Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Wikileaks Needs Help, and Not Just Money

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the step-up-amazon-and-volunteer-the-cloud dept.

The Internet 134

st1d writes to tell us that Wikileaks has put out a call for help. However, instead of just asking for money, they have also suggested technical and legal avenues for support. In the site's short life, Wikileaks has been at the center of many breaking scandals and investigations. "Wikileaks is currently overloaded by readers. This is a regular difficulty that can only be resolved by deploying additional resources. If you support our mission, you can help us by integrating new hardware into our project infrastructure or developing software for the project. Become patron of a WikiLeaks server or other parts of our technology, adding more pillars to the stability and balance of the WikiLeaks platform. Servers come trouble-free and legally fortified, software is uniquely challenging. If you can provide rackspace, power and an uplink, or a dedicated server or storage space, for at least 12 months, or software development work for WikiLeaks, please write to wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org."

cancel ×

134 comments

I donated money (0, Troll)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552876)

but then I reverted it.

Re:I donated money (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30552940)

Eh, would you care to explain why?

Re:I donated money (-1, Offtopic)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552994)

He's probably native American.

Re:I donated money (-1, Offtopic)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553016)

He's probably native American.

Spare me from stupid mods that can't get a JOKE.

Re:I donated money (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553226)

Theres nothing funny about racist jokes. Leave that junk on 4chan and Digg.

Re:I donated money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553246)

lots of racist jokes are funny. asians are good at math, africans run fast.

Re:I donated money (2, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553254)

Jokes based on racial stereotypes can be funny, but the GGP's comment wasn't a joke at all, it was just a nonsensical statement with something about Native Americans.

Re:I donated money (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553268)

it was just a nonsensical statement with something about Native Americans.

Ever heard of the term "indian giver"?

It's even on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver

Re:I donated money (1, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553280)

it was just a nonsensical statement with something about Native Americans.

Ever heard of the term "indian giver"?

It's even on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver [wikipedia.org]

Thank you. I was starting to think that Slashdot's collective IQ had suddenly dropped while I was away, but you've restored my faith.

Re:I donated money (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553290)

So IQ is measured by the number of obscure insults you know? Why don't you explain your ideas to the psychologists, I'm sure they'll be glad to finally have a precise definition for intelligence.

Re:I donated money (0, Offtopic)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553374)

So IQ is measured by the number of obscure insults you know?

To most people in my country (you know, where we have Native Americans, who at one point were known as "Indians") the term "Indian Giver" is not remotely obscure. And yes, it is a minor insult but one which was perfectly in line with the original poster's remark (he gave in good faith and then took the gift back.) Nor do I feel the need to concern myself as to whether those who are not familiar with colloquialisms common to American English understand those references. Besides, I'd have been happy to explain it to you if you'd bothered to ask. Instead, you chose to be an ass.

Fortunately most Slashdotters have more understanding of basic etiquette or this place would be intolerable.

Re:I donated money (3, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553518)

Making a potentially offensive joke and then complaining about the moderators not getting the humor in it is also being an ass. So is continuing to post when the mass of "offtopic" moderators would prefer you to leave quietly.

BTW, I quite honestly had no idea that your "probably Native American" post was supposed to be funny.

Re:I donated money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553524)

the joke was in poor taste, wasn't over anyone's head and you just keep digging. It's sad, in a guilty politician kind of way. Merry christmas :) sometimes people say stupid things, you'll get over it.

Re:I donated money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30554398)

I thought "Indian Giving" related to the subcontinent, not Native Americans. The more you know!

Re:I donated money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553870)

I believe it was playing on the idiom "Indian giver." Unfunny, but hardly nonsensical.

Re:I donated money (0, Flamebait)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553284)

Theres nothing funny about racist jokes. Leave that junk on 4chan and Digg.

Ever heard the term "Indian giver"? I guess your subtlety threshold is cranked way too high this evening. Instead, I get lectures on racism and have to explain a simple joke that was apparently over your head.

Re:I donated money (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553330)

What does it have to do with anything if its a term? It's still a racist term. Even the wikipedia article says its offensive.

Re:I donated money (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554052)

I bet your the same kind of person that finds the word blackboard "racist".

Grow up and get a life please. The words black and white are colours, it's only if you choose to attach a racial connotation to it does it become something else.

Please stop trying to see racism everywhere, sometimes a spade is just a spade.

Re:I donated money (2, Insightful)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553320)

It's really funny though. If you make a joke about the mean, bad, imperialist pigdog Americans you get a +5 Funny - but woe on those who dare to play jokes on other racial or cultural stereotypes...

Re:I donated money (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553362)

Do you need an explanation of this in kindergarten level?

There is 30 people in your class;
Out of those, 29 of them make a joke about 1 of them.

vs

That 1 boy makes a joke out of those 29 people.

Is it a same situation?

