Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

WikiLeaks Publishes Cable Archive In Full

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the letting-it-all-hang-out dept.

Communications 296

We recently discussed news that WikiLeaks had complained of a password leak which threatened the encryption of unredacted documents contained in the Cablegate archive. Now, reader solanum writes with this update: "According to the Guardian, 'WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their lives in danger. The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners – the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde – who have worked with WikiLeaks publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.' In the same article The Guardian gives further explanation of the controversy reported earlier, suggesting that Assange went against standard protocol in providing the master password to the newspaper."

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

What on earth were they thinking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287562)

Oh. My. God.

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287736)

Nah... a few folks will have a good reason to be worried, but otherwise the world at large won't see the effects for a long time, if ever.

Now Wikileaks OTOH, is about to be labeled a terrorist organization and removed from the face of the Earth by any means necessary - legal or not legal. They had a shot at being left to remain in existence when they had some sort of underdog nobility to play on, but now? I suspect someone at the CIA, Interpol, and various other places around the globe are quietly whispering the same thing 'Oh, it's *on* now, bitches...'

(rightly or wrongly, I suspect that's how it's going to be played out).

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287794)

Now Wikileaks OTOH, is about to be labeled a terrorist organization and removed from the face of the Earth by any means necessary - legal or not legal.

You say that like it's a Bad Thing(tm).

They have exposed themselves for what we knew them to be all along. They deserve to be shot.

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288296)

They deserve to be shot.

Wow, brilliant response. Certainly nothing wrong with labeling an organization as "terrorist" just so you can kill them because you don't like their politics. WikiLeaks are not terrorists nor are they under oath to protect anybody's secrets. The people who violated their security clearance and leaked the info initially are who should be punished. If anything, this will make governments less casual about their security clearances, which is a Good Thing(tm).

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (2)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287796)

Well, the intelligence world was already trying to spank Wikileaks...effectively without a real quality excuse.

Now they have the excuse, and lives really are on the line. Bye Wikileaks!

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288020)

If anybody dies now it will be the fault of the US for not moving their informants to a safe place.

Think they'll do it? Or will they prefer to use them as human sacrifices for their witch hunt.

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (2, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288348)

We don't know when the password and the file were put together by any potential black hats. We know the password was published some time ago, it just became news recently. It isn't like now that the release was official, only at that moment did it fall into the wrong hands.

In any case, this is a tremendous loss. There's no way to guess how many valuable intelligence sources were compromised, and Wikileaks continues to be primarily focused around embarrassing and damaging the Unites States' national security, and not that of other nations or malevolent entities, as their facade is supposed to show.

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287960)

I think what happened is that the Guardian stabbed them in the back and gave all the governments in the world the excuse they needed to go after Wikileaks.

So now Wikileaks is deciding to go out with a bang before someone slits their throat and denies them even a whimper.

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287776)

They were thinking ... that The Guardian had already published the password to the "insurance" file in a book so they might as well let everybody have access, not just the bad guys.

Re:What on earth were they thinking? (5, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287780)

They were thinking something along the lines of "the Guardian already gave the bad guys our secrets [slashdot.org] , so let's make sure the people at risk have a chance to look through the cables, see if they're mentioned, and take appropriate self-defensive measures, since we don't have the resources to approach them all privately."

But is is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287564)

standard protocol to publish a source's password?

so? (0)

MichaelKristopeit422 (2018884) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287570)

if you were doing something that would get you killed if others knew about it, maybe you shouldn't have been doing it.

of course, the same goes for assange.

Re:so? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287700)

How fascist of you.

Re:so? (0)

MichaelKristopeit422 (2018884) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287850)

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:so? (2)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287734)

So by your example I shouldn't have protection of anonymity for informing the police of a local drug dealer... even though I'd have reasonable fear of reprisals for doing so....

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287786)

I have your ID, your post, and the date and time... So what did you say about being anonymous???

Re:so? (0)

MichaelKristopeit423 (2018892) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287882)

if you followed my example you wouldn't have a local drug dealer actively reprising.

why do you cower in my shadow behind a chosen pseudonym, feeb?

you're completely pathetic.

Buckle up folks... (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287590)

...this could be interesting.

Re:Buckle up folks... (0)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287666)

this could be interesting.

In the US, it won't warrant buckling up unless your name is in one of the documents. People know the politicians are corrupt. They know we're trading lives for oil. They know the government is violating the constitution. The few who care will not be surprised by the contents of the leaked documents. The ones who do not care will continue to not care.

