'm not sure why IT security folks would be less suspect... in my experience (including time in that field many suns and moons ago) we were by far the most crooked to begin with.
Beyond that, if you enjoy/are good at monitoring large amounts of network traffic, drive sectors and more, then you're probably not dumb, and if this file is ever unlocked you want to be there to see what's inside.
yeah, not really interested in that debate. and as i understand it, hacking originally had to do with hardware reverse engineering. and wasn't even a negative term i think until people started building phone "blueboxes" or whatever kind of boxen they were called. blah blah blah 2600 blah...
You're right about the term's negativity in usage today where it wasn't so before. There were a bunch of MIT AI (artificial intelligence) pin heads I worked with in the mid 80's. To them a 'hack' was the word for a clever or quickly constructed piece of code. 'Hacking' described pounding away at the keyboard.
nismaratwork
Dec19-10, 05:59 AM
You're right about the term's negativity in usage today where it wasn't so before. There were a bunch of MIT AI (artificial intelligence) pin heads I worked with in the mid 80's. To them a 'hack' was the word for a clever or quickly constructed piece of code. 'Hacking' described pounding away at the keyboard.
Exactly... someone who could take disparate elements no matter what and get the job done. Hacking and a kludge went hand in hand... then phreaking hit, and eventually morphed into computer hacking. The road started with people just writing code though, making their own way through a pretty wild-west period, but not breaking and entering.
Now you have good or bad hackers, but mostly just curious ones. The people who do damage are generally:
"black hat" computer Hackers: People who code viruses or create and distribute scanning tools and bot-kits. In my experience, often a function of youth... younger, darker, older, kinder.
Crackers: Referring to people specializing in the removal or disruption of DRM, or in general any protective measure.
(no longer, but once) Phreakers: People who originally used something as simple as audible tones to make free long-distance calls. Evolved into something more as computers emerged, then become essentially obsolete.
Script-Kiddies: A wide term referring to the pre-written programs they tend to run, and their usual age or competence. These people may do a ton of damage, but they aren't necessarily bright... they just need some basic tools made by the real deal, scan for vulnerabilities across a wide range of IP addresses, create a bot-net and begin to run scams, spam, distribute pirated material, launch DDOS attacks, and of course... scan for more computers to add to your bot-net. This isn't new anymore, but it emerged relatively late in the game when a generation of people used to GUI's finally got their wish in tools made ostensibly to test IT security.
Exactly... someone who could take disparate elements no matter what and get the job done. Hacking and a kludge went hand in hand... then phreaking hit, and eventually morphed into computer hacking. The road started with people just writing code though, making their own way through a pretty wild-west period, but not breaking and entering.
Now you have good or bad hackers, but mostly just curious ones. The people who do damage are generally:
"black hat" computer Hackers: People who code viruses or create and distribute scanning tools and bot-kits. In my experience, often a function of youth... younger, darker, older, kinder.
Crackers: Referring to people specializing in the removal or disruption of DRM, or in general any protective measure.
(no longer, but once) Phreakers: People who originally used something as simple as audible tones to make free long-distance calls. Evolved into something more as computers emerged, then become essentially obsolete.
Script-Kiddies: A wide term referring to the pre-written programs they tend to run, and their usual age or competence. These people may do a ton of damage, but they aren't necessarily bright... they just need some basic tools made by the real deal, scan for vulnerabilities across a wide range of IP addresses, create a bot-net and begin to run scams, spam, distribute pirated material, launch DDOS attacks, and of course... scan for more computers to add to your bot-net. This isn't new anymore, but it emerged relatively late in the game when a generation of people used to GUI's finally got their wish in tools made ostensibly to test IT security.
Good grief. I've abandoned the software world for a long time. Good riddance. Given the means and opportunity, we are sure to screw each other with it. I don't even want to know, or understand, what sort of predation people perpetuate on other peoplein this venue. I understood less than half of what you said.
nismaratwork
Dec19-10, 02:20 PM
Good grief. I've abandoned the software world for a long time. Good riddance. Given the means and opportunity, we are sure to screw each other with it. I don't even want to know, or understand, what sort of predation people perpetuate on other peoplein this venue. I understood less than half of what you said.
