×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Congressman Announces Plans To Probe Wikileaks

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the good-luck-with-that dept.

Censorship 311

eldavojohn writes "Congressman Peter King (R-NY) is calling for a probe into Wikileaks with regard to the recent publication of half a million 9/11 pager messages. He has announced that he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation because Wikileaks' action 'raises security issues.' A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

311 comments

"Raises security issues"? (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282142)

As pager traffic is totally unencrypted, it's not a surprise that someone might be intercepting them. Especially on Wall Street, like the article states, because it's high valued information. Of course, pagers are pretty much used only in USA... phone/sms traffic elsewhere is better encrypted.

So will government understand that all communications over the Internet too (browsing, email, im) have to be changed over SSL? Or will they do the normal thing; ignore the problem and just arrest and sue the guy who was intercepting that traffic and/or wikileaks because they're supposedly risk to security, along with demanding more government regulation on the Internet?

Re:"Raises security issues"? (5, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282180)

The realities of the issue don't make one iota of difference. King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.

The fact that pager signals are easily intercepted and are typically sent in plain text means nothing, nor does the concept of a free press to this man. He, like many career politicians, only cares for what serves his purposes.

Maybe I'm a bit overly cynical this morning, since I've only had one cup of coffee so far... but it's men like Peter King who would gladly usher in fascism if they stood to gain from it.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282324)

I think you are being a little unfair.

Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them. The gains would just be gravy.

Raises probing issues (0, Offtopic)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282392)

If he's so fond of probes, let him go visit area 51, and bend over in front of some aliens...

Re:Raises probing issues (-1, Offtopic)

Forge (2456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282772)

When I saw the name my immediate reaction was "Ambassador Peter King is dead, isn't he?" [yardflex.com]

Yeah. Now I remember. His boy friend inflicted multiple stab wounds in a fit of rage, moments after they had sex. That boyfriend is now serving life for the murder.

I wonder if this guy is as perverted as his namesake was? The police recovered 30 self produced gay porn tapes from the crime scene which included maneuvers that shocked everyone who saw it. Some forensics detectives allegedly needed counseling to cope.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282992)

Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them.

He's already working on that. He recently introduced legislation [foxnews.com] that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process. He thinks the Federal Government should have the right to put your name on a list and take away your right to keep and bear arms without any burden of proof whatsoever.

What's wrong with that picture?

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283256)

What's wrong with that picture?

Uhh, the Dems are in charge so he should be whining like the rest of his party about unchecked socialistic power? Seriously, this:

He recently introduced legislation that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process.

would have made sense 2 years ago, but now? He's committing career suicide enabling the Dems in this fashion. Weird.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283344)

Advocating for gun control measures in New York State is anything but "political suicide" I'm afraid. He'll sell this crap to his constituents as being "tough on terror" and the morons will eat it up hook, line and sinker. In the end the only thing that will suffer is our Constitution and civil liberties.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

furball (2853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282628)

he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.

Why are we blaming him then? His voters put him in office. It's their discretion if they should not vote for him again if his actions don't meet their requirements. Political corruption and ineptness will always rise to meet society's acceptable level of corruption and ineptness.

Once they go over the level accepted by society, the politicians are removed in an appropriate manner.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282732)

Yeah! Death to blue-collar Irish Catholics in New York's 3rd District!

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283212)

Why are we blaming him then? His voters put him in office.

You mean the 'voters that his political party picked to ensure that a Republican would win that seat' picked him, right?

Link [wikipedia.org] for people who have no idea what I'm talking about.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283330)

Why are we blaming him then? His voters put him in office. It's their discretion if they should not vote for him again if his actions don't meet their requirements. Political corruption and ineptness will always rise to meet society's acceptable level of corruption and ineptness.

No, his voters were given the choice of voting for him or for his opponent. The political machine and wealthy connections gave him the money to run his campaign, gave him the support to run, and most importantly, ensured he runs unopposed in the primary every election cycle... he's a breadwinner for the Republican party because of his wealthy IRA-supporting contacts.

Voters really have no choice except for candidate A or B. The rest is controlled by the political parties and the media. In districts that lean heavily towards Republican or Democrat, there is no choice for the individual voter.

Once they go over the level accepted by society, the politicians are removed in an appropriate manner.

