Anonymous and others start leaking

[awepittance]

news orgs are reporting that this info has clearance with 2.5 million gov workers

 

i have no evidence for this, but maybe the media is framing it that way to diminish the seriousness of them. I mean did 2.5 million people really know Hillary Clinton wanted physical biological data from high ranking members of the UN?

seems doubtful

[kcinsu]

Clearance is different than required reading. My understanding was that the database was made so that data could be easily accessed between agencies. I imagine of you've been screened, and given access to any secret material, you are under an NDA, so why not give everyone who has the same clearance level access to all material classified for that level?

[GORDO]

seems like a big bunch of uninteresting/inconsequential information, what's the point?

 

so you don't think the United States would be embarrassed that hillary clinton ordered biometric data to be found for top UN officials in a spying operation?

The point meaning what are Wikileaks motivations? Or what's the point of embarrassing the united states with revelatory information?

 

 

sure it's embarrassing, but as i said, unconsequential. which leads to your question what exactly is wikileaks motivation? it's not like they're denouncing anything with this info are they?

[GORDO]

...

 

because with this leak one could conclude that they have an agenda other than what they say their goal is: "bring important news and information to the public". but the agenda doesn't seem clear, one could think they they are just trolling the US because they can.

[kaini]

good guardian op-ed piece on why this is important: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/29/the-revolution-will-be-digitised

 

tl;dr: 'Leaks are not the problem; they are the symptom. They reveal a disconnect between what people want and need to know and what they actually do know. The greater the secrecy, the more likely a leak. The way to move beyond leaks is to ensure a robust regime for the public to access important information.'... 'Much of the outrage about WikiLeaks is not over the content of the leaks but from the audacity of breaching previously inviable strongholds of authority. In the past, we deferred to authority and if an official told us something would damage national security we took that as true. Now the raw data behind these claims is increasingly getting into the public domain. What we have seen from disclosures like MPs' expenses or revelations about the complicity of government in torture is that when politicians speak of a threat to "national security", often what they mean is that the security of their own position is threatened.'

[o00o]

Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-wikileaks-business-media-assange_lander.html

[Guest futuregirlfriend]

so what did prince andrew do?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-rude-prince-andrew

[lumpenprol]

Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-wikileaks-business-media-assange_lander.html

 

Assange is a royal cunt. Proprietary secrets are proprietary because, well, someone invested a lot of time, energy, and money to develop them. Cunt.

 

Edit: someone needs to hire a cameraman to track every one of assange's movements, including his trips to the bathroom. See how much he likes it.

 

Edit 2: The basic moral of the story is: The computer age is inherently insecure

[lumpenprol]

Glenn Greenwald from today

 

an added irony: many of the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq and/or who support the war in Afghanistan, drone strikes and assassination programs -- on the ground that the massive civilians deaths which result are justifiable "collateral damage" -- are those objecting most vehemently to WikiLeaks' disclosure on the ground that it may lead to the death of innocent people. For them, the moral framework suddenly becomes that if an act causes the deaths of any innocent person, that is proof that it is not only unjustifiable but morally repellent regardless of what it achieves. How glaringly selective is their alleged belief in that moral framework.

 

 

not really sure I'd go as far as to say they are being inconsistent. They saw a value or potential value to what they were doing, but can't see the value to what Assange is doing.

[delet...]

Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-wikileaks-business-media-assange_lander.html

 

Assange is a royal cunt. Proprietary secrets are proprietary because, well, someone invested a lot of time, energy, and money to develop them. Cunt.

 

Edit: someone needs to hire a cameraman to track every one of assange's movements, including his trips to the bathroom. See how much he likes it.

 

Edit 2: The basic moral of the story is: The computer age is inherently insecure

 

that bank probably has all your financial secrets bought and paid for, and if the bank is goldman, well those faggots deserve the probin' the government was too frightened to give them. did you know that they make most of their money from derivatives ?? scum.

 

it won't be goldman though, they're too tied in with the system. If it was it may do something to assuage my suspicion of assange. heh.

[Dale]

All I have to say is Assange needs to keep his ego under control and not let this cause problems. I don't understand the need for him to be splattered across the front pages of news websites in an expensive looking suit, new hairstyle and with a smirk on his face - it's irrelevant and completely beside the point of what he and wikileaks are trying to work on.

[kaini]

All I have to say is Assange needs to keep his ego under control and not let this cause problems. I don't understand the need for him to be splattered across the front pages of news websites in an expensive looking suit, new hairstyle and with a smirk on his face - it's irrelevant and completely beside the point of what he and wikileaks are trying to work on.

 

couldn't agree more - what wikileaks is doing is tremendously important imo, and assange and his trollface are detrimental to this. unless it's part of a brilliant scheme to attract as much attention as possible, but even then the purity of wikileaks motivation is kinda brought under question.

