Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

There's Been a Leak At WikiLeaks

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the who-leaks-the-leakers dept.

Security 167

adeelarshad82 writes "German paper Der Freitag claims it has uncovered a batch of online unredacted diplomatic cables that came from WikiLeaks. Editor Steffen Kraft said he found a 'password protected csv file' that contained a 1.73GB cache of diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks. Its pages contained 'named or otherwise identifiable "informers" and "suspected intelligence agents" from Israel, Jordan, Iran, and Afghanistan.'"

cancel ×

167 comments

Password protected CSV? (4, Funny)

SpaceCadetTrav (641261) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245166)

Is that based on the honor system?

Re:Password protected CSV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245258)

Yes - password protected, but not encrypted.

Re:Password protected CSV? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246002)

I'm confused. How do you password protect a CSV file?

Re:Password protected CSV? (2)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246160)

For the first line of the file, enter:

This,file,is,protected,DO,NOT,read,next,line

Re:Password protected CSV? (1)

robbrit (1408421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245270)

You have to say "please."

Re:Password protected CSV? (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245310)

No doubt, that and what is essentially a 1.73GB text file is quite an impressive feat.

But this document does raise the question... can WikiLeaks or other leak sites be "selective" in their leaks?
If someone is anonymously exposing secrets that can hurt others, can that anonymous person also be "leaked" and take the same risk?

It is a gray area, for I want to know when people are doing bad things in the name of the country I live in and thus support through taxes, voting, and taking part in the very things that make our society function. But do I think that everyone and everything should be open?
What do we define as "bad", and who makes the distinctions?
Could those making the distinctions also fall under the possibility of "doing bad things"?
To semi-quote an old saying from a Galaxy far far away.... This slope is slippery with this one.

Re:Password protected CSV? (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245516)

But this document does raise the question... can WikiLeaks or other leak sites be "selective" in their leaks?

Hilariously, the biggest complaint about them a few months back when the US was doing everything in it's power (and more than a few illegal things, see also: Julian Assange, "kangaroo court") to silence them was that they weren't being selective in their leaks.

Or worse still, they weren't letting the US government do the selecting.

Re:Password protected CSV? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245592)

Or worse still, they weren't letting the US government do the selecting.

No, that was NEVER the complaint. The complaint was, they went out of their way to NOT protect the innocent. Its a fact they proudly beat their chest in defense and promptly pointed out that if people died because of their leaks (directly from Assange in a video documentary), it was a just cause to die for. Basically meaning, tough shit, his cause is ALWAYS just, unlike that of those who opposed him. They latter officially backed away from this position because of the public outcry, and then worked with others to better control the information they leaked.

The fact is, Assange is literally as bad as the Governments he claims to despise.

Re:Password protected CSV? (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245636)

Interesting claim. I take it since this is on video, the resultant clip is on Youtube or something? Can you point it out to me, or is this just another "I heard he fucks goats" style Political FUD attack?

Re:Password protected CSV? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246186)

Can you point it out to me, or is this just another "I heard he fucks goats" style Political FUD attack?

Suspiciously, Assange has never gone on record to deny allegations of goat fucking.

Re:Password protected CSV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245674)

Isn't this the same statement sovereign nations make, that if a few people die for something said nation did, that it is a cause worth dying for? Isn't that what they tell people in the army, especially those forced (read:drafted or inscripted)?

Sorry bro, nice story but it has more holes than swiss cheese.

Next!

Re:Password protected CSV? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#37247478)

...
But this document does raise the question... can WikiLeaks or other leak sites be "selective" in their leaks? ....

That is one seriously stupid ass question.

yes, they can be selective in their leaks. In fact, they could decide to never leak anything again, or they could decide to sell their website, or they could decide to all get sex changes and show documents on how it was done.

They could also throw me a birthday party with clowns & lots of hookers.

Any other really stupid questions you want to ask?

Re:Password protected CSV? (0)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245610)

"Pedo mellon a minno"

Re:Password protected CSV? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37246310)

Is that based on the honor system?