The problem is that the level accepted by society is established by the political parties and the media. It takes a severe moral transgression like wifebeating, homosexuality (to some people in some districts), or outright theft to oust an incumbent in a not-very-divided district. Incumbents in districts like 3rd NY rarely get ousted for political reasons. "He may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard", I believe the saying goes.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282702)

No, you're not being cynical. People who think that *is* being cynical are the masses who allow these Machiavellian scumbags to rise to power in the first place. To paraphrase what a political science prof. of mine once said: "Of course a politician cares about more than getting elected. He also cares about getting reelected too."

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282804)

...but it's men like Peter King who would gladly usher in fascism if they stood to gain from it.

So... apparently the Current Administration and some Republicans DO have something in common....

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283370)

So... apparently the Current Administration and some Republicans DO have something in common....

What are you smoking? Peter King is a Republican Congressman who's been in office since 1992. When someone refers to "the Current Administration" they are referring to the President's Office, not Congress. In general.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282842)

It's not that it matters if he has his staff "probe" into wikileaks. I encourage it as it only means that he and his staff might accidentally learn something. What does matter is that people like this are the ones that deal with issues like DMCA, ACTA, Net Neutrality, and a host of other issues they have no idea about. He will talk to his congressmen friends, and we all lose...

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282962)

King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.

Aren't blue-collar Irish Catholics generally union members (D)?

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30283152)

D, R, is there any fucking difference these days? Especially in New York.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283230)

Aren't blue-collar Irish Catholics generally union members (D)?

If you want to paint with a broad brush they are usually the so-called "Reagan Democrats", i.e: socially conservative democrats.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282372)

Let me translate for you: the "interception" here was by the government. The "security issue" is that somebody in the government leaked that info, or (less likely) that it was swiped by someone outside the government. The real "issue" isn't that the info was leaked, its just that it revealed that the government has it.

The problem isn't that the government is unaware that pager (and intartubes) communication is insecure, it's that the people are now aware of it.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (5, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282474)

Let me translate for you: the "interception" here was by the government. The "security issue" is that somebody in the government leaked that info, or (less likely) that it was swiped by someone outside the government.

We don't know that.
Schneier on the issue: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/leaked_911_text.html [schneier.com]

Anyone could have been logging all that pager traffic. Not necessarily government. With 2009 technology, it wouldn't even be expensive. In 2001, it would only be a little expensive.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282868)

If not the government, then who? Saucer People? Mole Men? It's not a crackpot conspiracy theory to accuse the government when they've the most likely candidate, especially when they confirm it for us by stumbling into action to investigate the leak.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (2, Insightful)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283006)

If not the government, then who? Saucer People? Mole Men? It's not a crackpot conspiracy theory to accuse the government when they've the most likely candidate, especially when they confirm it for us by stumbling into action to investigate the leak.

If much of the traffic was from Wall Street, then it wouldn't be hard to imagine corporate espionage, or other kinds of snooping, where recording pager traffic would be a useful addition to other schemes.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (2, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283042)

If not the government, then who? Saucer People? Mole Men?

A L0pht type who gets off on comms hacking?
Someone hoping to glean trading tips from the chatter of financial workers?

Yeah, it could have been the government. But it could easily have been anyone. As others have pointed out, the equipment necessary is cheap and non-specialized. This stuff was floating around the RF spectrum unencrypted. Note that the entire archive is only 13MB compressed. When I say it wouldn't be expensive, I mean you could log all pager traffic for a year, for well under $1000.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282624)

Agreed.... somewhat.

The issue is not that wiki leaks published this information. Any of us have the ability to publish this information.The REAL problem is that the government has a leak and sent this info to a public source.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282846)

They probably collected it, along with a ton of security cam footage/phone logs/witness testimony/etc., as part of the 9-11 investigation. The real news to me is that the telco's were keeping such extensive logs of all their pager messages and that they were willing to turn it all over without telling the public about it (which would no doubt had been a pretty uncontroversial action if they had just been upfront about it). It points to a pattern of secrecy behind telco/government interaction that's way more disturbing than the information that has probably actually been shared.

It's like the secret rooms [wired.com] that the NSA has been installing at telco hubs. I think that people would have accepted that if the government had simply told the public upfront they were doing it and said "And here are some of the rules we're following to make sure innocent people aren't specifically targeted" (and knowing the CYA aspect of government, I'd bet they do actually have such rules). As for the argument that this would have somehow tipped off the terrorists, does the NSA honestly think that terrorists (at least the smart ones, who are the real threat anyway) don't ALREADY realize their calls are being monitored?

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283102)

As for the argument that this would have somehow tipped off the terrorists, does the NSA honestly think that terrorists (at least the smart ones, who are the real threat anyway) don't ALREADY realize their calls are being monitored?