[Guest Fishtank]

also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities

 

Oh the ironing!

[kcinsu]

I think he is kind of needed, for the press machine to really latch on to this stuff. He makes it sensationalized, whereas if some random website out there just posted these, it would be much more under the radar.

 

Not saying I like seeing his face all over the place, and I do agree, it complicates things and is possibly distracting, but at the same time, I don't think wikileaks would be the headline on every major news org, without him.

 

Could be wrong though...

[awepittance]

All I have to say is Assange needs to keep his ego under control and not let this cause problems. I don't understand the need for him to be splattered across the front pages of news websites in an expensive looking suit, new hairstyle and with a smirk on his face - it's irrelevant and completely beside the point of what he and wikileaks are trying to work on.

 

couldn't agree more - what wikileaks is doing is tremendously important imo, and assange and his trollface are detrimental to this. unless it's part of a brilliant scheme to attract as much attention as possible, but even then the purity of wikileaks motivation is kinda brought under question.

 

i think it also has to be mentioned that Assange is not asking for that type of coverage (ie his face being the main picture on wikileaks stories) this is how the press has chosen to cover it and quite brilliantly, it's been very effective in weakening his credibility in the public eye (not for me personally ). He recently seems like he made a conscious decision to be a little more low key in his physical appearance. Agreed that he should have been more cautious about this to begin with.

In a big way i can agree with his decision to stay as the head of the organization. You know the first thing the media would be saying if he left would be 'Assange leaves organization amidst accusations of wrong doing'. The guy is in it for the long fight and he seems prepared for it, i can respect that.

 

Regardless who is the head of WIkileaks it's going to continue to be a target of smear campaigns and techniques of discrediting by numerous very powerful organizations.

[awepittance]

I think he is kind of needed, for the press machine to really latch on to this stuff. He makes it sensationalized, whereas if some random website out there just posted these, it would be much more under the radar.

 

Not saying I like seeing his face all over the place, and I do agree, it complicates things and is possibly distracting, but at the same time, I don't think wikileaks would be the headline on every major news org, without him.

 

Could be wrong though...

 

I think you're right, that his self righteousness has elevated this to a higher level than if it would have just been a website with no personality or face behind it. for better or worse, i think you have to attribute some of the attention it's gotten to his unusual background, his gigantic balls edit: and his perceived unwillingness to compromise

[kaini]

for the record, this is the story which soured my attitude towards assange.

 

You know the first thing the media would be saying if he left would be 'Assange leaves organization amidst accusations of wrong doing'. The guy is in it for the long fight and he seems prepared for it, i can respect that.

 

however, i completely agree with this... in a way he's being forced into a lose/lose situation. that's how they get ya.

 

as regards the 'bank leak' story... the guy comes from an open-source background... and people with an open-source mentality can tend to be quite fanatical about it and apply that philosophy to every aspect of society (richard stallman probably puts as many people off the philosophy as he wins over to that same attitude). i'm someone who is a big believer in open-source software, but i also recognise that this philosophy simply cannot be applied to everything.

[awepittance]

seems like a big bunch of uninteresting/inconsequential information, what's the point?

 

so you don't think the United States would be embarrassed that hillary clinton ordered biometric data to be found for top UN officials in a spying operation?

The point meaning what are Wikileaks motivations? Or what's the point of embarrassing the united states with revelatory information?

 

 

sure it's embarrassing, but as i said, unconsequential.

 

but that is consequential, the united states works extremely hard and pours millions of dollars yearly to prevent this kind of embarrassment.

[awepittance]

for the record, this is the story which soured my attitude towards assange.

 

You know the first thing the media would be saying if he left would be 'Assange leaves organization amidst accusations of wrong doing'. The guy is in it for the long fight and he seems prepared for it, i can respect that.

 

however, i completely agree with this... in a way he's being forced into a lose/lose situation. that's how they get ya.

 

as regards the 'bank leak' story... the guy comes from an open-source background... and people with an open-source mentality can tend to be quite fanatical about it and apply that philosophy to every aspect of society (richard stallman probably puts as many people off the philosophy as he wins over to that same attitude). i'm someone who is a big believer in open-source software, but i also recognise that this philosophy simply cannot be applied to everything.

 

hey i was replying before you edited this so let me respond to your first thing.

 

the slashdot article you link to above leads to a Wired article which correct me if i'm wrong but is written by Kevin Paulson one of the greatest defenders in the press of Adrian Lamo's actions in regards to him turing in Bradley Manning. He was solely responsible for 'breaking' the Lamo story (as well as being Lamos mouthpiece in the press) and framing the events in the situation which turned out to be heavily unsubstantiated accusations (when people accused Paulson of spinning to his own agenda he tried to prove his case by posting heavily redacted AOL chat logs between Lamo and manning). It seems like he has something out for Wikileaks in general, in other words Paulson's credibility in any matters regarding Wikileaks is ambiguous at best. but i will read this entire article and soon have a more informed opinion.

