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!

Anonymous Launches a WikiLeaks For Hackers

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the now-with-one-hundred-percent-fewer-rape-allegations dept.

Security 96

siliconbits writes "Despite countless WikiLeaks copycats popping up since the secret-spilling site first dumped its cache of State Department cables last year, the new generation of leaking sites has produced few WikiLeaks-sized scoops. So instead of waiting for insider whistleblowers, the hacker movement Anonymous hopes that a few outside intruders might start the leaks flowing."

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

Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645700)

Why can't hackers just send their leaks to wikileaks?

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645732)

Because it would probably be hard to be credible if you rely on sources that are a far cry from legal. And while whistleblowers are certainly breaking contracts by handing out sensitive information, it is usually not illegal to do so. The whistleblower might face civil charges (for breaking contract), but it usually does not stretch into the criminal area. It's a totally different case with a true 'outsider' hacker.

The difference also carries over to someone publishing the information, afaik. I could well see how touching (and even more, publishing) information acquired by criminal means could be quite dangerous.

Also, WikiLeaks usually takes care to verify the source and make sure that it's not fabricated. It's kinda hard with hackers who, by their very nature, won't disclose a lot about who they are and how they got the files.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645756)

Assange was a hacker and Bradley Manning was, arguably, one too. The Manning leak was also extremely illegal. So I'm not seeing any evidence that they care about how the data is acquired. From what you're saying, it sounds like the anonymous knock-off of wikileaks will just do a worse job guaranteeing that the leaks are legit. I imagine that it will end up about as accurate as encyclopedia drammatica.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645862)

Manning broke his NDA by relaying the information, afaik he didn't "hack" it, he had access to it due to his work area, of course he had to sign an NDA to keep it secret and he broke this NDA. Illegal... well, the US army certainly has a civil case against him, and due to the nature of the information it may even be a criminal one. I cannot see what law Wikileaks broke. I didn't read the Aussie legal code, but it would be the only country I know where publishing the info of foreign governments is a crime.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

Kanel (1105463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645898)

The army has a civil case against him? I thought he was facing court martial.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645918)

Being in the army makes this a special case - they have their own seperate legal system, with things like court martials and military tribunals. The normal legal princibles don't apply in there.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (2)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646338)

In other words, GP is wrong. There's no such as thing as NDA and civil suits in military tribunals.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647264)

There is an NDA associated with access to classified material, even for military members.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36650966)

I had a Secret clearance in the military, and I never had a non disclosure document to sign. TOLD, sure, but nothing written down.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36653326)

I had a Secret clearance in the military, and I never had a non disclosure document to sign. TOLD, sure, but nothing written down.

then how can you be 100% sure you had a clearance if you don't have it in writing?

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36710384)

In that case I wouldn't even touch a sensitive document. You have nothing to back up that you are allowed to handle it? Nothing at all? Kinda ... convenient for your employer.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648666)

The army has a civil case against him? I thought he was facing court martial.

He is facing court martial for a variety of criminal acts.

Bradley Manning Charged With 22 New Counts, Including Capital Offense [wired.com]

The Army has filed 22 new counts against suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, among them a capital offense for which the government said it would not seek the death penalty.

The charges, filed Tuesday but not disclosed until Wednesday, are one count of aiding the enemy, five counts of theft of public property or records, two counts of computer fraud, eight counts of transmitting defense information in violation of the Espionage Act, and one count of wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing it would be accessible to the enemy. The aiding-the-enemy charge is a capital offense, potentially carrying the death penalty. Five additional charges are for violating Army computer-security regulations.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645998)

The army has its own laws, civilian laws don't apply to him.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (5, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646078)

Correction - civilian law does apply to military personnel, but military law is like an overlay on top of civilian law.

Example, a sailor who commits a robbery in Virginia Beach is apprehended by the police, and charged. He can and will be charged by the state of Virginia with whatever various and sundry crimes they can attach to that robbery, stand trial, and probably be sentenced. The Navy, meanwhile, will carry him as "UA", or an unauthorized absence. If and when our sailor gets out of jail, he should then report to his commanding officer - who will likely then file charges of being UA and/or desertion.