Bin Ladin supposedly didn't realize that we were tracking him via his satellite phone until that fact was leaked by a member of the Clinton administration. He kept using it right up until the point that the story appeared in the press.

I consider myself a civil libertarian and think that it's folly to monitor our own citizens but it's also foolhardy to think that these types of disclosures don't have any real world implications.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282452)

Pagers are used all over the world and have been for decades.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282570)

Not at all. Most European countries switched off their pager networks nearly a decade ago. Asian countries like Japan & Korea certainly do not have any use for pagers these days, either. The United States have clung to ancient technology like pagers because cell coverage is patchy at best.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282640)

Keep in mind that this happened nearly a decade ago. It's not like this pager traffic was captured yesterday.

I'm in the US, and the last person I know who had a pager (a doctor) has now switched to a cell phone.

I haven't had one myself since the mid '90s.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282602)

Pagers are used all over the world and have been for decades.

Pagers were never widespread in the UK, nor I think in mainland Europe. SMS dominated before the pager market could take off. I believe pricing issues slowed SMS adoption in the USA.

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

j-b0y (449975) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283114)

What? Pagers were around long long before SMS even existed. They just were never in the mass-market communication space that SMSs dominate now since they were not 'peer to peer', at least not in the most common form

Re:"Raises security issues"? (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282972)

As pager traffic is totally unencrypted...

It is however illegal to snoop other people's pager traffic. Why, I'll bet most of your phone calls are unencrypted...

Re:"Raises security issues"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282978)

Doth protest too much..........

He has pager traffic in the log

Second Flamebait (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282148)

From the Wikipedia:

His family has strong Irish roots that trace back to County Galway and County Limerick...

King graduated from St. Francis College in Brooklyn in 1965 and went on to get his Juris Doctorate from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1968...

He was branded by a judge in a Northern Ireland court "an obvious collaborator with the IRA". He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA terrorist activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA terrorism in the UK.

In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of "anti-Catholic bigoted forces." King worked extensively with the administration and supported its decision to invade Iraq.

In a September 2007 interview with the website Politico.com, King said that "There are too many mosques in this country... There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam."

There are a lot more boozed-up hicks and Micks in America who are implicitly sympathetic to radical Christianity (including Catholicism, the biggest business on the planet), and this asshole is no exception. They should shove their crucifixes and rosaries and hypocritical dark-age censorship up their priest-penetrated asses.

Re:Second Flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282190)

"They should probe their own priest-penetrated asses with their crucifixes and rosaries and hypocritical dark-age censorship"
Fixed.

Re:Second Flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282254)

Religion is the best mass-destruction weapon ever created by mankind.

Re:Second Flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282364)

Folks, do NOT mod posts like this and it's parent up. Neither are interesting nor give insight.

Re:Second Flamebait (0, Offtopic)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282488)

Neither are interesting nor give insight.

While yours apparently is.

Who cares about mod points anyway - the modding system is for sheep. Reading at -1 makes for a far more interesting slashdot, even if you have to put up with the occasional GNAA or goatse crap. You can all play your little "karma" game. I'll decide for myself what's worth reading.

Re:Second Flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282550)

+1 for reading at -1.

Re:Second Flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282558)

Mod parent up!!!111!!

GNAA, goatse, cool4sale!!!1!one

Re:Second Flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282638)

While yours apparently is.

Says who? I guess posting anonymously didn't give you the hint that I don't care about ratings or karma.

Who cares about mod points anyway

No one cares, but those who lurk slashdot have no choice in the matter. You may decide to read every post, but I'd prefer to cut through the crap. I have better things to do than to spend any more time than I do on /.

Re:Second Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282734)

You may decide to read every post, but I'd prefer to let other people decide what content is appropriate for me.

FTFY, tool.

Re:Second Flamebait (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282838)

Actually, since he was telling the mods to mod-down a subset of posts, he is in fact wanting to decide for others what is appropriate for them to see, not himself.

Re:Second Flamebait (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282896)

"You may decide to read every post, but I'd prefer to cut through the crap."
Your own -1 post included?

Re:Second Flamebait (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282832)

As and Irish Catholic I have never been so disgusted with slashdot as I am now. I've been trolled and down modded, but when racial slurs and relgion bashing are considered insightful, especially against myself, it may be time to find myself a new site.

The slashdot groupthink modding system is starting to turn into a sort of facism in itself.

Re:Second Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30283040)

"Irish" is a NATIONALITY, not a race. One can't be racist against that which is not a race!