Re:I donated money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553568)

Yes. The comment is either right or wrong. Just because you are one lone voice does not exempt you from good taste or manners.

Re:I donated money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553628)

Actually, it's more like there is 1 of those 29 making a joke about the other 1, but whatever. Apparently when one person makes a joke, everybody in his group is making that joke.

Re:I donated money (0, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553890)

That 1 boy makes a joke out of those 29 people.

Do you need an adult explanation of this?

That one boy is a hypocrite who wants special treatment

Re:I donated money (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554922)


Both missing the point. A racist joke is a bad thing because it neglects who someone is in favour of a false generalisation. It may be worse when a majority make it about a minority, because unlike the other way around it suggests there will be an accompanying abuse of power which is even worse than just insults. The poster that says that the acceptability of such comments is dependent on whether its a minority member making jokes about the majority (acceptable) or a majority member making jokes about a minority (unacceptable) is presenting a false view. It's not okay by most of us whichever way the racism goes. Why is that? Because if one is not racist, then one does not see it as a case of one ethnicity making jokes about another ethnicity, because people are not defined by their race. What makes it okay for individual A to make insulting comments about individual B? They are individuals. The actions or positions or numbers of the ethnicities they belong to have no effect because A does not gain any special privilege to insult people based on their ethnicity, and B should not be unwillingly appointed a suitable target for your opinions about an entire ethnic group that he happens to belong to. People are people. Treating them as representatives of people they aren't (the rest of their ethnic group) is prejudice.

The very notion of applying different standards to an individual because of their race is inherently racist. Saying someone gets less right to be offended by an insult because you think their race is privileged is racist - you're treating them, against their volition, as a component of an arbitrary race, rather than as the individual they are.

Re:I donated money (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553692)

It's really funny though. If you make a joke about the mean, bad, imperialist pigdog Americans you get a +5 Funny - but woe on those who dare to play jokes on other racial or cultural stereotypes...

When you are an 800lbs gorilla, you have to watch where you sit.
When you are a gnat, it doesn't matter.

Re:I donated money (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553398)

Fuck off and die, faggot.

Not racist. Wiki joke. Woosh? (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553698)

The joke is about wikis, which anyone can edit. Reverting is a common action of contention on Wikipedia, hence revert wars, 3RR and all that jazz.

Why is the default reaction to assume racist intent?

Re:Not racist. Wiki joke. Woosh? (1)

Dilpo (980613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553774)

They're not talking about that joke, they're talking about this joke. [slashdot.org]

HTTP gateway timed out (2, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552880)

For once, the article submitter isn't lying!

Re:HTTP gateway timed out (1)

cntThnkofAname (1572875) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552982)

I could be because everyone and his grandma, who reads /. is trying to check wikiLeaks out so they can post a witty comment.

Re:HTTP gateway timed out (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553044)

It was down before story too

Re:HTTP gateway timed out (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553790)

Yeah, but using Mediawiki for read-only content is not the smartest thing to do, it prohibits caching.
If Mediawiki would allow proxies to cache their content (maybe there is a plugin, but Wikipedia doesn't allow it either), a lot of trouble would go away. And does Wikileaks need uncached requests? No.

I am not talking about (web) server-side improvements [mediawiki.org] , I am talking about the problematic 'Cache-Control: private, s-maxage=0, max-age=0, must-revalidate' HTTP header. HTTP caching is so misunderstood. http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/#WHY [mnot.net]

Torrents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30552888)

Publish via torrents.

Win.

Re:Torrents (2, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553228)

good idea but unfortunately the 'unwashed masses' only support HTTP, and if the unwashed masses don't have any access to this information then it loses credibility and becomes more of a geek conspiracy theory group. As we all know its very hard to get something done if the unwashed masses don't realise the problem and are therefore unwilling to support you.

You know, the people who think that the only way to get an iPhone is to buy it locked (if they even understand the concept of a SIM-lock) and on a long contract with a huge telco.

Re:Torrents (3, Interesting)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553338)

I'm surprised nobody yet thought up a BitTorrent analogue for HTTP - to offload/share traffic from busy sites.

I guess latencies are the problem, but faced with information being not available at all, higher latencies are probably a good compromise.

Sites like Wikipedia or WikiLeaks could definitely benefit from such technology.

Re:Torrents (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554674)

I'm surprised nobody yet thought up a BitTorrent analogue for HTTP - to offload/share traffic from busy sites.

It wouldn't be difficult to put a torrent backend on HTTP, wherein the URLs would actually just be trackers for the peers, but dynamic content obviously couldn't be served in any practical manner this way. And usually serving static content is just a solved problem - bandwidth is cheap (until someone DoS's S3, anyways).

Re:Torrents (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554798)

It wouldn't be difficult to put a torrent backend on HTTP, wherein the URLs would actually just be trackers for the peers, but dynamic content obviously couldn't be served in any practical manner this way. And usually serving static content is just a solved problem - bandwidth is cheap (until someone DoS's S3, anyways).