I don't blame you, and if you want to hear the depressing part... this is current as of: 8 years ago or so. That's the last contact I had with anyone who could reliably inform me about these matters, or that I was in any way involved. I'm sure that in the intervening near-decade the screwing has become truly startling. It was that move from curious snooping to mass abuse that drove me away from everything related to software for years.
Mathnomalous pointed out an unsupported assumption that was about as plausible as the unsupported assumption Evo gave. I don't think there's any reason to feel suspense; I doubt either Evo or Mathnomalous intends to support the assumption they proffered.And you were wrong.
Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.Looks like they do.
A contradiction emerged today over WikiLeaks' relationship with one of its suspected sources, a dispute that could influence whether Julian Assange ultimately faces conspiracy charges in the United States.
The WikiLeaks editor who was released from a London prison yesterday denied knowing Bradley Manning, the Army private who is behind held in a military brig in Quantico, Va., on charges that include leaking classified material.
"I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press," Assange told ABC News today.
That contradicts a chat log that appears to show Manning's conversations before his arrest--and before his name ever appeared in the media--in which he described having a close relationship with Assange as a confidential source.
Manning reportedly told ex-hacker Adrian Lamo that he had "developed a relationship with Assange" over many months, according to transcripts posted by BoingBoing and Wired.com over the summer. Lamo told CNET that the transcripts were accurate, but that he doesn't have the computer equipment on which it was saved because the FBI had taken it.
The details are crucial. Federal prosecutors are reportedly exploring filing conspiracy charges against Assange on the theory that he collaborated with Manning on transferring secret documents obtained from the Army's internal computer network.
continued...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20026074-281.html?tag=mncol;txt
Proton Soup
Dec21-10, 06:22 PM
if "chat" refers to things like IRC chat, then people tend to communicate using pseudonyms.
nobody knows you're a dog, you know.
if "chat" refers to things like IRC chat, then people tend to communicate using pseudonyms.
nobody knows you're a dog, you know.What? Oh, you think it's a chat room. No, these where private conversations between Manning and Lamo. Lamo is the hacker contacted by Manning that turned Manning in.
Do you know who Lamo is?
nismaratwork
Dec21-10, 06:58 PM
if "chat" refers to things like IRC chat, then people tend to communicate using pseudonyms.
nobody knows you're a dog, you know.
IRC is NOT a secure means by which any hacker would communicate unless they were using a number of bouncers and proxies to shield themselves. Even then, better to use a SSL with a third party (read hacked box) computer. Adrian was just doing what he thought was right, which is exactly what it means to be grey in the first place. It's one thing to peek, it's another to betray your country and disseminate.
I would add however, that tracing someone on IRC is not exactly impossible unless they're extremely careful. You can follow packets and do the drudge work to follow proxies, which you or I would never do, but the government and other hackers sure as hell would. IRC was only a big deal when it worked to disseminate material from USEnet... now it's just people SAYING they're dogs... and then trying to cybersex yah. YECH.
Proton Soup
Dec21-10, 11:42 PM
What? Oh, you think it's a chat room. No, these where private conversations between Manning and Lamo. Lamo is the hacker contacted by Manning that turned Manning in.
Do you know who Lamo is?
apparently, he's the ex-hacker that turned in manning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/08leaks.html). i thought maybe he was involved in the Collateral Murder (http://www.collateralmurder.com/) video decryption, but wikileaks at least doesn't reveal who is on that team.
and there is nothing in the cnet link that indicates assange knew the identity of manning, only that manning knew the identity of assange.
apparently, he's the ex-hacker that turned in manning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/08leaks.html). i thought maybe he was involved in the Collateral Murder (http://www.collateralmurder.com/) video decryption, but wikileaks at least doesn't reveal who is on that team.That was divulged, did you miss that? The part about Assange being a paranoid delusional and not taking off a snowsuit and peering out of curtains?
and there is nothing in the cnet link that indicates assange knew the identity of manning, only that manning knew the identity of assange.Yeah, the US government isn't stupid enough to say all they know.