"Catholic" is a religion, and it's absolutely fine to bash religions. People choose to be religious, and can just as easily choose to be non-religious. If your religion is associated with stupid acts, or causes you to act stupidly, then you deserve all of the ridicule that you catch.

Grow some thicker skin, too. Your pansy attitude is a complete disgrace to your Irish and Catholic forefathers.

Re:Second Flamebait (4, Insightful)

theIsovist (1348209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282336)

While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?

Re:Second Flamebait (0, Offtopic)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282662)

While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?

Considering the subject line of his post, I can assure you that he's aware of it and that it was fully intentional.

Re:Second Flamebait (0, Offtopic)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282386)

So in other words, Congressman King is a supporter of a known terrorist organization (the IRA). So why isn't he in Gitmo instead of in Congress? Oh, right. He was supporting a Christian terrorist organization, not a Muslim one.

That said, your last line is an uncalled-for expression of bigotry against all Irish Catholics (to be clear, I'm neither Irish nor Catholic). Among other things, those most sympathetic to radical Christianity in the US tend to be Protestant fundamentalists, whereas the modern-day Catholic Church (particularly when John Paul II was in charge) is a lot more friendly towards non-Christian faiths.

Re:Second Flamebait (0, Offtopic)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282402)

boozed-up hicks and Micks

Typical classist/racist, masquerading as a "progressive." It's the knee-jerk anti-religion fundies such as you who empower King, not his "blue collar" base.

Keep up the good work.

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282482)

sympathetic to radical Christianity (including Catholicism, the biggest business on the planet), and this asshole is no exception

Blatant trolling. I'm not religious, but Mods, hello?

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (3, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282798)

Blatant trolling. I'm not religious, but Mods, hello?

Thanks for the advice AC. I'll look into it. Oh, whoops, I just posted. Well, maybe next time.

Re:Second Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282966)

Full disclosure: this post made me happy. :)

On the subject, perhaps wikileaks has been too effective in what they do since politicians are getting interested. It's funny how it's the same in US and China too, you have to carelly watch what you're saying...

Vandal penises to probe wiki admins asses (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282216)

This for bastard admins who are fat and have no life.

Waste of tax money (4, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282282)

What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back? With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.

Re:Waste of tax money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282330)

It's not a waste of tax money if you're in the business of government.

Re:Waste of tax money (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282354)

Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it.

Re:Waste of tax money (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282388)

How many decades of our foreign policy have you slept through?

Re:Waste of tax money (5, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282810)

How many decades of our foreign policy have you slept through?

No kidding. If it turns out Sweden is responsible for this outrage, you can bet we'll invade Finland to punish them.

Re:Waste of tax money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282874)

lol

Re:Waste of tax money (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283134)

you can bet we'll invade Finland to punish them.

That didn't work out real well when Stalin tried it......

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283286)

I remember some dusty country not working out very well for Leonid Brezhnev, and we certainly didn't let that stop us...

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283364)

That might have had something to do with that giant hole in lower Manhattan. Just a thought.....

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

FatherDale (1535743) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282396)

THIS is what I was wondering about -- just exactly what does he think he can do about a foreign web site, other than inveigh mightily against it? Demagogue....

Re:Waste of tax money (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282484)

Yeah that worked so good for TPB.

And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)

Re:Waste of tax money (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282744)

Yeah that worked so good for TPB.

Well, Wikileaks has survived attacks [slashdot.org] (even physical attacks [slashdot.org]). And the important distinguishing factor between TPB and Wikileaks is that Wikileaks is providing documents the public wants to know about ... they may be copyrighted and protected but they contain newsworthiness. In the United States (before the DMCA), that used to be enough to protect people trying to get the word out. Not anymore. But if another country chooses to uphold that sort of common logic about what should be protected to benefit the public than you're not going to have a TPB repeat.

And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)

This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org]. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly. If those people are trying to stop you from disseminating information, you must be doing something right if not interesting.

Re:Waste of tax money (2, Informative)

jambarama (784670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283020)

This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly.

As a note, this has happened to wikileaks before, [wikipedia.org] and the result was exactly as you describe. After the take down, news websites and forums exploded with the wikileaks IP address, and encouraged visitors to see what all the fuss was about. In addition, the judge had ordered the takedown of only wikileaks.org; wikileaks.net, wikileaks.co.uk, wikileaks.fr, wikileaks.cn, secure.ljsf.org, secure.sunshinepress.org, and dozens of other wikileaks websites with alternate names and identical content remained online.