It's called a Content Delivery Network, and they have been in use transparently for over a decade. If you didn't notice, that's good. A full P2P CDN could be made to work, but has many awkward deployment issues (e.g., most of the downloading endpoints really don't have a lot of upstream bandwidth) so the traditional model is likely to persist since it's a proven model at both technical and business levels.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30552892)

Where did you get this info?? :O

Freenet (4, Interesting)

Sanity (1431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552908)

It seems that Wikileaks should operate over Freenet [freenetproject.org] . Leaks could be submitted anonymously that way, and also distributed anonymously. The advantage would be that it would be entirely decentralized, so there would be no organization vulnerable to legal action.

Freenet has been slow and hard to use in the past, but its improved quite a bit. It is the obvious platform for something like Wikileaks. Of course, there is nothing to prevent people from mirroring content on the web (since installing Freenet, like any piece of software, is a hassle). But at least there will be an unimpeachable backup of all data on Freenet.

Re:Freenet (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552934)

It seems that Wikileaks should operate over Freenet [freenetproject.org] . Leaks could be submitted anonymously that way, and also distributed anonymously. The advantage would be that it would be entirely decentralized, so there would be no organization vulnerable to legal action.

Freenet has been slow and hard to use in the past, but its improved quite a bit. It is the obvious platform for something like Wikileaks. Of course, there is nothing to prevent people from mirroring content on the web (since installing Freenet, like any piece of software, is a hassle). But at least there will be an unimpeachable backup of all data on Freenet.

I wish a comprehensive group of security experts with varying backgrounds and specialties would get together and try to compromise both Freenet and Tor to see just how secure and anonymous they really are. By this I mean in an open, public, collaborative sort of way. This could only be a good thing, as any vulnerabilities or weaknesses could potentially be addressed. Then we could be a bit more confident about the confidentiality of those who contribute documents to sites like Wikileaks. I am sure that many such folks are doing so at great risk to themselves, especially when they live under repressive regimes, yet they believe in our right to know and are willing to take that risk. It really would be nice to know they are a bit safer doing it.

Re:Freenet (3, Interesting)

Splab (574204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553032)

TOR is already proven to be pretty unreliable since the exit node can sniff all the traffic, have enough exit nodes and you can track your target.

Re:Freenet (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553094)

That was probably the point to begin with. All of the hidden services (.onion links) I've been to seem like honeypots for LEA or contain nothing of interest (so why are they up?).

Tor is a giant filter through which suspect traffic may pass and the powers that be laughing over the whole inhumane rodent-glue trap.

PS: If you use Tor, block the 149.* domains by exluding them in your torrc file, along with the "bloxor" nodes (search through your cached-descriptors file for them, they are a plague!)

Re:Freenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553368)

How exactly is this done, from my knowledge of Tor even the exit node will only be able to see the last node to pass the data, seeing as a chain uses more then one hop I don't see how you could directly target a user.

That said I am aware that you can use flash and if my memory serves me, a gif (?) to track the original IP by having the flash object phone home, but I thought this only worked if the user had Tor in a non-standard configuration? As the exit node I assume this would be injected in the page returned, but what if you tunnel SSH over tor to a privatly owned VPN, that would prevent the Tor node from screwing with the traffic.

Unless it uses some form of renegotiation ;)

Re:Freenet (2, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553694)

Re Tor: written a few years ago, but gives most readers an idea of how Tor works and can be tracked
"High-Traffic Colluding Tor Routers in Washington, D.C., and the Ugly Truth About Online Anonymity"
http://cryptogon.com/?p=624 [cryptogon.com]
As for tracking scripts see this post :) :
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12691-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31021&messageID=574848&start=-1 [zdnet.com]

Re:Freenet (2, Interesting)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554684)

TOR is already proven to be pretty unreliable since the exit node can sniff all the traffic, have enough exit nodes and you can track your target.

Even without compromising or joining up exit nodes, deanonymizing (see: 1 [ckers.org] 2 [dewinter.com] ) is a problem for the uninformed users of onion routing and proxies.

Re:Freenet (2, Insightful)

eyv (636790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554730)

If you're submitting to Wikileaks, you're using SSL right? You should be. Exit node sniffing is not a large problem. Furthermore, Wikileaks can just run a number of dedicated local exit nodes.

Re:Freenet (3, Insightful)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553386)

... Freenet ...

From the site [freenetproject.org] :

For best performance, Freenet will run continually. It should not interfere with your computer usage, as it requires around 200MB of RAM and 10% of one CPU core, plus some disk access.

And no wonder considering that it is written in Java...

Not all PCs have Java installed. First. Second. With that kind of resource utilization, I do not see Freenet catching with average consumers.