Proton Soup
Dec21-10, 11:47 PM
IRC is NOT a secure means by which any hacker would communicate unless they were using a number of bouncers and proxies to shield themselves. Even then, better to use a SSL with a third party (read hacked box) computer. Adrian was just doing what he thought was right, which is exactly what it means to be grey in the first place. It's one thing to peek, it's another to betray your country and disseminate.
I would add however, that tracing someone on IRC is not exactly impossible unless they're extremely careful. You can follow packets and do the drudge work to follow proxies, which you or I would never do, but the government and other hackers sure as hell would. IRC was only a big deal when it worked to disseminate material from USEnet... now it's just people SAYING they're dogs... and then trying to cybersex yah. YECH.
i'm not trying to imply that it can't be traced. simply that people tend not to use their full names. i would also find it remarkable if wikileaks had the resources to do more than verify his IP.
i don't find this news release to be anything remarkable. it doesn't contradict anything assange has said, it merely shows that manning was in contact with assange.
Proton Soup
Dec21-10, 11:48 PM
That was divulged, did you miss that? The part about Assange being a paranoid delusional and not taking off a snowsuit and peering out of curtains?
Yeah, the US government isn't stupid enough to say all they know.
so you agree it's an unsubstantiated claim.
so you agree it's an unsubstantiated claim.What's an unsubstantiated claim? The journalist that stayed with him in Iceland is pretty clear on Assange's mental condition.
NeoDevin
Dec21-10, 11:53 PM
Yeah, the US government isn't stupid enough to say all they know.
Instead they just put everything they know on an under-secured network where any of thousands of people can download the whole thing without raising any flags. :devil:
Instead they just put everything they know on an under-secured network where any of thousands of people can download the whole thing without raising any flags. :devil:Except no one knows what they currently have.
Proton Soup
Dec22-10, 12:45 AM
What's an unsubstantiated claim? The journalist that stayed with him in Iceland is pretty clear on Assange's mental condition.
i was thinking about the claim of a contradiction in assange's statement
"I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press," Assange told ABC News today. "WikiLeaks' technology [was] designed from the very beginning to make sure that we never know the identities or names of people submitting us material."
as for paranoia, it's not being paranoid if they really are out to get you.
nismaratwork
Dec22-10, 09:25 AM
i'm not trying to imply that it can't be traced. simply that people tend not to use their full names. i would also find it remarkable if wikileaks had the resources to do more than verify his IP.
i don't find this news release to be anything remarkable. it doesn't contradict anything assange has said, it merely shows that manning was in contact with assange.
Proton, you have more resources than are needed to verify an IP address, even if you don't know how right now. You could, if you wanted to waste your time, learn VERY quickly. You're no dummy, and presumably neither are the people who work for Wikileaks... if they have access to packetstorm dotnet and other security sites, they could do more.
That said, I understand your clarification, and yes in any context I would be shocked if people didn't use disposable names (handles).
Proton Soup
Dec22-10, 03:42 PM
Proton, you have more resources than are needed to verify an IP address, even if you don't know how right now. You could, if you wanted to waste your time, learn VERY quickly. You're no dummy, and presumably neither are the people who work for Wikileaks... if they have access to packetstorm dotnet and other security sites, they could do more.
yeah, truth is, my level of interest in doing any sort of programming for this is very limited. my level of nosiness is more or less limited to this (http://www.geobytes.com/iplocator.htm).
if there'd been internet when i was a teen, maybe. but as it were, my hacking activities were pretty much limited to making passkeys for school combo locks.
anyhoo, i tried looking at wikileaks to see what sort of tech they were claiming to use for submissions, but they seem to have taken it all down until they do a rework.
nismaratwork
Dec22-10, 05:19 PM
Fair enough... in the meantime I found this very amusing. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/cia-responds-to-wikileaks-wtf/?hpt=T2
Galteeth
Dec22-10, 10:35 PM
Here is a recent MSNBC interview with Assange (video is after the summary article, scroll down a bit). I'd say he knocks it out of the park. Of course one can't judge someone's mental state solely by an interview, but he certainly comes across lucid and intelligent.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-charges-shock-jock-fox-hosts/
Galteeth
Dec22-10, 10:54 PM
And you were wrong.
