Beta

×

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 Vows Release '7x the Size' of Iraq Leak

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the learn-the-truth-about-the-yellow-turban-rebellion dept.

Communications 491

CWmike writes "WikiLeaks has promised to release a load of information seven times bigger than the Iraq War Logs, which raised the Internet group's profile around the world and caused some nations to take notice of the issue of leaks of top-secret documents online. In a note on Twitter, WikiLeaks said, 'Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs. Intense pressure over it for months,' and asked supporters to continue donating to the cause. WikiLeaks did not say what the new release of information would be about."

cancel ×

491 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

NO! (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312110)

WikiLeaks did not say what the new release of information would be about."

Oh no!

Not my top secret award winning BBQ Ribs recipe!

Re:NO! (1, Troll)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312124)

Probably 7 pages of rape allegations.

Re:NO! (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312542)

Also known as "the TSA files". Oh, only 7 pages... nevermind.

Re:NO! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312136)

Oh no!

Not my top secret award winning BBQ Ribs recipe!

Mod parent +1 Saucy

Re:NO! (4, Funny)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312182)

Not as bad as the trouble Duke's going to be in for releasing the Bushes baked beans recipe.

Re:NO! (1)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312384)

Maybe we'll all find out that Julian Assange was Duke wearing a disguise all along.

Leaky, and 7 times bigger! (1)

Potor (658520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312580)

They leak, and they have size issues. Sounds like the spam I'm used to.

Re:NO! (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312640)

Dude, Heinz ketchup's been on supermarket shelves for years.

Re:NO! (2, Funny)

iceborer (684929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312676)

You're safe. It's Justin Bieber's Twitter logs.

Have All The Other Pages Been Read Yet? (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312112)

They're releasing more (7x more?), but have all the earlier pages been read, cataloged, etc? Do these people think we're just going to be sitting around during the holidays reading about US military mistakes?

Re:Have All The Other Pages Been Read Yet? (1)

August_zero (654282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312270)

Years ago we had Mystery Science Theater 3000's Turkey Day to help us get through the holiday. Now instead gathering around Joel and the bots as they riff on terrible movies, we gather round and riff on released documentation of war crimes and military SNAFU's.

Re:Have All The Other Pages Been Read Yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312426)

reading about US military mistakes?

"mistakes"? That's a nice, gentle word.

Re:Have All The Other Pages Been Read Yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312560)

alot of media folks actually are reading them.. the real threat caused by the leaks though is that the military's douchiness is being exposed. This is causing anger and backlash in the form of pissed off residents of the countries in which said douchiness was inflicted

Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Interesting)

Literaryhero (1379743) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312116)

So with my admittedly meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out if the Wikileaks people are good guys or bad guys. Which is it?

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312152)

Nee nalavana ketavan?

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (5, Insightful)

MatthiasF (1853064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312158)

Where does "idiots with good intentions possibly causing harm" fall in to the Good or Bad scale?

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312546)

Free speech is causing harm!

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (3, Funny)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312170)

"Bad" is attempting to see the world through such a simplistic lens .. oh, wait..

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Insightful)

joeflies (529536) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312176)

Perhaps part of the problem making such a determination is the asymmetric nature of their leaks. They haven't been leaking any secrets from the Taliban or Al Quaida.

It's more a function of the people involved in the leaks and the amount of digital information available to send electronically than any editorial bias, but nevertheless, the benefactors of such leaks tend to be the same people rather than being evenly distributed.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (5, Interesting)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312300)

Indeed. The same asymmetry can be seen in the media: The Pentagon and the US government get to spread their probaganda to a much, much larger degree than Afghan rebels, Taliban, Al Quaida or whoever else "we" are fighting at the moment. On a more practical level, I would also hazard the guess that the secrets of the Pentagon are accessible to a much larger group of people than the secrets of the Taliban. Not to mention that the format is likely more convenient.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312644)

Indeed. The same asymmetry can be seen in the media: The Pentagon and the US government get to spread their probaganda to a much, much larger degree than Afghan rebels, Taliban, Al Quaida or whoever else "we" are fighting at the moment.