In Manning's case, I'm fairly sure that the DOJ could make a number of civilian federal laws stick - but they aren't likely to go to that much trouble. Military law is quite adequate for the case.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646542)

What happens most of the time (for more "minor" offenses like drunk driving, domestic disturbance, etc) is the offending active-duty soldier/marine/sailor/airman is taken into custody by the local authorities, who then call his or her chain of command, and they release the offender to a representative from his branch (usually) or ANY branch (if there is logistical issues) and the military handles the rest, because the military punishment for these things is usually waaaaay more severe than the civil penalties. Following their time in the brig serving their sentence, they will often get a BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge, or as they say in the USMC, the Big Chicken Dinner).

However, if the law broken is more egregious (i.e., murder, armed robbery) occasionally they will just Dishonorably Discharge said offender and cut him loose. One case in particular I remember involved a marine who got drunk while on leave and ran his truck into a minivan, killing a few people. In that case, the USMC basically cut all ties and said marine had a civilian trial and went to civilian jail. However, it is ultimately at the discretion of whatever particular branch of the military the offender is from.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649970)

Correction - civilian law does apply to military personnel, but military law is like an overlay on top of civilian law.

Example, a sailor who commits a robbery in Virginia Beach is apprehended by the police, and charged. He can and will be charged by the state of Virginia with whatever various and sundry crimes they can attach to that robbery, stand trial, and probably be sentenced. The Navy, meanwhile, will carry him as "UA", or an unauthorized absence. If and when our sailor gets out of jail, he should then report to his commanding officer - who will likely then file charges of being UA and/or desertion.

In Manning's case, I'm fairly sure that the DOJ could make a number of civilian federal laws stick - but they aren't likely to go to that much trouble. Military law is quite adequate for the case.

Shouldn't the military then charge the police with kidnapping?

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

ausekilis (1513635) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651492)

False, sorta. What you are talking about is the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) [about.com] , which is an overlay of sorts, but takes precedence over any civil cases.

To use your example, if they commit a robbery in Virginia Beach, the can/will be tried under the UCMJ first. Should the case not be heard under the UCMJ, then state or city can pick it up. Take a look at Article 122 for Robbery.

Kit it up a notch, such as armed robbery or murder, then they can and will be tried under the UCMJ. The punishment will be carried out under the UCMJ, and the state/city cannot touch it, this gets into that whole "cannot be tried for the same crime more than once" thing, Article 14 has the details. What's more is that any retired service member is still able to be tried under the UCMJ, they can be brought back to active service then tried in a military court (Article 2, sections 1, 4, 5)

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646086)

Manning is suspected of releasing classified information he was entrusted to. It's not merely a US Army matter and definitely not a civil one. It's a crime that could net anyone with such access (such as a civilian defense contractor) a long time in prison.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646816)

Manning broke his NDA by relaying the information, afaik he didn't "hack" it, he had access to it due to his work area, of course he had to sign an NDA to keep it secret and he broke this NDA. Illegal... well, the US army certainly has a civil case against him, and due to the nature of the information it may even be a criminal one. I cannot see what law Wikileaks broke. I didn't read the Aussie legal code, but it would be the only country I know where publishing the info of foreign governments is a crime.

The wonderful thing about working for the federal government is that things that would be civil actions if you were working for a corporation tend to be criminal actions when you do it to the federal government. I assure you that the NDA for classified information clearly states criminal, not civil, penalties for violating it. This is true whether you are military, civilian, or contractor. That Manning falls under the UCMJ has relatively little impact on the situation.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647630)

NDA? You really don't have the foggiest idea why that's a silly thing to say, do you? Manning didn't work for a company. He worked for the US military, as enlisted personnel. He probably never signed an NDA. He probably did take an oath. In any case, he isn't facing breach of contract charges, he's facing a court martial for TREASON. There is just the slightest, tiny little difference, if he's found guilty by a military tribunal,

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649318)

I didn't read the Aussie legal code, but it would be the only country I know where publishing the info of foreign governments is a crime.