Re:Buckle up folks... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287754)

And it shows, of course, that wikileaks can't be trusted to protect lives. It further shows that extreme measures are justified to protect potentially damaging secrets.

Besides, It unfortunately shows US politicians, sadly, are not that bad, compared to others [guardian.co.uk] ...

Re:Buckle up folks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287764)

This isn't the first time Assange has done his. His first (and IIRC second) releases provided complete sources of intelligence reports. Media worked with them to stop it. When media asked Assange about the risks to human lives because of their first releases, Assange stated that he didn't care and that their deaths served his purposes well. Assange is a sociopath and repeatedly on recorded saying people deserve to die for his cause and that its a just death.

All you Assange supporters - FUCK YOU! If you support Assange and condemn world governments for doing the same, you are a hypocritical idiot and absolutely do not have a valid opinion on the subject. Based on previous comments, most slashdotters, and especially moderators, absolutely do NOT have a valid opinion. This is especially true as I point this out to everyone every time Assange comes up. He is a sociopath and an egotistic fucktard. If you have EVER supported Assange, YOU ARE TOO!

Re:Buckle up folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37288018)

A lot of people never heard of what you are talking about here. I never heard Assange said these things.
Thankfully I can think on my own and I don't need to hear about his previous actions to realize releasing those names is wrong.

However, rather than insult those who back Assange, try educating them. As I said, many people never heard of the things you're talking about. You don't even have sources, so it really makes you look like an idiot who just wants to shout. Be constructive, it works much better.

Re:Buckle up folks... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288068)

It would be utterly unthinkable for the USA to move their informants to a safe place after the leaks, right?

They risked their lives to help the USA ... will the USA be there for them?

Re:Buckle up folks... (5, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288140)

I know it's an AC, but I'm replying anyway because this is a widely held belief in certain circles.

When media asked Assange about the risks to human lives because of their first releases, Assange stated that he didn't care and that their deaths served his purposes well. Assange is a sociopath and repeatedly on recorded saying people deserve to die for his cause and that its a just death.

Complete bullshit. I know exactly what story you're talking about: http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/07/which_is_it_mr_assange [foreignpolicy.com] The deaths occurred because the Kenyan people decided to riot and face death of their own accord, a decision they based on information leaked on Wikileaks. These people actively chose to fight a tyrant. They weren't executed based on information in the leak.

In short, just the fuck up. You don't have a clue.

Re:Buckle up folks... (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287862)

We're not trading lives for oil. we're trading lives for power, and this President is no different than GWB, Clinton, GHWB, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson ... in this regard.

The only thing people like you do, is bury your head in the sand, because the ends justify the means in your world.

The Constitution hasn't mattered in a very long time. When people are looking at INTERNATIONAL law as superseding it, or when they view it as a "living changing document".

Re:Buckle up folks... (2)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288028)

The Constitution was always intended to be, and IS, a living changing document. That's why it can be amended!

Re:Buckle up folks... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37288274)

Excepting in recent years its been changed via active judiciaries, bypassing the amendment process. There's a reason it's HARD to pass an amendment. Meanwhile we've allowed men in black robes to effectively alter our founding documents based on how they feel.

Re:Buckle up folks... (0)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288302)

No shit it can be amended...what we're concerned about is it being ignored or radically changed by hyper-active judges.

Amendments are great, but short of that there should be *no* changing or ignoring the constitution outright. Interpretation for modern times is one thing; ass-rape is another.

Re:Buckle up folks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37288136)

In the US

Still fervently hoping for damage to the US from the leaks. Convinced the `truth' will topple all the things you've been trained to hate.

Good luck with that.

Re:Buckle up folks... (0)

donotlizard (1260586) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287714)

Yes, I was looking forward to the next big news story after being inundated with non-news regarding that stupid East Coast hurricane. It'll be interesting to keep track of all the chain reactions set off by this cable release.

Re:Buckle up folks... (0)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287812)

Not really. Wikileaks is dead. They can't protect their documents, what makes you think they can protect their sources? They won't receive a single valuable document anymore.

I still think that the idea behind Wikileaks - an untraceable and unblockable repository of whistleblowing documents - is brilliant and necessary. I'm starting to also think that Assange is the wrong person to run this project. This kind of project requires someone at the helm whose single, overarching goal is to enforce its basic principle, at the cost of everything else. Because if the project is fails to be untraceable, no one will submit documents. If the project fails to be unblockable, no one will be able to access it. If it doesn't contain whistleblowing documents - documents that show wrongdoing, but not who uncovered or fought the wrongdoing, it will be a clearinghouse for reprisal targeting.