That's OK - Taliban, Al Quaida, etc. get to spread their propaganda through Al Jazera.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312308)

Something I've often wondered is if they had some sort of damning stuff about the Israelis or say Putin if they would be as keen to release it. The US is more about character assassination and working the propaganda angles. Mossad will just kill you and the KGB(or whatever three letter acronym they're using these days) will find a creative way of killing you.

Assrange should take a lesson from Gerald Bull. Eventually, if you piss off enough of these people, one of them will come for you. And in the end, the only question will be, whom actually did it with enough plausible deniability for all.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (2, Informative)

AfroTrance (984230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312474)

Mossad will just kill you and the KGB(or whatever three letter acronym they're using these days) will find a creative way of killing you.

More than likely they would killed the person who leaked to Wikileaks, not members of Wikileaks. Because of this, it's unlikely they would receive anything to leak about countries like that.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (3, Informative)

Dogun (7502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312484)

I think this is a distraction. Wikileaks is about more than just the 'US v. *' set of conflicts; if you look back at the past several years you can see a number of reports they've made that have entirely to do with individual non-US corporate concerns, domestic issues in a host of countries, etc.

The stuff you hear now is largely due to the size (both of the apparatus and the leak) and that the bloodied nose is the US, and therefor important.

Leaks are Symmetric (5, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312712)

Perhaps part of the problem making such a determination is the asymmetric nature of their leaks....It's more a function of the people involved in the leaks

No - it is more a function of how best to release the information to stop the organization. If you worked for the Taliban et al and were disgusted at their behaviour your best bet to stop that behaviour would be to secretly leak information to western governments who will then act to stop attacks. If you released it via Wikileaks your own organization would know that the information has been released and switch the attack to somewhere else and after an attack the information is public anyway.

Compare that to someone disgusted with the behaviour of a western government. The only people to whom these governments are somewhat accountable is their electorate. Hence, to stop the behaviour you are unhappy with the only choice you have is to leak the data publicly so that their electorate get to see it and demand an explanation and changes. So I would argue that the leaks might well be symmetric but that the terrorist leaks are more effective when kept secret and western government leaks more effective when made public.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312184)

Among geeks and freedom-of-information activists, the consensus is "good", although some of their decisions are criticized from different angles (they redact too much, they redact too little, they publish too soon, they delay too long, etc.)

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (5, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312220)

I believe Wikileaks fits the chaotic-good alignment.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (5, Interesting)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312440)

You're marked funny, but I think that's spot-on.

They do things which they believe are in the best interests of humanity in general.
They do some diligence (some argue not enough) to sanitize it so people don't get further endangered as a result.
They feel that Not Acting harms more than acting, so they act and release information in the interests of disclosing corruption, false propaganda, or things which are Unknown to the public at large.
They do this despite knowing that it will get them on the shit-lists of influential governments. They seem to try to stay legal, but it appears that they are willing to publish things which you or I would be unable to get away with publishing.

This anthropomorphizes Wikileaks a bit more than I probably should. It seems like their modus operandi is "Expose corruption and lies, even if it's against the law someplace", but that may just be my perception. They're like Robin Hoods of the information age.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (3, Interesting)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312502)

Yeah, I was only half joking. It does really fit them well.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (1)

McFortner (881162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312442)

More like Chaotic Neutral. They don't care if what they do is good or bad, just that they do it.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (2, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312482)

Wrong. They care about doing what they think is good. What they don't care about is if you agree with what they think is good.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (1)

McFortner (881162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312616)

But what you think is good is often different from what is good.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312682)

That implies that goodness is something more than just what people think it is. It's not. It's all just opinion.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312702)

Wrong. They care about doing what they think is good. What they don't care about is if you agree with what they think is good.

Practically no one ever considers themselves "the bad guy" even guys like saddam hussein, idi amin and the khmer rouge all rationalized their actions as somehow being for the greater good.

Personally, I think wikileaks is well over the line into the territory of "good" -- I'm just saying the argument that someone thinks they are doing good doesn't necessarily make it so.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312608)

And the US government would be best described as Lawful-Evil. Pick your sides.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312626)

I believe Wikileaks fits the chaotic-good alignment.

I would pin it at neutral or chaotic neutral myself. Who do they benefit?

