PDA

View Full Version : I have a question [about wiki leaks]



Gamefreak89
2010-Dec-18, 08:12 AM
What are Wikileaks and Julian Assange's real motives I mean why did they release those documents for what ever reason why? Of course staying within the boundaries of Baut's rules of course. Does it severely affect USA's infrastructure?

swampyankee
2010-Dec-18, 12:41 PM
My opinion? I may effect US diplomacy, less because of what was said in the leaked cables than because of the fact of the leak itself: it's hard to speak in confidence to somebody who can't keep secrets. It won't have any effect on the US infrastructure, unless there's something in there to cause somebody to increase the price of oil or stop buying US government debt.

As for Assange's motives? I have absolutely no clue.

kamaz
2010-Dec-18, 12:54 PM
What are Wikileaks and Julian Assange's real motives I mean why did they release those documents for what ever reason why?


Mr. Assange has published a lengthy essay describing his motivation. If you are into reading such manifestos, you may start here: http://futurismic.com/2010/12/01/assange-essay-reveals-motivation-behin-wikileaks/

Also, it's important to remember that before he became a political activist, he was a computer hacker known as Mendax. Since his mother was involved in anarchist and anti-nuke movements, he seems to have subscribed to anarchist ideology as well. There is a 1997 book named Underground (available here for free: http://www.underground-book.net/ ) which describes his exploits. (Short version: he hacked some U.S. military computers, learned some, say, embarrassing facts about U.S. and was arrested for what he did). If you ask me, a mixture of anarchist ideology and revenge would be a nice driver.


Does it severely affect USA's infrastructure?

No. Why would the correspondence of State Department with its diplomats abroad mention domestic infrastructure at all?

It may however severely hamper the U.S. ability to pursue its foreign policy, by making public its real goals, which are not the same as publicly stated ones. Which, to me, seems to be Mr. Assange's goal.

Of course, it's worth remembering that the real goals of U.S. foreign policy are more or less obvious to any seasoned observer, so the cables are hardly earth-shattering. Still, there's a world of difference between suspecting U.S. of covertly doing X while denying it, and having an official document confirming that U.S. in fact does X.

peteshimmon
2010-Dec-18, 02:24 PM
My own tuppence worth, why oh why did the
original database not have some supervisory
software that sounded a klaxon when someone
wanted the whole shebang? Then two MP's
escorting the person for questioning would
be the only consequence. Makes me think of
bluff and double bluff etc.

Moose
2010-Dec-18, 02:56 PM
My own tuppence worth, why oh why did the
original database not have some supervisory
software that sounded a klaxon when someone
wanted the whole shebang?

Such a thing could interfere with whatever backup mechanisms are in place, and any backup mechanism recognized by this "MCP" could be exploited or spoofed. That's not an insurmountable problem, but it would need to be considered.

swampyankee
2010-Dec-18, 03:13 PM
My own tuppence worth, why oh why did the
original database not have some supervisory
software that sounded a klaxon when someone
wanted the whole shebang? Then two MP's
escorting the person for questioning would
be the only consequence. Makes me think of
bluff and double bluff etc.

Of course, any software can be spoofed, but how hard this is will depend on the o/s of the database server, and how well the sysadmins set up the security system. I'm still at a loss as to why the pc with access to this database didn't have a minor hardware hack to prevent recording DVDs or CDs, and a software hack to prevent mounting external hard drives. This is why the government should only buy software when they can get full access to the source code.

kamaz
2010-Dec-18, 03:31 PM
Such a thing could interfere with whatever backup mechanisms are in place, and any backup mechanism recognized by this "MCP" could be exploited or spoofed.

That's a non-issue. Since the backup server has a fixed IP address, all it takes is to filter the connections by IP address. This could be spoofed in principle, but requires knowing the IP address of the backup server, i.e. having considerate intelligence about the target network. That, and use a backup system that uses other mechanism to access data then the users.

So if you ask me, that's just plain incompetence. You tax dollars at work.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-18, 06:28 PM
I'm still at a loss as to why the pc with access to this database didn't have a minor hardware hack to prevent recording DVDs or CDs . . . .

Wouldn't that realistically be as simple as just not installing a burner?

Moose
2010-Dec-18, 06:34 PM
That's a non-issue. Since the backup server has a fixed IP address, all it takes...

Like I said, it's not insurmountable, just requires some forethought.

Moose
2010-Dec-18, 06:38 PM
Wouldn't that realistically be as simple as just not installing a burner?

USB keys are more effective, anyway. Yeah, it's preventable (in linux) at the config/software level, to some extent, but a similar solution in windows means not installing burners or USB ports. And in any case, you'd need to unplug the site from the internet.

Of course, the more comprehensive the security, the exponentially less useful the hardware setup. It's entirely possible to secure a machine into doorstop-ness.

kamaz
2010-Dec-18, 07:17 PM
USB keys are more effective, anyway.

You do realize, that it's a SOP in high security environments to fill up USB connectors with epoxy?


but a similar solution in windows means not installing burners or USB ports

Behold the power of Active Directory Group Policy: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555324

And a custom USB driver filtering connected devices by VendorID/DeviceID is also possible. There are even commercial solutions for that: http://www.trigeo.com/products/usbdefender/

Moose
2010-Dec-18, 07:35 PM
You do realize, that it's a SOP in high security environments to fill up USB connectors with epoxy?

Heh. That'd work.


Behold the power of Active Directory Group Policy: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555324

And a custom USB driver filtering connected devices by VendorID/DeviceID is also possible. There are even commercial solutions for that: http://www.trigeo.com/products/usbdefender/

Good to know, thanks.

Solfe
2010-Dec-18, 09:40 PM
I think Assange will cause the change of many policies in the US and other countries, but I do not think he is bold enough to post infrastructure affecting information. It seems to me that he has a team of lawyers looking at what he does to make sure he does does not dive in to massive legal issues, at least in respect to his activities affecting the USA.

The guy alleged to have given Assange his information was a Private, obviously what he got was hurtful (to the people referenced) and embarrassing to US government. It was not the super secret stuff that is under tighter protection, so as far as I am concerned it was a very juvenile act of little importance. Next time he tries a stunt like this, he may find that US law has changed to the effect of making these things clearly illegal. Right now it might be illegal, but perhaps not. It do not know if that is fact either way, as I don't know much about breaking the law. :)

I believe as armchair commentator, he is going to get himself in trouble posting banking information. I suspect that the FTC has much wider latitude it deciding what is illegal and what is not, plus if Assange really has damaging info on a US bank he might find that other countries are unwilling to protect him. When Assange targets the US military and ambassadors, other countries have to choose to become embroiled in the situation. They have to decide to comment and voice their concerns. In the case of wrecking a US bank, there is going to be an economic component. Many foreign banks are linked to US banks either actively or passively. We all figured this out when the US's problems spilled over caused a nightmare for others. Assange sounds like he is trying to cause further economic problems and that will likely not go over very well where ever he chooses to live.

