×

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!

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Security 258

JDRucker writes "Supporters are concerned. Very concerned. Would-be whistle-blowers hoping to leak documents to Wikileaks face a potentially frustrating surprise. Wikileaks' submission process, which had been degraded for months, completely collapsed more than two weeks ago and remains offline, in a little-noted breakdown at the world's most prominent secret-spilling website."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

258 comments

frist psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758430)

wikileaks is pants

I blame the niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758544)

This is the fault of niggers.

Sad to see this happen (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758480)

Wikileaks provides an extremely useful service, one which is only possible on the Internet, considering its widely accessible scale. Here's to hoping things get straightened out -_-;;

Re:Sad to see this happen (-1, Troll)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758690)

Has wikileaks done anything besides serve as a place to publicly grind the axe against someone the poster has a vendetta against? It's a political bitch forum...:shrug: nothing of value will be lost.

Re:Sad to see this happen (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758766)

Yeah nothing at all. Well except for that video of US soldiers killing innocent journalists and children (and then laughing about it). And revealing ACTA in its early carnation. And other information that the People deserve to know. But yeah other than that, it's worthless than an NES.

I found this bit interesting. I wonder if the owner has been pressured to not renew the license? Or maybe he's just lazy. (shrug). "the site failed to renew its SSL certificate, a basic web protection that costs less than $30 a year and takes only hours to set up..... Wikileaks' head Julian Assange declined to comment." - What's he hiding?

Re:Sad to see this happen (2, Interesting)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758978)

"the site failed to renew its SSL certificate, a basic web protection that costs less than $30 a year and takes only hours to set up..... Wikileaks' head Julian Assange declined to comment." - What's he hiding?

Perhaps the fact that there's a man in the middle now handling/reading his traffic?

Re:Sad to see this happen (5, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759456)

I don't really have a problem with leaking the video. What I do have a problem with is their faulty analysis that they attached to it, and the setting up of a flame war by calling the site collateral murder. That website was commentary, not news. This is the issue I have with the mainstream media too. Tell what happend, not your analysis of what happened - if people are too stupid to be able to understand it blame them, their parents and the crappy school system. What I really want are just the facts with no ideological filter. Something that unfortunately is extremely rare, and all but impossible today. Part of impartial reporting is keeping you moral outrage / preaching, etc to yourself, even if most people agree with you.

Re:Sad to see this happen (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759004)

***** THIS POST DELETED *****

Wikileaks.... (-1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758486)

Wikileaks lost the majority of their credibility in January when they decided to stop actually being a decent site and instead beg for donations for a few months.

Re:Wikileaks.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758582)

Wikileaks lost the majority of their credibility in January when they decided to stop actually being a decent site and instead beg for donations for a few months.

Right, anyone that won't work for free is not to be trusted.

Re:Wikileaks.... (-1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758646)

If your goal is to /really/ spread around leaked documents for the benefit of mankind, you will find a way to do it regardless. Complaining that people aren't giving you enough money and taking down a site is simply babyish. Yes, you aren't going to become a millionaire* by doing it, but if you are /really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.

*Assuming you don't get a list of future lottery numbers or something

Re:Wikileaks.... (5, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758806)

If your goal is to /really/ spread around leaked documents for the benefit of mankind, you will find a way to do it regardless. Complaining that people aren't giving you enough money and taking down a site is simply babyish. Yes, you aren't going to become a millionaire* by doing it, but if you are /really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.

*Assuming you don't get a list of future lottery numbers or something

Except that it really does cost money to run a server, pay for bandwidth, pay for lawyers, etc.

Re:Wikileaks.... (0, Troll)

Itninja (937614) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758862)

Indeed. They should be asking for donated server administration, bandwidth, and legal services. Not for cash.

Re:Wikileaks.... (4, Insightful)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759470)

If I were running a company dealing exclusively in secrets, I wouldn't trust anyone who came forward to donate their time toward handling said information to not be a mole.

Regardless, no mater how much time gets donated, they would still need at least some capital.

Re:Wikileaks.... (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758884)

So why is it that The Pirate Bay which comes on even more legal fire than WikiLeaks can stay afloat with minimal down time?

Yes, such things cost a bit of money, but this is the internet, distribute things via torrents and other ways, use other servers, etc.

Re:Wikileaks.... (4, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758972)

PB only upsets entertainers.

WL upsets people with real power. People who can make you disappear. People who are willing to do really bad things (TM) to you.

They could have failed to get the SSL or someone could have made them fail to get the SSL.

I don't care if they ask for money. It's an easy way for those of us without free servers and admin time to help out (and yup I've donated).

Re:Wikileaks.... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759058)

The difference is that what TPB is doing is pretty much illegal in their jurisdiction, what WikiLeaks is doing is pretty much legal. And really, all they need to do is post if something odd is happening and then the media will take it up which influences the masses. No government can stop all of its citizens and if the message is out there, the citizens will revolt.