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Informative)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312224)

Just reading up on Wikileaks, I found this [telegraph.co.uk] stating that their main host is PRQ, a Swedish ISP infamous for hosting The Pirate Bay. So they must be the good guys :-)

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312238)

That depends on your personal views.

There are those who are of the opinion that these leaks are costing lives of both Western and Middle Eastern Soldiers AND Citizens - and thus releasing this information to the public essentially gives it to our enemies who then use it against us. That these leaks are causing more deaths than necessary. Opposing that some people view that essentially partaking in this conflict, by either signing up with the army or aiding with it's intelligence you've already forfeited your right to reasonable safety. The idea being they could have stopped being an informant at any point and moved far far away - so being an informant is similar to volunteering to be a soldier.

There are those who are of the opinion that the public needs to be made aware of what our military and government are doing. That indecent acts against humanity are not justified by the goal of national security. Those who think that by exposing what is going on during the wars might bring them to an end sooner, similar to the Vietnam war. There are those who think that the safety of themselves and their family are best left up to the military, and that there are some necessary evils. They might believe that those under harm from our military are rightly deserved so based upon their previous acts of violence or terrorism.

So - evaluate it how you will, theres a reason why this contraversial issue is contraversial. Make up your own mind about it.

It essentially boils down to whether you believe in the War on Terror or not.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312406)

That argument was used to not nuking Japan in WWII. It turns out that a few more deaths now may prevent far more deaths in the future. Unless the US is going to go into Afghanistan and Pakistan and start killing lots of civilians, the Taliban will just get stronger and stronger because they are willing to use traditional warfar (i.e. killing the civilians to force them to accept your side). No one was won a real war since countries stopped firebombing population centers. Iraq had its police force crushed and its cvil war will be in full swing in a decade. Korea is still at war. Viet Nam was a loss for the Allies and a few small islands were truly defeated.

Funny that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312604)

Viet Nam was a loss for the Allies and a few small islands were truly defeated.

Vietnamese would argue that they won that war.

Also, what fucking planet are you posting from?
It seems that WWII continued up until Vietnam war for you as the allied forces of USA, UK, USSR and various other countries apparently got their asses handed to them by a bunch of starving yellow people.
How did that happen? Nukes "failed to operate" in the jungle? The Beatles came riding dragons and burned the nukes right out of the sky? Aliens helped them?

Come on! Don't leave us guessing in suspense. Inquiring people would like to know!

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (3, Funny)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312656)

That argument was used to not nuking Japan in WWII.

Agreed. The non-dropping of the unatomic bomb was one of the key nonevents of WWII. We all don't have Groves and Oppenheimer to thank that the Manhattan Nonproject never did happen.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Informative)

iamwahoo2 (594922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312588)

Not entirely true, Wikileaks scope of work goes far beyond the war. Most of their initial leaks were targeted against organized crime and regimes that most of us would consider to be the bad guys.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312596)

It essentially boils down to whether you believe in the War on Terror or not.

In other words, it essentially boils down to whether you're an indoctrinated drone or not. All that the government has proved lately is that terrorism works. The people lose many of their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security, and they just accept it.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (4, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312284)

You're really trying to get the dust kicked up early, aren't you?

Alternatively... with my meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out which is the superior text editor. Vi or Emacs?

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312286)

While I like the idea of leaks like this, lately I'm leaning towards "bad guys." Some of the documents Wikileaks has leaked have contained personal information like soldiers' Social Security numbers, plus there are some weird things in Assange's past involving an Australian cult his mom was involved with (Google "assange cult" for more). I'm not entirely convinced that Assange is above board.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (2, Insightful)

Ninja Programmer (145252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312400)

So with my admittedly meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out if the Wikileaks people are good guys or bad guys. Which is it?

You can't figure it out? You like governments and corporations around the world keeping secrets from citizens at their expense?

The only problem with this years Nobel Peace Prize is that Wikileaks was a better candidate for it. (Tianmen Square was limited to China, while Wikileaks has the potential to change the world.)