Assange would not have this ability to damage others were it not for the fact that the US keeps too many trivial things as "secret". There is a tiny amount of merit in what he believes, but his execution is lousy. He so far is not a reporter, he is not a spy, he is not activist, and he is not hacker. Exactly what he really is completely beyond me.

I wonder what the first moves of Openleaks will be. I suspect it will be to say, "We aren't Assange, we aren't Wikileaks."

kamaz
2010-Dec-19, 01:38 AM
the US's problems spilled over caused a nightmare for others


That's an interesting euphemism. Let's have a look how these things spill over, shall we?

In 2008, a big US investment bank sold a large number of EUR/PLN currency swaps to Polish companies (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/02/18/52644/the-art-of-selling-toxic-fx-options/). That was seen as a good thing, as at the time PLN was steadily appreciating against EUR, which was obviously not good for companies selling their products abroad. A company selling stuff abroad for EUR has to exchange it for PLN to pay the workers, but as the EUR/PLN price was steadily going down, so was profitability. The bank offered a solution: they would exchange EUR for PLN at some future date at an agreed price. After selling the swaps, in late 2008, said bank shorted PLN (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP6gJ42Or17o) which tanked from 3.2 to 4.7 (http://stooq.pl/q/?s=eurpln&c=5y&t=l&a=lg&b=0) PLN per EUR over several months. Boom. The people who bought the swaps suddenly woke up with millions in liabilities each.



Assange sounds like he is trying to cause further economic problems and that will likely not go over very well where ever he chooses to live.


As demonstrated above, it's quite the contrary. If Assange indeed managed to take out a major U.S. bank, he would become a hero in several countries, as their liabilities would simply evaporate.

Gamefreak89
2010-Dec-19, 03:19 AM
It sounds like what ever he's planning to do he hasn't done yet maybe because he know's his limits or isn't plan on doing anything to major to actually affect The US or any major country for that matter.

Solfe
2010-Dec-19, 03:28 AM
I don't disagree with your assessment, but Assange is nothing but a big lesson in duplicity. He seems to value his privacy while he takes it from others. That document release showed that diplomacy may be bunch of smiles on the surface and something pretty ugly underneath. That is a whole lot of duplicity.

I doubt very much that Assange is completely driven to wage a war on American, I think he wages war against all secrecy with the possible exception of individuals privacy. And I think I could not back up the part about "individuals". I also believe that many people think he controls what he releases, but I don't think its that simple. Some of the stuff he does could blow up in unexpected ways.

From my armchair perspective, I believe that you might see a lot of people laughing and applauding the implosion of an American bank, but under the smiles it might occur them that he might target another bank, and it likely will not another in America. He has irritated a number of countries including the one he hales from, a several US politicians, a couple in Canada and so on. These folks are actually twitchy enough to say things like "Hey, lets take him out." I can't keep tabs on all of these people, so I really don't know how twitchy they were before Assange showed up. I don't vouch for these folks, nor do I agree with them but I can see them changing laws to make such things much more difficult for Assange to operate.

I suspect after some introspection, we will see that he likely hasn't broken any laws anywhere... yet. But there will come a day where he will have to choose between breaking the law or doing nothing. I hope he does nothing, in which case he will fade away no matter the damage he might have done. If he doesn't and his activities are curtailed in the US, where is he going to turn his attention to? It could be anywhere, he shows just enough discretion not be in the country he is currently targeting.

Suppose he pulls that "bank imploding" stunt a couple of more times, except it isn't a US bank, its the bank over there and this bank over here? How much can the world economy take? How much does the country he takes up residency in want to defend him being there, when he isn't a citizen? He moves a lot so this will never be entirely this specific country vs. that specific country which is kind of good. He stands a excellent chance of NOT being forked over to the US government no matter what he does; but if he bothers enough governments, some of the second and third counties asking for him might be more palatable.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-19, 04:22 AM
A lot of people have broken the law in the pursuit of what they believe to be justice. If they're willing to suffer the consequences, it's often better than the alternative. I'm not saying this is the case here; I'm saying that I doubt he would stop at breaking the law.

John Jaksich
2010-Dec-19, 06:16 AM
This will sound overly political and simplistic--Assange made a big mistake by assuming that he could not be prosecuted by the U.S. govt--It reminds me of the movie--Wag the Dog This seems to be a tragedy of the major type?-- especially for anyone who loses their life due to it?

Gillianren
2010-Dec-19, 06:52 AM
He certainly can't be prosecuted for treason, which I've heard suggested. You really do have to be a US citizen for that. Espionage is a possibility. However, that's not his primary prosecutorial worry just now.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-19, 07:37 AM
Wouldn't that realistically be as simple as just not installing a burner?

If there was just one PC, or at least a fairly limited number, that would be easy. If there are a lot of computers in many locations, supported by different groups, with access to data, it is much harder to make sure all the machines are locked down. Also, there are trade offs between keeping things secure and allowing people to do their work efficiently. The most effective way to keep data secure is to limit physical access, but if you make it too hard for people to access data they need, they'll look for ways to get around the security measures. Sometimes they'll end up doing things in a far less secure way than they should. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy had a burner because they were used for work purposes. Or it could be that whoever is responsible for security there hadn't thought about it, or wasn't given sufficient authority to lock down machines properly.

Gamefreak89
2010-Dec-19, 07:39 AM
Makes one wonder what his next goals are instead of just targeting major banks...

Elukka
2010-Dec-19, 08:43 AM
Wikileaks releases what is leaked to them. They only publish documents other people have leaked.

Jeff Root
2010-Dec-19, 09:21 AM
I haven't read or heard any significant info about the document
leak or how it came about, so this is a very naive question: As I
understand it, the documents were all in one big file. If so, how
did they all get into one file? Who put them there, and why?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Solfe
2010-Dec-19, 01:51 PM
Wikileaks releases what is leaked to them. They only publish documents other people have leaked.

It seems to me that Wikileaks have shifted gears into the data collection game instead of publishing data sent to them and Assange seems to be calling the tune on what they collect. There is enough of a difference that Openleaks.org feels the need to launch a new system to get the job done right. The one upside to these "systems of data release" is they are not reporters or news commentators. I suspect that after a few more releases, people will start holding good reporters in higher regard and begin to ignore the other folks who are responsible for "weenie-fying" the journalistic endeavor.