Re:Wikileaks.... (5, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759192)

I think citizens will only revolt when it becomes apparent that the message is being stifled, not when the message is "out there." And by stifled, I mean with soldiers (real ones, not police in fancy armor) in the streets shooting people. The general trend in Western societies is to just assume that we're fine, that all is as it should be, and when people complain to say "why don't you go to North Korea or something and then try saying that!". I think the difference between Iran and America isn't that our government is less corrupt, but that our citizens have become more corrupted with crap like American Idol and/or Facebook. Our protests are totally lame and half-hearted. The people who talk the most about revolution have beer guts too large to allow them fit in a fox hole, and age degenerating their eye sight, so they probably can't shoot very well either. Wikileaks is almost irrelevant in the face of cultural apathy. It really almost doesn't even matter if WikiLeaks were flourishing because only the people who are inclined to care would, and there aren't nearly enough of them to cause any major changes.

Re:Wikileaks.... (2, Informative)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759510)

There's a lot of hyperbole in your post, but this is true: cultural apathy and self interest to the point of idiocy will destroy western civilization, not terrorists. Now excuse me while I tune in Oprah and watch some Youporn.

Re:Wikileaks.... (4, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759676)

The citizens will NOT revolt when the message is being stifled. The message IS being stifled, have you not been paying attention for the last several... lifetimes?

The citizens MIGHT revolt if you threatened to take away their iPhones or cancel their favorite TV show.

Re:Wikileaks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758996)

if you are /really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.

Something is wrong here. Isn't someone doing something for the benefit of mankind (us) the EXACT kind of person that we (mankind) would want to be a millionaire and give our resources (money) to support? The world doesn't run on magic yet, certainly not web servers.

Re:Wikileaks.... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759156)

Yes, but you have to call into question if they are really doing it for the benefit of mankind if they won't do it for free. If they don't want to do it for free, get off their moral "high horse" and start being honest that you are doing things for a profit.

All of the Wikileaks stuff makes it sound like they are doing this purely out of the goodness of their hearts, if they really were doing something out of the goodness of their hearts they would do it no matter what the cost really was and find ways of distributing their content other than via "conventional" means.

Re:Wikileaks.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758604)

Wikileaks lost the majority of their credibility in January when they decided to stop actually being a decent site and instead beg for donations for a few months.

You're right. They should have just shut down in January instead of waiting until now to run out of money. Do you see the problem with your logic here?

Re:Wikileaks.... (4, Insightful)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758628)

Yes, the webmasters should have to pay for the site out of their own pocket. Seriously? It's like PBS. Everyone loves them until they start asking for money so they can actually RUN.

Re:Wikileaks.... (0, Flamebait)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758710)

Do you -need- a website though? What about an archive of the site and all those things hosted throughout the world via torrents and the like? Etc. If the Wikileaks owners really felt so strongly about their duty they should be doing things to make things work rather than just shutting down and complaining.

Re:Wikileaks.... (2, Informative)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758858)

Torrents die, something like that very quickly too, due to it's taboo nature. And they're not going to starve themselves so they can pay for the site, that'd be stupid.

Re:Wikileaks.... (-1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758974)

So its somehow more "taboo" to host documents criticizing a third-world government than to host pirated goods?

And really you aren't going to "starve" yourself, perhaps you need to take up a job then donate the money made to your site, etc.

Re:Wikileaks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759378)

And really you aren't going to "starve" yourself, perhaps you need to take up a job then donate the money made to your site, etc.

Ah, yes, take up a job to pay for your world-power-outing website. Grand idea, old chap! Now that the admin's name is known to people who can disappear him, why not put him at the mercy of the tax system? Or, better still, have him do a series of under-the-table odd jobs which I'm certain won't ever compromise his identity in the form of stings or other undercover activities by government spooks masquerading as not-government-spooks! And after all that, he'll easily have the time to run his website, analyze the data coming in, and make informed decisions on it!

Face facts. Things cost money. By extension, websites cost money. No money, website dies. Torrents die, faster if they aren't kept around on websites. The Man On The Street(tm) doesn't know what Wikileaks is. If they've heard they name, they probably think it's just Wikipedia. Blind devotion to some ambiguous "duty" to inform the people is stupid and pointless if said devotion leads to your website getting shut down, you getting killed, or you getting disappeared and nobody knowing who you were or what you did. All what that would do right now is martyr him to a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts, and nobody would care. Way to go.

Re:Wikileaks.... (2, Interesting)

sub67 (979309) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759108)

What about an archive of the site and all those things hosted throughout the world via torrents and the like? Etc..

For some reason I don't like the idea of donating my IP to a swarm full of the stuff that wikileaks has..

Re:Wikileaks.... (0, Offtopic)

geekthesteve (1168143) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758774)

Uh... Not everyone. I think PBS is a waste of money. It was originally sold to the congress as an alternative to the 3 TV networks. There are now hundreds of alternatives so the tax dollars still being paid to PBS are a legacy to a problem which was fixed long ago.