No, it is just somebody that it stupid enough to rely on Google Translate. I understand German really, really, really, really badly, but still slightly better then a Google translation As far as I can tell, there was a need for a password to download the CSV-file.

I always recommend that people read an article like this one in the original language, even if they understand it poorly, and only use Google Translate to help with some words and common expressions. Google Translate is dangerous, because the translation looks reasonably good and trustworthy, but often transmute completely what the text means, no becomes yes, up becomes down, smaller becomes bigger, et c.

Where's MegaLeaks? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245180)

Information wants to be free. Isn't it time for someone to simply leak every bit of every document they can get their hands on? Screw protecting information: that's censorship and therefore suppression of freedom. Publish everything and let the chips fall as they may.

Re:Where's MegaLeaks? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245282)

Please publish your name, birthdate, family members' names, SS#'s, all your bank account information and credit card numbers on response to this comment.

Identity fraud (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245320)

You are one of many who has repeated the misconception that "information wants to be free" was intended to include information that can be used only to commit fraud using the identity of another.

Re:Identity fraud (1)

bioster (2042418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245402)

I dunno... I think pointing out that it's not a good idea for all information to be made available is pretty valid. You know... that some things are best left private, and that people need to use their judgment to decide which should be private and which shouldn't be.

Re:Identity fraud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245432)

Does only certain information want to be free, then? What information should be made free? Who decides?

Re:Identity fraud (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245472)

All of them wants to be free but some of them are better jailed, that is the tao of the datum.

Re:Identity fraud (4, Insightful)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245584)

So information to commit identity fraud should be kept private, but information that can probably get a person and their family killed should be passed around for all the world to see? Glad you have your priorities straight.

Re:Identity fraud (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#37246892)

but information that can probably get a person and their family killed should be passed around for all the world to see?

When has that happened?

Glad you have your priorities straight.

Or perhaps someone just has different priorities than you.

Re:Identity fraud (1)

Musc (10581) | about 2 years ago | (#37247004)

So some people have priorities that say that they should have innocent people killed. Fair enough, I'm sure there is at least one person out there who feels that way.

But I don't understand where you are coming from when you classify such priorities as "merely different" rather than "absolutely evil according to almost everybody on earth."

Would you care to enlighten me by explaining your way of thinking?

Re:Identity fraud (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#37247244)

So some people have priorities that say that they should have innocent people killed.

Possibly. But his statement was rather vague. He didn't list any reasons why someone would want to leak critical information about random people (or why someone was leaking the information that could get someone killed, for that matter). Someone could, for instance, believe that even though they could endanger the lives of the few by leaking the information in question, they could improve the lives of many other people (or at least expose corruption). For the "greater good" or something such as that.

You may disagree with that mentality, of course. And I'd say it's a false dilemma to say, "You either have to support leaking all information or leaking none at all." I don't believe the intention of leaking this information is to kill people, even if it puts them in danger.

Would you care to enlighten me by explaining your way of thinking?

Yes. I don't believe in absolute morals (nor do I believe that many people believing something makes the belief true). I suppose absolute morals could exist, but I have thus far seen no convincing evidence to prove it.

Re:Identity fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37247258)

Intelligence operators aren't people. They're mindless automatons brainwashed to perfection and shipped out to act like people.

Unfortunately sometimes they're useful.

Re:Where's MegaLeaks? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245362)

David McCartney, 4/16/1974, 584-92-0981
Bank of America 122400724 089056170009
I don't have a CC or debit card
Robert McCartney 1/12/1951 583-91-7751 Father
Debra Lopez-McCartney 11/3/1949 139-46-5901 Mother
Patricia McCartney-Settles 5/1/1978 580-17-3916 Sister

Okay, you next.

Re:Where's MegaLeaks? (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245512)

You win, he's a standard loser. I DECLARE THE BOUT OVER.

Re:Where's MegaLeaks? (2)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245414)

Isn't it time for someone to simply leak every bit of every document they can get their hands on?

That guy is in jail already.