I was kind of surprised that much/all of what Assange/Wikileaks wasn't illegal in this country, or at least not illegal enough to pursue. How much does the US government want to muddy up the waters of extradition process? I would rather they nab the guy who beat up someone here then fled the US than pursue Assange on some vagary of US document law.

I seriously wonder what effects his activities will have on society at large. He isn't a spy because he isn't serving another countries purposes and he isn't a terrorist as he isn't pursuing direct harm to anyone (indirect is possible, but has been avoided so far) and he can't commit treason except back in Australia. This is going to sound tongue in cheek, but he sounds like "Cobra Commander." He literally has no homeland and his agenda seems to be the destruction of all privacy and secrets except his own. How many people truly don't have a homeland? What would the world look like if only the savvy had privacy?

What if we all give up right now and publish every government data bases and all corporate information right now? Not that its advisable or even possible, but sometimes when you play make believe other peoples motives become more transparent. What would Assange next step be? Close down? I doubt it.

peteshimmon
2010-Dec-19, 02:55 PM
Occasionally technology causes nations much
difficulty. How many politicians, ambassadors,
presidents are cursing these ever so clever
technical people who suddenly gave us things
that can hold all the documents you can think
of.

My comment about monitoring has brought many
interesting replies but as a non programmer
I still have some smart alec, wise after the
event thoughts. The supervisory software I
think of as something just "sniffing" the
commands in the database. Then analysing.
Not a part of the original system. Something
that just watches then activates when appropriate.

I have to smile at the gen about epoxy in some
sockets. This I understand. Like the British
Army not being happy about old computers
just having drives wiped. No. take them
out and put an angle cutter through them!

Jeff Root
2010-Dec-19, 04:08 PM
Thanks, kamaz. The article you linked does not answer my question,
but maybe an article linked from that article does answer it.

I had no idea that any individual had been identified as the person
who leaked the documents. All I ever heard was that the source was
unknown. The article you linked indicates that this Bradley Manning
was in custody at least as far back as July, apparently as the leaker.
As I suggested, I haven't been paying close attention to the news,
but this surprises me greatly. I don't see how I could keep hearing
that the source was unknown, as I believe I have.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

parallaxicality
2010-Dec-19, 04:43 PM
On a broader note, assuming Assange is hung out to dry, as seems likely, can this kind of free information exchange be stopped? It seems to me that the uncensorability of the internet has been somewhat overstated. China seems to have no issues controlling it, and Apple and Facebook have each carved out their little fiefdoms. And while it's currently about as easy to gain useful intel from behind Murdoch's paywall as from North Korea, it does seem to be paying off. I'm not one of those nihilists who think postmen should have the right to read my mail, but I don't want to see the internet corralled into ghettos. I think that the end result of the Wikileaks scandal will be greater information control and less open access.

Solfe
2010-Dec-19, 04:47 PM
Manning is facing 50+ years in jail and wikileaks pledge to help him defend himself has been in limbo or has evaporated.

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-renege2.htm

Swift
2010-Dec-20, 02:26 AM
Just so people know, a post by kamaz has been temporarily removed pending some continuing discussion among the moderation team. There are so concerns about a link in the post. This is not to say kamaz did anything wrong, but we have to address some issues.

Gamefreak89
2010-Dec-20, 05:15 AM
I say just let Assange do what he's planning to do and let everything run its course, I have some respect for the guy with what he is doing and all. Eventually it will come to a point when the US government and other Gov't's would stop pursuing him knowing that its futile and Assange being on the run all the time. Once all the documents that Assange and Wikileaks are gathering and releasing there won't be any more data to present to the world and that is when the process will stop.

Jens
2010-Dec-20, 06:15 AM
Once all the documents that Assange and Wikileaks are gathering and releasing there won't be any more data to present to the world and that is when the process will stop.

I understand what you are trying to say in general, but regarding the last sentence, I very much doubt that is true. There is a lot more information out there waiting to be leaked, and probably always will be.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-20, 06:23 AM
. . . Assange being on the run all the time.

Or, you know, under house arrest in London.

Gamefreak89
2010-Dec-20, 10:14 AM
Or, you know, under house arrest in London.

He will get out sooner or later he's a very resourceful guy I imagine and as to what Jens wrote in the earlier post above yours There's always a limit to something a given law of nature all things must come to and end sometime or another and that goes for those several hundred thousand something leaked documents. As opposed to Assange's motives earlier the guy will keep at what he's doing for a long time to come he won't quit until every Cable/Document is leaked from every hidden Nook and Crany .

SeanF
2010-Dec-20, 04:16 PM
I doubt very much that Assange is completely driven to wage a war on American, I think he wages war against all secrecy with the possible exception of individuals privacy. And I think I could not back up the part about "individuals".
Well, he is by all accounts pretty upset about the leaking of some detailed documents concerning the rape charges against him. Whether that indicates a concern for "individuals' privacy" in general or just his own is not definite, though. :)

Elukka
2010-Dec-20, 05:28 PM
It seems to me that Wikileaks have shifted gears into the data collection game instead of publishing data sent to them and Assange seems to be calling the tune on what they collect.
I don't see how. They didn't directly acquire any of the documents, they were all sent to them by insiders who thought they should leak them.

And Gamefreak - Assange cannot get any documents unless insiders decide to leak them.

Solfe
2010-Dec-20, 05:42 PM
Ok, I re-read the whole thread and I think the OP is asking what damage to infrastructure could Assange do if he already hasn't. I don't think he has damaged too much infrastructure, yet.

One item I noticed in my own posts is that I blended the idea of privacy and secrets together. The way I think of "secret information" is stuff that is actively hidden. Privacy is merely details of what happens that are not polite to reference. The contents of my pockets are secret, if I choose; but privacy is the difference between me entering a bathroom to use the facilities or just wash my hands. Going in to the bathroom isn't a secret, but what I do in there is a matter a privacy and most people won't mention it.

Another example would be someone breaking into a house to read somebodys documents vs. a neighbour who knocks and peeks in the window. One is about secrets and one is about privacy. Things can jump from one to the other... if a stranger peeks through your front window that is one thing, if the same person them moves on to peeking in all the windows, that is something else.

I feel I need to say, I am not lawyer type and I don't think I am specifically taking about laws, because these laws differ from place to place. I wonder if my ideas on privacy and secret are the same as other peoples?

I think this is the tune that the US government has been singing about Assange. What if he gets someone hurt by releasing a secret that also removes an individuals privacy?