There's no legal proceedings against Assange in Australia, so I don't know where you're bringing that in. The Australian Federal Police (AFP, Australia's FBI) noted that they co-operated with Americans investigating, but that's not out of the ordinary given reciprocal agreements in place. The Attorney General also noted that they're provided Assange with consular assistance during his British extradition case, so the Aussie government has nothing against him in the legal sense.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36650504)

A civil case? Hypobole or Do you live under a rock? He's being charged with treason and held under guantanimo conditions. The legal fallout from that one leak is greater than everything that lulzsec and anonymous have ever done combined.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36650548)

Manning is being charged with a capital offense: "Aiding the enemy" In theory, he could be executed for this leak.

Also, the hacking that Manning did was to use a low level security privilege to access files above his security clearance. Perhaps you don't see it as a "hack" because the army's internal security was so poor. But I would thoroughly disagree; Social hacking is one of the most important and common techniques used by hackers.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645888)

From what you're saying, it sounds like the anonymous knock-off of wikileaks will just do a worse job guaranteeing that the leaks are legit. I imagine that it will end up about as accurate as encyclopedia drammatica.

There may be clues as to the source of the Anonymously leaked cables and we can look for signs of falsification, such as references to shitty teachers being mean and handing out too much homework or phrases such as 'wtf n00b' or references to being grounded in the cables.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646130)

And while whistleblowers are certainly breaking contracts by handing out sensitive information, it is usually not illegal to do so. The whistleblower might face civil charges (for breaking contract), but it usually does not stretch into the criminal area. It's a totally different case with a true 'outsider' hacker.

Whistleblowers are often protected from civil lawsuits, too, by whistleblower-protection laws. (Governments don't hate true whistleblowers! That's just a myth that the neo-anarchist movement has invented to justify their hatred of governments.)

But you're right: an outsider hacker is not a whistleblower, by definition. Nor were half the people who sent stuff to Wikileaks; for example, the guy who leaked the State Department cables was not a whistleblower.

A whistleblower is someone who, by virtue of their position, is aware of a specific bad thing going on, and presents proof of that specific bad thing to the public because s/he perceives that as the only way to stop it.

Indiscriminately leaking random information just because you don't like your government is not whistleblowing, and anything that requires an outsider to hack in simply looking for interesting stuff to leak for teh lulz is definitely not whistleblowing.

(Of course Wikileaks was never about the whistleblowing -- it was all about getting publicity for Julian Assange and satisfying his bizarre paranoid persecution complex. But that's another issue.)

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (4, Insightful)

xkuehn (2202854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646354)

Whistleblowers are often protected from civil lawsuits, too, by whistleblower-protection laws. (Governments don't hate true whistleblowers! That's just a myth that the neo-anarchist movement has invented to justify their hatred of governments.)

They say they don't. You know, every whistleblower I've ever heard of had the system come after him.

We had a prison warden here in ZA -- a few years ago -- who let some prisoners take a camera and film the widespread corruption. (Buying a loaded gun from a guard, that sort of thing.) He was fired.

A little more recently, we had a teacher report fraudulent matric results (your final marks for high school). Got ignored, went to the media, government acts all outraged and launches investigations and all that stuff. Oh, the teacher just happened to get fired afterwards.

Then there's Manning in the USA. Leaking information about, you know, serious and violent crimes.

Please, feel free to provide some concrete examples of whistleblowers who were protected by the law. By the way -- I'm not an anarchist.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646688)

We had a prison warden here in ZA

That's all you need to say. SA is a third world shithole.

Your president thinks that raping pre-teen girls will cure AIDS.

Obviously in your country, everything is fucked up. Maybe try cleaning things up? Maybe try science instead of superstition? Give it a go, South Africa, and maybe you'll catch up to the rest of the world already.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

xkuehn (2202854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647020)

Sigh. I know what my government is like. You didn't supply what I asked for: proof that any government is better.

But you're probably just trolling anyway.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647270)

I liked the part where some butthurt SA retard modded this down the best.

No response? Big surprise. The SA education system clearly didn't prepare you for dealing with things like logic and facts. Instead, you act purely out of emotion, just like everyone else in your backwater AIDS-ridden hellhole. SA is such a piece of shit that it make the 'Merkin education and 'healthcare' systems look good.