Important bit not in summary (5, Funny)

ipX (197591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245184)

From the PCmag article:

In light of the sensitive nature of the information, Der Frietag has not published these documents, nor provided proof of their existence, but Der Spiegel, another German paper, has chimed in to confirm that they're real.

Validation of a "Leak - of a - Leak" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245202)

So ... how does one validate - a "Leak" of a "Leak" in this case?
  Dial up the CIA - and ask - "So is Mr Bond really an agent for you guys?"

Re:Validation of a "Leak - of a - Leak" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245224)

Simple publish their name on-line. If they disappear in those nations, then they were likely spies and were killed.

yo dawg, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245932)

I heard you like leaks, so I put a leak in your leak so you can destroy civilization while you free the Arab masses!

Re:Validation of a "Leak - of a - Leak" (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246026)

Leak^2

Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245204)

This explains why the US is all over this. Manning outed spies, which is considered treason and is punishable by death. Personally, I think that we should put manning and W Bush on the firing platform.

Re:Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245276)

Scooter Libby got away with treason, why shouldn't Manning?

y u haet Merikuh?!! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245992)

shut up traitor, or Dick Cheney'll shoot you in the face!

Re:y u haet Merikuh?!! (1)

crunchygranola (1954152) | about 2 years ago | (#37246452)

shut up traitor, or Dick Cheney'll shoot you in the face! And then make you apologize for being shot!

Re:Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245326)

Personally? Is there some other way of thinking? Impersonally, I think you are insane.

Re:Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245372)

Personally? Is there some other way of thinking? Impersonally, I think you are insane.

I think similar thoughts when I hear sentences that start with "Honestly". I want to cut off the speaker and tell them, no no, I was looking for a good lie.

Re:Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245830)

"personally" is often used to contrast with "officially". As in, required by my office [position]. Yes, pretentiousness and insanity is likely or at least helpful in career advancement.

I love statements including "honestly" -- it almost always marks a lie. This is tremendously more informative than the truth, provided you already know it. Lies can run in so many different directions and reveal the liars mind. So, yes, yes, I was looking for a good lie.

Re:Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245398)

I think the point is that he's not stating this as what /should/ or /aught/ to happen generally, just what he'd do were he "the decider."

-GiH

Re:Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245956)

This explains why the US is all over this. Manning outed spies, which is considered treason and is punishable by death. Personally, I think that we should put manning and W Bush on the firing platform.

You mean because Bush('s administration) committed the same act of treason [wikipedia.org] ?

donations (1)

canning (228134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245216)

Where do I send my donations?

Re:donations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37246554)

You can send them to:
A. Coward
1451 Mockingbird Lane
Hoyt, MI 87121

Thanks for asking!

Yawn (5, Interesting)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245286)

Der Freitag is associated with Daniel Domscheit-Berg (DDB) and the OpenLeaks project. I find it curious that Der Freitag "discovered the file on the internet" right when DDB has been making an ass of himself by deleting thousands of documents leaked by whistleblowers, and at a notable point of his campaign to discredit Wikileaks.

Re:Yawn (2, Insightful)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245358)

Yeah, but wow, this guy's such a douche idiot fucking twat. And as somebody else here pointed out, now he's endangered all of those peoples' lives with no apparent rhyme or reason to his actions except

1. he hates wikileaks

2. he's a complete and utter moron

Re:Yawn (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245510)

There's another option:
3. He's an intelligence agent for either a government or business assigned to spy on Wikileaks, and then given the order to discredit them and take them out of commission without creating any martyrs. As a side effect, he might be setting up Openleaks to be a honeypot making it nice and easy to catch those trying to leak to the public.

Re:Yawn (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245862)

There's another option:
3. He's an intelligence agent for either a government or business assigned to spy on Wikileaks, and then given the order to discredit them and take them out of commission without creating any martyrs. As a side effect, he might be setting up Openleaks to be a honeypot making it nice and easy to catch those trying to leak to the public.

Since Openleaks does not work like Wikileaks, this is not possible. The Openleaks software is a standalone server that can be deployed by anyone. Currently, there is a review by security experts on the code. This is no different to Wordpress, tailored for secure leaking (bad example, I admit).