At this point, I don't understand what Assange is doing. If the document is out there, why post it on Wikileaks? It doesn't add anything to the discussion. It only shows that Wikileaks can't be trusted to be perform its stated mission. I was thinking for a while that maybe Assange is indeed being set up. But right now, it's quite clear that Assange is incapable of playing with the big boys, and will instead jeopardize the entire idea behind Wikileaks, just to get even.

Here's hoping that someone learns from Assange's mistakes and creates an independent project that does Wikileaks right.

Re:Buckle up folks... (0)

phayes (202222) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288040)

I'm hoping that Assange receives the same fate as the innocents he has now exposed to harm.

Does anyone know if he is still living on the grounds of the mansion that the UK judges released him to or has he pulled a Khadaffi?

Re:Buckle up folks... (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288100)

Which are these innocents who are exposed to harm? Are they the same people as last time people were saying the very same things about Wikileaks releases, or do they actually exist this time?

Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287606)

Wasn't this the article WL claimed was an attempt to cover the fact that the Guardian released the password to cables.csv?

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287618)

I thought it was insurance.zip or whatever the extension was...

"Controlling" "Leaks"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287636)

...seems to me a contradiction in terms. Like, "Commanding" "Escapes".

A leak is not a flow - a leak is a nascent torrent.

What are they thinking? (2, Interesting)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287644)

The guardian password thing was a mistake. A big mistake.

The solution however is NOT to go all in and betray the trust of the sources. This sort of thing is just what you'd need to kill Wikileaks forever.

If it was due to a mistake, an accident or hacking, we might move on, but this is big stuff.

Re:What are they thinking? (0)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287726)

It was not a mistake, it was not a mistake at all. Assange wanted this from the very beginning, but he knew that he couldn't be the one that ultimately "took responsibility" for it, so instead what he did was give the newspaper the password and hope that they would "accidentally" print it, thus freeing Assange from any responsibility for his actions.

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287756)

Assuming I accept your premiss.

Why would he then do something like this? If his top secret plan was to get all the info out by secret, why would he PUBLICLY RELEASE THEM? He could have just waited, or stoked the fire by using the Streisland effect.

Re:What are they thinking? (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288094)

Deniability.

The Gardian was used as the patsy to start this little mess. They start by giving the Gardian a "Temporary" password which just happened to be the Root/Master password for the server. I mean really. Who gives out the Root password to the server to anyone other than the SysAdmin. When the password was published back in February did they do the sensible thing and change all the passwords? No, instead

WikiLeaks then published a series of increasingly detailed tweets giving clues about where the password might be found as part of its attempts to deny security failings on its own part. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables [guardian.co.uk]

This was planed to go down this way.

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288210)

I'm getting very confused as to what the password is reused for. According to the /. story posted last:

"The embassy cables were shared with the Guardian through a secure server for a period of hours, after which the server was taken offline and all files removed, as was previously agreed by both parties. [...]the same file with the same password was republished later on BitTorrent, a network typically used to distribute films and music."

So it wasn't root password was it?

Re:What are they thinking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287742)

The Guardians "mistake" made all the cables public.
This is just The Guardian trying to paint a different picture to avoid lawsuits.

Re:What are they thinking? (5, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287746)

That's not it at all. The documents were already in enemy hands because the file was shared over BitTorrent. The password was already in enemy hands because the Guardian published it. All WikiLeaks is doing at this point is evening the playing field by letting those interested parties who didn't get a chance have an opportunity to dig through them. This mostly means the people without the resources to have put things together already—i.e., the informants at risk, whose names were redacted in the first place.

Re:What are they thinking? (-1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287986)

While that's true, its the impression of the act which is damning. Yes I realise the cow is out of the barn, but the solution isn't to knock another door. The solution is to give the impression that you didn't want this to happen, and try some ineffective damage control. Sure you won't do much, but it at least shows your intentions - someone screwed up and we didn't want this to happen.

Also it won't be long before this act is taken out of context as Wikileaks being the bad guy. In fact some of the comments around here are to this effect.

Re:What are they thinking? (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288102)

There's only one cow. It was already out.

The fact that you weren't aware that it was already out is the reason why Wikileaks had to do this - make sure *everybody* knows.

even more damning is the guardian (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288164)

Note that the link, is from the Guardian, from the same guy who deliberately published the document in the first place.

Guardian is after wikileaks, bigtime. It's incredibly damning of them.