Despite being a former part of the British commonwealth, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, SA remains rife with backwards beliefs; it rejects science in favor of witch doctors, and remains dead last in science and math.

South Africa: the only country that manages to make USA look fat and uneducated.

Maybe try using science and reason when electing your next government? Also, try toning down the racism and nationalism? We did that here in Europe (I live in France) and it's worked great.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651402)

South Africa: the only country that manages to make USA look fat and uneducated.

So you're saying that SA is slim and educated? Might want to re-word that.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (4, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646166)

This is an important point. Part of what authenticates leaked information is the identity of the whistleblowers, their staus as insiders with privileged access to information, and their willingness to sacrifice in order to publish information. Much of this is lost with anonymous hacktivists. In paticular, when all that's known of the source of information is that it came from an anonymous source, it's harder to disprove the common defense that the leaked information was cooked up by a hostile rival.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646170)

An unverified source is actually better, it means people will have to focus on the content and try to tell ham from spam / intentional disinformation.
After all, it's unwise to trust wikileaks' verification, as far as we know Assange could be tricked or a disinformation agent himself.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646602)

And while whistleblowers are certainly breaking contracts by handing out sensitive information, it is usually not illegal to do so. The whistleblower might face civil charges (for breaking contract), but it usually does not stretch into the criminal area. It's a totally different case with a true 'outsider' hacker.

You really need to read up on the difference between "illegal" and "criminal". Hint: if something can get you prosecuted (successfully prosecuted, if you want to be nitpicky), it is illegal by definition.

The difference also carries over to someone publishing the information, afaik. I could well see how touching (and even more, publishing) information acquired by criminal means could be quite dangerous.

Be careful with "AFAIK". YANAL, and it shows.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647130)

WikiLeaks usually takes care to verify the source and make sure that it's not fabricated.

Really? In every interview with Assange they claim they verify documents, not sources as that is all they have access to. Can you name a leak where to leaker was not open about who he or she was and that leaker was verified?

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36650478)

Then what's the difference with pastebin ?

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645736)

I guess wikileaks is not interested in the user table of any other low-profile website.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645866)

Well, some low profile sites can be quite interesting in terms of passwords harvested. Simply due to people's nature of reusing passwords.

Plus, they recently hacked the pages of two Austrian political parties, I could well see how some of the "internal" content could be very, very interesting.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645758)

Why can't hackers just send their leaks to wikileaks?

Wikileaks doesn't publish all data they receive. They only publish high quality data that has been vetted first. I don't think people like Anonymous want to take orders from Julian Assange -:) He's over 30!, and most people over thirty years of age are not trust-worthy (take this with a nudge and a wink if you will, but I'm over 30 and I know what I speak of).

Also, with Wikileaks, you have to rely on people with morality and courage to leak documents (as oppose to having them deliberately stolen from outsiders). If the leaks are "hacked" or stolen, then nobody has to worry about sitting around and waiting for somebody to tell us the nasty things that government and industry are up to.

Very few people have the morality and courage that somebody like Bradly Manning has. And few people want to risk being in an American jail for the rest of their lives (or a Chinese jail for that matter) just because they wanted to help expose corruption.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645870)

Hey, I live by the creed of "don't trust anyone above 30".

Hence I have a hard time convincing myself that I need those passwords from me.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646266)

Hey, I live by the creed of "don't trust anyone above 30".

... on a trust scale that goes from 1 to 100.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (-1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646090)

Jesus H. Christ. Manning in the same sentence with "morality" and "courage". You haven't read a damned thing that has been published about Manning, have you? He's a spoiled kid, who stole and released all that data out of spite. Jealous pique. He thought he wasn't receiving the recognition that he deserved. He didn't think that other soldiers should have been promoted over him.

By your standards, if my boss doesn't give me the raise that I think I deserve, then it would be moral and courageous of me to steal what I thought I deserved. And, if you fail to tip the waitress as she expects, she can stomp the shit out of you, and take your wallet. (Or have her bull dyke girl friend do it for her)

You're a douche, simple as that.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646108)

That's what the British said just before the 4th.
Tea party anyone?