Re:Wikileaks.... (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759028)

I seriously have to take issue with that. If all of the others are for-profit, you will never get what you want... only what they tell you we want. "Reality TV" is a classic example of them telling us what we want. I haven't watched TV since.

On the other hand, PBS provides intellectual stimulation that is simply not available elsewhere. What is there for kids to watch as they grow up? What did you watch growing up? PBS is indispensable and we need at least one more of them, not less of them. Where are the Science shows that we all still love today? Will we see "Nova" anywhere else? The history channel has boiled down to "the war clips channel" and the others like Nat'l Geographic and the like? Well, gotta pay to get access to those... where's the free TV?

Re:Wikileaks.... (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759114)

Uh... Not everyone. I think PBS is a waste of money. It was originally sold to the congress as an alternative to the 3 TV networks. There are now hundreds of alternatives so the tax dollars still being paid to PBS are a legacy to a problem which was fixed long ago.

No, because we need a non-commercial voice on the public airwaves. We've essentially given away our public bandwidth to big corporations. We should maintain at least one commerce-free public station. Corporate interests are not our interests.

Re:Wikileaks.... (5, Insightful)

virtualXTC (609488) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759200)

Troll much?
The awards list [pbs.org] alone should be enough to counter your argument that there is a comparable alternative.

Tax dollars account for less than %1 of the operating costs of PBS.
There are NO commercial alternatives for truly important investigative reporting such as FRONTLINE, no commercial childens programming comparable to Sesame Street, no commercial news broadcasts that are willing to do more than a sound bite on any topic other than the PBS World Report.

Re:Wikileaks.... (2, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759664)

The awards list [pbs.org] alone should be enough to counter your argument that there is a comparable alternative.

Industry mutual masturbation is not a counter argument, but the rest of your point stands.

Re:Wikileaks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759288)

Watching one episode of NOVA should change your mind. All the costs of PBS to the public/donations are worth it to keep just to keep that show alive. If you are still not convinced we can refund your geek card - but not your tax payer money. We need that.

Re:Wikileaks.... (2, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759624)

While I think there is a lot of crap on PBS there is a lot of good stuff to like "Nova", and I really like "This Old House" and "New Yankee Workshop". Also, if you've been paying attention there is a lot of advertising on PBS, it comes in big chunks between the shows in the form of sponsorships. I think that PBS only gets 5 or 10 percent of it's money directly from taxes, but they also get a lot of tax breaks too.

Re:Wikileaks.... (1)

Bishop923 (109840) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758672)

Wikileaks lost the majority of their credibility in January when they decided to stop actually being a decent site and instead beg for donations for a few months.

Since, as we all know, servers and bandwidth are free, particularly for a site that gets shit-hammered with traffic.

Re:Wikileaks.... (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758682)

Freedom is not free. I don't see any problem with wikileaks or wikipedia or any other site asking for donations to pay the bills
.

Re:Wikileaks.... (-1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758802)

Neither do I, what I have a problem is when a site shuts down and just sits there and complains. I have no trouble with a little donation box, hell, I even donated a few bucks to Wikileaks back before they decided to shut down and complain. The problem is when they claim that they are doing things totally to help humanity then shutting down until they get "enough" money. If they -really- wanted to help humanity would they do that? Would we have wanted Gandhi to do some work then sit at home eating chips until he got "enough" donations to continue his work? No, of course not. But yet we think its typical for a website which claims to be important to the advancement of the free world to just randomly shut down do nothing and complain?

Re:Wikileaks.... (3, Insightful)

ctsupafly (1731348) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758938)

Well, when you run out of money to pay bills, there really isn't a whole lot else to do. I'm sure the bandwidth provider doesn't give a flying fuck about the good of humanity until it's been paid "enough" money to keep the site up.

Re:Wikileaks.... (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759268)

If the bandwidth provider's top priority is maximizing cash input from whatever source, they would be the wrong bandwidth provider for this project.

Re:Wikileaks.... (1)

w00tsauce (1482311) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758878)

Running a community based on donations, it doesn't hurt to feign sickness every now and then. That being said, from a technical standpoint, there's no reason why most of the stuff on wikileaks cannot be torrented, therefore I don't understand why it costs so much to run it.

Re:Wikileaks.... (2, Insightful)

richardellisjr (584919) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759204)

The problem with torrents is that anyone can see the IPs getting the files, and in some cases it may be as important to protect the source as it is to protect those wanting information. If you can imagine an oppressive regime trying to stop the spread of some information would likely try to find the individuals in possession of the information... which would be anyone that connected to the torrent.

Absurd (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758520)

Manning got caught whistle blowing because he was tooting his own horn.

If you leak shit, stfu about it. While I don't agree with Manning on leaking the cables, the video was a little more understandable. I have also lost a lot of respect for Wired and their coverage of this. They are far too involved and it looks like a serious conflict of interest.

!Surprising (2, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758522)

Either lack of funding, or fear of repercussions. I personally don't know what is worse, having the world's government spooks on your ass for propagating their no-no's publicly, or having Islamic radicals after you for propagating 'heresy'. Either way, people want you dead.