Wikileaks - we don't care who we injure or kill (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287648)

As long as they can damage the interests of the US, they just plain don't care.

Re:Wikileaks - we don't care who we injure or kill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287732)

Stop playing Calimero, it doesn't become you.

Re:Wikileaks - we don't care who we injure or kill (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287816)

since the interests of the U.S. are stealing, mass murdering and maiming for wealth and power, what's the problem?

Re:Wikileaks - we don't care who we injure or kill (1)

NouberNou (1105915) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288116)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but ultimately the US is looking out for the interests of the US. Countries doing what they think is best for their country, even if it is sneaky, treacherous, or deceitful has been around for a long time. In the end the world is still dog eat dog.

The question people in the US should be asking is if the actions that things like wikileaks exposes is really good for them as citizens of US? If another country gets screwed over a bit (or even a lot) to benefit in the end people living in the US then the citizens shouldn't care. If their results end up hurting people in the US then they should get angry.

Anyway, welcome to the real world, where everything is not touchy-feely happiness, but hard, cold politics and diplomacy, just like it has been for the last 4000 years.

Re:Wikileaks - we don't care who we injure or kill (1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288336)

I totally reject your flippant attitude toward evil doing by the USA, or notion that we should excuse it because that's historically normal. We claim to stand for justice, freedom and human rights, and that is what should guide our actions. If our interests, and we ourselves, get harmed *because* we do evil, then GOOD. we deserve it, and should take that harm which we reap from sowing evil as warning to change our ways to what we know is right.

You have the attitude of every tyrant's lackey and every large corporation which profits on human misery's minion. It is wrong

There is a deeper meaning here (1, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287650)

The release of the whole batch means that any negotiation to avoid the worst criminal penalties for Assange and others has failed. These people know they are going to be seeing little but the cinderblock walls of a detention facility for many years. They're giving up.

Re:There is a deeper meaning here (2, Interesting)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287838)

No. It means that hey want to cover up the fuckup which JA and *only* JA is responsible for to the media.

He gave the password without specific instructions. He put the files somewhere where they don't belong (i think not mixing redacted and unredacted material would be a good principle) and did not inform the administrator that these are there. He lacked responsiveness in communicating with the responsible admistrator. He lacked openness to address the issue and take control of it of give the responsibility in a controlled way to somebody else. He did not delete the documents which he put there. He chose a single, simple password instead of a two-factor authorization. He did not (as would have been appropriate) use a physically safe way of transferring the data to the journalist (1 DVD would have been enough). He did not make sure the journalists computer is safe.

Re:There is a deeper meaning here (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288042)

You are so wrong over here.

He gave the password to the Insurance file. That part was wrong. True. Not sure why he gave him that password, but that's his mistake.

The files were ENCRYPTED and public. The idea was that if wikileaks was pulled down by the government, or shut down by the ISP or whatever - which was VERY probable, lots of people would have the files. Think of it as a guarantee. Its useless pulling down the site, because the data will still be there. Two factor authentication would be useless for this purpose.

Now, HOW WOULD YOU delete the files? Pull down the torrent? Ask everyone nicely? Hack everyone's computers and delete the files?

There was nothing he could do after the leak. Nothing.

Re:There is a deeper meaning here (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288054)

The release of the whole batch means that any negotiation to avoid the worst criminal penalties for Assange and others has failed. These people know they are going to be seeing little but the cinderblock walls of a detention facility for many years. They're giving up.

You may be right. But I would like to suggest another hypothesis.

The release may instead mean that Assange and others believe even more strongly than they did before that they cannot be touched and see no reason to be reasonable any more. I think Assange is and has been crazy. I don't think he's rational. Given how the response to him has been fairly weak (he's not in jail and while I think he is due for a court date, he has a chance to beat the rap), I can understand how he might conclude that's he invincible. Look at Bradley Manning. Yes, he was detained under pretty harsh conditions (this is no longer true), but he's not going to face the death penalty for what he did. Until the US government asks for the death penalty for guys like Manning and actually sends in a death squad to rub out Assange, the idea will persist that there's nothing to lose here by spilling the beans. Kill someone over it and the next guy in line just might think twice before he clicks on that "send" button.

Re:There is a deeper meaning here (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288320)

Who would exact this punishment? From what I've read, releasing these documents would only be illegal under US law. And Assange is not in the US. Extraditions only happen when the act is criminal in both the source and destination countries.

Fantastic, stunning deceit by The Guardian (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287652)

The Guardian essentially pretends now that Wikileaks have taken this decision and by doing so have placed a lot of people at risk.