[kaini]

for the record, this is the story which soured my attitude towards assange.

 

You know the first thing the media would be saying if he left would be 'Assange leaves organization amidst accusations of wrong doing'. The guy is in it for the long fight and he seems prepared for it, i can respect that.

 

however, i completely agree with this... in a way he's being forced into a lose/lose situation. that's how they get ya.

 

as regards the 'bank leak' story... the guy comes from an open-source background... and people with an open-source mentality can tend to be quite fanatical about it and apply that philosophy to every aspect of society (richard stallman probably puts as many people off the philosophy as he wins over to that same attitude). i'm someone who is a big believer in open-source software, but i also recognise that this philosophy simply cannot be applied to everything.

 

hey i was replying before you edited this so let me respond to your first thing.

 

the slashdot article you link to above leads to a Wired article which correct me if i'm wrong but is written by Kevin Paulson one of the greatest defenders in the press of Adrian Lamo's actions in regards to him turing in Bradley Manning. He was solely responsible for 'breaking' the Lamo story (as well as being Lamos mouthpiece in the press) and framing the events in the situation which turned out to be heavily unsubstantiated accusations. It seems like he has something out for Wikileaks in general, in other words Paulson's credibility in any matters regarding Wikileaks is ambiguous at best. but i will read this entire article and soon have a more informed opinion.

 

perhaps... but there's IRC chat logs in there somewhere iirc which definitely made me think 'this guy needs to check his ego in at the door before essentially firing people in a chatroom'. provided those logs aren't doctored, that is. but they don't strike me as being doctored. there is also the accusation that manning was passed over for promotion several times doing the rounds, which casts his motivation for turning over the logs in a bad light.

 

edit: re: manning - this, of course, is exactly the sort of FUD that would be spread to discredit manning. but i don't think anyone is disputing the contents of the data wikileaks have published at this point, judging by US reaction (edit2: and the latest leak has yet to be linked to manning in any way bar hearsay and more FUD).

 

we live in very interesting times.

[remy marathe]

Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-wikileaks-business-media-assange_lander.html

 

Assange is a royal cunt. Proprietary secrets are proprietary because, well, someone invested a lot of time, energy, and money to develop them. Cunt.

 

Edit: someone needs to hire a cameraman to track every one of assange's movements, including his trips to the bathroom. See how much he likes it.

 

Edit 2: The basic moral of the story is: The computer age is inherently insecure

 

spot on. this guy is a tool

[marf]

hes a hacker. a 2600 reader. Maybe even plays WoW. Not a reporter

[GORDO]

seems like a big bunch of uninteresting/inconsequential information, what's the point?

 

so you don't think the United States would be embarrassed that hillary clinton ordered biometric data to be found for top UN officials in a spying operation?

The point meaning what are Wikileaks motivations? Or what's the point of embarrassing the united states with revelatory information?

 

 

sure it's embarrassing, but as i said, unconsequential.

 

but that is consequential, the united states works extremely hard and pours millions of dollars yearly to prevent this kind of embarrassment.

 

but what is the consequence? it is more likely that now the us gvt.will even go ahead and pour 10 times more money into secrecy stuff. is that a good thing?

 

I don't think there is a foreseeable consequence to this tho, which brings again my question: what is the purpose of this? seems harmless enough to appear to have no point at all, yet they're in open confrontation, what is the agenda? is it publishing secret documents just for the sake of it? if that was the case i think we can agree that they're not doing any great service, are they putting in evidence some ourageous truth that everyone should know about? not really... so...

[kaini]

there was a very strongly worded memo to all US diplomatic staff issued this morning reminding them that leaking dox is breaking US law and would be punished with the strongest possible penalties. this was on sky news. so i don't think that it's fair to say that there is no foreseeable consequence to this so far, at least for potential document leakers.

[GORDO]

Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-wikileaks-business-media-assange_lander.html

 

Assange is a royal cunt. Proprietary secrets are proprietary because, well, someone invested a lot of time, energy, and money to develop them. Cunt.

 

Edit: someone needs to hire a cameraman to track every one of assange's movements, including his trips to the bathroom. See how much he likes it.

 

Edit 2: The basic moral of the story is: The computer age is inherently insecure

 

well it depends on what kind of information is leaked. i think the world could benefit to know about some stuff about the inner workings of financial institutions. because it may turn out that their evaluation of risks is not really up to the task. if we found out that X institution bases it's ratings or assesments on the horoscope it would be helpful.

 

but of course someone should draw the line and i don't think the wikileaks team is specialized enough for the job of discriminating information.