They are either afraid of, or in cooperation with the groups whose documents they leak, or are truly out of funds. I am placing my faith of judgement in one of the former.

Re:!Surprising (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759230)

When the US want's you dead, you're a terrorist
When a Muslim wants you dead, you're a heretic
When a cop wants you dead he says that "he felt threatened"

Kind of makes you feel like a turkey the week before Thanksgiving!

sigh. and I just got the list, too. (3, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758530)

the list of which bankers, world leaders, and radio hosts are lizard people from other planets.

now you'll never know.

Re:sigh. and I just got the list, too. (5, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758618)

the list of which bankers, world leaders, and radio hosts are lizard people from other planets.

now you'll never know.

Let me make an educated guess - All of them?

Re:sigh. and I just got the list, too. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758810)

the list of which bankers, world leaders, and radio hosts are lizard people from other planets.

now you'll never know.

Let me make an educated guess - All of them?

You'd be surprised. Note that he left "garbage collectors" off of that list...

I've said too much already.

Wikileaks' Response (5, Interesting)

LilBlackKittie (179799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758552)

Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17498238199 [twitter.com] is this:

"Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' http://bit.ly/aZm4US [bit.ly]"

Not so quick to judge Wired's coverage at face value...

Re:Wikileaks' Response (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758594)

Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17498238199 [twitter.com] is this:

"Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' http://bit.ly/aZm4US [bit.ly]"

Posted by: mpineiro | 07/1/10 | 9:21 am |

ADDITIONAL INFO REQUIRED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ARTICLE:
Below are some additional bits of information that may change your understanding of why this heavily-editorialized piece is appearing in Wired at this time.

1. The editor of the Threat Level blog at Wired, Kevin Poulsen, has recently been questioned by journalists and privacy activists for his strange role in the recent Wikileaks / Bradley Manning story. A number of questions have been asked of Poulsen in order to clear up any suspicions of impropriety or violation of journalistic ethics by Poulsen but he hasn’t been able to answer those questions, resulting in stronger suspicions and newly-revealed information that strengthens the suspicions further still. This entire matter could be cleared up and resolved except for Poulsen’s on-going non-cooperation.

2. Kevin Poulsen apparently did not like even being *asked* about conflicts of interest (something that all journalists are questioned on all the time as part of the job). To make matters worse, Poulsen is resorting to retaliation, as if this was a BBS war between pre-teens and not an important discussion about law enforcement abuses in the US, abuses committed by occupation soldier abuses in Iraq, a co-ordinated campaign to discredit Wikileaks and the unethical, allegedly illegal manner in which PFC Bradley Manning was interrogated by someone who Poulsen has known and worked with for years and years.

If you look at Poulsen’s Twitter feed (@kpoulsen), it is sparsely updated. It appears that Poulsen only posts on Twitter when he is announcing a new Threat Level blog post or he is openly attacking Wikileaks. It seems safe to say that the “editorial line” over in Poulsen’s corner of Wired is sharply opposed to Wikileaks.

Any journalist should be prepared to respond, without getting emotional or defensive, if legitimate questions about conflict-of-interest or ethics are asked of them. That’s part of the job.

3. In the If-It-Wasn’t-So-Serious-It’d-Be-Funny Department, both Poulsen and known police informant Adrian Lamo are WELL AWARE of the SERIOUS implications of Poulsen being involved with law enforcement in any way. As a result, they both say the exact same thing when anyone asks about the nature of the relationship: “It’s a reporter-source relationship,” they’ll both recite. Lamo, who has much less to lose than Poulsen and possibly has reason to feel resentful that he has to take all the heat for something that benefited both of them, recites that line with a hint of sarcasm. But, maybe I’m reading something in the tone that isn’t actually there. Could be.

4. Poulsen was asked (you might even say “challenged”) by Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald to release the unedited, un-redacted portions of the chat transcripts between Poulsen’s long-time source/friend (Lamo) and PFC Bradley Manning also, releasing the logs would help clear up any perceived impropriety by Poulsen or Wired.

Poulsen refused to do so then and continues to refuse the many requests by Greenwald and others to release the logs. Even worse, the reason Poulsen gave about why he wouldn’t release them was shown to be untrue, as documented by Greenwald. Poulsen has never said ANYTHING MORE AT ALL about THAT maybe under the advice of his attorney?

The logs that Poulsen won’t release would have enormous value in the public domain — they would help individuals & government/law enforcement watchdog groups deal with the increasing erosion of our civil liberties. They also show an unfortunately side effect of California’s progressive Shield Law for journalists: it creates a false sense of safety for whistle-blowers like PFC Manning, who was told by Lamo that he was a journalist and offered Manning legally-protected, confidential communication while, at the same time, Lamo was really working directly with the feds and telling them everything Manning said.