Looks like they do.
continued...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20026074-281.html?tag=mncol;txt
I would like to point out that Manning believing he was communicating with Assange directly does not necessarily mean that he was. Obviously wikileaks has a means for whistleblowers to leak documents, and I imagine there would be some sort of basic process where a whistleblower would reveal some aspect of their identity. He was obviously in communication with someone working for wikileaks, and a "relationship" is pretty ambiguous.
Example:
Manning: If I had documents that I wanted to leak, is this the right channel to do so?
Wikileaks: Yes
Manning: Would "x" type of documents be something wikileaks might be interested in?
Wikileaks: Yes
Manning: How would I contact you in the future?
etc.
On another note, are we serious about starting to enforce the Espionage Act? I am frankly amazed this law has not been repealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
Since the United States is engaged in perpetual war, wouldn't enforcement of this act pretty much kill free speech related to foreign policy or domestic terrorism policy? Wouldn't use of this act largely confirm Assange's arguments?
On an interesting historical note, the ACLU was founded largely in response to the Espionage Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civil_Liberties_Bureau
Galteeth
Dec22-10, 11:14 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026419-503543.html
Wikileaks has struck a deal with a Russian newspaper to provide documents relating to Russia. I thought I'd post this, as some have criticized Wikileaks for not targeting regimes like Russia.
Proton Soup
Dec23-10, 12:00 AM
Here is a recent MSNBC interview with Assange (video is after the summary article, scroll down a bit). I'd say he knocks it out of the park. Of course one can't judge someone's mental state solely by an interview, but he certainly comes across lucid and intelligent.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-charges-shock-jock-fox-hosts/
heh, i had actually been thinking about just this today, but it's more fun to bring up the idea in response to something else. actually, i did sort of bring it up once, but simply called it terrorism.
he's right, of course. what people here have been doing amounts to the crime of making terroristic threats (http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Terrorist-Threat.htm). but they can expect not to be prosecuted because law enforcement is partial.
Proton Soup
Dec23-10, 12:03 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026419-503543.html
Wikileaks has struck a deal with a Russian newspaper to provide documents relating to Russia. I thought I'd post this, as some have criticized Wikileaks for not targeting regimes like Russia.
yeah, i think Putin has a lot more birthdays in his future.
Galteeth
Dec23-10, 12:13 AM
yeah, i think Putin has a lot more birthdays in his future.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
Galteeth
Dec23-10, 12:15 AM
Apparently, if the Espionage Act is used, simple discussion of the content of the cables could be construed as illegal. Of course, from reading the act and the way it was historically enforced, so could criticizing any aspect of the wars or the military.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-indictment-us-charge-julian-assange-espionage-act/story?id=12369173
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/the-espionage-acts-shameful-and-forgotten-history/68084/
Edit:
This quote from the ABC article
"Only once in the history of the Espionage Act has the U.S. government brought a case against someone other than the thief of secret information. That prosecution failed, Vladeck said."
is contradicted by the wikipedia article, as well as the Atlantic piece.
Here is an old new york times article that references the conviction of Eugene debs and others under the act for "obstructing the draft." This was not an act of physical obstruction, but rather a speech given.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0DE2D71539E133A25757C2A9649D94 6095D6CF
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 12:25 AM
I wish wikileaks wouldn't have published the Iraq war logs, Afghanistan war logs, and diplomatic cables. The other things they did I thought were heroic, for example the leaks about toxic waste dumping in the Ivory coast, and the attack on Scientology.
The thousands and thousands of pages of U.S. war logs and diplomatic cables, don't really even expose any corruption or wrongdoing. They actually paint the U.S. in a positive light in my opinion. There are mainstream news sources in the U.S. that routinely make us look worse than wikileaks did. Meanwhile many of those who would be investigating real corruption and abuse, are being distracted.
But the war logs, and diplomatic cables may endanger lives and cause diplomatic problems. If they had something which exposed serious corruption in regard to the wars, and diplomatic cables, I think it might be in the nations best interest to know about it. But posting thousands of classified documents of a mundane and uninteresting nature makes no sense. And all that might come out of it, is that we might need to discuss making compromises to the first amendment, and regulate the internet.
I wonder if wikileaks actually has anything interesting, or if they are just bluffing?