He has been speaking about bringing down a bank... a banks data is mostly going to be about individuals information. Of course this is all hypothetically as he hasn't said by what mechanism the bank would be wrecked. The juvinile part of me is picturing the Staypuff Marshmellow Man. :)

If Assange is against secrecy, then he either believes or knows that his bank information won't injure individual privacy and when he is done there he will move on to the next target, who ever that might be. This will go on and on, because he seems to be smart enough to adapt his methods to say legal. Or he is against both secrecy and privacy, and it won't be long until he is objectionally to all of the places he might want to go to. In that case I feel that I can declare him a "loon" and he can be safely locked up in the country of his choice or his movement and activity becomes so restricted it is effectly the same thing as being locked. (I speak for no one else). The third nastier possibility is that he doesn't care about either one and he simply is ticking of a list of people, companies and countries he doesn't like. The third possibility concerns me the most because that means "Joe Average", not just Assange, has the ability to mess with other counties and how they get along with each other. That could impact infrastructure easily such as banks, stockmarkets, diplomacy, businesses, etc. That does not sound good to me.

Elukka
2010-Dec-20, 07:05 PM
But he doesn't really get to go after "targets". He has no means of getting any documents himself! Assange doesn't decide "Well, I don't like organization X. I'll go hack their private files so I can dig up some dirt on them.". Rather, a person inside organization X decides "Well, this is some material I think the public should see. I'll send it over to Wikileaks."

rommel543
2010-Dec-20, 07:22 PM
But he doesn't really get to go after "targets". He has no means of getting any documents himself! Assange doesn't decide "Well, I don't like organization X. I'll go hack their private files so I can dig up some dirt on them.". Rather, a person inside organization X decides "Well, this is some material I think the public should see. I'll send it over to Wikileaks."

Yes but he has the decision on what to leak.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-20, 07:30 PM
He will get out sooner or later he's a very resourceful guy I imagine . . . .

He turned himself in.

Elukka
2010-Dec-20, 07:38 PM
If Wikileaks (which isn't a one-man operation) were to turn down a worthwhile leak, they'd just send it somewhere else. Like the New York Times, the Guardian, or any other newspaper willing to release it.

Githyanki
2010-Dec-21, 10:04 PM
Corrupt politicians? I'm shocked!

He didn't affect the US's infrastructure; he only embarrassed a lot of high-ranking people who are used to making deals and power-playing; that's why the major credit card companies and Paypal have dumped him and his site and perhaps his rape charges appeared, to discredit him.

Don't fret kids, corruption and political deals have been going on long before you all were born and they will continue long after.

When I read the leaks, I view it as how the system works; politics is making a deal: negotiations. Politics his deciding who gets what when and how.

My view, is the powers that be will back away and let Assange's site grow old and unexciting; By Spring-break., 2011, no one will care about his leaks anymore.

rommel543
2010-Dec-22, 03:07 PM
He didn't affect the US's infrastructure; he only embarrassed a lot of high-ranking people who are used to making deals and power-playing; that's why the major credit card companies and Paypal have dumped him and his site and perhaps his rape charges appeared, to discredit him.

When I heard about the rape charge I thought that it was a made up charge created by some upper political person as retribution.

Strange
2010-Dec-22, 03:56 PM
Sounds like Assange's lawyers are making up at least part of the story about "dirty tricks" against him.


On Friday, the Guardian published the result, an article which presented the allegations against Assange in unprecedented detail. Davies' report was based on police documents to which he said Assange's legal team had also been granted access.

The Assange camp reacted with fury, denouncing those who had leaked the documents to Davies, while denying any double standards.

Swift
2010-Dec-22, 03:59 PM
The Assange camp reacted with fury, denouncing those who had leaked the documents to Davies
Now that's funny.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-22, 06:57 PM
When I heard about the rape charge I thought that it was a made up charge created by some upper political person as retribution.

Personally, I thought that you never know about a person just from their public acts. Which, you know, is kind of his point, I guess.

Githyanki
2010-Dec-23, 09:40 PM
Sounds like Assange's lawyers are making up at least part of the story about "dirty tricks" against him.

What??? Lawyers are lying? I never thought lawyers were capable of such a thing.

Cougar
2010-Dec-24, 03:13 AM
Another example would be someone breaking into a house to read somebodys documents vs. a neighbour who knocks and peeks in the window. One is about secrets and one is about privacy. Things can jump from one to the other... if a stranger peeks through your front window that is one thing, if the same person them moves on to peeking in all the windows, that is something else.

I feel I need to say, I am not lawyer type and I don't think I am specifically talking about laws, because these laws differ from place to place. I wonder if my ideas on privacy and secret are the same as other peoples?

Ha ha, not very close. I'm not a lawyer, but I have some savvy about the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, from which a lot of country-wide law is generated. It's quite short:



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course, that has little to do with leaking confidential or secret documents, which is obviously covered by another federal law. Apparently the guy who did it is in big trouble.

But Assange? Sure, he's not the guy who originally broke that law, but he is obviously soliciting the documents that the law was designed to protect. How, then, is he not an accessory to the breaking of that law?

Oh, yeah, he claims he's just doing the job of a 'journalist'. Now, that sounds like a legal maneuver.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-24, 04:50 AM
I hesitate to ask what you think of Daniel Ellsberg.

Jeff Root
2010-Dec-24, 01:38 PM
Whether to leak this sort of info or not must be the very most
difficult judgement call anyone can make. I saw the movie
'The Majestic' ( Jim Carrey, Martin Landau) in which an apolitical
Hollywood screen writer in 1951 is persuaded by circumstances
to risk his personal comfort by testifying before Congress against
the blacklisting of anyone connected with communism. My friend
said afterward that it would be really hard for a person to do that.
I think that decision would be fairly easy for me, or at least,
unavoidable, if not easy. Deciding whether to leak diplomatic
correspondence -- impossible. I wouldn't be able to say yes or no.
The benefits and costs would be impossible for me to weigh.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Gillianren
2010-Dec-24, 05:57 PM
I would only testify against a friend as being Communist if I had reason to believe it was actually bad for the country. The Constitution does, after all, guarantee freedom of association.

Jens
2010-Dec-27, 09:27 AM
I would only testify against a friend as being Communist if I had reason to believe it was actually bad for the country. The Constitution does, after all, guarantee freedom of association.

I think the issue though is that in the early 1950s, most (I think) people believed it was actually bad for the country. I think many people believed that limiting certain rights in order to keep out subversives was a good choice.

Solfe
2010-Dec-27, 04:29 PM
Ha ha, not very close. I'm not a lawyer, but I have some savvy about the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, from which a lot of country-wide law is generated. It's quite short:



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course, that has little to do with leaking confidential or secret documents, which is obviously covered by another federal law. Apparently the guy who did it is in big trouble.