Re:Waste of tax money (2, Insightful)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282506)

Isn't that what we said about Pirate Bay? Didn't those guys end up in jail without breaking any laws in their country?

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282654)

Nobody knows yet, whether or not the three founders of TPB and their financer will do prison time: the first court did indeed sentence them to prison, but the verdict was appealed. The next court has yet to start proceedings. Once that court is done we still have to wait for the Swedish Supreme court to have it's say (I have no doubt the verdict will be appealed by the loosing side...). We might even have to wait for the European Court to say something in the matter, before anybody actually has to do any time.

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282508)

Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it

Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.

Oh wait...

Re:Waste of tax money (4, Funny)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282704)

Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.

Oh wait...

Yeah, but he had weapons of mass... ... oh, right you are. Carry on.

Re:Waste of tax money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282600)

Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it.

The United States and Sweden have strong economic relations. The United States is currently the third largest Swedish export trade partner, and US companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden.

'd be a shame if anything were to happen to those strong relations...

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282436)

it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.

      Come now. Of course in order to be able to read these messages, his staff will need new computers, blackberries, iPhones and high speed internet connections - both at the office and, because they're so hard-working, at home too. It's only logical that such an undertaking cost at least $10-15 million. But just think, this is money the government is spending to stimulate the private sector, which means that by doing this they will save Manuel and José's jobs (you know, the guys that sweep up at the Apple and Dell plants?). IT HAS TO BE WORTH IT! /sarcasm

Re:Waste of tax money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282442)

>>US is facing a deficit in the small trillions

Yes yes, but those are small trillions.

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282502)

What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back? With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.

Not really. You see, by "probe", they mean "skim until the Senator's name comes up".

Re:Waste of tax money (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283338)

it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.

To be fair, there is really no such thing as a small trillion.

unpopular statements? (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282334)

HUH? The overreporting of MJ INDUCED projectile vomiting. If anything, it's proof that this congress critter has at least an idea of how mainstream america loathes the california granola.

Re:unpopular statements? (-1, Flamebait)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282556)

mainstream america is what's *wrong* with this country.

mainstream america voted for bush, thought the war was a 'good idea', can't tolerate others' views (if you're not christian) and all that other bullshit.

MSA *is* the problem. we need to wake up and modernize our views on a lot of things. backwater USA is an embarassment.

(where is america's place in the world when it comes to belief in human evolution and not 'bearded sky wizard'? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html [nationalgeographic.com] gives us a hint. the ONLY country who believes LESS in evolution is TURKEY. yes, that's right. backwater USA in all its glory and only TURKEY is worst than the US when it comes to modern thinking about stuff like evolution).

MSA needs to grow up and get with the world program. it really does. the sooner we admit that, the sooner we'll be able to, uhh, evolve a little, ourselves.

Re:unpopular statements? (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282752)

Mainstream America Did not want three years of "The Plan" and one year of "Change" and get Trillion dollar Deficits.

"Evolving" to a backwater extinction isn't always the best thing - sometimes status quo works. //file under "Yes they did"

Re:unpopular statements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282976)

Ill nibble the flamebait I'm feeling a bit pissed off today.

can't tolerate others' views (if you're not christian) and all that other bullshit.

If that is true then why are you here spouting off? Perhaps you have become a bit xenophobic yourself? Have you ever actually been out to 'mainstream America'? Have you actually been to a church and volunteered there? Or did you come up with your lovely 'world view' all by yourself by making sure your educated on the internet?

Here let me answer for you. 'I like being a twit', yes, no, no/no, yes.

I have met many Christians and other people of other religions. Most would give you the shirt off their backs to help you. Most Atheists on the other hand I have found to be the most self centered group I have ever met. Which makes sense because it is a religion of the world and not of God. You can find contrary examples in all groups its not hard, its not like computers where it is binary. However, if you are in a hurry to tout them as 'why you dont believe in xyz'. Then perhaps you should just be honest with yourself instead of making excuses. The 'mommy I did this bad thing because the other boys were doing it' does not fly with me. You just dont want to believe that it is possible that you are accountable for your own actions.

Perhaps you should put on your big boy pants (and grow up like you tell others so quickly to do) and crawl out from under your mothers skirt and take a look at what the real world is like. It is not a nice place. People like you make sure it stays that way with your polarizing 'im worldly' views, and sweeping statements. Your statements have the stench of typical group think on the internet.