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646188)

Is that Tea party or Tea Party? Because the latter are all in favor of Manning getting hanged for treason, anti-authoritarian individualists that they are.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649906)

Jesus H. Christ. .

I've always wondered... what does the H stand for?

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36652346)

couple of possabilities [straightdope.com] .

* Harold
* Holy
* Haploid
* H in IHS
* H in INRH (Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Hebrei)

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651410)

He's over 30!, and most people over thirty years of age are not trust-worthy

Whereas most Lulzsec types are under 30 and entirely trustworthy.

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647288)

Why can't hackers just send their leaks to wikileaks?

Well, I-- I'll tell you why... Uh, because... hackers are not good at dealing with customers!

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648842)

Because many hackers do like to brag to like-minded individuals even if they don't need to, that's one of the main reasons they hack in the first place, and yet can't stand to remain completely anonymous at the same time.

And also, the CIA hasn't broken Julian Assange yet. Until they can compromise Julian Assange, they'll need another hacker to pose as an alternative distribution channel (for instance, like the guy who gave up Bradley Manning, or some other hacker they've just arrested, but not prosecuted yet and have current serious leverage against).

Once a seemingly-legitimate competing channel (or even multiple competing channels) are established, then the CIA and the other CIAs of the World, whatever they've called, will re-double their efforts to discredit Julian Assange and perhaps even make him and some of his most troublesome cohorts completely disappear. Repeat this selection process often enough, and the majority of WikiLeaks "leaders" and other leaking sites owners that will survive will be government sponsored double-agents and/or sheepish leaders that still leak *some* information but that don't dare crossing the line laid down by their own government (or the United States).

Re:Wikileaks is wikileaks for hackers (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649194)

They hope intelligent people will inherently trust "Anonymous cowards" more than they trust Public-faced heroes that can be bought or silenced. I guess they're not happy with the sudden fall of the original Wikileak's Assange [wikipedia.org] into ... relative, er, anonymity after all the noise with the US and europe's Interpol back in January.

The sadness is that I don't trust Anonymous' individuals with "anonymizing" whistleblow data. Though one person will legally own the wiki's resources, it ain't no responsible Assange. Seeing Anonymous' track record with messing up the lives of individuals in the past by trolling, calling, faxing and showing up at places that were thought "private" before, I'll have to pass on their offer, however honest it may be.

It takes just a single one of the other anonymous guys (who himself could be a covert CIA agent looking to plug the leak or some guy looking for holiday fun) to convince the true owner offline or online that *my* data should be publicized. After all, there's no honor amongst thieves, especially when they're all faceless.

Fools (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645746)

They are using .tk domains, just goes to show you what fools you're dealing with. Those domains won't last long. [www.dot.tk]

Re:Fools (1)

psy0rz (666238) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645754)

i was amazed by that as well

Re:Fools (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645812)

I don't really know much about .tk domains, what is the problem ?

Re:Fools (3, Informative)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645846)

I didnt read the .tk TOS, but the wiki alludes to content policing

There are also content restrictions for free domains, banning sites containing sexual content, drug use, hate speech, firearms, and copyright infringement.

Wikileaks may find itself violating all of those within a short time. Who knows.

Re:Fools (1)

ikeman32 (1333971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651898)

Well either I need to be more creative in getting to the site or they have already been shut down, because I keep getting redirected. Oh well, maybe I just need to dig up some proxies.

Re:Fools (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647470)

.tk domains are free (you can pay for a better service but people mostly use them because they are free to register).

Part of the TOS is that they must get at least one hit every 30 days and if you're doing anything against the TOS you lose the domain. Hence .tk domains are rarely around for long and are used as throwaway domains.

Re:Fools (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646642)

Well they can't use .gov, that would be too obvious.

.tk won't last long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645886)

I've had a few .tk domains banned and then blacklisted permanently from being re-registered. They had nothing law-breaking on them, but were sites that discussed piracy and cracked programs, which was enough to violate their broad TOS.

Re:.tk won't last long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647758)

You sound like a stand up gent! I hope puberty isn't totally awkward for ya!

