×

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 Under Denial of Service Attack

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the good-timing dept.

Censorship 870

wiredmikey writes "WikiLeaks has reported that its Web site is currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack. The attack comes around the time of an expected release of classified State Department documents, which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

870 comments

hmmmz ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366156)

this is big! also fp

Administration has zero credibility (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366200)

which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies

They said the Iraq war documents would put people at risk, too. They didn't, though, and the administration was forced to admit that after the release. Seems to me that Wikileaks, whatever their other merits or lack thereof, have been pretty responsible about how they handle this stuff thus far.

I'm less concerned with these leaks than I am with the day to day constitutional trampling the feds do, using all three branches of the government to leverage their oath-breaking.

Re:Administration has zero credibility (0, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366268)

They do. If you read any of them, you'd realize that they put out the names of civilians who act as informants. I'm sure that doesn't put anyone at risk, nope none at all.

Re:Administration has zero credibility (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366344)

It's out [guardian.co.uk]

and related picture [apcdn.com]

Re:Administration has zero credibility (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366584)

That "CO2 emissions" section is misleading. CO2 emissions should be measured per capita, imho. The US have 30 times more people than we (Portugal), obviously they'll have more CO2 emissions. Emissions per capita are quite different [wikipedia.org]: China is 79th, for example.

Re:Administration has zero credibility (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366540)

Yes, and if you actually had read any of them instead of telling others to read them, you'd realize that in the 70k documents they published the last time there were a total of 3 informant names. One was already dead, one was a double agent and the other no longer relevant.

What 'secret' means to the State Dept (5, Interesting)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366624)

When the US State Department classifies a cable as secret, it's usually because of some situation that will embarrass the pants off of someone there.
Let' look at a typical situation that results in a 'classified secret' set of missives:

The US undersecretary of African Affairs refers to the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Democratic Republic of Bongo as a 'retarded monkey' because he stole half of the $150 million NGO grant for an egg farm and deposited it directly into his Swiss bank account without first wiring it through the Cayman Islands like the undersecretary told him to do. Now the transaction is transparent and the undersecretary won't get his $155,000 consultancy fee from the hedge fund firm that his Yale frat brother runs down there that was supposed to handle the transaction in the first place.

The situation is compounded by the fact that the US undersecretary and the Bongoian Deputy Minister are sharing a mistress who is a top fashion model. The undersecretary made the remark about the DM to his mistress in bed and she texted it to her sister in Paris. The communication was intercepted by the NSA/CIA and put into an official memo to the State Department. Now the DM will be pissed as hell and will make all sorts of accusations of 'USA imperialism' and 'racist corporate profiteering' at the United Nations. The undersecretary will have to buy the DM a new Mercedes to cool him down and get passed over for promotion until a new Secretary of the State Dept is appointed after the next election.

The only person who might be killed is the mistress/fashion model if she makes the mistake of going back to Bongo before the Deputy Minister gets his new Mercedes. Even then, she better allow the DM to indulge his special inclinations lest she find herself floating down the Bongo river, trying to catch up with her head.

-------- This is how diplomacy works and why all these cables have to be kept secret. Let's hope that the WikiLeaks people had the sense to make multiple copies and distributing them widely before announcing that they were going to post all this stuff!

attacked by whom? (3, Informative)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366174)

So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?

Re:attacked by whom? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366184)

The aliens that don't want the notes of the US ambassador to the intergalactic union to be published.

Re:attacked by whom? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366222)

It's always a possibility that they're doing it themselves/hired people to do it in order to drum up business. I mean, Assange loves playing the victim card all the time - it's not much of a stretch to imagine WikiLeaks DDOSing themselves just for the publicity.

These documents should not be released. (2, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366240)

I have glanced at a few of the documents on The Guardian [guardian.co.uk], and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released. This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files. The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET, but there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.

Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating, but after this latest continuation of their anti-American campaign I cannot support them any longer. These documents are far too strategically damaging to the U.S. and its public/not-so-public allies to have been revealed in bulk.

Keep in mind that the only source of information regarding the alleged DDOS is the Wikileaks Twitter page. Wikileaks also went down the last times they released this information.

Re:These documents should not be released. (3, Insightful)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366272)

So just because this time the information is damaging to US it should not had been released? Why is it worse than when the information is about Russia, Iraq, China or other supposedly "bad" countries?

Re:These documents should not be released. (3, Insightful)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366278)

Simply labeling something as "Anti American" won't get you any credit or support on the slashdot community.

I strongly suggest you find better arguments for your position.

Re:These documents should not be released. (1, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366310)

The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.