The point of Openleaks is to not have the trust problem you describe.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245886)

It's so ingenious, it must be true

Re:Yawn (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246012)

I've been saying DDB was a CIA plant since his defection. Everyone just laughs when I say it, but every story that comes out about him seems to point to this more and more. He's a snake in the grass who began sabotaging and attempting to discredit Wikileaks from day one. And, you're right, his "OpenLeaks" site has honeypot written all over it.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37246224)

he's a snake. he's a snake. he's a slippery slithering snake. he's a snake. he's a snake in the grass.

Re:Yawn (1)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#37247092)

his "OpenLeaks" site has honeypot written all over it.

Maybe that's what THE GOVERNMENT wants you to think, so you'll send your leaks to the Wikileaks honepot.
Maybe YOU'RE a CIA agent trying to protect your honeypot and dissuade people from using Openleaks
Maybe I'M your CIA coworker drumming up opposing FUD to direct the paranoid to where ever our bosses want.

And I just blew your mind :D

Re:Yawn (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about 2 years ago | (#37247624)

his "OpenLeaks" site has honeypot written all over it.

Maybe that's what THE GOVERNMENT wants you to think, so you'll send your leaks to the Wikileaks honepot. Maybe YOU'RE a CIA agent trying to protect your honeypot and dissuade people from using Openleaks Maybe I'M your CIA coworker drumming up opposing FUD to direct the paranoid to where ever our bosses want.

And I just blew your mind :D

Dude, that wasn't his mind!

Re:Yawn (1)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#37246984)

4. [plot twist] Wikileaks is the real honeypot after all, and DDB/Openleaks was contrived by the same shadow government to function as an OPFOR, whose public feud is meant to further legitimize Wikileaks in the eyes of those who hold the greatest suspicion, e.g. individuals and nations (Iran, China, Russia) who claim WL is an elaborate CIA/Mossad operation.

Of course, my point is that there's no end to the path of "there's a conspiracy beneath this!", and further levels of paranoia are just as rational (or irrational, if you're me) as the first.

Re:Yawn (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246164)

There is no law against being either. That is the problem with assholes, is that the law tends to overly protect them from everyone except other assholes. The law doesn't protect people from Assholes because it can't. It can only protect assholes from everyone else.

Re:Yawn (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246330)

The law doesn't protect people from Assholes because it can't.

That doesn't stop the asshole lawmakers from making more asshole laws. Ironic isn't it?

I prefer to replace 'asshole' with 'stupid', it fits better. The results are the same, however...protecting stupid assholes from themselves/others at the expense of everybody else's liberties.

Re:Yawn (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#37246652)

Any sufficient level of stupidity is indistinguishable from malice (asshole).

Re:Yawn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37246576)

"Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!"

Re:Yawn (2)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245544)

You beat me to it. Was just writing to point this out as well. The fact that it was "discovered on the internet" seems pretty shady to me. Way too convenient timing for this to happen considering it's associated with OpenLeaks and that douche DDB. OpenLeaks is a joke and only trying to ride the coattails of Wikileaks while at the same time beating it in the head with a brick to try and take it down. Seems rather counter productive. If your true goal as a leaking site is to leak stuff to show corruption or to help inform the uninformed, then having MORE leaks is good, not the other way around.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37246420)

It was pretty stupid of him indeed to take those files with him, but finally he had no other choice than deleting them. Daniel said he would hand the files over if Julian can guarantee a degree of security for the whistle blowers, therefore he made himself responsible for their security. So he had to figure out if WL is really secure, and in case it is not and some names of people involved in the leaks get leaked, Daniel would be held responsible. That is the reason why Daniel took the files and also left WL: He wasn't sure if WL has an appropriate infrastructure for providing security to the whistle blowers. (Also, by handing them over to Julian, he would acknowledge that WL is safer than OL.)