But Assange? Sure, he's not the guy who originally broke that law, but he is obviously soliciting the documents that the law was designed to protect. How, then, is he not an accessory to the breaking of that law?

Oh, yeah, he claims he's just doing the job of a 'journalist'. Now, that sounds like a legal maneuver.

Cougar,

I see where you are right from the fourth ammendment, it is designed to stop A) goverment(s) from getting into your business and B) designed to stop your fellow citizen from becoming a wedge that allows the goverment to get your business. But in day to day life, there are some exceptions. I take this stance from being a meter reader. Many people use entryways as a simple method of communication, such as placing notes or hanging decorations. Clearly you should be able to see such things, and if you happen to see into a house, then that is ok. Usually such things don't allow you to sneak a peek. If you try to peek around those things you are doing something creepy or maybe illegal. I think it is how hard you try to get a peek that is the issue.

As far as Assange "stealing" documents, no one has shown that he has. There is a small possibility that he communicated with Manning via a chat before the theft occured. Manning seems to believe that he did chat with Assange and there is a log file, but there is no telling who Manning was really talking to and I am not sure how you could prove it either way. And the contents of that log are unknown, it could be all about "Warcraft Role Playing Night" for all I know. :) Assange is likely completely fine is saying "I have a website you can use for whatever you have..." but the second he crosses the line and starts providing technical support to steal or fishes for specific types of information it would seem to me that would be a legal issue in many countries.

I seem to recall a guy who worked for Coke or Pepsi and the guy attempted to sell trade secrets the to the other company. Whichever company he attempted to sell the data too didn't think much of the idea and called the police. I know there is a difference between doing the deed yourself and just being caught in the crossfire, but Assange seems to be walking very close to the line. I think wikileaks main problem is they are not an open website, instead picking and choosing what data is published. That sounds like fishing to me.

I don't think Assange thought of the popularity of his site before he got neck deep in it. A completely open site is easy to kill. Simply upload junk. More junk than anyone can sift through and it is dead. Upload content that doesn't belong to you; movies, books and music and the operator now has all of the problems as The Pirate Bay. They could take it down, but man, trying to sort all of that out is a beast. Plus it looks like they are caving in to some interest.

I notice Assange has been very isquiet for the past couple of days. All of the news zstories are rehashes of stuff he said weeks ago. Either his computer access has been curtailed or he thinks silence is good. There is always the third possibility, he needs a break and the end of the yeat a good excuse to take a break.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-27, 08:04 PM
I think the issue though is that in the early 1950s, most (I think) people believed it was actually bad for the country. I think many people believed that limiting certain rights in order to keep out subversives was a good choice.

Yes, but I don't think most of the people involved in the hearings thought that. There were some; the drastic political change in Ronald Reagan came around during that period. However, I think most of the people who testified did so because they were scared of the alternative.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Dec-30, 07:03 PM
When I heard about the rape charge I thought that it was a made up charge created by some upper political person as retribution.
In Sweden? Really?

Elukka
2010-Dec-31, 09:05 AM
Why not? Doesn't need to be a Swedish "higher-up". Anyone from anywhere could hire a couple of women to get close to someone, then yell rape. The accusation alone will harm your reputation and keep you tied up for a (potentially long) while.
Not saying that's what definitely happened, but it seems easy enough to do, and something a whole bunch of people might want to try.

nightmarepatrol
2010-Dec-31, 02:22 PM
Let's not all forget the US military channels are also flooded with misinformation intentionally. This was a tactic used during the cold war with the (then) USSR. During that time the US could not get anything out of the Kremlin and anything that was procured was gold. The KGB on the other hand could quite easily get information from the US. To combat this the intelligence community in the US flooded the channels with misinformation. Therefore the KGB was drowning in data that could not be easily identified as valid. I have no belief this practice has stopped. So a great deal of information obtained by wikileaks could very well be bogus. That being said publishing the bogus data along with the real data could quote easily be far more damaging from a perception standpoint.

I don't really think Assange broke any US laws. The US government is most likely engaged in some serious damage control as well a trying to figure out how to deal with Assange. No doubt measures will be taken to discredit any information he has published. I have serious doubts as to how classified this data was given that it was so easily accessible. It's also quite possible this was a honey pot set up to trace the source of some leak somewhere weather it was the channel feeding Assange or not. Assange is a self-described "Information Activist" and I doubt his activities went unnoticed prior to to wikileaks coming to the public forefront.

Strange
2011-Jan-06, 01:56 PM
More on the irony vacuum surrounding Assange: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/06/assange_guardian_wikileaks_leak/

Solfe
2011-Jan-10, 04:50 AM
"enraged that he had lost control... arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released"....

Hum... if I had something of value and I didn't buy it or make or otherwise know how I came to have such stuff, I would not be claiming "I own it" and I would not be putting a dollar value on it. All of those little details make police reports interesting to read and write. :)

Since he didn't steal this info and wants it to be freely available, he doesn't own it and it shouldn't be of financial interest to him.

kamaz
2011-Jan-10, 09:49 PM
Regarding Assange's "financial interests", accusations that Wikileaks is in fact a commercial operations have been made earlier already -- see e.g. this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/

Solfe
2011-Jan-11, 03:59 PM
Hum... Selling stolen data to the highest bidder on the world market. It sounds like an Austin Powers movie.

Returning to reality, it sounds like bad operational plan. If you act like a thug - even a world savvy thug, it doesn't take very long to find a bigger thug with better PR than you.

Spoons
2011-Jan-11, 04:28 PM
He has irritated a number of countries including the one he hales from, a several US politicians, a couple in Canada and so on. These folks are actually twitchy enough to say things like "Hey, lets take him out." I can't keep tabs on all of these people, so I really don't know how twitchy they were before Assange showed up. I don't vouch for these folks, nor do I agree with them but I can see them changing laws to make such things much more difficult for Assange to operate.

I know this is very late to the dance, but I only just noticed this thread, and I thought I'd point out that just because one or two politicians said something negative about the guy I wouldn't suggest that in any way represents the population's general opinion. Most people I've spoken to about him and the whole saga think of him relatively positively, often in almost a folk hero type way. Fighting back at bullies (not that I'm saying anyone's a bully, nor that that is necessarily his intent) is a popular thing in Australian culture - one man against the authority, all that Ned Kelly type stuff. Whether it was his intent or not he has achieved a position somewhat similar. He is quite popular here, but that doesn't make a great news story, as opposed to a politician saying another unpleasant or attacking thing about someone (how that doesn't bore people I don't understand).