This deceit is evident several places in the article. That is the deceitful picture they are trying to paint.

The truth is that all of the cables were already accessible to anyone who wanted that access worldwide, including intelligence agencies.

You can argue about "blame": was the blame on Assange who apparently reused a password, on the Wikileaks people who spread that file around as a form of "insurance", or on the person from The Guardian who wrote what the password was in his book?

But you can't argue that Wikileaks now has sole responsibility for placing people at risk. That responsibility is down to all the aforementioned participants.

The exact division of blame can be argued about, but a picture that Wikileaks now places someone at risk that wasn't placed at risk earlier through joint efforts is monumentally deceitful.

It's called spin (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287994)

And even the title of the Slashdot post is spinning. Everyone knew Wikileaks published this file, it was insurance if anything should happen to Julian. That Wikileaks re-used a known password for this file is bad security practices [tm], and that Guardian published the password is beyond belief.

Re:Fantastic, stunning deceit by The Guardian (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288096)

I think that someone may have put a mole in the Guardian.

It would be a perfect opportunity to make wikileaks look like a pack of pricks.

And getting them shut down might just be important enough to risk a leak.

I think wikileaks got screwed and is now just doing damage control.

They were finished the minute the Guardian "accidentally" leaked the master password.

Re:Fantastic, stunning deceit by The Guardian (1, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288110)

but a picture that Wikileaks now places someone at risk that wasn't placed at risk earlier through joint efforts is monumentally deceitful

Nonsense. Before Assange and crew offered to help the original criminal move copies of all of that stolen data, the people named in those documents were less at risk. Assange acted to handle that data and make a big show of picking and choosing how and to whom he would dribble it out (to maximize his ego-boosting press coverage), but it was his group's actions that took one bumbling, screwed-up idiot's lame data-dump-theft and turned it into widely reachable collection that, of course, inevitably would be clear text for everyone at some point.

Monumentally deceitful? That would be Assange pretending this wasn't what he wanted all along. He's got a political agenda and a personal need for the spotlight, and this allows him to grind both axes. And of course his sycophantic apologist fanboi club will simply say that no information should ever be discreet, and so this is all good, blah blah blah.

You can argue about blame

Not at all. The guy who stole the documents is primarily to blame, and the guy who set up the infrastructure to hold it for him, and to spread it around is the other party. Period.

Re:Fantastic, stunning deceit by The Guardian (1, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288376)

This. Back when Wikileaks was actually redacting the documents, people praised them to high heaven and criticized anyone claiming that the documents could potentially cause harm. Now, we see that Wikileaks having those documents was in fact dangerous all along, and that there is damn good reason the government doesn't like them being handed to random people on the Internet, and prosecutes people who do. You might even say that this problem was one good reason the US government wanted Wikileaks shut down in the first place, because the potential for Assange to loose control over the raw information was extremely high.

This situation is why classified and secret information doesn't get handed to civilians. They cannot be trusted to keep it secret. And now that this has happened, you can count on governments worldwide being far more careful and restrictive of all information. Good job, Wikileaks! You made the world a worse place in the long term just so you could cry out against "the man" for a few months.

I wouldn't go so far as to assume Assange wanted this all along, although I would agree it isn't impossible. But it was inevitable. Oh, and I don't think it is a coincidence that a few weeks before this happened, Daniel Domscheit-Berg destroyed a bunch of documents. Maybe he realized that Assange couldn't be trusted? Maybe. I don't really know, just a thought.

Re:Fantastic, stunning deceit by The Guardian (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288340)

Maybe I'm missing something - but if Wikileaks didn't exist in the 1st place, then we wouldn't have this problem. So ultimately they blame goes back to them because they took the 1st step in even compiling and distributing the documents.

Sure, someone else may or may not have done same eventually... but we're talking about the current problem here, the way it actually happened.

It's all on Wilkileaks for doing what they did in the 1st place.

Well, shit (0)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287656)

en tee

What did you expect? (0)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287704)

Ok, Wikileaks follows the rules, redacts names and other information. And the US government goes after them. Did the government expect anything less?

Never try to play hard ball unless you ware willing to get hit with a bat.

Re:What did you expect? (1)

Jiro (131519) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287750)

That's equivalent to saying "I followed the rules. I robbed the bank without shooting anyone. In fact, I let all the hostages go at the end."

Killing the hostages makes it worse, but in the end, robbing the bank is already not following the rules.