I'm not trying to protect DDB here, in my opinion both Julian and Daniel behave like 13-year-olds.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37246680)

There's nothing wrong with trying to discredit what you believe is corrupted. What DDB is doing to Wikileaks is no different than what Manning did to the US Army when he believed it to be corrupted. Why should one's mind be closed to the virtue of the former, yet open to the virtue of the latter?

WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245316)

I think it's wonderful that WikiLeaks lampoons people of wealth and power, but most intelligence sources are likely poor fuckers like you and me who are just trying to rid their countries of tyranny or terrorists. Posting their real names on the web subjects them and their loved ones to gruesomely violent reprisals.

That's Not Right.

oh fuck off. (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245386)

Someone who had enrolled in CIA, participated in setting up of torture facilities in client countries, tortured or assisted in torture or kidnapped people to be tortured or provided information for those people to be kidnapped and .... i cant continue typing this shit. you get my idea. anyone who willingly enrolled and kept perpetuating that kind of shit, cannot be named as 'poor fuckers like you and me'.

Re:oh fuck off. (2)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245530)

I love your black and white world where since we tortured, we always tortured, and every piece of information collected was put to use for that. The point the OP was making was that those things are not true, most of them are just trying to stop the people who are torturing, murdering and terrorizing the people in their communities. But it's so easy for you to judge them, having never even begun to approach their situation.

Re:oh fuck off. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245640)

Someone who had enrolled in CIA, participated in setting up of torture facilities in client countries, tortured or assisted in torture or kidnapped people to be tortured or provided information for those people to be kidnapped and .... i cant continue typing this shit. you get my idea. anyone who willingly enrolled and kept perpetuating that kind of shit, cannot be named as 'poor fuckers like you and me'.

In the intelligence world, "agents" are the locals of a country that work for a foreign intelligence service. As in, "poor fuckers like you and me" who for some reason or another have decided that working with a foreign government is the right thing to do. Those people in the CIA that set up the rendition programs are not "agents". Unless, of course, they were working for another government at the time. These terms actually have a legal connotation.

Re:oh fuck off. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245838)

Congrats. You have no idea about intelligence gathering or the intelligence cycle. But you sure can spell torture and shit. Kudos, now stare upon your college dipolma with pride.

Re:oh fuck off. (4, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246016)

Except that's mostly not what happens. Sure, there's a few assholes out there who take advantage, there always are. Most of these people are simply reporting things like "I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure Ali down the street is planting all those bombs that are killing your soldiers and my neighbors indiscriminately." You see, mostly US soldiers aren't out to randomly and indiscriminately arrest and torture people. Yes, yes, bad shit happened, people abused their positions, it was all over the news and I'm not defending it. There's no excuse for the scum bags that use a war as an excuse for thrill murders, or treat prisoners like dogs. Unhappily they exist, happily they aren't nearly as common as you seem to think.

I spent a year in Iraq. We dealt with these informers regularly. We verified and double checked everything they told us, because that's our responsibility. We caught some people trying to to settle scores or cause trouble. We also caught people with the information we were given. People that did some truly horrifying things. Not just to our guys, to their neighbors and countrymen. At the time I was over there, the bombs killed civilians as often or even more often than they killed soldiers. These days the balance has shifted even farther. The majority of casualties for these types of attacks are civilians.

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245442)

WikiLeaks came under fire for refusing to redact names of civilian volunteers in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to the volunteers getting death threats. Assange told a reporter that if people want names redacted, they'd have to pay for it.

You don't see Amnesty International leak civilian names while exposing tyranny and human rights violations around the globe.

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245574)

Citation?

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (1)

or-switch (1118153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245486)

So, wealthy people should have no expectation of privacy by virtue of being wealthy, but the poor should receive extra protection? You suck.

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245706)

It's not wealthy vs. poor, it's power vs. powerless.

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | about 2 years ago | (#37247186)

And with our new Libertarian/Tea Party/Republican overlords in congress, that's even more true. Protect the tax breaks for the rich, who limit the number of jobs available, driving down wages, and increasing profits for themselves.