Re:These documents should not be released. (3, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366362)

Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.

Re:These documents should not be released. (1, Insightful)

onionman (975962) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366474)

Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.

I agree completely, and I hope your post gets modded up to make this discussion more visible. What Pfc Manning did was not whistle-blowing; it was a vindictive response to his own demotion. He took it upon himself to endanger numerous people just to satisfy his own ego, and he probably didn't think through the full ramifications of his actions.

Re:These documents should not be released. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366508)

You are so full of yourself. Governments around the world do illegal things and get pissed off when they are found out. It's too bad this poor individual has to pay the price. These documents are only embarrassing because the actions they reveal are an embarrassment.

Re:These documents should not be released. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366374)

The merits of an action reside with the action.

Re:These documents should not be released. (0, Flamebait)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366416)

What part of espionage, secrecy and govenment spying isn't wrongdoing?
Nontransparent governments may be legal, but in my opinion, it's still wrong.

Besides, apparently some of President Bush's activities are included. If he did any major wrongdoings in office, he should be made to face the consequences.

Re:These documents should not be released. (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366598)

Exposing what was talked about freely in private, can jeopardize international relations, and be easily misunderstood out of context. And keeping friendly international relations and a mutual understanding, across cultural and religious borders, is of utmost importance in todays world.

Re:These documents should not be released. (1)

hebertrich (472331) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366554)

Maybe the US don't want to show how crooked they are but we from outside have more than a right to know.
It's not OUR problem it's the problem of the Bush era and it's legacy.
Time to have the straight dope from the US , not incessant lies and deceit.
We're supposed to be allies but you guys behave like we're the enemies.
Thank goodness Wikileaks is letting us know how crooked , deceitfull and totally out of line the US has became since 9/11

Don't cry for the US .. it's just fair return for all they did and do.

Re:These documents should not be released. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366322)

Give a specific example. If the truth is damaging to the US and/or "its allies" how is that anyone's fault but their own? At what point did it become wrong to show someone in a bad light when it's all true?

Re:These documents should not be released. (4, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366338)

I say they are right in being released. It shows what the 'private' core of politics really stands for. Deception, supression, paranoia and intent to manipulate everything as much as possible.
Sure, it erodes the level of trust in politics and goverment, but they deserve no less, they should've never been allowed to be the closed club of friends they are while enjoying even the rather shabby trust of the people they recive today.

This reveals how bad it have become, should we hide it all and let it get even worse? In my opinion it's better to expose the flaws before the bridge collapse, even if doing so would result in said bridge being demolished.

Oh please. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366346)

Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me.

Everyone knows that embassies are used for espionage, the Royal family is up to shenanigans? No, really?!? The Russian gov has links to organized crime?! *Gasp!*

Oh, please, This leak is going to be one big let down.

If anyone finds most of the leak a surprise, I would suggest you stop getting all of your news from US sources.

Re:Oh please. (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366386)

"Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me."

Ditto. And even that wasn't terribly surprising.

The real surprise is that any of these things are marked as 'SECRET, NO FOREIGNERS' when most of the foreigners already know them because, duh, they live in these countries. I'm sure that no Russian thinks that their government is linked to organised crime and every Briton believes their military is doing a great job in Afghanistan... oh, hang on.

Re:These documents should not be released. (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366350)

Congratulations, AGENT-KAGURA on your successful work in the cyberspace battlefront managing this latest "event." Your work will not go unnoticed by the Overseer. 2MWPQB56

Re:These documents should not be released. (0)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366460)

I think the current status quo, Pax Americana, is the least disruptive and most beneficial to all parties involved. It's not perfect and eventually there will be something better, but for many years to come there are no alternatives on the table that are equal or better. I do not believe the strategic position of the U.S. should be degraded in this way.

Re:These documents should not be released. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366526)

So this is the "Web 2.0" strategy of the US forces? Pose as a "concerned citizens" and spew nonsense? At least TRY to be creative ;)

Re:These documents should not be released. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366564)

Hey, you pirated the words out of my mouth!

Come on, be serious (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366394)

I've read some of the 'damning' documents.

None of them has anything new. They just confirm what was known since long ago.

Re:Come on, be serious (-1, Troll)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366496)

There are "HUMINT requirements" and other unreleasable information so far on the UK Guardian page. These allow our operations and our agents to be targeted by adversarial counterintelligence. This may be good for some democratic countries because ally countries always spy on other ally countries, but it's also bad because our mutual adversaries are also able to limit the extent of the U.S.' espionage. That limits the amount of information the U.S. is able to share with you about your adversaries as well, because the U.S. was unable to collect it.