Probably they should invest into a lightweight C/C++ client. That even I would let run on my systems.

Re:Freenet (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553392)

Oops. Was a reply to GP.

Re:Freenet (4, Insightful)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554246)

Yeah, it really should be rewritten in Python (or what is the cool language today).

Seriously, I much rather pay the memory penalty of Java than fight against the numerous security bugs C/C++ program would give.

Re:Freenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30554840)

Ruby on Rails! Wait... that was last year, sorry.

Re:Freenet (1)

eyv (636790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554628)

Leaked documents do not need a low-latency anonymous channel (Tor) to be leaked. Potential leakers should use something like Mixminion (http://mixminion.net/) for high-latency, highly anonymous submissions. Downloads, however, are a bit more tricky, since they DO need to be low-latency.

Mathematical properties, confidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30552974)

Three questions about freenet:

Are there mathematically sound measures of the degree of anonymity that freenet provides an end-user?

Is there a threshold number of collaborating operators of compromised nodes above which it is possible to deduce information about, or the identities of, files being served or downloaded? Is the threshold hard or soft?

How does the anonymity of freenet vary as a function of the proportion of nodes that are compromised increases?

Re:Freenet (4, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552996)

The problem with Freenet is that no-one uses it. Wikileaks kicks real-world arse because it's on the World Wide Web, where everyone else is.

Re:Freenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553138)

This is why there should be some sort of direct gateway between them, sorta like some portal to hell, but not as painful. (for us)
There has already been systems built for this in Tor, such as e-mail systems interacting between Tornet and Internet.

To be entirely honest, the entire thing could be pulled off entirely via loads of free hosts and some smart scripting to load balance.
Even those free forums that allow JavaScript, write a wrapper, bham.

It's not like legality will be a problem... people provide free tools, you use free tools as they were intended, using all their features, no guilt there at all.
If they do anything, well, you have a case against them. Yeah you'll probably not win, but you can always expose any methods they used against you on their own services... again.

Re:Freenet (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553142)

Put it on Freenet, and few people will read it because it's hard. The Powers That Be then win, and probably don't try to stop it.
Might be a good idea for dual-deployment, however, if it would take any load off the http.

Re:Freenet (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553158)

Put it on Freenet, and few people will read it because it's hard. The Powers That Be then win, and probably don't try to stop it.

How do they win if journalists are among the few that read it?

Sure, I may think too highly of journalists in general, but I think that's a problem with journalists, and not a Wikileaks on Freenet.

Re:Freenet (0, Troll)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553724)

What has Wikileaks done so big? I ask because I have not seen anything earth shattering on it and a lot that is nothing but tabloid press level junk. Just some examples would be nice.

Re:Freenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30554296)

WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE
"Kenya's Killing Fields"

Fri Nov 7 00:06:40 GMT 2008

PRINTED PRESS EMBARGO UNTIL
MONDAY NOV 10 00:00:00 GMT

Contact:

wl-kenya@wikileaks.org

Tel (KNCHR): +254-020-2717900/00/28/32 +254-020-2712664/2717256

Mobile: +254-726-610159 +254-724-256448 +254-733-78000 +254-736-780000

Fax: +254-020-2716160

http://wikileaks.org/SD

STAFF

On Thursday Kenya declared a national holiday for the victory of its favorite son, Barack Obama. But hundreds of other Kenyan sons won't be celebrating Obama's victory. They're dead.

Since mid-2007 the Kenyan Police have engaged in an orgy of extra-judicial killings and disappearances. In the last year and a half, with the connivance of the country's political leadership, over 500 young men have been killed or disappeared.

The revelations come from an extensive Kenya National Commission on Human Rights report obtained by Wikileaks. The report, "The Cry of Blood: Extra-Judicial Killings and Disappearances", details each murder and calls for the United Nations to intervene. But while the report can now be found on Wikileaks, you won't find it in Kenya.

Despite being submitted to the authorities in Kenya and to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the Report has not been made publicly available.

The Report contains evidence of a high-level policy to assassinate troublesome Kenyan citizens with impunity. This policy is still in effect, hence the urgency of getting this report to a global and Kenyan audience

Since mid-2007 the Kenyan Police have engaged in an orgy of extra-judicial killings and disappearances. In the last year and a half, with the connivance of the country's political leadership, over 500 young men have been killed or disappeared. This Sep 2008 Kenya National Commission on Human Rights report, The Cry of Blood, is an account of these crimes and a call for the United Nations to intervene.

Despite being submitted to the authorities in Kenya and to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the Report is not publicly available in Kenya, even on the official website of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.

The Report contains evidence of a high-level policy to assassinate Kenyan citizens with impunity. This policy is still in effect, hence the urgency of getting this report to a global and Kenyan audience via Wikileaks.