This puts Lamo in danger of violating California’s Shield Law, a progressive piece of legislation designed to increase the effectiveness of investigative journalism and protect whistleblowers at huge multinationals, the military, law enforcement agencies, etc. Lamo could be in danger of being charged with violating this law. If Poulsen had any involvement, he’s REALLY in danger because he’s a known professional journalist (whereas Lamo is a know, professional slacker).

It is hard to understand why Poulsen would be mis-leading (in other words, lie) about the logs, refuse to release them to the public, and then use his position at Wired to retaliate against those who bring up these oddities.

5. Wired had originally published the chat transcripts where Lamo tells Manning that he is a journalist and that, under California’s Shield Law, anything Manning told him would be protected and confidential. Manning responds by saying he doesn’t even care about confidentiality but that doesn’t change a thing under the Shield Law. The law stipulates that source confidentiality MUST be protected whether it is offered by the journalist or not and whether or not the source has an expectation of confidentiality. Still, Glenn Greenwald points out that whatever Manning said in response to Lamo telling him that he’ll keep his secrets confidential, Manning probably felt safe and protected by law in revealing info to Lamo.

Apparently, Poulsen was surprised to see that Wired readers are so astute when it comes to issues of privacy and freedom of the press. They began asking the tough questions I’m referring to here. The response by whomever at Wired’s Threat Level blog? Highlight, delete, save! That’s right — the part of the transcript where Lamo says that they’ll conversation will be confidential was removed/deleted from the chat transcripts on Wired’s website. All questions about this better-late-than-never redaction by Wired have gone unanswered.

6. Poulsen’s story about the whens and the hows of his involvement in source/friend Lamo’s highly unethical co-operation with federal law enforcement and US Army CID has changed several times and still contains unresolved, internal contradictions. The changes aren’t minor details — they are central to understanding how involved Poulsen was when Lamo and the feds were working together to get Manning to say what was needed for his arrest. Again, Salon’s Greenwald has this documented.

7. As an added bonus, the author of this story, Ryan Singel, before knowing or understanding all the facts (which we know because he didn’t bother to ask for them), came rushing to the defense of his direct supervisor on the boingboing message boards. Someone had merely *raised* these issues and even wrote over and over again that no conclusions could be formed but that Wired and Poulsen should be forthcoming and disclose what they know. First, Poulsen responded angrily to the post and then Ryan Singel came onto the forum and ranted against all the commenters who agreed that Wired should provide full disclosure of any possible conflicts of interest.

It takes true courage to blindly support the person who will be giving your next performance review!

NOTE: This comment is not meant to make any conclusions at the moment this intent is to provide some context to this hit piece against Wikileaks. Those of us concerned about this situation want to make sure people understand the ambiguities that exist, especially if anyone out there is going to be getting a visit by law enforcement OR journalists . it’s helpful to know how they work.

Re:Wikileaks' Response (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758920)

7. As an added bonus, the author of this story, Ryan Singel, before knowing or understanding all the facts (which we know because he didn’t bother to ask for them), came rushing to the defense of his direct supervisor on the boingboing message boards. Someone had merely *raised* these issues and even wrote over and over again that no conclusions could be formed but that Wired and Poulsen should be forthcoming and disclose what they know. First, Poulsen responded angrily to the post and then Ryan Singel came onto the forum and ranted against all the commenters who agreed that Wired should provide full disclosure of any possible conflicts of interest.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/13/video-wikileaks-foun.html

The article mentioned in point 7. where Poulsen and Singel argue run in mouths blazing against what was an as yet undecided conversation.

Re:Wikileaks' Response (4, Insightful)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759072)

Which doesn't change the facts of the Wired article at all...either submission forms work, or they don't. It's an easy question.

Attacking the source of a factual article is a bit...unseemly.

/frank

Re:Wikileaks' Response (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759250)

Wow. No bias in YOUR view of the situation.

BTW, these days "journalistic ethics" is an oxymoron. In fact, I'd put it right up there with "politically correct".

Re:Wikileaks' Response (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759602)

I was one of those phone-hack-happy teens who worshiped Kevin Poulsen after reading The Watchman. I was excited to see him reporting on Wired, but over time his comments became very disillusioning.

Heroes are fine and dandy until you grow up and learn that they only exist as long as you don't suspect them of being a human being. Of course, he wasn't so much a hero as a fucking lunatic who exploited everything he came across...

Re:Wikileaks' Response (0, Redundant)

Squiggle (8721) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758720)

For the lazy, the comment in question:

Posted by: mpineiro | 07/1/10 | 9:21 am |

ADDITIONAL INFO REQUIRED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ARTICLE:
Below are some additional bits of information that may change your understanding of why this heavily-editorialized piece is appearing in Wired at this time.

1. The editor of the Threat Level blog at Wired, Kevin Poulsen, has recently been questioned by journalists and privacy activists for his strange role in the recent Wikileaks / Bradley Manning story. A number of questions have been asked of Poulsen in order to clear up any suspicions of impropriety or violation of journalistic ethics by Poulsen but he hasn’t been able to answer those questions, resulting in stronger suspicions and newly-revealed information that strengthens the suspicions further still. This entire matter could be cleared up and resolved except for Poulsen’s on-going non-cooperation.