For Wikileaks to possibly be in a "bad" category, it would have to do something bad. By what twisted reasoning can you find anything that Wikileaks has done somehow fit into the category of bad? The only people who could possibly suggest that there was anything bad about Wikileaks are bad people who don't like their secrets revealed. They make up lies about the consequences of revealing the secrets. They even have resorted to a smear campaign against Julian Asange. But at the end of the day, you can't find any shred of anything that Wikileaks itself has done that could be in any way construed as "wrong" or "bad".

On the side of "good" it is almost a stupid question. They do the job of reporting what governments are too cowardly and craven to face the public on. They are the megaphone for a conscious' of the myriad whistle blowers who see corruption all around them and are exasperated by the fact that nothing can be done about it, short of this desperate attempt to let the world know what is happening. Wikileaks makes it possible -- it gives whistle blowers the anonymity they need to execute their exposures.

Your question is hardly recognizable as even remotely rational.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (1)

Dogun (7502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312448)

Neither. They have an idea that the world is better for seeing its ills - an ethical proposition with a big set of moral upsides and downsides.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312490)

"I can't figure out if the Wikileaks people are good guys or bad guys"

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Donating (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312126)

Wikileaks accepts donations by mail. If you're paranoid, and you should be, buy a postal money order with cash and drop it in a mailbox. No return address!

Re:Donating (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312188)

What's the purpose of staying anonymous with donating? Could you actually face legal troubles by doing so online?

Re:Donating (3, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312232)

In the US, the justice department has this handy legal billy club called RICO...

Probably not if you're donating $5 or $10, but if you were donating a large sum of money, say $10,000, then....

Other countries have Security Services...some of which are known for their ruthless efficiency.

Re:Donating (2, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312346)

Kinda strange to see someone mention government agencies and "efficiency" in the same sentence.

Re:Donating (2, Insightful)

toadlife (301863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312524)

That's because you've bought into the lie that government agencies cannot be efficient.

Re:Donating (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312242)

No, just that the FBI would create a file on you, and your name would figure on various watch list. All of these would have nothing to do with your donation though, which would be a mere coincidence.

Re:Donating (0)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312258)

Given the way our current surveillance society operates? It's entirely possible. [wnd.com]

Re:Donating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312500)

Really? WND? Why don't you post a link from The Weekly World News while you're at it?

Re:Donating (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312262)

While at the moment I don't believe so. There is a possibility for problems. Given the US is able to classify this organization as one which is opposed to their military efforts, you might find that such acts meet the loose definition of sponsoring terrorism.

Without putting in effort (this is Slashdot), I recall that Wikileaks previous payment processor had a similar problem, where political pressure had been put on them along these lines. Though, not as harsh as it could be, as if they were a real terrorist sponsoring organization they'd be getting screwed a lot harder than this.

Re:Donating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312268)

Well, you could end up on a watch list. Of course, this will only bother you if you have something to hide. And you have nothing to hide, right citizen?

Re:Donating (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312434)

Osama wouldn't want to give away the address of his cave now would he?

Re:Donating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312548)

If the US government finds out that you've donated money to Wikileaks, I imagine that any (or all) of the following could happen to you. Some of these are more far-fetched than others, and the amount of tinfoil headcoverings you need tends to increase as you go down this list:

- Permanent FBI file. You probably already have one.
- You get added to the No-Fly list
- Unable to get a security clearance
- No promotion if you're in the armed forces
- IRS audit
- Your company no longer gets awarded government contracts
- It gets mentioned if you're ever arrested/tried for anything. I'm sure financial connections to terrorist organizations influence sentencing.
- They investigate/charge/imprison you for aiding and abetting enemies of the state
- You disappear permanently.

Clearly, the latter ones are more far-fetched, but given the way things have gone post-9/11, it pays to be prudent. I imagine that it is very prudent to treat Wikileaks as if the US government wants to crush it utterly, and root out any sympathizers who might be supporting these terrorists. (Not that I think they are, but I'm sure that some in power think of them that way. They distributed classified information, after all, even if it seems to have been barely legal via some technicalities.) We've already seen witch-hunts in our country at least once -- once literally, and once in the McCarthy era. If you're going to donate to an organization that is considered an enemy by the Government, it's extremely prudent to do so as anonymously as possible.