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (1)

Schemat1c (464768) | about 2 years ago | (#37247356)

So, wealthy people should have no expectation of privacy by virtue of being wealthy, but the poor should receive extra protection? You suck.

I smell tea....

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245560)

There will always be misuse of information and corruption in any and all organizations who have an almighty "we're right and you're wrong" attitude. There is misuse of information and corruption inside wikileaks as well as all levels of all government. It's only a matter of time before it's uncovered.

Wikileaks are not the saints that they and so many people think they are. They are just a pack of assholes, no better than any life long politician using information for power.

Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245572)

That is just it. Wikileaks is not in any way unbiased or frankly professional. Wikileaks was never a good thing. It is like a guy that goes around punching people in the face. When he punches a bully you don't like it is great. When he punches you or your buddy it sucks.

There is a good reason why diplomatic cables are usually kept secret.

Give it to us. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245368)

Let us know those names. Those people named in those documents KNOW us, but we dont know them. see. there is something wrong with that.

Re:Give it to us. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245550)

mod parent up.

I'm on it! (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245380)

I'm registering http://www.wikileaksleaks.org/ [wikileaksleaks.org] as we speak! ;-)

Awesome job! I knew it!! (1)

smackenzie (912024) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245532)

I checked out your link and it confirmed what I suspected to be true all along!!!! GoDaddy and Oil Change Coupons are the fuckers providing all of this sensitive info to wiki leaks. Let's go lynch them.

After reading the story below... (1)

betasaur (12453) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245390)

Kevin?????

Tried reading TFA (0)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245452)

... can't... make sense of.. google... translations... *head asplodes*

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245458)

Maybe someone will take it upon themselves kill these bastards.

Big Whoop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245460)

Presumably, the person(s) who leaked the info to Wikileaks had no compunction about protecting the identities of the people named in the doc cache. Why leak the stuff in the first place if you were concerned that people could be identified? Wikileaks should release the raw data (after verification of authenticity) and let the media go to the trouble of redacting names.

I was going to just post an excerpt... (0)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245492)

...but every verse sounds weirdly relevant.

-------------------

I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby
For a buck, for a buck
If you're looking for someone to pull you out of that ditch
You're out of luck, you're out of luck.
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking

There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers!

God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.
God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.

Digging up the dead with a shovel and a pick
It's a job, it's a job
Bloody moon rising with a plague and a flood(6)
Join the mob, join the mob
It's all over.
It's all over.
It's all over.

There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers!

God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.
God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.

Goddamn there's always such a big temptation
To be good, To be good
There's always free Cheddar in a mousetrap, baby
It's a deal, it's a deal
God's away, God's away, God's away On Business.
Business.

I narrow my eyes like a coin slot baby,
Let her ring, let her ring

God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business...

Re:I was going to just post an excerpt... (0)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245808)

I don't remember ever seeing Tom Waits referenced on Slashdot before, well done sir!

Re:I was going to just post an excerpt... (1)

Fned (43219) | about 2 years ago | (#37246606)

Apparently, someone with reading comprehension issues and all the poetry of soul that a thermal label printer might possess disagrees with you...

wikileaks in my pants (0)

slashpot (11017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245568)

Quick - someone get a bucket - there's a wikileak in my pants!

Re:wikileaks in my pants (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246036)

In Soviet Russia Wiki Leaks you!

Now it gets interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37245580)

To see whether or not Mr. Assange and others will feel the least bit remorseful for the deaths of these informers or their families... Or perhaps some poor bloke that just has the same name.

Re:Now it gets interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37246082)

Why should they? Do you think the leadership of US government (or the leaders of any government engaged in military actions) feels at all remorseful over the innocent people killed because of they're executing wars based on fabricated evidence, or extremely exaggerated threats to national security? The only thing that keeps Obama up at night are his plunging poll numbers. Listen, you've got break some fucking eggs to make a delicious freedom omelet. And freedom isn't free. The road to freedom is bathed in blood. Sometimes you have to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water if you really want to scrub your tub clean. And you have to make a clean sweep if you are going to get rid of corruption. And freedom from corruption is the only thing that will save Democracy.