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-12, 03:10 AM
Let's see how long that image lasts when he's actively undermining it by acting the bully himself.

RAF_Blackace
2011-Jan-12, 03:24 AM
Great. We cant find the guy who instigated the greatest terrorist act in history, but we want to execute the guy who read our E-Mails, Oh please.

I have no sympathy for the US or any other country that WikiLeaks releases information on. I do however question that countries security if information like this can be obtained so easily. As has been already said, if he knew these leaks, then it is obvious the security is simply not good enough. If it is that easy, the world knew about this stuff anyway, its just us out of loopers that were not aware that this kind of espionage goes on all the time.

Wikileaks has exposed nothing that any decent intelligence service does not know already.

I'm glad the general public has at last been let into this diplomatic minefield so we can see what useless idiots they really are.

Spoons
2011-Jan-12, 08:55 AM
Let's see how long that image lasts when he's actively undermining it by acting the bully himself.

No, I don't think you understand. That is the reason I referenced Ned Kelly, with the fighting back. Bullying a bully is seen somewhat as a hero act. Up to a point, of course.

Of course, you're crystal balling there. You can't know what will or won't happen in the future.

And well said, RAF_Blackace!

Bobunf
2011-Jan-12, 09:14 AM
I'm glad the general public has at last been let into this diplomatic minefield so we can see what useless idiots they really are.

The stuff I've read from Wikileaks actually makes the US diplomatic core look quite good: well informed, rational, seeking good outcomes, no cowboy stuff. I was a little surprised the US came out looking so good. As for the secrets; it not as though everybody in the world didn't know the Saudi were saying to us about Iran, "Let's you and him fight."

Also, these rather harmless leaks point up a huge hole in US security. Or maybe most of this stuff had no business being secret to start with.

So far it looks to me Wikileaks may have done us a favor.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-12, 09:15 AM
I was referring to him showing up with lawyers to have a newspaper stop printing "his" leaked information.
That's not bullying a bully, that's openly admitting that he's a commercial operator, not some sort of "information freedom" fighter.

Spoons
2011-Jan-12, 09:17 AM
Which info is that? If it's personal info about himself, well, he isn't about releasing personal info on people anyway, so that would be different. But then I'm not clear on what you're referring to.

Got a link?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-12, 09:32 AM
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102?currentPage=1 and the link in port #57.
He tried to stop The Guardian from publishing stories based on the content of one of his leaks because that was "his" information to control and reap the economical benefits of publishing. It's quite clear that the non-profit claim about wiki-leaks is a lie.

Spoons
2011-Jan-12, 09:46 AM
So on one hand some people are concerned that he isn't releasing the info in a controlled fashion, and on the other hand if he tries to maintain some control over the release of info he's a naughty boy. Can't win really.

And when did we start begrudging someone getting paid for doing what they do? I don't see why if that's his primary work that there shouldn't be some financial interest in it for him.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-12, 10:34 AM
I don't begrudge him getting paid, I just think it's dishonest claiming non-profit purity of purpose at the same time.

Swift
2011-Jan-12, 01:01 PM
People have been very good with this topic, but I'm starting to see some comments that are probably crossing the line into politics. Please, let's refrain from comments on such topics as US diplomatic policy, either pro or con, or anything similar. Thank you.

Githyanki
2011-Jan-14, 12:38 AM
At least he's helping to pay for Brad Manning's* legal fees. How many government intelligence agencies around the world would help out a Source they flipped into giving them information even after they've been arrested and are no longer useful? I don't think the Falcon and the Snowman got even a Christmas Card from the Kremlin.


*The guy that leaked the info to Wikileaks.

Solfe
2011-Jan-14, 01:20 AM
...and I thought I'd point out that just because one or two politicians said something negative about the guy I wouldn't suggest that in any way represents the population's general opinion...

Spoons,

My statement was overkill and I amend it to the point of saying "he irritated a few people in a couple of counties." You are correct in pointing out that he is a bit of a Robin Hood figure and possibly well liked by more people than he irritated. I would like to mention most of the people who expressed an opinion to do him harm only came to my attention because of how outlandish their statements were. I believe that some of them are actually in trouble for saying such things and I do not believe that anyone should be considering "taking him out." Of course, if a nation decides to change some laws by public consensus to make Assange's activities more difficult, that is the correct thing to do; if it is necessary.

I am somewhat amazed that what he has done is not illegal in the US. I guess that shows my knowledge of laws and the practice of espionage is mostly based on James Bond movies and Tom Clancy novels.

As all of this unfolded, I have been on holiday break from school and don't speak to as many people as I normally would. I know exactly zero people who like his actions, a great number of people who don't know who he is at all (I don't know how that is possible, but it is) and a small handful who seriously dislike him. Usually, I have more contact with people at school who have a wider array of opinions.

I am taking a philosophy, ethics (for engineering students), and a sociology course this semester I am I can't help but wonder if he is going to be the current events personality who is discussed.

Githyanki
2011-Jan-14, 01:46 AM
Che Solfe, yo fui un estudiente de la filosophia a la universidad; one of the things you must consider, from an ethics point of view, is the consequences of his actions. It may have been an unethical thing to do as it brought down the wrath of the government upon him (from his POV, he may not have realized the consequences of his actions).

What is Ethics (for engineer students) entail? Could I see a syllabus or book list? I'm curious now.

There was a running joke at my college; engineering students build the weapons; humanity majors tell them when and how to use them.

Solfe
2011-Jan-14, 05:51 AM
The class is called Engineering Concepts and uses the book Engineering Success (http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Success-3rd-Peter-Schiavone/dp/0136130534). I don't have the syllabus yet.

I would have though that this class was about the basics of engineering (it has some) or perhaps leadership and team building (it has a little of this) but is really a lot of ethics. The teacher who does this class only teaches two classes, Drafting and Eng Concepts. I was unable to take Eng Concepts in my first semester when everyone else in my drafting class was in it. Since all of us should have been taking those two classes at the same time, the teacher tended to use one to reinforce the other. Nice method, but he is dry as paste UNLESS you ask enough questions for him to look up from his notes. Then his classes are fun, it took me a half of semester to figure that one out. I thought I was going to die of boredom in that classroom.

I think the reason they teach us ethics is three-fold 1) at least three other schools teaching engineering in the area, b) bio-tech and weapons are big the area, 3) there is a relatively small engineering circle in the area while it remains a popular field of study. There is also the push to outsource which creates all sorts of potential for insanity and conflict of interest. Also, people tend to career hop, which is interesting to say the least. I know two civil engineers who do software sales or project management for software/website development.