2. Kevin Poulsen apparently did not like even being *asked* about conflicts of interest (something that all journalists are questioned on all the time as part of the job). To make matters worse, Poulsen is resorting to retaliation, as if this was a BBS war between pre-teens and not an important discussion about law enforcement abuses in the US, abuses committed by occupation soldier abuses in Iraq, a co-ordinated campaign to discredit Wikileaks and the unethical, allegedly illegal manner in which PFC Bradley Manning was interrogated by someone who Poulsen has known and worked with for years and years.

If you look at Poulsen’s Twitter feed (@kpoulsen), it is sparsely updated. It appears that Poulsen only posts on Twitter when he is announcing a new Threat Level blog post or he is openly attacking Wikileaks. It seems safe to say that the “editorial line” over in Poulsen’s corner of Wired is sharply opposed to Wikileaks.

Any journalist should be prepared to respond, without getting emotional or defensive, if legitimate questions about conflict-of-interest or ethics are asked of them. That’s part of the job.

3. In the If-It-Wasn’t-So-Serious-It’d-Be-Funny Department, both Poulsen and known police informant Adrian Lamo are WELL AWARE of the SERIOUS implications of Poulsen being involved with law enforcement in any way. As a result, they both say the exact same thing when anyone asks about the nature of the relationship: “It’s a reporter-source relationship,” they’ll both recite. Lamo, who has much less to lose than Poulsen and possibly has reason to feel resentful that he has to take all the heat for something that benefited both of them, recites that line with a hint of sarcasm. But, maybe I’m reading something in the tone that isn’t actually there. Could be.

4. Poulsen was asked (you might even say “challenged”) by Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald to release the unedited, un-redacted portions of the chat transcripts between Poulsen’s long-time source/friend (Lamo) and PFC Bradley Manning also, releasing the logs would help clear up any perceived impropriety by Poulsen or Wired.

Poulsen refused to do so then and continues to refuse the many requests by Greenwald and others to release the logs. Even worse, the reason Poulsen gave about why he wouldn’t release them was shown to be untrue, as documented by Greenwald. Poulsen has never said ANYTHING MORE AT ALL about THAT maybe under the advice of his attorney?

The logs that Poulsen won’t release would have enormous value in the public domain — they would help individuals & government/law enforcement watchdog groups deal with the increasing erosion of our civil liberties. They also show an unfortunately side effect of California’s progressive Shield Law for journalists: it creates a false sense of safety for whistle-blowers like PFC Manning, who was told by Lamo that he was a journalist and offered Manning legally-protected, confidential communication while, at the same time, Lamo was really working directly with the feds and telling them everything Manning said.

This puts Lamo in danger of violating California’s Shield Law, a progressive piece of legislation designed to increase the effectiveness of investigative journalism and protect whistleblowers at huge multinationals, the military, law enforcement agencies, etc. Lamo could be in danger of being charged with violating this law. If Poulsen had any involvement, he’s REALLY in danger because he’s a known professional journalist (whereas Lamo is a know, professional slacker).

It is hard to understand why Poulsen would be mis-leading (in other words, lie) about the logs, refuse to release them to the public, and then use his position at Wired to retaliate against those who bring up these oddities.

5. Wired had originally published the chat transcripts where Lamo tells Manning that he is a journalist and that, under California’s Shield Law, anything Manning told him would be protected and confidential. Manning responds by saying he doesn’t even care about confidentiality but that doesn’t change a thing under the Shield Law. The law stipulates that source confidentiality MUST be protected whether it is offered by the journalist or not and whether or not the source has an expectation of confidentiality. Still, Glenn Greenwald points out that whatever Manning said in response to Lamo telling him that he’ll keep his secrets confidential, Manning probably felt safe and protected by law in revealing info to Lamo.

Apparently, Poulsen was surprised to see that Wired readers are so astute when it comes to issues of privacy and freedom of the press. They began asking the tough questions I’m referring to here. The response by whomever at Wired’s Threat Level blog? Highlight, delete, save! That’s right — the part of the transcript where Lamo says that they’ll conversation will be confidential was removed/deleted from the chat transcripts on Wired’s website. All questions about this better-late-than-never redaction by Wired have gone unanswered.

6. Poulsen’s story about the whens and the hows of his involvement in source/friend Lamo’s highly unethical co-operation with federal law enforcement and US Army CID has changed several times and still contains unresolved, internal contradictions. The changes aren’t minor details — they are central to understanding how involved Poulsen was when Lamo and the feds were working together to get Manning to say what was needed for his arrest. Again, Salon’s Greenwald has this documented.

7. As an added bonus, the author of this story, Ryan Singel, before knowing or understanding all the facts (which we know because he didn’t bother to ask for them), came rushing to the defense of his direct supervisor on the boingboing message boards. Someone had merely *raised* these issues and even wrote over and over again that no conclusions could be formed but that Wired and Poulsen should be forthcoming and disclose what they know. First, Poulsen responded angrily to the post and then Ryan Singel came onto the forum and ranted against all the commenters who agreed that Wired should provide full disclosure of any possible conflicts of interest.