The Report contains annexes which detail the names of the men executed by the Kenya Police and those who have been disappeared. It also contains medical forensic evidence implicating the Kenyan Police, morgue records and post mortem examination reports.

Some of the key findings drawn from the KNCHRs investigations are:

a) That the evidence gathered by the KNCHR establishes patterns of conduct by the Kenya Police that may constitute crimes against humanity.

b) That extra-judicial executions and other brutal acts of extreme cruelty have been perpetrated by the Police against so-called Mungiki adherents and that these acts may have been committed pursuant to official policy sanctioned by the political leadership, the Police Commissioner and top police commanders.

c) That whereas initially the police mainly used firearms to execute the suspects, they subsequently changed their modus operandi and have since been using such methods as strangulation, drowning, mutilation and bludgeoning. The change of strategy was to make members of the public believe that rival Mungiki gangs are responsible for the killings. As such, the cause of death for majority of the latest victims has been blunt trauma, strangulation, drowning or mutilation using sharp objects as illustrated by post-mortem reports attached hereinafter (Refer to Annex 4). Several witnesses told the KNCHR that the killer squads carry machetes, iron bars, ropes and other crude weapons in their vehicles.

d) That the police spokesperson Mr. Eric Kiraithe has on several occasions attributed the wave of killings to rival Mungiki gangs. He claims that there is a schism within the Mungiki movement pitting Maina Njenga and Ndura Waruinge. This may be a ploy to divert public attention and conceal the grotesque illegal conduct of the police.

e) That the disappearances and extra-judicial killings heightened following public statements made by top government officials suggesting an official policy to ruthlessly deal with suspected Mungiki members and other criminals. During Madaraka day celebrations on June 1, 2007, President Mwai Kibaki warned that Mungiki sect members should expect no mercy. Two days later, on June 3, 2007, about three hundred suspected Mungiki members were arrested and at least twenty killed when they were reportedly caught administering oaths to recruits. After this incident, Michuki publicly remarked that Tutawanyorosha na tutawamaliza. Hata wenye wameshikwa kwa kuhusiana na mauaji ya hivi majuzi, siwezi nikakwambia wako wapi leo. Nyinyi tu mtakuwa mkisikia mazishi ya fulani ni ya kesho "We will pulverize and finish them off. Even those arrested over the recent killings, I cannot tell you where they are today. What you will certainly hear is that so and sos burial is tomorrow".

f) That on 20/9/07, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs Hon Raphael Tuju, during the Loius Otieno Live program on Citizen TV, said that For the past few months, up to 400 people were killed because they were Mungiki. The KNCHR is in possession of the TV clip of Minister Tuju making the admission, which was transmitted live.

g) That these acts were ordered, directed or coordinated by the top leadership of the Kenya Police acting jointly with a common purpose.

h) That by the time of compiling this report, the KNCHR had compiled at least three hundred names of persons who have either been killed or disappeared. Additionally, there are at least two hundred other persons whose identity the KNCHR was unable to establish since they were merely booked in mortuaries as unknown. Many of these bodies were subsequently disposed by the respective mortuary authorities after they remained unclaimed by their relatives for long.

i) That the KNCHR continues to receive complaints from families of persons who have disappeared including allegations of people arrested by police and who have not been heard of since the date of arrest or where persons arrested by police have later turned up dead in mortuaries.

j) That the Kenya Police appears responsible for the abduction and killing of Kimani Ruo who was arrested outside Nairobi Law Courts in June 2007 moments after he was acquitted by the court for charges of being a member of Mungiki.

k) That the police may be involved in an extortion racket where they arrest individuals and demand for money from their relatives to secure their release. The KNCHR has successfully intervened on a number of occasions and secured the release of individuals held by the police.

The report needs to be widely read because the Kenya press will not discuss this evidence of crimes committed by the Kenya Police for political reasons - the victims are mainly alleged members of the Mungiki sect which because of sustained political propaganda is regarded by many Kenyans as a terrorist cult. When the crimes of the Kenya Police are widely known, there will be pressure to commit the Kenya Police Commissioner and other high ranking Kenyans to the International Criminal Court. They have been able to avoid justice and enjoy impunity in Kenya. Until now.

http://wikileaks.org/SD

Re:Freenet (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553088)

No one uses Freenet. It's too slow for regular usage, and the last thing I want to do is to wait 30 mins to find out a leak didn't interest me anyway.

Setting up a torrent tracker would be a much better idea.

Re:Freenet (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553170)

Setting up a torrent tracker would be a much better idea.

Heck, skip the centralized tracker there and use Magnet links instead. :)

Sites would only need to serve the latest news stories (to let people know if there's anything new and/or interesting), and then a zip with a Magnet link pointing to it. :)

Re:Freenet (3, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553116)

Why not that of which we do not speak?
It's distributed world wide, mirrored about everywhere, everyone has access to it, it's fast as hell (maxes out my connection), you can post massive binaries to it, text files. Most places have up to 400 day retention now. It would be trivial to setup a script to repost stuff every 100 days. Put everything in a 7za and it shouldn't take up too much space.

