HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
It looks as though Wikileaks can't be trusted with sensitive information. If I were an informant or an overseas source or contact for the U.S., I'd be pretty damn worried right about now.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Wikileaks Leaks Unedited Diplomatic Cables, Exposes Sources
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
Apparently whoever had the info in the first place can't be trusted either lol...had they kept that info under wraps, Wikileaks wouldn't even have it to leak.
The system failed pretty bad with this case. For people with access to this information aren't even trusted, there are aa lot of checks and balances with this stuff, the unit responsible for are/is probably going to lose their SIPR access.
I'm guessing that since wikileaks hasn't had anything to release and are probably getting desperate to stay relevant.
DarkStar_WNY
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,363
Wow, who knew that Wikileaks was more interested in publicity and fundraising then protecting people's lives ............... well okay most people with a brain did, but some people might be surprised.
11.8.29 as i recall wikileak.org was about exposing gov't coverups. To the point the worldwide system shut them down (the last post on their site was April 2011) their leader was locked up and various organizations in the pocket of big business were doing all they could do to strangle their finances. Wikileak spread out the evidence because most governments were going after them to cover their asses. Now here you are mouthing off because sites Mr. Julian Assange entrusted the data to on their own decided to release that info... you do recall Mr. Assange was locked up on bogus charges? now because 3rd party sites are releasing the information you are blaming him? When Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks in Sept. 2010, he took the contents of that server, including the original US diplomatic cables, and several unrelated files with him, and Assange no longer had access to this information. Both the Wikileaks team and the third-party contact were unaware that the server contained the unredacted diplomatic cables, according to Der Spiegel. Daniel Domscheit-Berg bears the greatest responsibility for this; the most crucial fact remains that this leak happened subsequent to - and as a result of - Domscheit-Berg's stealing of the Wikileaks server and an external contact (journalist, presumably) irresponsibly publishing a password giving access. Yet here you are shilling for the gov't and pilling on Wikileaks. You intentionally ignore the corruption detailed in the information and instead blindly go after wikileaks. How noble of you. MOST ALL the people exposed in those leaks have not even been charged after having their criminal actions exposed!
theproject
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 88
this kind of stunt pisses me off all to hell...if you're going to throw people's lives on the chopping block, then you sure as hell better have the balls to catch every last bullet shot at them!
The flip side of the argument is that these people knew the kind of danger they were putting themselves in when they decided to become informants. Choices like that have consequences when the people you're in contact with put your real name in a memo that could potentially end up in the wrong hands and out you. One would think with all the clever ciphers the NSA can come up with someone in the chain of command would have thought to use pseudonyms for informants in correspondence, you know, just in case that worst case scenario were to happen. Clearly the US government has too many hands pawing through their top secret stuff. They should probably look into that.
Jack Hammer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 403
Clearly, there should be a penalty for publish top-secret info. There sure doesn't seem to be one now.
lollerwaffle
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 665
Inane political commentary with no research, who would've thought.
Treason and espionage used to be punishable by death. A long lock up in a Federal prison should suffice.
You clearly know the dangers of driving a car. So if you are killed by a drunk driver, I wonder if people will say, "Well, too bad for him, they knew the risks".
11.8.29 Last year, former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg and another WikiLeaks staffer led a staff revolt at WikiLeaks following a rift with Assange, and finally left the organization and set up OpenLeaks.org in September of 2010. He has been stalling since Jan 2011 to even post any content on his site openleaks. "Today, on the 26th of January 2011, someone impatient posted a PDF to cryptome.org leaking the website content we were still preparing for release. Some parts that are not finished yet are missing." Eight months later that site has been posting squat. Wikileaks supporters subsequently released an archive of the data that Domscheit-Berg had returned, as a public service to provide readers with access to everything WikiLeaks had previously published. Today Der Spiegel does not elaborate on precisely why or how that person published the password, and Snorrason (former WikiLeaks revolting staffer) declined to say more, for fear of guiding people to the password. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,783084,00.html The uncensored cables are contained in a 1.73GB password-protected file named cables.csv, which is reportedly circulating somewhere on the internet, according to Steffen Kraft, editor of the German paper Der Freitag. Kraft announced last week that his paper had found the file, and easily obtained the password to unlock it. After nine months of slow, steady publication, last week WikiLeaks abruptly opened the spiggot on its cable publications, spewing out over 130,000 by Monday afternoon more than half the total database.