It takes true courage to blindly support the person who will be giving your next performance review!

NOTE: This comment is not meant to make any conclusions at the moment this intent is to provide some context to this hit piece against Wikileaks. Those of us concerned about this situation want to make sure people understand the ambiguities that exist, especially if anyone out there is going to be getting a visit by law enforcement OR journalists . it’s helpful to know how they work.

Re:Wikileaks' Response (2, Informative)

dwillden (521345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759622)

You misunderstand the Shield law. It protects journalists from being forced (in some but not all circumstances) to give up sources to avoid being charged with contempt of court. It does NOT prevent any journalist from willingly giving up sources or other information on their own volition.

Further Lamo's coverage under the Shield law, even if it worked like you indicate it does, would be of questionable value since he is not a Journalist. He's not even working as a freelance journalist. He's a source who provided information to a journalist. He didn't request and was not given any assurances of secrecy by Poulsen so he has no claims or protections.

There are no implications, serious or otherwise with either of them working with law enforcement. They uncovered claims of potentially damaging espionage, and they did the right thing. They reported it to the authorities. Any claims of Lamo being a journalist are of absolutely no concern. He's not a journalist, a journalist is not a law enforcement or other government agent. It is no crime to claim to be a journalist. And claiming to be one does not instill some magic responsibility to not report a crime. Espionage however; is a crime. A very serious one that can result in deaths of US personnel as well as others.

It's all fine to proclaim that information needs to be free, and that the government should be 100% transparent, but no government can operate nor will any country long stand without keeping secrets. Secrets allow us to negotiate. Secrets protect those who provide us with critical information for successful operations that keep our country free.

Does the ability to keep secrets occasionally get abused, absolutely. Is the vast majority of classified information just covering up abuses, absolutely NOT.

SPC. Manning is a fool, who is going to spend a long time in a very unpleasant prison at Ft Leavenworth. He is not a hero, and needed to be turned in.

Re:Wikileaks' Response (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758776)

So wikileaks response is an outright attack on the reporter of the article, without even the slightest attempt to dispute a single fact in it? For a site like Wikileaks, this type of behavior is beyond unacceptable.

Re:Wikileaks' Response (4, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758780)

When the video of the US air-strike spread across the globe I started the waiting game to see what kind of shit would be thrown at Wikileaks... It was obvious that this could not be allowed to continue, since they were doing exactly what they should: finding and publishing the truth, and I have to say better than most journalists.

I guess other journalists don't take kindly to people doing their jobs better... WIRED: "They took our jobs!'

Re:Wikileaks' Response (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759548)

The biggest joke is, Wikileaks doesn't go out there to find news. Wikileaks waits for news to come to it.

You'd think a group of people who were paid to go out and find what was happening in the world would be able to do better....

Re:Wikileaks' Response (3, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759656)

When the video of the US air-strike spread across the globe [...] they were doing exactly what they should: finding and publishing the truth,

So editing and editorializing the promoted version of the video to make very strong untrue implications (the group had no weapons, the air-strike people knew that was they said looked like a RPG was actually a tripod, etc) is "doing exactly what they should"?

Wikileaks is primarily an anti-establishment propaganda group, that has chosen to operate by means of (sometimes misrepresented) leaked information. The public benefit of the leaks is only incidental to their purpose. This can be seen by their very public actions.

Re:Wikileaks' Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759714)

While WIREDs butt-hurt continues, they're willingly, or unwillingly, being the PR mouthpiece for what the CIA hoped to achieve, post Wiki-leaks sabotage. It seems active Counter-Intelligence operations work, and if the problems we're seeing w/ Wiki-leaks continue, success will be had.

Also, any credibility WIRED had as a reputable information source has now been shattered as far as most are concerned. Sorry WIRED, but blurring the lines between op-ed pieces with breaking news surrounding serious US military rules of engagement violations, and the people and the tech that facilitated the leak, warrant your site being tossed to the dustbin. What's worse is that it appears your doing it to protect your questionable reporter/federal mole.

oh no ! (-1, Troll)

Atreide (16473) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758580)

Did they use an iPhone 4 to host WikiLeaks ?
Someone must have pressed it too tight. Now antena is not working anymore and Wikileaks is disconnected.

More spin than a v8 unicycle. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758586)

Nice job quoting an article with more spin than a v8 unicycle.

For those who actually follow these things thou, it's important to note that Kevin Poulsen (of Wired) is the same Journalist (and I use the term loosely) posting the edited chat excerpts from conversations between whistleblower Bradley Manning and wannabe hacker/cum police informant Adrian Lamo.
So much for an actual story.. moreso just Wired trying any attempt it can to bring down Wikileaks.