Re:What did you expect? (0)

phayes (202222) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288122)

But you see, Assange has this God complex that gives him the right to decide what the rules are.

Re:What did you expect? (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288162)

Ok, Wikileaks follows the rules

Which rules? The ones about helping a US soldier steal and disseminate hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents? They did not follow those rules, the actively, deliberately broke the rules (and common sense, needless to say). That horse was out of the barn the moment they set up server space for Manning to dump to, and didn't involve the authorities when he started doing it.

Assange grabs the spotlight again! (0)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287708)

As his sexual escapades fade from the public's attention, he needs something new to keep his name on everyone's mind. It would appear that he has found a way to do just that.

This may not make him very popular with a lot of people, though. I would say that if a close relative were to be dragged out into the street and killed because of his covert association with the US or other government I might be inspired to do Mr. Assange some real damage. So how many chances has he now exposed for some pissed-off relative to decide to make him pay?

While discrediting him might have had a role in the sex charges against him, losing credibility is a small thing compared to losing his life. Many of the countries where covert operations have been going on do not bother much with legal niceities - a spy for the US would just be killed out of hand with a cheering crowd standing by. The relations of such a person aren't going to be constrained by the legal system anywhere either.

For perspective on this, I suggest the movie "Next of Kin" [imdb.com] for an example of how a less legalistic culture deals with transgressors against their family.

WikiFloods? (1)

dmt0 (1295725) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287716)

WikiFloods?

Wikidrown. (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287998)

and taking anyone near it down the abyss with it.

Already out there? (1)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287728)

According to the article, the full set of cables was released in a encrypted form in December 2010, and The Guardian released the password in a book in February 2011. I guess from that point of view, the cat was already out of the bag.

I guess to anyone who's directly interested in endangering the sources and/or identified parties put two and two together back then, so this may be of little impact from that aspect. Perhaps WikiLeaks was trying to give the impression that they're still in control before everyone else figures out the connection anyway?

Dont give a shit. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287738)

Again, i know you americans are going to go berserk when you hear this, but any one who enrolls in an effort that is for unjust invasion and occupation of foreign countries, kidnap and torture of individuals, repression, suppression and so on are responsible with what they have helped.

and no - 'good intentions' while joining does not matter - you should quit acting a dastardly act when you discover it is a dastardly act. and again no, there is no distinction in between those who actually perpetuate the tortures and the random clerk shipping items out of a warehouse for the organization - the clerk is STILL aiding that organization with its effort. if people working on this level were more conscious and chose not to work for these organizations, then the bastards doing the dastardly acts would not be able to do them.

political views, threat assessments, security and so on does not matter in this regard : torture is torture, occupation is occupation.

it is also ironic that you people are ok with people like us working in private sector to be responsible for all their choices of their employment, for the better or for the worse, and go talking about the 'free market' and the 'realities of life' when something shitty happens to any particular segment of the workforce, but, SOMEHOW, start to see things in a different way when someone working for a torture organization gets into danger because of who they work for.

Re:Dont give a shit. (1)

w3woody (44457) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287824)

it is also ironic that you people are ok with people like us working in private sector to be responsible for all their choices of their employment, for the better or for the worse, and go talking about the 'free market' and the 'realities of life' when something shitty happens to any particular segment of the workforce, but, SOMEHOW, start to see things in a different way when someone working for a torture organization gets into danger because of who they work for.

Sure they knew the risks, just as a truck driver knows the risks of getting into an accident while working--but that doesn't mean you don't go after the stupid son-of-a-bitch who was drinking and driving when he plowed into the truck driver.

Re:Dont give a shit. (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287886)

I am an American, and I'm not going beserk. I would assume that the State Department would be one of the first reading the leaked documents and taking any precautions needed to ensure the safety of their informants. You haven't disputed the question of whether its the State Department who allowed these documents to be leaked in the first place. How big a role did leaked documents play in the Arab Spring?

Re:Dont give a shit. (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288036)

taking any precautions needed to ensure the safety of their informants

Unless they are their own agents or they have information that can harm the US, the State Department has probably established a long time ago the criticality of each informant and the potential exposure to US affairs if that individual is compromised. I'm sure some will be extended protection (those plans are usually determined well in advance), but many many others will simply be abandoned and left to fend for themselves
.
This is not unique to the US. French, British, Russian and Israeli intellegence services operate in the same manner. Informants usually gain something; money, sabotage against a regime they despise, power, food, weapons, or simply asylum.

At this moment US is the nice big target. There's dirty laundry with many other governments.