11.8.29 Last year, former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg and another WikiLeaks staffer led a staff revolt at WikiLeaks following a rift with Assange, and finally left the organization and set up OpenLeaks.org in September of 2010. He has been stalling since Jan 2011 to even post any content on his site openleaks. "Today, on the 26th of January 2011, someone impatient posted a PDF to cryptome.org leaking the website content we were still preparing for release. Some parts that are not finished yet are missing." Eight months later that site has been posting squat. Wikileaks supporters subsequently released an archive of the data that Domscheit-Berg had returned, as a public service to provide readers with access to everything WikiLeaks had previously published. Today Der Spiegel does not elaborate on precisely why or how that person published the password, and Snorrason (former WikiLeaks revolting staffer) declined to say more, for fear of guiding people to the password. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,783084,00.html The uncensored cables are contained in a 1.73GB password-protected file named cables.csv, which is reportedly circulating somewhere on the internet, according to Steffen Kraft, editor of the German paper Der Freitag. Kraft announced last week that his paper had found the file, and easily obtained the password to unlock it. After nine months of slow, steady publication, last week WikiLeaks abruptly opened the spiggot on its cable publications, spewing out over 130,000 by Monday afternoon more than half the total database. collateral murder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
Zangmonkey
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,058
Wikileaks lost most of their credibility when they released edited and doctored footage to further their own agenda, separate from "truth"
Do I have this straight?
There was some sort of internal strife at Wikileaks that lead to a "revolt" that led to a comedy of errors that lead to publication of all previously redacted secret information?
And it was totally accidental? That's quite a story.
There was some sort of internal strife at Wikileaks that lead to a "revolt" that led to a comedy of errors that lead to publication of all previously redacted secret information?
And it was totally accidental? That's quite a story.
Crazyhorse 1/8 & 1/9 did a pretty good job with the task at hand. Of course the real truth didn't matter to those who were looking (making up) for "truth".
Obviously you refuse to take off your blinders regarding this incident and did not read the after-action report on what was reported on the ground.
I'll leave you this quote
You're talking about the video that was released in April of 10? That was an armed group with clear weapons on themselves. Even the cameramen's camera has records of humvee pictures being taken where they were pointing their fucking camera at a convoy which you can see the picture record in the Investigative Report on page 43 which proves that there was a convoy nearby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPZcr7-vDh4&feature=player_embedded
That shot right there is a clear example of an AK-47 and an RPG in that person's arm. Especially all vehicles who assists in groups that are engaged upon are also open game. Those children did not die but rather they lived after the US Soldiers approaching the van found out there were children.
Assange skewed that story big time by inserting his own bias and nonetheless the report from that incident shows that there was no foul play by the US military.
But it was not a camera tripod evident by this
Crazyhorse 1/8 was justified in the engagement since there were US military nearby on the ground which they were in pursuit of a group (which happened to be the one in the incident) that were taking potshots at them. Since you got the uncensored video, you can find that the investigative report will match the exact scene from the video without any "manipulation" should you call foul on.
The investigative report is here
Report
So in otherwords, Assange tried to change the narrative and failed to get anything happening since the military was cleared of any wrongdoing. So the story is that they did not engage unarmed civilians. So what did Assange manage to accomplish on that story? He only got Bradley Manning thrown in jail so I guess that's an accomplishment for finding the dipshit who leaked this video.
I've heard there are so many different government agencies dealing with homeland security today that many groups don't even know others exist. With that level of complexity, it would be near impossible to keep everything under wraps - the more humans dealing with sensitive data, the more likely someone will slip up.
Did anyone actually read the article? Wikileaks DID NOT LEAK anything. They screwed up and made a file available on their webserver; as far as anyone can tell they never linked to it, much less released it with publicity. This is a publicity stunt by the asshat responsible for "OpenLeaks" who has been trying to attack Assange for some time now.
Runningflame570
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 493
Didn't people raise a fuss about this before? The Pentagon later admitted they had no proof that anyone was ever harmed due to it in that case.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is more of the same.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is more of the same.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
Excellent way to keep the citizenry in line; it worked extremely well for Lenin and Stalin, and the entire nation was very happy about this approach.