A good strategy for whistleblowers (2)

Kanel (1105463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645896)

A whistleblower who wants to make certain documents of his/her employer public faces a problem:
How do I stop the leak being traced back to me?
This is especially relevant when you'r employed with the government, which in theory is very capable of tracing the origin of leaks, but every whistleblower runs this risk.
But isn't it a great strategy to then tip off outsiders and make them retrieve and distribute the documents instead? letting the version number of old software at the office slip, or maybe a file path or two, could be enough. Maybe a USB stick could be "stolen" ? Even if your name gets implied, you can feign innocence in the court.

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645926)

A really clever anti-leak system could use some form of stenography in the document text itsself - say, every fifty-fourth capital letter may or may not be decapitalised. It's look like the occasional typo, quite unnoticeable unless you know what to look for, but it's enough to hide a hidden identifier uniquely encodeing the person who requested the document.

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (5, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36645934)

Incidentially, this is common practice in the field of cartography. Map-making is big business, espicially in urban or suburban areas where maps need updating every few years. To prevent competitors copying their maps, publishers often include deliberate mistakes - usually an extra dead-end road or something of the type, so it wouldn't interfere with anyone trying to nagivate. As the extra road doesn't really exist, should it turn up in another publisher's book of maps it serves as definative proof of copying.

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645996)

so it wouldn't interfere with anyone trying to nagivate.

Tell that to my Garmin GPS. The thing has, on multiple occasions and different roads, tried to direct me off the edge of a cliff thanks to roads that exist on no other map. Granted, I'm not one to blindly follow its directions but there are people who will. Like my mother. With how often I've seen it happen I've started to wonder if Garmin is trying to tell me something...

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36661600)

As far as I know the only major event like that was a woman driving into the swamp. I'd actually be more nervous of things like that when auto driving cars move into the real world.

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651438)

If every map has a deliberate mistake, that would explain the hopelessness of SatNavs, presumably they copy and merge every map to create one that is especially pants..

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646098)

such systems are already in place everywhere where it matters. it strikes me that this point was never discussed in the wikileaks debate.

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646370)

Because discussing it in detail would land you where Manning is?

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646102)

use some form of stenography in the document text itsself

I believe you've meant steganography [wikipedia.org] .

Re:A good strategy for whistleblowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646592)

Some intelligence agencies use a system like this, called 'Canary Trap', where the version of the document that each individual is given has the language subtly changed so that if the document is leaked, it can be traced back to the owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap

Big profits! (0)

kenh (9056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646024)

I guess they figured they could replicate the 'Big Profits' [slashdot.org] of WikiLeaks by adopting their business model:

1) have people donate both content and operating funds
2) keep operating expenses below donated funds
3) big profits!

The "hacker movement" Anonymous? Sheesh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646140)

Anonymous is not a "hacker movement". What a bizarre article.

IT'S A TRAP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646406)

(insert ackbar.gif)

This can be a tool to damage our freedom (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646638)

Well well, and I thought it could not get any worse.

In this last month, we've seen "anonymous brazil" and "lulzsec brazil" branches trying to start up. They did a lot of DDoS on the federal government websites.

The clinch? Some people are trying to pass a law that updates the criminal code to punish internet crimes, and one extremely important vote about it happened last week. Most of us are _against_ this criminal code update in the form it is currently being pushed, because the usual suspects included a lot of "screw the customer, screw the ISPs, let's get more money in the hands of the music and movie industries by criminalizing music/movie downloads AND get the ISPs to be our police for free!" through lobby. I should add this law would NOT be good for criminal hackers either (which is the one good thing about it), but since it was coopted to be a damage to society, even the party that controls the federal government right now was trying to get it cleaned up and pushing back against its current adoption.

So, we have two supposedly hacker groups doing attacks in the government of a country in a way that makes it more LIKELY to pass legislation that is DAMAGING to civil liberty and internet use on that country (as well as to activities of criminal hackers), at the worst possible time. Coincidence? I think not. Whomever anoynmous brazil and lulzsec brazil are, they have been PAID WELL to do that. They've played anonymous and lulzsec for fools, too.