Re:Dont give a shit. (1)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287932)

I think you may have missed the point a little.

When they say the cables identify those at risk, the people they're talking about include (possibly peaceful) political activists within repressive regimes who may now be in severe danger. They're also talking about whistleblowers who are also now in danger, and will now be less forthcoming about reporting abuses going on within their perview.

Re:Dont give a shit. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288046)

i am aware of that. and, from first hand experience in my own locale, i know that any 'peaceful political activist' who acts in conjunction with u.s. interests, rarely evaluate to anything more than private interest linked lackeys. and no peaceful, honest political activist stays in that allegiance for long.

googling 'muslim brotherhood' in relevance to the recent 'arab spring' would give you insight into this. they are just private standing lackey of the same interest that propels the government machine.

Re:Dont give a shit. (1)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288186)

Whether you're correct or not, you're assuming that activists detailed in the cables are aligned with US interests. I suspect that the US keeps more of an eye on those against it's interests than those with.

Re:Dont give a shit. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288312)

those who are not aligned with u.s. interests, do not have much to worry about in localities which are not under u.s. control yet. and, their name not being out, does not help them at all against u.s. interests. it is actually better for their name to be out like that to fend off u.s.

hahaa (-1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287946)

modded down in the minute. hypocrisy of you people is disgusting. its horrible when OTHERS do something, but its all ok if your own people do shit.

"The people" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37288002)

You seem to be confused. You are directing your anger at the american people in response to decisions made by the american government.

If you think the government and "the people" are one and the same, then you haven't been paying attention to the past 2000 years of history. It is precisely the fact that they are NOT the same which defines government -- it is the one organization holding the unique "right" to employ physical force as a business model. "The people" are the rest of us who do NOT hold that right.

That is the only true objective definition of government. Everything else is subjective. Opinion, not fact.

How can a government and "the people" possibly be one and the same, as long as that special right to employ coercion against the people exists? Human nature tells us that coercion is the mode of human interaction that *violates* human rights. Logically, one who employs coercion against you -- in other words, working against your interest -- can't possibly be working for your interest at the same time.

Re:"The people" (1)

BlackTriangle (581416) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288064)

The Americans vote for the politicans they believe best fit to lead the country, those politicians hire the doers that make it happen. Americans are very, very happy that their chosen politicans rob third-world countries blind for their resources. Otherwise, they wouldn't keep voting for the Democrats and Republicans. And people in other countriess aren't stupid, America is very large and very powerful so we KNOW what's happening in your country, and who you vote for.

Re:Dont give a shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37288174)

So, um, you, most likely, are "complicit" in torture, repression, suppression, and so on. Have you ever bought a product, even indirectly and unknowingly, that was subsidized by immoral actions? Then, by your logic, there is no distinction between you and the torturer, because you have supported those actions with your money.

Please commit suicide immediately.

or... do you still maintain there's no distinction between being the actual torturer and someone who is very indirectly connected and probably has no realisitc choice other then being indirectly connected to torture? Is the Government YOU live under SPOTLESSLY clean in every regard? Are you rebelling against your Government? No? Then aren't you indirectly connected via your support of your Government to any crime your Government has committed, and by your logic, you have no distinction between you and whatever criminal abused your Government's power?

I really hate your argument because it seems to be calling for "collective punishment"--everyone associated to a certain arbitrary degree with whatever you don't like "deserves punishment" because there is "no distinction". You seem to be arguing for extreme punishment ("no distinction") of people who are only peripherally connected to crimes. I say punishing mostly-innocent people the same as actual torturers is just about as evil as torture is.

--PM

Re:Dont give a shit. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288330)

yes. i am complicit in torture because i have to buy stuff that is perpetuated by the interests that perpetuate the torture.

however that does not mean that i should be condoning those who participate in that to a greater extent than i am.

People will most likely die from this (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287772)

Usually when people go from having controversial views or methods, to having controversial views or methods and don't mind having innocent people die along the way, they go from the label of "activist" to "terrorist".

Re:People will most likely die from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287936)

Anyone who was going to die from this was already toast as of the Guardian publication of the password to the file that was already in the wild. This just levels the playing field and gives those still alive but in danger the chance to KNOW they are in danger.

Re:People will most likely die from this (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288010)

Perhaps, but it still doesn't change the obvious statement of disregard for human life.

When dealing with the devil... (1)

w3woody (44457) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287790)

... expect to get burned. What will be fascinating to me is to see if the editors who were complicit in working with Assange won't also suffer criminal penalties. Probably they'll get away unscathed, but their efforts were not helpful.