If the RIAA/MPAA hasn't figured out how to touch it, I doubt many will.

Re:Freenet (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553306)

If "that" is what I think it is, it's not exactly a place where common folk go. Now, there are http caches... But it can also be a great jumbled mess. How do we verify authenticity of posts? Cause lets face it, that frontier is a place where everyone can contribute... Everyone...

Re:Freenet (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554686)

If "that" is what I think it is, it's not exactly a place where common folk go. Now, there are http caches... But it can also be a great jumbled mess. How do we verify authenticity of posts? Cause lets face it, that frontier is a place where everyone can contribute... Everyone...

There are moderated ****groups.

Re:Freenet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553152)

The only reason to use Freenet, ever, is if you are a massive fucking paedophile. Are you a massive fucking paedophile? No? Then why the fuck are you on Freenet? Stop trying to legitimize your massive mirrored preteen stash and fuck off. Wikileaks my ass, that shit provides a service, Freenet just rapes childhoods. Honestly, you might as well be tearing little kids' asses every time you open that shit up. Fuck you.

Re:Freenet (2, Informative)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553376)

Wikileaks in TOR [gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion] and Freenet [127.0.0.1]

Irresponsible (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553010)

Bunch of irresponsible cunts. Some things have no business being leaked or their leaking can lead to unintended consequences. I'd laugh my ass off if someone could prove a connection between Wikileaks and a bunch of refuges being slaughtered. It might teach the fucking hypocrites a lesson. I post this in the expectation group-think will mark the comment down as a "troll" and it will come back and bite you bunch of bastards down the line. Thanks for giving me a laugh in advance.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553058)

Some things have no business being leaked or their leaking can lead to unintended consequences.

Perhaps. On the other hand, stuff that should get leaked but doesn't can also have negative consequences. It cuts both ways, my friend, and the problem is that government, for one, too often uses the mantra of "national security" to hide its nastier activities. The private sector is rarely any better, mainly because in both cases they know the odds are they'll get away with it. Me, I think it's better to err on the side of caution, and let a little fresh air in now and then. If those whose deeds need covering-up know that a very public exposure is just a mouse-click away ... maybe they'll be less inclined to perform those deeds in the future. Maybe that qualifies as an unintended consequence, but if so, I'm all for it.

I post this in the expectation group-think will mark the comment down as a "troll"

Yep.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553266)

Me, I think it's better to err on the side of caution, and let a little fresh air in now and then. If those whose deeds need covering-up know that a very public exposure is just a mouse-click away ... maybe they'll be less inclined to perform those deeds in the future. Maybe that qualifies as an unintended consequence, but if so, I'm all for it.

Does the "fresh air" resulting from my publishing that you like to wear women's clothing and are having an affair with a male cubicle mate make you less inclined to indulge that behaviour? Organisations, just like people, have dirty laundry. Airing it doesn't necessarily mean that any good will come out of doing so, save for those enjoy dirt and profit from it.

My definition of "erring on the side of caution" involves discretion and reasonableness. Yours takes the form of a zero-tolerance policy that, by definition, precludes any such requirements, or any thinking generally.

Re:Irresponsible (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553324)

Does the "fresh air" resulting from my publishing that you like to wear women's clothing and are having an affair with a male cubicle mate make you less inclined to indulge that behaviour?

Yes, actually, it probably would. But I agree: for the average citizen that information should remain private. However, public figures have to play by different rules, at least under U.S. law, and if those public figures happen to be people who make decisions that affect me ... you're damn right I want to know about it. I may want to vote against them next time.

Yours takes the form of a zero-tolerance policy that, by definition, precludes any such requirements, or any thinking generally.

The only zero-tolerance around here I see is yours. I made no such statement, and quite deliberately limited my remarks to governments and corporations that do bad things to people. And yes, if a corporation has dirty laundry it should be aired: they have way too much power in most societies as it is, and coverups rarely do any long-term good. The more the business world gets away with murder (in many cases, literally) the more comfortable they're going to feel in continuing their bad behavior. And as for government ... well, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish but the same arguments apply. The disease of unaccountability is infecting more and more levels of government and corporate leadership, and there's only one way to put a stop to that.

So feel free to disagree ... but don't make shit up. That's just irritating.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553062)

I post this in the expectation group-think will mark the comment down as a "troll" and it will come back and bite you bunch of bastards down the line.

Who would waste a mod point on an Anonymous Coward?

Re:Irresponsible (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553124)

I post this in the expectation group-think will mark the comment down as a "troll" and it will come back and bite you bunch of bastards down the line.

Who would waste a mod point on an Anonymous Coward?

The editors?


(they have infinite points, and per the FAQ they are not shy about using them...)