Thank you very much, your bunch of naïve children. When you start handling weapons to attack government sites in a whim, you MUST be intelligent AND dilligent enough to not be used as tools by others, damn it! At the very least never do that before doing some throughout research on the local conditions, through a LARGE number of people you can trust to not be NARCs or worse! This is NOT fun, and NOT easy. But if you cannot be dilligent enough to do it, keep your DDoS on your own turf and never lend bots to anyone.

Re:This can be a tool to damage our freedom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647584)

derp derp

Re:This can be a tool to damage our freedom (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649908)

I find it absolutely amazing when morons like you blame activists for the government cracking down on activism. You're no better than the people who called sit-ins trespassing.

How about instead of posting about how "*cry* they're taking away my freedoms because of lulzsec," you actually get off your lazy, apathetic ass and do something about the people trying to pass the unconstitutional laws you're complaining about? I've got a clue for you, since you've got none: they would pass whatever laws they do now eventually no matter what had happened, because of precisely people like you.

Either standup or shut-up. Don't whine about those who do.

Re:This can be a tool to damage our freedom (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651442)

I find it absolutely amazing when morons like you blame activists for the government cracking down on activism. You're no better than the people who called sit-ins trespassing.

Sit-ins are trespassing, it's an attempt to force overnment to over-react and draw attention to a situation. Similarly, provoking anti-hacivist laws should encourage a debate to see which side socieity is on.

Re:This can be a tool to damage our freedom (1)

zhazam (2315520) | more than 3 years ago | (#36652150)

Holy making assumptions, Batman!

People can post on internet forums -and- participate in politics/activism.

Re:This can be a tool to damage our freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36664700)

If you haven't got the intelligence to match, don't point the weapon at a building based on hear-say. You might kill innocents: now YOU are the terrorist, and not whomever duped you. And you advanced the agenda of someone else you'd rather have attacked if you knew better.

We are not blaming activists. We are blaming children with guns and nothing inside their empty heads, which feel safe and powerful behind a screen, and who do NOT deserve the right to call themselves activists.

For you to even compare yourself, clearly a member of the behind-a-screen party, to the "sit-ins" and real activists, it is a gross insult! For your record, *WE* have already managed to defeat that !@#$@#$ law once (and it didn't even require facing a police riot squad, imagine that).

Where to begin? (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646782)

Besides lacking anything resembling the "driving principles" that you could say underlie the Wikileaks organization â" notice the Orlando leak basically boils down to "we don't like some state politicians so we will publicize sensitive private details about them" â" this site likely lacks the assurances of confidentiality that Wikileaks is able to make, both practical (secure handling protocols) and legal (based in Sweden, with unusually strong confidential-source protections), not to mention the maturity and organizational discipline to respect and protect that confidentiality.

Reasonable people may have widely differing opinions on Wikileaks, but I'd say anyone seriously considering dropping a bombshell of confidential information would be stupid to take it to these kids instead of Wikileaks. It's almost as if this is a distraction technique designed to make Wikileaks look good by comparison.

How 'bout.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646788)

some good old disinformation? Considering the source..

Orlando Officials isn't much of a leak (1)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647146)

**Article:**

a list of the personal details of Orlando officials including addresses, home values, incomes and other data.

Isn't that all public information anyway? Incomes are public record. Home values are public record through county auditor's websites. That isn't much of a leak. More like footwork to gather it all together.

Wikileaks failed but did good (0)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647214)

Governments do need their secrets, especially diplomatically. They also don't need as much secrecy as they claim. The point of whistle blowers is that they take action when they see the government doing wrong in secret. In modern times with computers there is just too much information for any one person to review and that is what Wikileaks was suppose to address. There was suppose to be conscientious people at the helm reviewing material before release so that people like Bradley Manning could entrust that due diligence would be observed. For the vast majority of cables there was no relevance or crime.

Julian Assange abandoned Bradley Manning and failed to deliver on the implied promise of using digression. Wikileaks no longer accepts submissions and I wonder who would actually trust Wikileaks now. Furthermore it's a sure thing that all would be imitators will be infiltrated by governments from here on out.

Undoubtedly good has been served. But the failure of trust and reputation is total.

Re:Wikileaks failed but did good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647382)

digression? You mean: discretion? Manning wasn't turned in by Wikileaks. The Wikileaks system allows for completely anonymous submissions.