Re:These documents should not be released. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366490)

...there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.

Then the US government should have kept them secret. Wikileaks didn't break in to the State Depeartment offices and rummage through file cabinets. Some US government employee copied these files. Wikileaks didn't pay him to do so. Why did he do it and why was he able to get away with it?

Re:These documents should not be released. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366578)

Some US government employee copied these files. Wikileaks didn't pay him to do so. Why did he do it and why was he able to get away with it?

Why do you think it was a 'he'? This 'leak' could potentially be very valuable to, say, some high-level State Department official who wanted to run against Obama for the Democrat nomination in 2012.

Re:These documents should not be released. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366620)

What brand of tin foil makes the best hat?

Re:attacked by whom? (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366224)

So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?

The answer to your question is actually posted right under the story above, under "Related Stories"...

"WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack by wiredmikey (1824622)"

NID / NWO others (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366228)

NID / NWO others

Re:attacked by whom? (1)

Lunoria (1496339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366230)

Anyone who wants the US government to look bad? Everyone is going to assume they are behind it anyways

Re:attacked by whom? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366246)

by hackers who value the free world and are against biased thiefs.

wikileaks mainly publishes leaks of government info of US... how come they don't publish stuff which embarasses india? every day there's corruption being reported in the news in india... but wikileaks covers none of it?

Re:attacked by whom? (5, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366396)

Sigh, do we have to point out every single time that Wikileaks is _not_ an investigative organization, but merely posts what is sent to them while protecting the source, and that maybe they just get more data from US than from $COUNTRY?

Re:attacked by whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366418)

This can either be because they have an agenda against the US or this could be because there are many more leakers in the US than in the rest of the world.

Re:attacked by whom? (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366434)

1) Calling botnet owners hackers (lol'd) 2) You obviously have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Wikileaks exists longer than 1 year you know, they have leaked tons of documents in relation to other countries. The fact that the media only reported on these major leaks is not their problem.

Re:attacked by whom? (1)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366442)

how come they don't publish stuff which embarasses india? every day there's corruption being reported in the news in india... but wikileaks covers none of it?

So, you're asking why Wikileaks, an organization which leaks secrets and publicly unavailable documents, doesn't cover the publicly available and frequent reports of corruption in India?

Re:attacked by whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366264)

From Anonymous. Collectively, they have no bias. But they will go after anyone who paints themselves a target.

Re:attacked by whom? Me!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366290)

ping -t wikileaks.org

My personal FU to wiki leaks.

Inside Job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366298)

People who think Julian Assange is an attention seeking molester?

Friends of Julian Assange who want to build an image of notoriety to fuel the hype?

Isn't it funny how Julian Assange is so quiet about his own personal life and background, eh?

One rule for Julian Assange. One rule for the rest of us.

I almost guarantee this will be marked down as a troll because the Slashmindset won't dare that it may, just may have got things wrong in a big BIG way.

Re:attacked by whom? (1)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366300)

The government wouldn't be this stupid, there are DDoS mitigation services that routs all traffic through their service and filters it out without causing much economic damage.

Re:attacked by whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366330)

"At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated "secret" – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-diplomacy-crisis [guardian.co.uk]*

Anyone who has communicated with the US government.

*By no means do I present anything a news organization as fact.

Re:attacked by whom? (0, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366534)

Wiki-Leaks...
DDOS their own servers.

Started as a small time site.
Got a hold of some good material
Got a lot of press
Became really popular
but
Made some enemies
Time went on...
Fame started to fade.
Came up with a plan
Faked some documents
DDOS their own servers on release date
Make people think it was the US government

If this guy had any morals he would have blanked out Names of the leaks to help protect the individuals. I was taught that in 8th grade. This guy is just making a point not for the fact of the point but just to put more attention to himself.

Re:attacked by whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366544)

Goverment always has more powerfull abilities to prevent information loss (if they don't want it). They can easily operate the law :) DDoS is something strange to me.

Sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366176)

Oops, wrong IP address...

Is that it? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366180)

I thought US Government was more capable than 4chan.

Guardian released leak already (5, Informative)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366182)

Re:Guardian released leak already (-1, Troll)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366216)

are your karma naturally atrocious or did people vote you overrated for being informative?

Re:Guardian released leak already (1, Informative)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366368)

If you look at his recent history, there seem to be a whole bunch of reasonable posts modded down to -1. Seems pretty suspicious.

Re:Guardian released leak already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366476)

seems to be a lame attempt by slashdot faggots to stop others from reading it?