Re:Irresponsible (2, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553432)

I post this in the expectation group-think will mark the comment down as a "troll" and it will come back and bite you bunch of bastards down the line.

Ah yes. The old "if you mod me down, I'll become stronger than you can ever imagine!" ploy. In this case though, you're just crazy.

As for your refugees comment, why would someone want to post the refugee information online where everyone can see it, rather than just send it to whoever is doing the slaughtering? Plausible deniability? Right. Because when sending troops to slaughter refugees, you will care about an email that says "refugees be here".

Face it: the only thing that is useful to be distributed online is something that someone has, but can't do anything with it. Instead, it is distributed for the world to see so that someone, somewhere, can pick it up in full view of everyone watching, and run with it. And that's just not the mode of operation of someone committing a crime.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553606)

Crazy? There's plenty of media stories showing stuff that would've been better kept behind closed doors. It does lead to ruined careers, lost trade, and a big waste of money. Also, it takes your mind off asking the important question about what should be out there and what shouldn't. The lack of discrimination Wikileaks suffers from just pours petrol on an already unstable situation. And the bit you're missing about unintended consequences is the flow of events from a leak on Wikipedia to events elsewhere that may not be directly connected. A political or corporate embarrassment can upset a deal, which leads to another more murky entity taking a leading role, and collateral damage. How do you know a Wikileak isn't planted to destabilise something like, say, something as important as the Copenhagen conference on climate change? Leak and be damned? You probably are.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553792)

A career that was ruined because something became publicly available is a career that should be ruined. After all, I'm pretty sure you're not talking about esoteric cases where a worker with a grudge would out an undercover CIA agent.

And your Copenhagen example is retarded. The only possible thing that would destabilize that is either a faked document or a pre-release document. The first will be dealt with best in the open and the second has already happened without wiki-leaks. And guess what - nothing happened.

Yes, I know your type. The type that thinks the plebs should not bother with the real world stuff of back-room deals and black ops and secret sniffing. The type that thinks that the world would be so much better off if everyone would just stop interfering and meddling in their affairs.

Get your grubby hands off of wikileaks and let the rest of the world have the same freedom that those with power and connections have: to communicate without risk.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553958)

Imagine a school teacher who enjoy safe and clean bdsm can teach to little children , do you propose that we ruin her career ?

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30554066)

Any teacher who is teaching bdsm to little children needs her career ruined.

And what exactly is "safe and clean" bdsm ... fluffy chains and feather whips ? Interrogation with soft cushions ?

Re:Irresponsible (4, Interesting)

chdig (1050302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553978)

A career that was ruined because something became publicly available is a career that should be ruined

What if the "something" that became publicly available had absolutely no direct bearing on the career of the person (ie sex scandal)? Could this not be a reason for why the U.S has so many seemingly perfect, dull, boring politicians that are good at playing the game, but bring no dynamicism to the political arena?

I'm the type that understands that sometimes backroom deals are best left in the backroom, and that people should stop interfering and meddling in personal affairs. Context is everything, and your black vs white argument might be right in some situations, but very wrong in others.

I agree that wikileaks needs to exist, and it gives freedom to those of us with less power and connections. Still, the power it has can be wielded wrongly, turning people like you into those that you're railing against. Your argument makes it sound like you would like power more than you would fairness.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554602)

Here is how it works if there's a sex scandal: you go to a tabloid, dish the dirt, and presto - instant sex scandal. No need for wikileaks. If you want to ruin someone's career because of what they do in their private lives, it's already trivial - you go to the people in their social circle, and drop some not so subtle hints. In the case of the teacher, email the parents some compromising photos, browser history, etc. It's easy, and absolutely requires no Wikileaks.

What do you actually need Wikileaks for? Stuff that a) will get you in trouble with people in power, AND b) that you don't know exactly who would be interested in and who would be able to make use of the document. I.e. stuff that has nothing to do with what porn you browse.

You're right on one topic: Wikileaks is not an arbiter of truth, justice or good taste. But it's not supposed to be. That's up to the rest of the world.

Wiki admins are fucking bastards (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553014)

Fuck you petersymonds and leinad. Also D, Entlinkt, Thogo and S1.

Politics and sausage are alike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553102)

In that no one should ever see either being made....

Bad times (3, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553132)

Wikileaks are asking for help at a time when people are financially struggling. If the aspects of the internet that enhance personal freedom depend on people committing their time and resources, this is a dangerous time.

Re:Bad times (3, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553234)

Not necessarily; even though people are struggling there are always people who are doing very well. Just a few of those pitching in can help considerably.

It never hurts to ask, the worst that can happen is "no".

Re:Bad times (4, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553372)

Not necessarily; even though people are struggling there are always people who are doing very well. Just a few of those pitching in can help considerably.