Proton Soup
Dec23-10, 12:38 AM
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
Novaya Gazeta correspondent Anna Politkovskaya, who wrote about graft under then-President Vladimir Putin and chronicled abuses by military forces in Chechnya, was shot dead in her Moscow apartment building in 2006, on Putin's birthday.
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 12:50 AM
Novaya Gazeta correspondent Anna Politkovskaya, who wrote about graft under then-President Vladimir Putin and chronicled abuses by military forces in Chechnya, was shot dead in her Moscow apartment building in 2006, on Putin's birthday.
Funny thing is, that if assassins start taking out wikileaks staff, wikileaks wont know who is behind it. So, whatever wikileaks claims to be willing to release in the event people start to going missing, would have to be incriminating for all their targets. Therefore they logically should only attack organizations, which they have serious dirt on, and which have enough restraint not to retaliate anyways.
Some of the worse targets, probably would be harder to blackmail, as they often could care less what the rest of the world thinks, and often act irrationally and against their own interests, or are so oppressive that public opinion doesn't matter anyways.
On another note, if they actually do have damning information to use against the U.S., then it would be in the interest of the U.S. to protect wikileaks.
Galteeth
Dec23-10, 01:45 AM
Funny thing is, that if assassins start taking out wikileaks staff, wikileaks wont know who is behind it. So, whatever wikileaks claims to be willing to release in the event people start to going missing, would have to be incriminating for all their targets. Therefore they logically should only attack organizations, which they have serious dirt on, and which have enough restraint not to retaliate anyways.
Some of the worse targets, probably would be harder to blackmail, as they often could care less what the rest of the world thinks, and often act irrationally and against their own interests, or are so oppressive that public opinion doesn't matter anyways.
On another note, if they actually do have damning information to use against the U.S., then it would be in the interest of the U.S. to protect wikileaks.
Damning is relative. i would argue some of the information in the leaks does expose wrongdoing by the US (and other countries). For example, a recent revelation was the UK's training of a Bangladeshi para-military squad that human rights groups have called a "death squad."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40773855/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 02:19 AM
Damning is relative. i would argue some of the information in the leaks does expose wrongdoing by the US (and other countries). For example, a recent revelation was the UK's training of a Bangladeshi para-military squad that human rights groups have called a "death squad."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40773855/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
The RAB, is called a death squad by human rights groups, but human rights groups often have similar bad things to say about the U.S., the U.K., Israel, etc etc.
"Rapid Action Battalion or RAB is an elite anti-crime and anti-terrorism unit of Bangladesh Police constituted amending the Armed Police Battalion Ordinance, 1979. Under the command of Inspector General of Police (IGP) it consists of members of Bangladesh Police, Bangladesh Army, Bangladesh Navy, Bangladesh Air Force, Border Guards Bangladesh and Bangladesh Ansar. It was formed on 26 March 2004 and started its operations from 14 April 2004. Additional Inspector General of Police Anwarul Iqbal is the founding Director General of this elite unit.
Since its inception, the RAB has seized a total of 3,149 illegal arms and more than 36,000 rounds of ammunition. It has also had many notable arrests. Although the RAB has been successful in apprehending several high-profile terrorists, including the infamous Bangla Bhai, Amnesty International has criticised the RAB's lack of accountability as it has been responsible for numerous deaths which have been attributed to crossfire.[1][2] In March, 2010, the battalion leader stated that they have killed 622 due to 'crossfire', while some human rights organizations claim that over 1,000 extra-judicial killings are the product of the battalion.[3] There have also been many reports of torture.[4][5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Action_Battalion
1. (C) The leadership of Bangladesh's Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) has pledged to provide additional information about alleged human rights violations committed by members of the force since its inception in 2004. This pledge came during two days of intensive fact-finding and discussions with members of an interagency USG team that visited Bangladesh to assess both the RAB's current operating procedures regarding human rights violations as well as possibilities for engagement. The RAB seeks a broad engagement with the USG including human rights and counterterrorism training and recognizes the need to address allegations of past abuses. While there are lingering concerns about the RAB's human rights record, there is a widespread belief within civil society that the RAB has succeeded in reducing crime and fighting terrorism, making it in many ways Bangladesh's most respected police unit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/187025
The fact that some of the RAP had received training from the UK is neither strange, or particularly damning. Actually, it is something you would expect. After reading what was leaked about it, I think it actually makes the UK look good because it shows their concern for RAP human rights violations, and presents arguments for why they are necessary in the war on terror. The RAP would exist without UK training, but UK training and support puts pressure on the RAP to conform to human rights expectations.