Re:When dealing with the devil... (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287896)

"When dealing with the devil, expect to get burned"

You're referring to the diplomats working with the US there, right?

Questionable headline (2)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287848)

Wikileaks made the encrypted archive available long ago so shouldn't the headline here point out the newer and more interesting bit - that the Guardian released the key after signing an agreement not to?

Guardian covering their ass (4, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287852)

First the Guardian published the master password for the cables.csv file, which made all those names of informants and what not publicly available. Now that Wikileaks is also making the same information available that the Guardian first made public to everyone, the Guardian is trying to paint this disclosure of information as an irresponsible move by Wikileaks.

The only thing you can blame Wikileaks for, afaik, is to make that same information available via a search interface (besides the fact that they gave the real password to the Guardian). But it's not like people who had really bad intentions for uses of that information couldn't set something like that up themselves (and probably already did), which I assume is what motivated them to do this.

Re:Guardian covering their ass (1)

abulafia (7826) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288048)

Well, no, not exactly. The Guardian published the password. Wikileaks failed to secure the encrypted payload. They both had to fail for the security breach to have happened. Irresponsibility is shared there, and as best I can tell, Julian is embarrassed and attempting to salvage ego with a dumb "I meant to do that" sort of maneuver.

The Guardian is being a bit silly in complaining now, after the data is already out there - anyone with an interest has already found a torrent.

But really, the whole thing is silly, given that the cables were available very widely to (as I understand it) millions of US folks already. I simply don't believe that documents shared with 7 figures of people, security cleared or no, don't find their way to people who have an interest in such things.

Most of the hot air being puffed about this has to do with what is public-public, instead of private-public. It makes a difference. (To pick a different example: "everybody knows" that many cops in the US arrest routinely people who annoy them on bullshit charges. This is private-public knowledge. Now imagine documents hypothetical leaking about this being policy. That would make it public-public.

Re:Guardian covering their ass (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288134)

given that the cables were available very widely to (as I understand it) millions of US folks already. I simply don't believe that documents shared with 7 figures of people, security cleared or no, don't find their way to people who have an interest in such things.

You can't actually get access to those documents solely by virtue of having Secret or Top Secret clearance.

Re:Guardian covering their ass (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288378)

You're forgetting to blame Assange's:
Negligent stupidity in releasing the data dump to the guardian with a "cute" & supposedly time limited password & then to torrent with the same password.
Outrageous hypocrisy in exposing the secrets of others while expecting his own to remain secret.

He cannot escape guilt by saying "I was just following orders" -- he gave the orders.

"The first time...available to those w/o...skills" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287864)

While this seems quite dastardly of Wikileaks to do, let's be realistic - Many if not all of the entities we are concerned about obtaining the unredacted information do indeed have access to these 'sophisticated technical skills' the Guardian is speaking about. Wikileaks may be putting the information in the hands of more people, but you can't imply that by having the password in the open that it wasn't already in the hands of the wrong people.

If anything, Wikileaks making the data available allows more people to prepare for the impact of having the unredacted information in the "wrong hands"

Look at the Wookie!!! (0)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287872)

NWO false flag operation. How else do you think that Wikileaks got the information in the first place. They are nothing more than a NOW propaganda mill. The majority of this info is all fake.

The odds on Assange (1, Funny)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 3 years ago | (#37287880)

What are the odds on Assange living long enough to publish documents detailing the plan to take him out?

Guardian thinks we're gullible idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287904)

Everybody knows when 5 people know a secret (such as the whereabouts of encrypted documents), soon it will be 10, then 100. You don't publish a password to them.

I have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37287926)

Who exactly at Wikileaks Authorized this? Cause it sounds like either the guys running it gave up and are going scorched earth since they think they are screwed anyways but it also reminds me of them old stories were cops would infiltrate a peaceful protest and then make the few moles act up so they can aggressively take down the protest they would have been legally unable to do otherwise.

I would want to know authorized this and his connections outside of Wikileaks.

Did Assange re-use a password? (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 3 years ago | (#37288132)

In the article a former WL states that Assange was lazy and just re-used an old password that was the same as the one shared with the Guardian.

If so then two things:
a) Guardian was stupid to publish a password
b) Assange was really careless for re-using a password, considering the spotlight on WL

Anyways, WL had a reasonable set-up with the five media outlets that should have used and that would have provided some sort of support. That's gone now.

Yeah, I do think it's pretty mindless to release all the info raw. Let's hope that there are no victims of circumstance.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?