Before you go on another rant spend a few hours reflecting on why you came on here today to be just a raciest and piggish as you accuse others of being. Perhaps you are calling the kettle black?

Okay lets address these "Unpopular statements." (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283038)

Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot. Posting something to an article stating that this politician has made "unpopular statements" either means you are trying to show your support for Congressman King, your resentment of him and subsequent setup for bashing, or you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits. I personally think it's the third option as it's been this way for a while around slashdot. In terms of reporting, there is a way to make light of his prior comments but that's not the way to do it in a journalistically responsible way. Others may say these comments are irrelevant, but in terms of neutral reporting, while you might think they are incendiary, a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior, and in this case it could simply be creating targets to stir up controversy and get media time, and therefore dollars. By pointing out the unpopular comments it's detracting from the wikileaks article. Way to go, you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.

Second, I personally think this congressman king, from the videos, is also an idiot with a severe case of foot in mouth disease. It's interesting that people show support for the Michael Jackson video but completely blow by the "too many mosques" video. Obviously the guy has some issues. The guy was trying to show his "tough on terrorism" stance and opened his mouth and out came some anti-moslem bile which his personal aid tried to step on since he knew his congressman had just fucked up. But then he shovels it out nice and deep in the MJ video. I agree with the idea that MJ coverage when he died was overblown, but in saying so, the guy called MJ a low life and a pedophile. Lets get one thing straight, as much as I might have my suspicions, that has never been proven. This was political commentary by a public official, not satire, so Letterman making a joke on late night is completely different than this. The guy is trying to say "hey, lets shine the light on policeman and firefighters and not MJ." I can get behind it, but it's how he says it, by viciously attacking Michael is just stupid and low. In fact if Jackson was alive, I think there's a chance it might be slander (IANAL).

I know nothing else about this guy, so he's no Ted Stevens or John Ensign, but he's not a particularly bright politician if you ask me, unless of course his racist and insulting comments are the type of comments that get him elected in his district. I just know he needs to take a few sensitivity courses so he can stop chewing on his size 11s when trying to make what otherwise might be a reasonable point.

Ah, the standard complaint (1)

emagery (914122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282476)

'national security' ... as far as I am concerned, if this is scaring some people in power, it's doing its job. It may not be press in the traditional sense, but it does appear to be something of a resurrection of that old check and balance.

cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (4, Insightful)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282524)

So what is the big deal? This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation. It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept. There is no data security. Those considering it a secure medium have simply been mislead. Congress, as a whole, is rather ignorant of these technical concepts. There are programs that use a soundcard for data capture, but for best results make sure and use the receiver's discriminator output, not the filtered audio out. Google for "POCSAG and FLEX decoding" for all the goodies and software you need to do your own intercepts. -Michael

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (2, Informative)

drerwk (695572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282926)

Just because you can do something does not make it legal to do.
Or, do you believe that an door is unlocked door is an invitation to enter? I believe what you describe doing falls under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act [wikipedia.org]. "ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. " See also: John and Alice Martin http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/24/us/florida-couple-are-charged-in-taping-of-gingrich-call.html [nytimes.com]

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (1)

vonart (1033056) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283206)

from your link:

"The "electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include(A) any wire or oral communication;(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds."

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 4 years ago | (#30283388)

Just because you can do something does not make it legal to do. Or, do you believe that an door is unlocked door is an invitation to enter?

Not necessarily, but that's irrelevant. Broadcast your radio signal though my home is not analogous to leaving a door unlocked. The state has no legitimate power to make me a criminal for building a radio receiver or for operating it in my home.

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30283112)

I can't find it but when messing with scanners awhile back, there was a US law that says you can't share any information you receive.

this is text (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30282536)

Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.

So has kdawson. Why even mention it?

Re:this is text (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282916)

To make sure nobody likes what he's about to say even before he said a word. This is common in mainstream media today...

word of caution? (2, Insightful)

horatio (127595) | more than 4 years ago | (#30282578)

A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.

Word of caution my ass. Every congressman says dopey things that someone finds inflammatory and unpopular. Why is it pointed out here so specifically? How about leaving the bullshit sniping behind when posting the summaries there, kdawson?

This doesn't seem something appropriate for the to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30283390)

Leak.

This is like going though peoples mail boxes and opening their mail and publishing it online. If it was newsworthy, say Obama paying someone to hide his birth certificate, his shout outs to this brothers in the planes right before they hit, messages from Gore thanking global warming nut jobs for faking "research data", that would be one thing, but this is just random mail sent by frightened citizens and should be protected.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...