I could go on all day posting much more damning news strait out of mainstream news sources, especially under the subject of bad guys who had received training from, or had been funded, by a particular government or military branch.
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 03:07 AM
I have one question in my mind I would like to resolve. What is the difference between wikileaks reporting classified information, and MSNBC, or the Guardian reporting it? I just noticed that the mainstream media seams to feel free to report anything wikileaks puts out. Wikileaks doesn't steal the information, they only publish it. It seams that if the Guardian can repost what wikileaks has, than there must be laws protecting this right.
In this way, would assassinating wikileaks staff be any more justifiable than assassinating MSNBC staff, or the Guardian's staff? Therefore before wikileaks can be prosecuted in the U.S., or assassinated as many here think is legally justifiable, free speech laws would need to be amended.
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 03:13 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026419-503543.html
Wikileaks has struck a deal with a Russian newspaper to provide documents relating to Russia. I thought I'd post this, as some have criticized Wikileaks for not targeting regimes like Russia.
Well, there's one problem solved... The Russians do NOT play games when it comes to espionage, and the old 2nd Directorate KGB vets are some of the ones who Putin and others have the most pull with. The USA might try to put you in jail... the Russians will feed you some nuclear waste, or a ricin pellet.
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 03:25 AM
Well, there's one problem solved... The Russians do NOT play games when it comes to espionage, and the old 2nd Directorate KGB vets are some of the ones who Putin and others have the most pull with. The USA might try to put you in jail... the Russians will feed you some nuclear waste, or a ricin pellet.
Assassinating people in exotic and incriminating ways, kind of is playing games if you ask me.
Galteeth
Dec23-10, 03:47 AM
The RAB, is called a death squad by human rights groups, but human rights groups often have similar bad things to say about the U.S., the U.K., Israel, etc etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Action_Battalion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/187025
The fact that some of the RAP had received training from the UK is neither strange, or particularly damning. Actually, it is something you would expect. After reading what was leaked about it, I think it actually makes the UK look good because it shows their concern for RAP human rights violations, and presents arguments for why they are necessary in the war on terror. The RAP would exist without UK training, but UK training and support puts pressure on the RAP to conform to human rights expectations.
I could go on all day posting much more damning news strait out of mainstream news sources, especially under the subject of bad guys who had received training from, or had been funded, by a particular government or military branch.
"In March, 2010, the battalion leader stated that they have killed 622 due to 'crossfire', while some human rights organizations claim that over 1,000 extra-judicial killings are the product of the battalion.[3] There have also been many reports of torture.[4][5]"
622 killed in crossfire? Come on now.
Note: If we are going to debate the RAP, it might be better to start a different thread, as this is a somewhat tangenital topic.
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 04:03 AM
"In March, 2010, the battalion leader stated that they have killed 622 due to 'crossfire', while some human rights organizations claim that over 1,000 extra-judicial killings are the product of the battalion.[3] There have also been many reports of torture.[4][5]"
622 killed in crossfire? Come on now.
Note: If we are going to debate the RAP, it might be better to start a different thread, as this is a somewhat tangenital topic.
The leak if anything makes the RAP look bad, but not the UK. The RAP already looked bad before anyways, and the RAP is not a para-military squad, they are official. And, it was already known that the UK supports Bangladesh in the war on terror. It is hardly any more damning than the fact that Bangladesh is a UK ally. But I agree, we are getting off topic.
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 04:12 AM
Assassinating people in exotic and incriminating ways, kind of is playing games if you ask me.
It's definitely how Russia has liked to send a message post-Soviet era. Then, 2nd directorate would simply take you to Lubyanka or some s****ole satellite 'office' and your family to a prison. Now they're much more civilized, and 'send messages'.