Not enough room to many pot smokers getting jailed. Some states are so over crowed they are letting non violent prisoners out early to make room for more criminals.
Cheaper than prison, and everyone involved is breaking the law (and really does deserve to be shot for being so damn irrelevant. Does anyone other than enemies of whichever nation's cables are released actually read that shit?)
SS_Wehrwolf
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Messages
- 632
Well no one likes a rat...but given even the tiniest bit of rope to hang themselves... there are about 95% of the population who will rat your ass out in a heartbeat to save their own...
Confidential sources..... are going to get what they deserve? Thats news? LOL...
Big deal... this is the risk they took by being rats to begin with... welcome to reality...text me from the afterlife and leave a message... if i dont get back to you.. i dont care...
Confidential sources..... are going to get what they deserve? Thats news? LOL...
Big deal... this is the risk they took by being rats to begin with... welcome to reality...text me from the afterlife and leave a message... if i dont get back to you.. i dont care...
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
No proof != Proof. There is a huge difference. Afghanistan isn't some place where it's so easy to find out about something. They need boots on the ground to go verify this. As much we live in a "globalized" world, it still isn't globalized.
Much like the Lancet report that claimed over several million people died in Iraq because of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They had no hard proof but they chose to extrapolate based on population from the hardest hit area in the war, Fallujah, after it was secured by the Marines.
poee
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 257
Assange talks about how he wants all information to be free, that's all. Hold governments accountable by shining a light on their secret activities.
Of course the reality is a bit more nuanced. Assange is really only interested in one government: the U.S. His goal has less to do with some hacker ideal about "information wants to be free" and more to do with his hatred of the U.S., his desire to do them harm, and his own personal ambition to be known and loved around the world as the "great dragonslayer." He sees the U.S. as the primary cause of all global strife and wars (his own words). Ironically, trying to harm/embarrass the diplomats kind-of plays against his anti-war rhetoric. If the U.S.'s diplomatic relations with other countries is damaged, how does that redound to less war and more peace?
People on Assange's side of the argument are also more apt to have serious problems with, for example, Israel's stance vis a vis the Palestinians. Yet the peace process in that part of the world (as in many others) is slowly moving forward through secret back-channel diplomacy. If those secret talks were to be exposed, how would this help the cause of peace? Sometimes secrets can be a good thing, even if hacker doctrine refuses to acknowledge this.
Julian Assange's motivations and actions qualifies him as an enemy combatant of the United States, using stolen government secrets as his weapon of choice. He is also a media whore possessed of a massive ego and a delusional personal ambition that allows him to imagine he is a hero doing what he can to bring peace on earth. There is little wonder that so many of his own staff have quit him.
Of course the reality is a bit more nuanced. Assange is really only interested in one government: the U.S. His goal has less to do with some hacker ideal about "information wants to be free" and more to do with his hatred of the U.S., his desire to do them harm, and his own personal ambition to be known and loved around the world as the "great dragonslayer." He sees the U.S. as the primary cause of all global strife and wars (his own words). Ironically, trying to harm/embarrass the diplomats kind-of plays against his anti-war rhetoric. If the U.S.'s diplomatic relations with other countries is damaged, how does that redound to less war and more peace?
People on Assange's side of the argument are also more apt to have serious problems with, for example, Israel's stance vis a vis the Palestinians. Yet the peace process in that part of the world (as in many others) is slowly moving forward through secret back-channel diplomacy. If those secret talks were to be exposed, how would this help the cause of peace? Sometimes secrets can be a good thing, even if hacker doctrine refuses to acknowledge this.
Julian Assange's motivations and actions qualifies him as an enemy combatant of the United States, using stolen government secrets as his weapon of choice. He is also a media whore possessed of a massive ego and a delusional personal ambition that allows him to imagine he is a hero doing what he can to bring peace on earth. There is little wonder that so many of his own staff have quit him.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
It doesn't even take that much effort to get to Wikipedia. This statement demonstrates sheer laziness of the mind.
I'm fairly certain that the U.S. damaged its diplomatic relations long before Wikileaks was a household name. History goes back farther than 2010, FYI.
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
If someone did something illegal, they should face consequences and not be "protected" by the government. Anything to help that cause I think is good. It's not like we are waterboarding boards of directors