I hope I'm not on the list now for posting this, as I'm only trying to explain, not endorse. Posting AC just in case, as it's safer to be excessively paranoid than to be insufficiently paranoid.

Re:Donating (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312198)

If you're ashamed, and you should be

FTFY

Re:Donating (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312256)

Oh. Look. Another Wikileaks post on /. asking for more money. How surprising.

Re:Donating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312450)

Amusing how it is "offtopic" to note the frequency of donation requests for Wikileaks on /. in a thread that's soliciting donations for Wikileaks.

Re:Donating (2)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312386)

Wikileaks accepts donations by mail. If you're paranoid, and you should be ............

The subject at hand is donating to a website that publishes information not in favor by the U.S. government.....

"and you should be"
Whoever was behind 9/11, mission accomplished.

fuck wikileaks and assenge or however you spell it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312128)

Release shit about UFOs, Dulce Base and Area 51.

Time and time again it's been proven nobody really fucking cares about Iraq atrocities at the hands of Ameri^H^H^H^H^H allied troops. The media just herps and derps about ethics without touching upon the WORLD SHAKING FACTS you are giving them on a silver platter.

At least UFOs, Dulce Base and Area 51 will be interesting.

Is this that mysterious "protection" file? (1)

dyfet (154716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312130)

If so, I suspect this will be very interesting....

No it will be dangerous. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312444)

If he releases something like that hes just going to take his situation from bad to worse.

Nice marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312138)

How about just releasing it instead of bragging about releasing in the future.

LoC (0)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312142)

"Times bigger than the Iraq War Logs" is a ridiculous metric. How many Libraries of Congress is this going to be?

7x the size or 7x bigger? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312180)

The summary is inconsistent on the size. It says "7x the size" and also "seven times bigger". Which is it?

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312332)

7x the impact is an arbitrary scale, so the only two conclusions are that the announcer is a pompous twit, or that the documents total 7x the previous amount. Knowing Wikileaks, it's a 50% chance of both, and 50% chance of the former.

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (1)

ID000001 (753578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312358)

What is the different?

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312362)

Erm, what's the difference?
Both mean that the old quantity measured was x, and the new quantity measured is 7*x.

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (1)

drcheap (1897540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312432)

Erm, what's the difference?
Both mean that the old quantity measured was x, and the new quantity measured is 7*x.

No, 7x the size means 7*x.

Whereas 7x bigger means x + 7*x, also known as 8*x.

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312510)

Whereas 7x bigger means x + 7*x, also known as 8*x.

No, it's also 7*x.

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312514)

7x bigger means the new quantity is x + 7x.

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (1)

gweilo8888 (921799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312376)

Seven times the volume of data ('size') is the only sensible answer. If we were talking seven times the importance / shock value (aka 'bigness') of the leak, which is subjective, it would be too strangely specific of a value. You'd say twice, five times, ten times -- a somewhat round number. Not seven times. Your question thus rather answers itself.

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312582)

My question was between 7x as big and 7x bigger. 7x bigger + the original size = 8x as big. So the two wordings mean significantly different things (about 14%).

Re:7x the size or 7x bigger? (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312674)

What I would like to know is on what basis are they measuring the "size" of this leak. Is it in bytes? I don't care if you leak 7 times as many bytes. These could be made up of useless formatting or some moron could have scanned in everything as TIFF files. Now 7 times as much (useful) information would be interesting, but how are they going to measure that?

He's starting to sound like Dr. Evil (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312190)

I will release eleventy billion pages if you...

Maybe (2, Insightful)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312196)

Maybe this time we'll get some real dirt, not just more 'War is destructive and violent and they try to pretty it up for us.' We all already knew that.

More Grandstanding and blatant self advertising (-1, Troll)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312218)

Hey ASSange, how about publishing a full, detailed account of your RAPE allegations, because it's back on and we the masses should be privy to all the evidence the "lying accusers" have provided to convinced the Swedish authorities to go after poor little you, you grandstanding megalomaniacal asswipe.
If these charges are so unfounded, I'm sure you'd be more than willing to expose the evidence and turn yourself in in response to your international arrest warrant.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/business-of-it/2010/11/19/wikileaks-assange-faces-arrest-on-rape-charges-40090919/

Re:More Grandstanding and blatant self advertising (2, Interesting)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312306)

I'm not sure I'd want to show up for an International arrest warrant if a government official that still retains a fair bit of clout was calling for my treatment as an enemy combatant [antiwar.com] . I'm sure that a trip to Guantanamo Bay would be completely off the table, right?