Besides, in a very real way espionage is played, not like a fun game, but a game nonetheless. Brutally or exotically killing people who sincerely **** with your country is practically a national pastime. Contrast this to the Chinese who will simply shoot you, done, game over. Contrast again to the USA which (the consensus seems to be) harasses you about Swedish sex crimes... you see my point?
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 04:14 AM
The leak if anything makes the RAP look bad, but not the UK. The RAP already looked bad before anyways, and the RAP is not a para-military squad, they are official. And, it was already known that the UK supports Bangladesh in the war on terror. It is hardly any more damning than the fact that Bangladesh is a UK ally. But I agree, we are getting off topic.
Yeah, I wonder what happens in the Philippine jungles with our (US) forces and our Filipino counterparts. I'm sure it's all about precision and taking prisoners... :wink:
I have one question in my mind I would like to resolve. What is the difference between wikileaks reporting classified information, and MSNBC, or the Guardian reporting it? I just noticed that the mainstream media seams to feel free to report anything wikileaks puts out. Wikileaks doesn't steal the information, they only publish it. It seams that if the Guardian can repost what wikileaks has, than there must be laws protecting this right. The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.
Under the amendment, which was adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a journalist is defined as someone who:
(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 09:22 AM
The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
I would add that, whatever your stance on this, you have to agree that the information was stolen. Simply turning around and releasing that in a raw form to the public is at best, whistleblowing... not journalism. In a way, it's not even that...
Manning might be considered a whisteblower by some (not me), but Wikileaks was just one of a number of possible outlets, including Manning slapping the whole thing in a file and seeding it as a torrent. Wikileaks... they did what the source could have done, and they don't bother with explaining anything unless it's in a media appearance. They're an extra-legal/extra-national information clearing house without any particular talent, just the willingness to face international retribution.
Julian Assange himself has expressed his love of being a rebel, and attention... I think there's a good reason that this supposedly noble crusade has become about one man's sex charges, and that some Wikileaks founders have split off to pursue another competing project. In some form, a leaking website can be hugely helpful, but to do be so it needs to have respect and gravitas, which is achieved by picking your battles and using only the most damning evidence.
Proton Soup
Dec23-10, 03:22 PM
The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States
Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law and copyright law.
In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.
As famously said by journalist A. J. Liebling, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."[2] The individuals, businesses, and organizations that own a means of publication are able to publish information and opinions without government interference, and cannot be compelled by the government to publish information and opinions that they disagree with. For example, the owner of a printing press cannot be required to print advertisements for a political opponent, even if the printer normally accepts commercial printing jobs.
In 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Near v. Minnesota used the 14th Amendment to apply the freedom of the press to the States. Other notable cases regarding free press are:
* New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): The Supreme Court upheld the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): The Court decided that for written words to be libel they must be, first of all, false.
[edit]
and it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 03:36 PM
US supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor has said the court is likely to have to rule on the issue of balancing national security and freedom of speech due to WikiLeaks posting a cache of US military records about the Afghan war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/27/wikileaks-war-logs-free-speech-supreme-court
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 05:56 PM
i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States
and it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video
Wikileaks gave their material to JOURNALISTIC outlets to work with and publish. A reporter's job isn't just to collect scads of raw information, unprocessed... well, is SIPRnet a 'publishing' outlet? There is no added element, even context, added to this information that would allow it to be a journalistic effort.
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 06:02 PM
Wikileaks gave their material to JOURNALISTIC outlets to work with and publish. A reporter's job isn't just to collect scads of raw information, unprocessed... well, is SIPRnet a 'publishing' outlet? There is no added element, even context, added to this information that would allow it to be a journalistic effort.
This is how they describe themselves on their website,
"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."
wikileaks
You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 06:11 PM
This is how they describe themselves on their website,
"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."
wikileaks
You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.
Would you post a quote from a Jihadi website describing themselves as "freedom fighters"? I don't care how they describe themselves on their homepage, but rather what they've actually done, and how they've done it.
Wikileaks cultivates and compromises sources, gathers information and centralizes it, then meters it out to media outlets for actual context and translation from "diplo-cable-ese" into English. That's basically an espionage service that gives away their information (except for the Insurance File...) and not a journalistic outlet. They operate like a stateless espionage service, and that's how they're being treated... what did they expect?