I have the feeling that most of the people that are doing "very well" these days are not particularly interested in supporting a project that reveals secrets.

Re:Bad times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553586)

I'm not rich, but I've got a good stable job and I donated because I support what they are doing. I'm sure many out there feel the same way as me.

Re:Bad times (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554816)

But some of us who are doing well *are* particularly interested in supporting Wikileaks. I've already emailed offering dedicated servers and rackspace at several major POPs in the US, Asia, and Europe.

Re:Bad times (3, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553314)

They're also one of the few places where I feel we can see the facts behind some of the reasons so many people are struggling right now.

Seriously - We get fed all sorts of BS from the news agencies... WikiLeaks posts the stuff that can often verify or debunk much of that BS.

The Cloud ... (4, Funny)

zummit (448138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553162)

Wouldn't "The Cloud" solve all of WikiLeaks problems?

I'll donate bandwidth (2, Interesting)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553188)

I'll host one image for them, no larger than 128x128px off my own web server on a DSL line. I know it's not much but it's all I can offer in today's recessionary times

Mirrors for popular files (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553212)

I downloaded ba-038-air-traffic-control-tape.wmv from wikileaks and distributed it to a few co-workers and friends. I don't have the resources to run a full mirror but I would be happy to mirror that file. If wikileaks had the ability to point to mirrors for specific files and verify the MD5s of the files on an ongoing basis then some load could be taken off their servers.

I suppose a sneaky mirror host could serve different files to different IP addresses though but I can't immediately see a reason for that.

Re:Mirrors for popular files (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553684)

Change the files to install malware to collect a list of potential troublemakers?

Do not visit Wikileaks! (0)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553274)

Unless to make a donation. Otherwise, they will only feel the bad side of Slashdotting.
This is what probably provides the info you'd want anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks [wikipedia.org]

wikileaks huh? (1)

Mystra007 (1003560) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553370)

In before the "I submitted something secret to wikileak---NO CARRIER---" jokes

XDOLL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30553622)

encountered while We nned to address

More than Money (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553646)

I'm suddenly reminded of a scene an early Simpsons season. It goes something like this.

Homer searches through the couch, while looking for a dropped peanut. He finds a bunch of stuff including a $20 bill.
Homer Simpson: Awww ... 20 dollars!? I wanted a peanut.
Homer's brain: 20 dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer Simpson: Explain how!
Homer's brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Homer Simpson: Woo hoo!

So... why not exchange those donations for goods and services?

I'm at the point in my life... (5, Insightful)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553660)

...that I can't afford to be the legal test case for running a Tor exit node or a Wikileaks server, much as I believe in both of these projects. And I would imagine there are many who, while they possess the desire and the technical know-how to engage in such activities, simply cannot be expected to do so without some form of legal immunity (or at least a guarantee of unlimited legal representation). Until that time comes, I simply don't see many people stepping forward with offers of hosting assistance.

Perhaps an effort should be made to secure guaranteed legal representation from the EFF, FSF, and other groups for those who volunteer to run exit nodes, servers, etc.

Re:I'm at the point in my life... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554500)

Obviously they just need to get a few of the people on board whom they leak damning information about! Those guys always end up immune to legal action.

Re:I'm at the point in my life... (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554700)

simply cannot be expected to do so without some form of legal immunity

Anyone volunteering to pitch this to AT&T?

Couldn't we just avoid reading Wikileaks? (1)

Roblimo (357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30553886)

If Wikileaks' biggest problem is that it's overwhelmed with readers, wouldn't our simplest and most direct way to help solve the problem be to simply not read Wikileaks?

An Anarcho-Capitalist Perspective (2, Insightful)

AlexLibman (785653) | more than 4 years ago | (#30554330)

I'm a big fan of Wikileaks. I run a local caching proxy (sorta like a mirror) that I and others access it through, and I certainly would encourage everyone to send a few bucks their way whenever possible (and I do try to follow that advice myself).

However, what comes to my mind when I read about the legal troubles of sites like that is a paraphrasing of a famous Alexander Haig quote: "Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes." Winning back your right to march (or to Wikileak) is commendable, but it is not an end in of itself.

Free speech is only a small part of the battle for liberty, because dissent through speech alone is largely useless in the face of an all-powerful government that has near-total influence over public opinion. Dissenting opinions can not only be hijacked, marginalized, and ignored by the government-licensed media, but individuals can be preprogrammed to ignore them from their early childhood education onward! Tyranny 2.0 finds it more profitable to keep its slaves on longer chains, thus we can have things like the Internet, but those chains are nonetheless there lest you ever venture too far!

The best hope for resistance against such massive concentration of power comes in movements like the Free State Project (google it), which can make further tax resistance and secession movements possible in the future. Partisan democracy is a sham - only through intergovernmental competition can governments be forced to stop treating their citizens as subjects, and start treating them as consumers of their services who actually have a choice!

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...