Secrecy (5, Interesting)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366196)

"lives at risk" "threaten global counterterrorism operations" and "jeopardize us relations" all sounds like politicianese for "we really fucked up and don't want anybody to know about it"

Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?

Re:Secrecy (4, Insightful)

MadTinfoilHatter (940931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366286)

Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?

That "justice" only ever existed for the war criminals on the losing side. Silly.

Re:Secrecy (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366364)

Which war crimes are you referring to?

Before you go off on a tangent about Guantanamo, please remember that international law allows personnel captured in combat without uniforms or other means of identifying them as combatants can be dealt with under the law of the capturing country.

Re:Secrecy (1)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366512)

That's why I added the parentheses. I inlcude room for the potential that war crimes were involved in anything included in this leak, but I'm not saying it's a fact.

So in this case, I'm referring to potential war crimes.

Re:Secrecy (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366562)

But the whole point of keeping them at Guantanamo is to keep them out of the USA and so deny them the protection of the law of the capturing country.

Re:Secrecy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366450)

It is politicianese for some documents are not meant for public consumption. Things like the British PM caved easily to our overtures don't make the US any friends, nor does "we were able to get the Turks to agree to XYZ provided we don't publicize it" or even something innocuous like "we agreed to give in on unpopular issue X to get the Chinese/Japanese/Indians to agree to unpopular with them issue Y/popular issue Z back home. Other correspondence might include "Minister X likes chocolate/caviar, so be sure to serve it at reception Y that could be phrased in a subobtimal manner and give offense.

This Slashdot entry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366208)

...is certainly not going to help!

Can't be the USofA (1)

Picardo85 (1408929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366218)

They've said that they are unable to wage cyber war ;-) but they like paying others for doing their dirty work for them. So i'm guessing they've rented a botnet.

Countless? (4, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366226)

the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk

Who would have guessed the US military has aleph-one [wikipedia.org] people working for it?

Possible attacker (5, Informative)

kju (327) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366232)

One self proclaimed "Hacktivist for good" claims responsibility for the DoS-Attack: http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r [twitter.com]

He threatened before that he would do that when Wikileaks releases, see last comment on http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/wikileaks-insurance-policy-expired/ [wordpress.com]

Re:Possible attacker (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366514)

so a 14 year old who still thinks leet speak is cool took out wikileaks website? Really?

Re:Possible attacker (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366546)

Just some random guy who thinks he's right about the world and uses terrorism himself to make his point. It's ironic really. Also it's not special if one can take out such a site using a DDoS, I could teach my mother how to do that, there is 0 skill involved.

Funny stuff. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366234)

"and jeopardize US relations with its allies"
Wiki leaks is just releasing information.. sounds like to me they're doing things the other countries wouldn't approve of; thus ruining relations. So they don't want anyone to know about what they ( the U.S. ) does in secret.. BUT If someone is willing to expose such information, they blame it on the site. lol~

It's like a kid stealing from a store and his brother that was with him tells on him, then the kid who stole blames it on his brother for telling everyone what he did. /laugh

Publicity stunt? (3, Insightful)

Corbets (169101) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366250)

It seems highly unlikely that the US government would do something like this. A DoS attack is temporary, and only calls attention to Wikileaks. It seems to me that two other options are more plausible:

1) Self-proclaimed patriots doing a little wannabe-vigilantiasm.
2) Mr. "Personality" Assange has arranged for a publicity stunt. After all, if he can make it look like the big bad US is trying to stop him, and he still manages to leak the data, he can further his self-promotion as a hero.

I guess time will tell, though.

Re:Publicity stunt? (3, Insightful)

KliX (164895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366326)

You'd have to be borderline retarded to think it was a publicity stunt. It's pissed off american teenagers, simple as that.

no (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366614)

The documents are already released. it has been approx 10 hours or more.

ddosing RIGHT at the time news is fresh, would eliminate a lot of casual readers interested in the material only temporarily.

Gee, wow (1, Funny)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366260)

I mean, how is Wilikeaks going to post these data now hey?!

  I mean, there's absolutely no way for them to do it now, no sir

A perfect plan, foiled!

*rolleyes*

RT (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366266)

DavidWaldock David Waldock
Dear government: as you keep telling us, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear #wikileaks

Thought it was worth sharing.

Land of the free, home of the brave ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366304)

In the lyrics of the US National Anthem: 'Free' appears four times. 'Brave' appears five times. 'Truth' does not appear at all.