Re:More Grandstanding and blatant self advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312402)

You know, as someone who thinks Assange is a douchebag, and that Wikileaks has lost its way, I really could not care less about the rape allegations. I don't know why but it reminds me of Woods' cheating scandal: something I'm supposed to care about but I don't.

Re:More Grandstanding and blatant self advertising (0, Flamebait)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312572)

Oh. look, the government shills are out of their holes. Anyone got some nuts to feed them?

Re:More Grandstanding and blatant self advertising (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312612)

Excellent kool aid chugging contest victory, sir.

Poor old Marat (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312264)

"Poor old Marat, in you we trust. You work 'till your eyes are as red as rust..."

Judy Collins, "Marat/Sade". I sense parallels between Wikileaks and the fugitive newsman from the French Revolution. Sometimes you just have to put your shoulder to something bigger than yourself.

7x -- that's huge! (1)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312366)

7x, that's pretty big. Not without a condom though!

Top Secret? (3, Informative)

1729 (581437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312458)

which raised the Internet group's profile around the world and caused some nations to take notice of the issue of leaks of top-secret documents online

Have any of the documents leaked been Top Secret? According the reports I've read, the highest level of classification in these leaks has been Secret.

And the gov will do a pat down X7 as bad as a TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312470)

And the gov will do a pat down X7 as bad as a TSA one.

Thats too much paperwork? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312520)

Thats a lot of stuff. I'm not sure who else other than the US Gov't could make that much paper. I was expecting them to publish stuff recovered in that student raid of the UK political party office but that would be tiny compared and not be seven times bigger but it would be the UK rags supplied with stuff for years. If its not mostly in English, few people will take an interest. Papers from a major industry might be that big if we are talking about either food, tobacco or oil. The military industry makes lots of paper but its boring. About the onlything that would be current would be Deepwater Horizon which might have that much data.

Let's just say this leak involves Ron Jeremy... (1)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312554)

...and leave it at that.

Hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312562)

Wouldn't donating to wikileaks be considered paying for national secrets?

Sigh (1)

MintOreo (1849326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312566)

Or they could cut to the chase and follow one of those penis enlargement cream spam emails.

Honestly, releasing statements like this does Wikileaks no credit. Its hard to appreciate the foundation with such a narcissist doing the PR.

When will Wikileaks (1, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312598)

Release Julian Assange's rape video?

This will be modded as funny... (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312620)

...but I'd ACTUALLY like to know. Who killed JFK? Can we get a leak on this yet?

(And please don't spam me with your ludicrous notions about Oswald. He was CLEARLY a patsy, and not involved in any meaningful way).

7x0 = (1, Insightful)

Evets (629327) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312652)

I can't recall anything interesting coming out of the last release. I don't follow this closely at all, but I would think if there was anything really interesting it would have been picked up by enough mainstream media outlets that it would have been difficult to avoid.

So I suppose they could say that they are releasing 100 or 1000 times the amount of interesting information this time because any number multiplied by zero is...

I really hope it's not more US stuff (2, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312666)

Com on, there's got to be more data than stuff related to the US. Do something on the PRC, or Russia, or the UK, or almost anything. You've proved your point - the US is far from perfect. Now can you point your crosshairs at some other country for a change?

Really? "boredwiththis"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34312686)

Whoever tagged this story "boredwiththis" should be taken behind the chemical shed and shot.
First in the balls and then in the gut.

Maybe that will make the whole thing "interesting" for him again.
If not... well... there's always MTV.

Friendly Fire stats? (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34312694)

I heard (interview) from Pat Tillman's brother (I forget his name - but an intensely likeable man) that quoted over 50% of casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan were from friendly fire. That needs to be announced and addressed. We're killing more of our troops then they are.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>