Plus, if you don't want to be killed because you're an informant, then don't be an informant.

From Wikileaks @twitter (4, Informative)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 2 years ago | (#37245682)

"There has been no 'leak at WikiLeaks'. The issue relates to a mainstream media partner and a malicious individual."

For years I have tried to say... (1)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246154)

That Wikileaks is far too important to keep as it is and as it has been run. It needs to be fully decentralized and immediate, no delays, no central control, no waiting for slow news days, etc. A truly decentralized and secure system with checks and balances and that is it.

Now there is so much confusion and doubt. Is this an agent, is there an agenda, is this a real breach or manufactured, etc? Wikileaks is simply doing the same thing that news organizations and governments do at this point and it serves no purpose... in fact it hurts the entire cause. I have been saying this same thing for years any time Wikileaks comes up in the news and it is almost universally met with negativity and people claiming Wikileaks is perfect the way it is. It isn't and we are toying with something very important and crucial to all of us, true freedom and information.

Leak inside a leak (1)

uira (883607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246356)

Its a leakception!

Some links to further info (in German) (2)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37246376)

According to what i understand: The leak is confirmed (1) independently and also by one of the WL partners (4), which claimes it was in relation to Daniel Domscheids Bergs (DDB) return of this data and a human error on the side of wikileaks which resulted in a password and the data being published. It has been known to insiders for some time, claims a known german tech Journalist who wrote (3) in a comment to (1), direct link to his commen (6). Several of these suggest that the handling of the data which was returned by DDB to Wikileaks and the uncontrolled release of the data an password were the reasons for DDB to destroy the remaining WL data instead of returning it. Other sources claim he is wrong.

(1) http://netzpolitik.org/2011/leck-bei-wikileaks-bestatigt/ [netzpolitik.org]

(2) https://netzpolitik.org/2011/leck-bei-wikileaks/ [netzpolitik.org]

(3) http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/34/34398/1.html [heise.de]

(4) http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,782923,00.html [spiegel.de]

(5) http://www.golem.de/1108/85993.html [golem.de]

(6) http://netzpolitik.org/2011/leck-bei-wikileaks-bestatigt/#comment-434548 [netzpolitik.org]

That's so meta (1)

killmenow (184444) | about 2 years ago | (#37246490)

Somebody should start up MetaLeaks.

two douches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37246982)

wikileaks: dead in the water, not accepting new leaks and also publishing none of the ones they have, those are in Assanges 'insurance' file which means what someone leaked possible at risk to their life is now abused by that asshat.

openleaks: strange things happening and even if all the dirt flung at them is being discredited, unlikely that they'll gain any traction.

disregard them both, start a new site to accept and disseminate leaks.

Bullshit! WikiLeaks entire purpose IS to LEAK! (0)

mutantSushi (950662) | about 2 years ago | (#37247642)

This is just straw-man bullshit meant to smear WikiLeaks. Think about it. What is WikiLeaks entire purpose:TO LEAK INFORMATION. These people are trying to say WikiLeaks is bad because this information was released without being properly redacted (censored) of sensitive information. I.e, it would pass the CIAs own morality test. (ahem) But properly protecting all the spies and informants who are serving the US government ISNT REALLY A CONCERN OF WIKILEAKS, Wikileakss prime concern re: security should be the anonymity and security of THEIR OWN SUBMITTERS (who are the ones revealing the secret information about informers, and who should bear the moral responsibilty for that) This is besides the fact that at this point, the #1 likely SOURCE for this is Daniel Domsheit-Berg, who had issues with WL over their alleged lack of security, yet he has yet to create a more secure system, and I have yet to hear of one whistle-blower/leaker who was compromised because of lack of security on WLs end of things (as opposed to their own problems, as with the US Army leaker who was entrapped by the Wired magazine / government intelligence associated people), even though you can be sure the US and other government would love to violate these leakers security. Please, WIkileaks: release more unredacted leaks, especially the top-secret ones that you are still holding onto.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...