Dear every politician on earth (4, Interesting)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366306)

Drop the fucking paranoia. It's old. It's boring. It's see through. Stuff like this:

the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies

doesn't win sympathy. It merely shows your inability to come up with relevant points to put in a press release. Who on earth do you think believes it?

Sorry for rant but I've seen this from US politicians, from UK politicians and from European politicians; I'm sick of this crap.

The leaks are not the problem (4, Insightful)

Whammy666 (589169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366320)

The leaks are not the problem. The root of the problem is the hypocritical policies and unsavory conduct that the leaks are exposing. The best way to keep your dirty laundry from being aired is to not engage in dirty conduct in the first place.

Re:The leaks are not the problem (2, Interesting)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366536)

Exactly this.
The policies themselves are the dangers to human lives. Wikileaks exists to make sure this stuff gets out while the responsible parties can still be held accountable.

Shoooting fish in a barrel (1, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366324)

IMHO Wikileak is taking the easy way. Taking secrets of the US is like shooting fish in a barrel. You get their secrets easier than with other countries and you run lower risks: you don't have to check your tea for Polonium every day.

Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366380)

Well, as long as it might look like they put the Polonium there anyway. It's all about appearances :p

Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel (1)

KliX (164895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366390)

They're not taking any way. They don't actively seek information, hence the title of their website. And all the american intel they've been publishing, consists of exactly one leak.

I can support Wikileaks (3, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366328)

If what they release is to highlight illegal activity. However I draw the line at releasing documents that are the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.

Re:I can support Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366532)

Apparently this leak includes references to American governmental support for the PKK. That probably is illegal since they are designated a terrorist group.

Re:I can support Wikileaks (2, Interesting)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366560)

However I draw the line at releasing documents that are the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.

If I understand frat parties correctly, the conversations aren't usually acted on the next day. Can't say the same for this stuff. There's a couple of interesting bits in there but there's also a lot of stuff everyone already knew; US arming Isreal - no shit Sherlock. I'm waiting for the editing and summaries right now.

Re:I can support Wikileaks (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366580)

However I draw the line at releasing documents that are the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.

I don't. The fact that politicians frequently behave like drunken frat boys should be highlighted at every opportunity.

DDOS or Slashdotted? (1)

lacqui (1754380) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366342)

What exactly does WikiLeaks have running under the hood? Can they prove that, as soon as they posted something everybody in the world wants to see, it was blocked by DDOSing instead of, say, hijacking their DNS [slashdot.org]?

I think that everyone and their dog wants to see what's been put there, and their web infrastructure can't handle every world government and agency attempting to see what the Americans have said about them.

State Dept Letter from TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366406)

We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.

I wasn't aware that the State Dept had anything wikileaks wanted. Though it's a great way to paint them in the 'terrorist' light thereby paving the way for a DHS style takedown. (cause the US doesnt 'negotiate' with terrorists...right?) If DHS can take down a torrent dissemination site that doesnt even disseminate torrents, it would seem like LESS of a stretch for them to do it in this case.

"national security implications" (4, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366410)

Quoth the BBC: [bbc.co.uk]

The UK Ministry of Defence has urged newspaper editors to "bear in mind" the national security implications of publishing the information.

You can make a plausible case that the leaks will put lives at risk. But warning the media about publishing excerpts after the stuff is already made public? That's got fuck all to do with national security, that's politicians worrying about public relations.

Petty Gossip? (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366550)

I think most of that is released is in raw "petty gossip" format. It's like reading emails of your boss about employees, most of which is irrelevant and shouldn't be made public. People need to be able to talk shit without turning it into a shitfest.. we do it, they do it, what's the big deal?

Released early... (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366570)

As of just a few minutes ago the leaked documents have been released by five international news outlets. Now the fun begins.....

"Expected" Release ? (4, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366586)

It was released at 05.00 Hours.

i even submitted its article on wikileaks site. All the info regarding the US Afghan war logs were up in a SEARCHABLE and browseable directory. (A good implementation i might add).

Yet, the news of the release, by me or by any other submitter, were not published in slashdot, but, the ddos for the 'release' that was 'anticipated' has been.

The train has long left the station.

Just read through the Guardian story (3, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366626)

I wasn't sure what to expect - but it sure seems like the sole purpose of this release was to embarrass the United States. I don't see anything that is particularly beneficial to the public here - and isn't that purportedly why WikiLeaks exists? This seems more along the lines of Paris Hilton's ex-boyfriend publicizing his sex tapes.

Maybe it's not a vendetta, even if it looks like one though. WikiLeaks hasn't really lived up to its promise, all in all. I suspect this may be no more than Assange trying to fend off irrelevancy.

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...