(Protip: Reading the comments on the wired story alone give you most of the information publicly available on the Poulsen/Lamo lovefest)

Oh shit... (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758612)

I uploaded the President's Book of Secrets to Wikileaks three weeks ago. Does this mean that the NSA has it now, along with my IP address and Chat Roulette screen-grabs?

Please change the title (5, Funny)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758738)

"With World Watching, Wikileaks Withers Woefully While Walruses Wrangle Wrapped Wrens"

Re:Please change the title (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758764)

Witty.

Re:Please change the title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759062)

Wascally Wabbit!

Re:Please change the title (4, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758914)

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsaving the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. [laughs] Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me "V".

It was bound to happen. (2, Insightful)

Biggseye (1520195) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758746)

Although Leaking in some sense is an good thing when you are talking about dealing with the extremist of the world, leaking can also be, and more often is, done for less honorable reasons. 30 years ago the politicos and the media, especially the Main stream media were MORE trustworthy. Now I question the reason why anything is leaked. politicos, media types, governmental employees, people with an axe to grind, liars, cheats, thieves, criminals defense lawyers, and people that just do not like some policy use "leaks" as a way of getting information, often un-vetted, or purposely false and vicious. out in the public eye. Even the person(s) that ran wikileaks is not above doing this if it were to meet their personal agenda.

Not true? (4, Informative)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758760)

Apparently they're just upgrading:

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17461648435 [twitter.com]

And even if Wikileaks was to disappear, there's always Freenet if you want to leak something:

http://freenetproject.org/ [freenetproject.org]

Of course, you'd have to check your own data to make sure there's no metadata that can be used to identify you. But Freenet covers the anonymous distribution angle.

Re:Not true? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759246)

A Freenet, the project that perhaps did the most amount of damage to Java's reputation with regards to performance.

Re:Not true? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759292)

But Freenet covers the anonymous distribution angle.

How many nodes or super-nodes would you need to control to compromise Freenet's security? It strikes me that the more pieces you have on the table, the easier it is to solve the jigsaw puzzle.

The Wikileaks Conspiracy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32758918)

I have documents showing that the NSA has consipired to weaken the security of Wikileaks. Unfortunately, I'm unable post them to Wikileaks at this time.

what happened to the other wiki? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#32758986)

the one called wikipedia. it's an open collection of interested individuals

(for absurdity, here's the wikipedia article about wikipedia:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Community [wikipedia.org]

and it works

what about wikileaks?

its run like the illuminati:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#History [wikipedia.org]

and its a wheezing barely functional wreck

of course, editting a wikipedia article does not expose you to the kind of danger that vetting a wikileak does, but obviously, there is a lot of eager flesh out there that would LOVE to get involved and help wikileaks, in any capacity asked of them

how do you harness that enthusiasm? and how do you harness that enthusiasm in such a way that wikileaks is not compromised, and the enthusiasts are not harmed? its very challenging. you have to shield the newbs from mortal danger, and keep out the saboteurs. and still maintain a functional base of operations, somewhere, out there in teh intarwebs

but if wikileaks is to continue functioning, it has to broaden its base of operations

i'm not saying that's easy, because of the nature of what wikileaks is. but i am saying that that is the only way forward, however difficult that path is

Re:what happened to the other wiki? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759142)

Wikipedia has been corrupted by Jews.

How Deliciously Appropriate (0, Troll)

rally2xs (1093023) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759094)

If sabotage, great. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch, and much less extreme than my own desire to walk into their server room and toast everything and everyone there with a flamethrower. These doofuses probably got some soldiers killed.

Re:How Deliciously Appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759216)

lol u mad, bro?

Re:How Deliciously Appropriate (1)

rally2xs (1093023) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759256)

You bet. I found a tech manual to a radio jammer on the site. Either Iraqi or Afhani insurgents could see it to, and maybe make a successful IED attack on someone I care about (or me, if I get to go back...) Yeah, I'm PO'ed.

Re:How Deliciously Appropriate (1)

bannable (1605677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759438)

Yeah, those bastards. How dare they let the civilians controlling the military make informed decisions!

Re:How Deliciously Appropriate (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759662)

The civilians controlling the military are in the federal government and already have access to all this information.

Now, do you see how stupid you really are?

Re:How Deliciously Appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759400)

Are you issuing threats to murder? I've reported your message and user name to law enforcement, rally2xs.

Remember (0)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759166)

Time wounds all heels.
Destroy me and I will become more powerful than you can imagine.
To lie means that one day you will be caught in your lies, the longer it takes the worse it will be.
Karma is a bitch.

May We Assume? (0)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759244)

Since Wikileaks got sideways with the US military a few weeks back could it just be that they can not maintain their site right now due to fear?

Re: May We Assume? (1)

bannable (1605677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32759472)

Unlikely. Wikileaks has already commented that a large portion of it's meager funding is going/went towards Assange's travel and safety needs, and to the attempt at organizing a legal defense for Manning.

Looks like it is back up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32759516)

This is on the home page:

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:21:29 wikileaks: We are back. Sorry for the inconvenience, minor technical issues that needed to be resolved.

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...