They don't hold themselves, nor are they held to journalistic norms... they don't even pretend except in writing.
This is how they describe themselves on their website,
"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."
wikileaks
You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.LOL. Just a few months ago this was their Mission Statement
WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”
http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_15649651
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 06:52 PM
LOL. Just a few months ago this was their Mission Statement
[quote]WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”
http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_15649651
Heh... in other words, a secure clearing house. You're more than a pretty face Evo!! :wink:
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 06:54 PM
I'm not going to defend wikileaks, I'm only interested in what the court of law actually says.
I'm not going to defend wikileaks, I'm only interested in what the court of law actually says.Did you see my post #321?
jreelawg
Dec23-10, 07:56 PM
Did you see my post #321?
I'm not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that they don't qualify under that description. I just watched a debate on CNN about the very subject, and it was a pretty tough debate, and in the end, I don't think there was any clear cut answer. You may be right, but I still think the law needs to be more clear and specific, in order to make the issue more objective.
I think the law is actually intended to protect anyones right to publish including me, and you. The law states it's illegal leak information, but not illegal to publish leaked information.
nismaratwork
Dec23-10, 08:22 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that they don't qualify under that description. I just watched a debate on CNN about the very subject, and it was a pretty tough debate, and in the end, I don't think there was any clear cut answer. You may be right, but I still think the law needs to be more clear and specific, in order to make the issue more objective.
I think the law is actually intended to protect anyones right to publish including me, and you. The law states it's illegal leak information, but not illegal to publish leaked information.
I'm not a lawyer either, and I think the debate in the courts may well boil down to what you're saying vs. the stance I'm taking. In the end, I just don't see any journalistic element to Wikileaks, which only leaves individual speech. You can't share the secrets of a state and expect it to sit passively... in the end it doesn't matter if this is right or wrong... Assange has clearly been marked to be made an example of, and now Wikileaks is messing with Russia? They're going to get killed or get other people killed, and thus far I haven't seen enough from them to warrant what they do to get the info and the impact it has on diplomacy.
Good point Nismar, even a journalist isn't protected if espionage, or conspiracy, or risk to national security are involved.
i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States
and it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video
In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.
I thought I covered this somewhere. That quote describes what the press uses, not what the press is:
The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.
I think this thread has run it's course. wikileaks seems like last week's news, they dog has pooped, time to roll it up and stick it in the trash.
Proton Soup
Dec23-10, 11:30 PM
I thought I covered this somewhere. That quote describes what the press uses, not what the press is:
sure. perhaps i am not being clear. freedom of press in the united states is not freedom of journalism. it is the right to publish, both information and opinion. the bringing up of assange's journalism credentials over and over by certain members is a red herring. whether or not you think he is a journalist is besides the point. the only relevance evo's link has to the discussion is the issue of shield laws for journalists. that is, whether a journalist could be compelled to give testimony regarding their source. in mr. assange's case, that would mean attempting to get him rendered from a foreign country simply to give testimony, not for any crime that was committed. are we really going to render people who have not committed crimes?
oh, and i see i have been edited for content. :smile:
I can't speak for the others on the red herring, and in fact I don't really care about this issue. I just want to be sure, for whatever reason people are choosing to define the press, that it is correct.
sure. perhaps i am not being clear. freedom of press in the united states is not freedom of journalism. it is the right to publish, both information and opinion. the bringing up of assange's journalism credentials over and over by certain members is a red herring. whether or not you think he is a journalist is besides the point. the only relevance evo's link has to the discussion is the issue of shield laws for journalists. that is, whether a journalist could be compelled to give testimony regarding their source. in mr. assange's case, that would mean attempting to get him rendered from a foreign country simply to give testimony, not for any crime that was committed. are we really going to render people who have not committed crimes?
Since Proton Soup knows that no crime has been committed (how *does* he know these things, I wonder if the USG knows yet?) :tongue2:
This thread is done, Assange will be fighting extradtion while living in the lap of luxury for a long time, it seems. If anything new happens, a new thread should be started at that time.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.