We have this running gag in Western NY where one of many weapons manufacturers in the area will get a government contract and some small time elected official will question them on safety or some other pretense. Usually it ends up on the (local) news and all of the details of the work are classified (or more often preliminary), so the company response is "that is classified" or "I don't know" to every question. The elected official grandstands for a bit; he or she actually has little or no stake in even making the inquiries. Their only intent is to get on the news and "stick to the man". Which is ironic as a elected official is officially "the man" in my book. :)

Spoons
2011-Jan-14, 08:37 AM
I don't begrudge him getting paid, I just think it's dishonest claiming non-profit purity of purpose at the same time.
That's an interesting point. I do wonder whether he is actually making any profit and putting money away, or if all he is collecting is running maintenance costs, overhead costs etc. He would need quite substantial legal advice, I would expect, and I would suggest (based on what I've heard and read about the legal problems he's faced lately) that the legal costs for the Swedish charges are a result of his work, and thus a work expense.

There is a vast difference between collecting money for a product/service and making a profit. Which he is doing I don't know.

Jens
2011-Jan-14, 08:42 AM
There is a vast difference between collecting money for a product/service and making a profit. Which he is doing I don't know.

True, and I'm pretty sure that legally, if it is a non-profit organization you cannot have profits, by definition. People cannot invest in non-profits and get dividends. Of course, people working for non-profits can get paid for the services they provide, so you can always do shady things, like saying a person is working when they really aren't, or overpaying them, or whatever.

Strange
2011-Jan-14, 01:22 PM
Some interesting comments in this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12171977) about how Wikipedia still owns the wikileaks domains (which are about to expire) because Assange is too busy "defending our freedom" (and/or boosting his own ego).

Gillianren
2011-Jan-14, 10:43 PM
I know that we had a figure out here who used to claim that he didn't take dime one from the contributions to his various political campaigns. (He comes up with initiatives, most of which fail these days.) When it turned out that he was actually taking thousands of dollars in salary from the campaigns, his credibility plummeted.

Solfe
2011-Jan-14, 11:39 PM
Anyone want to buy a domain name? :)

I wonder if that is even possible for joe average. Is there a bid process or is it simply who is fastest?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-15, 12:33 AM
Anyone want to buy a domain name? :)

I wonder if that is even possible for joe average. Is there a bid process or is it simply who is fastest?
For domains that aren't in use, it's first come, first served. Don't indicate in any way that you're interested in the domain until you actually buy it, otherwise someone will snap it and sell it to you for a premium.
For most top-level-domains there's a queue for domains that are already taken, so if it isn't renewed it goes to the next in line. In Denmark it costs more to be registered in the queue that it does to own the domain, specifically to discourage squatters that would otherwise sit in waiting hoping to snatch domains with a late payment.

If you're unfortunate enough to check availability through the wrong site, there are some which claim to host a service to show if a domain is free or not, but they're really scammers who automatically register all free domains searched for through them so people using them end up paying extra to get the domain because they have to by it from the squatter rather than just registering it themselves in the first place.

Whenever I have a look at it, domain name registration is the festering pustule of scams and squatters on the face of the internet, clearly designed by someone who forgot to run the "can a 12 year old wargamer find a way to beat the system in less than a minute" test.

Githyanki
2011-Jan-15, 12:58 AM
The "Ethics" looks more like policy indoctrination on the No-Noes of Engineering rather than a study of ethics themselves

Spoons
2011-Jan-15, 02:39 AM
I know that we had a figure out here who used to claim that he didn't take dime one from the contributions to his various political campaigns. (He comes up with initiatives, most of which fail these days.) When it turned out that he was actually taking thousands of dollars in salary from the campaigns, his credibility plummeted.

I may be wrong, but this seems like innuendo, designed to suggest something bad about Assange. Is there actually any evidence that he is doing this though? If there is, it would be interesting to know, but if there isn't then it doesn't seem fair to spread that sort of thing. After all, most people won't bother to look further than a suggestion.

I find it quite interesting that people who usually are quite analytical and insist things should be based on facts not opinion change their tack when it suits. (I'm talking here about a discussion I've had elsewhere on the intywebz, but it seems to happen to a lesser degree here too from time to time.) Of course, I understand that we are all allowed to have our opinions, but I am still wondering about facts on the matter, which seem to be far and few between on this topic.

Solfe
2011-Jan-15, 04:56 AM
HenrikOlsen,

What site do you use? When I was thinking of my website (which is STILL under construction BTW) I just typed the address in to see if I hit anything then went to GoDaddy and bought it. It took me a couple of tries, but I was able to pick an acceptable domain name.

Spoons,

A few posts back, I mentioned a local political stunt and think Gillianren was comparing public figures with me. And since I mentioned politics, maybe I should "turn the wheel" and head for smoother roads. :)

In WNY we have two "shadowy figures" who show up on election day wearing UAW jackets (a union) and do nothing but edge their way in behind news casters filming live. They never do anything else, they don't smile, wave, hold signs, etc. They just sneak into the shot. Its always the same two guys and they have been doing it for 20+ years. It is a game for me and my wife; we watch the elections just to see how many times we can spot those guys. I have no idea what they are about... but is colorful and funny.

And now back to the regular scheduled unreality - THIS (http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/14/5840951-florida-man-sues-wikileaks-and-julian-assange-for-150-million). An MSNBC story on a man suing Assange for emotional distress, on the behave of everyone on the planet. Oh, please let this be a hoax, because the my brain hurts from reading that and I apologize if clicking that link also gives you a headache.

On to something more interesting - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075303307375550.html). Assange is concerned that he could be executed if he was turned over to the US. I really don't think this is possible for a lot of reasons, mostly for the fact that at the moment he hasn't done anything illegal (as far as we can tell from reports already made) and the UK is going really slow to hand him over to Sweden. At the end of the day, I would have to say if the US leveled charges on him, the UK answer would be "Sweden asked for him first; people issues first, bruised egos second. Sorry buddy." Unless there is some UK law that makes that choice automatically, I can't see them doing it. Can anyone else think of a reason they should? Does anyone else think that this is grandstanding on Assange's part?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-15, 11:52 AM
On to something more interesting - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075303307375550.html). Assange is concerned that he could be executed if he was turned over to the US. I really don't think this is possible for a lot of reasons, mostly for the fact that at the moment he hasn't done anything illegal (as far as we can tell from reports already made) and the UK is going really slow to hand him over to Sweden. At the end of the day, I would have to say if the US leveled charges on him, the UK answer would be "Sweden asked for him first; people issues first, bruised egos second. Sorry buddy." Unless there is some UK law that makes that choice automatically, I can't see them doing it. Can anyone else think of a reason they should? Does anyone else think that this is grandstanding on Assange's part?
Self promotion, continued building up his personality cult, something he seems rather good at.