Re:Wikileaks failed but did good (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647754)

Julian Assange didn't do anything to Bradley Manning.

Bradley Manning contacted Adrian Lamo, spilled the beans on everything he was doing and Adrian Lamo narced him out to Army counter-intelligence and FBI.

Wikileaks did everything they could for Manning's protection - Manning fucked himself over by trusting Adrian Lamo.

Quit being stupid.

Don't put you eggs all in one basket... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647568)

The smartest thing Leakers can do is study up on the ways to secure a genuinely anonymous communication link and then send such leaks to numerous leak receiving parties while perhaps additionally taking note of who does and does not process the leaks for verification and publishing. For certainly there are going to be, if not already (we actually already know "already" has happened) more falsely secure receiving sites. Sites that might be fun to expose.

Simply put for leakers, don't trust any site to be secure, instead do what you can to secure your identity from your side. And this will even help genuinely secure sites from being infiltrated in a way that puts leakers at risk.

Its really just common sense.

"Anonymous" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647792)

These guys do realize since the PLF have a name, they aren't really "anonymous" right?

Re:"Anonymous" (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648284)

People's Liberation Front started (according to their website) in 1985. They predate actual hacking of computer systems and got their start by creating devices that could be used to get free access to payphones. I admit, though, it does seem hard to tell them apart from Anonymous in the present day. The certainly are using the memes enough....it's almost like they found a younger cousin who is more adept at the work they like to do and are riding the coattails. But there's still stark contrasts.

Stop the Presses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648318)

Since when did Anonymous get a Press Agent?

This whole thing stinks of a false flag operation. We have millions of "Secret Agents" in the USA now running all kinds of missions using your money. (Have you heard of the huge new facility being built in Salt Lake City, Utah for spying?)

I worked in the security industry for a while and it is filled with Catholics and Mormons who are conflicted about sex. They all sign employment agreements which prevent them from accessing sites containing sexual content, drug use, hate speech, firearms, or copyright infringement. Which would explain why this honeypot wiki is posted on such an idiotic domain.

The Real Anonymous doesn't post press alerts.

Re:Stop the Presses! (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649508)

I think it makes sense to stay away from those kinds of sites while on the job anyway.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648454)

this is going to entire law enforcement of world to the defense too, you're little pathetic game is coming to end...you know there is no reason for you to put people in jail for breaking the law because you know there is no reason for people to be in jail for breaking the law . hell is eternity. also going to these congressionals or congress wth i did not have a congression to know they dont wanna say nothing. is there a reason for people to be in jail for breaking the law? Nope there is no reason for you to be in jail for breaking the law. so than these people know there is no reason for them to put you in jail for breaking the law because there is no reason for you to be in jail for breaking the law.

So..... (1)

Foxhoundz (2015516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648488)

...how is this any different than the various Warez/P2P networks out there? And why are they so hell bent on attaching themselves to something as legitimate as Wikileaks?

Works in all combinations (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649470)

Anonymous Launches a WikiLeaks For Hackers

Anonymous Launches Hackers For WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks Launches Anonymous For Hackers

WikiLeaks Launches Hackers For Anonymous

Hackers Launch a WikiLeaks For Anonymous

Hackers Launch Anonymous For WikiLeaks

Seriously? (1)

w1z4rd (1025692) | more than 3 years ago | (#36650536)

Im surprised anyone is taking this site (that looks like it was developed by a 5 year old).... seriously. I certainly cant.

How to submit... (1)

coofercat (719737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651566)

"If you've got a hack to submit, simply paste it into the "hacks_list" table on our MySQL server. Please refrain from changing the content of our home page though."

That's odd... (1)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36651606)

I thought that hackers already had their own Wikileaks and that it was called Pastebin.

Why would anyone trust a new whistle blower site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36654918)

Isn't it very likely that the newest whistle blower sites are only being started in order to find out who whistle blowers are?

Both sites do not resolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36654966)

The .tk domain names are for cheapskates and the other posting about "copycat sites" has barley anything I have a feeling the guy that wrote this article and just spun up 2 wiki's and pretended to be affiliated with Anonymous. Lame post!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?