Strange
2011-Jan-15, 12:23 PM
Self promotion, continued building up his personality cult, something he seems rather good at.

Quite. If you were really worried about deportation to the US I imagine the UK is the last place you would want to be.

Spoons
2011-Jan-15, 12:28 PM
Really? I would have thought the UK is one place that would be less likely to be intimidated into handing people over than many other places.

Strange
2011-Jan-15, 12:48 PM
The UK and US recently (well a few years ago) signed a new extradition treaty, particularly aimed at terrorism offences. It is claimed (and I suppose this could get into unacceptable areas) that this makes it far too easy to extradite people from the UK to the US just be using the T word.

Spoons
2011-Jan-15, 12:55 PM
Yeah, but the UK would look like an international joke if they considered his case one of terrorism. It would devalue the T word itself tremendously, which would be a problem when something deserving came up. The whole boy who cried wolf thing doesn't just apply to troublesome children.

Strange
2011-Jan-15, 02:04 PM
Yeah, but the UK would look like an international joke if they considered his case one of terrorism. It would devalue the T word itself tremendously, which would be a problem when something deserving came up. The whole boy who cried wolf thing doesn't just apply to troublesome children.

I agree. And I doubt the US is seriously considering it. I think that exaggerating the threat of it is just more of his posturing (and trying to avoid criminal charges in Sweden).

Spoons
2011-Jan-15, 02:13 PM
Well, to be fair, the US media are the ones doing the most to present this image. I remember I tuned into Fox News Station a few times around when this was all going on bigtime (something I never would normally do) and they were talking very aggressively about him. On the other hand I didn't see much of him talking about it, and haven't seen much of it since. Just because 5 newspapers report something doesn't mean he said it 5 times. Media saturation distorts a lot of things, so it's difficult to get the true picture of what's going on. This is why I find it interesting how fixed peoples minds are made on this matter, one way or another.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-15, 06:37 PM
I may be wrong, but this seems like innuendo, designed to suggest something bad about Assange. Is there actually any evidence that he is doing this though? If there is, it would be interesting to know, but if there isn't then it doesn't seem fair to spread that sort of thing. After all, most people won't bother to look further than a suggestion.

Not at all. In the case I brought up, the taking of a salary was actually relevant to the person's reputation, since the initiatives were all about governmental spending. However, that didn't completely matter. I think people like building up heroes almost as much as they like tearing them down. I don't much care one way or another about Assange the individual except inasmuch as he's a convenient way to take attention from anything actually important in the discussion. Indeed, it could be argued that "my side" in the case from up here uses his financial malfeasance to discredit this particular individual without having to bother discrediting any actual initiative. It is certainly true that any campaign against one of them features his name about five times per thirty-second spot. And the ads for don't mention him at all anymore. The person has become more important, it seems.

Solfe
2011-Jan-15, 08:39 PM
I just read something kind of ironic on the wikileaks site:

"Our drop box is easy to use and provides military-grade encryption protection."

Really? Is that good? ;)

Spoons
2011-Jan-16, 03:18 AM
The person has become more important, it seems.

Sure, that's a fair statement. I don't think it's quite fair of some folk to be putting this on him as some egomaniac though. There may be other reasons why it's possible he is, but media coverage shouldn't be used as evidence of such. He doesn't control the media, he doesn't write their scripts. And if they ask him about himself, what is he supposed to say?

And if people around you, and in particular the media, are always bigging you up or talking about you then I think it may be forgivable that you get a somewhat inflated sense of importance. He was always going to get a fair bit of attention given what he has done, people like to see the story of the person behind the movement.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

That is darn funny, Solfe!

kamaz
2011-Jan-16, 04:37 PM
I just read something kind of ironic on the wikileaks site:

"Our drop box is easy to use and provides military-grade encryption protection."

Really? Is that good? ;)

Interestingly, the military doesn't need the most secure encryption. Most communication is tactical information, which is worthless after a few hours anyway.

Solfe
2011-Jan-20, 04:40 AM
Even if they had that type of encryption, there are tons of Privates who can decrypt and walk away with the stuff. I wonder if wikipedia has a similar problem with their security?

Now on to the true silliness - http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/14/5840951-florida-man-sues-wikileaks-and-julian-assange-for-150-million

This link is to an article about a man who is suing wikileaks for millions. I don't know what to make of this other than the fact that schools need to work harder on stressing spelling. I had thought it was a joke, but David Pitchford (the man filing the complaint) appears to have a history of suing public figures. Below is a link to a blogger who called Pitchford on the phone to ask about his activities. Warning-the blog below contains at least one bad word in it.

http://superkuh.com/mytelephoneconversationwithdavidpitchford.html

Spoons
2011-Jan-20, 04:50 AM
Interesting find - thanks Solfe.

So, legally, what would the punitive damages portion be determined as, the alphabetically typed fifty million dollars, or the numericallly stated $500,000.00? Or has this man brought court action to change the value of fifty million to 500,000?

From what I saw, I don't think there was a simple sentence that didn't have at least one spelling error. Too angry to spell check?

Jens
2011-Jan-20, 05:04 AM
If you're unfortunate enough to check availability through the wrong site, there are some which claim to host a service to show if a domain is free or not, but they're really scammers who automatically register all free domains searched for through them so people using them end up paying extra to get the domain because they have to by it from the squatter rather than just registering it themselves in the first place.


That's interesting to hear, and I guess I should be careful. But I wonder, how much does it cost those scammers to register sites? Because I sometimes check for names, and usually am doing it out of a sort of curiosity (maybe I'll want to use the name someday) rather than real interest. So I've never tried to get one of them. Does that mean the scammers are losing out?

superkuh
2011-Jan-20, 08:36 AM
Below is a link to a blogger who called Pitchford on the phone to ask about his activities. Warning-the blog below contains at least one bad word in it. ... I know it isn't your fault, but I don't blog. I'm not a blogger; just someone with poor impulse control, a foul mouth, and a single page of writing.

Jeff Root
2011-Jan-20, 08:36 AM
I expect that one good website name will make up for hundreds
of unused names. Unfortunately.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Solfe
2011-Jan-20, 07:59 PM
Should Pitchford win, all I picture is that scene in "Bruce Almightly" where everyone has had their prayer to win the lotto granted. Everyone wins on the exact same day and the prize is $13.06 each.

Spoons
2011-Jan-21, 01:51 AM
... I'm not a blogger; just someone with poor impulse control, a foul mouth, and a single page of writing.

Still, that's a great combination for fun. Nice work on that page.