Anonymous and others start leaking

  On 12/3/2010 at 2:30 PM, o00o said:

  On 12/3/2010 at 2:25 PM, Gary C said:

This site's insane. If it does load it's almost impossible to sieve through all the comments and questions. If he does pop up make sure to just refresh his profile page and avoid the minefield.

 

this is the actual important page is it?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online

I think so.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

I've got it showing all comments, refreshing it every couple of minutes and looking for him.

isn't working for me... something is awry....

Okay, they've stopped new comments and will update us with his answers.

Here's some answers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

  Quote

Mr Assange,

have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?

 

Julian Assange:

Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.

1) that the documents not be self-authored;

2) that they be original.

However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

hee

  Quote

Julian Assange:

Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.

interesting

  Quote

Isopod:

Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?

This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.

And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.

 

Julian Assange:

This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.

Julian Assange is Batman.

  Quote

rajiv1857:

Hi,

Is the game that you are caught up in winnable? Technically, can you keep playing hide and seek with the powers that be when services and service providers are directly or indirectly under government control or vulnerable to pressure - like Amazon?

Also, if you get "taken out" - and that could be technical, not necessarily physical - what are the alternatives for your cache of material?

Is there a 'second line' of activists in place that would continue the campaign?

Is your material 'dispersed' so that taking out one cache would not necessarily mean the end of the game?

 

Julian Assange:

The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you.

Now that's a fucking sign-off. Stirring.

  On 12/3/2010 at 4:11 PM, Gary C said:

  Quote

Julian Assange:

The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you.

 

Now that's a fucking sign-off. Stirring.

yeah, thats interesting because its the first time they've indicated whats in the notorious Insurance torrent

I'm wondering if people will be able to crack the encryption now that we know a chunk of the contents. unlikely I guess.

I'm intruiged by the 'automatic' releasing of the keys - it must be a dead-mans-handle mechanism - a server somewhere that will publish the keys if wikileaks people dont enter a code regularly somehow.

  On 12/3/2010 at 4:11 PM, Gary C said:

  Quote

rajiv1857:

 

Now that's a fucking sign-off. Stirring.

what I was thinking, I'm seriously hoping that the leaks that will come out and the leaks he holds in his "insurance" policy will change something earnestly, and that this isn't some massive idealist cock waving contest that is over romanticised

surely there is hackers out there that can break any encryption with the time and willpower?

  On 12/3/2010 at 4:26 PM, messiaen said:

surely there is hackers out there that can break any encryption with the time and willpower?

You'd think that, however I do remember reading about this encryption that his "insurance" doc holds and you could have millions of supercomputers running brute force attacks on it and it'd take thousands of years apparently so.... won't be getting anyone in their basement pulling it off anytime soon I don't think....

  On 12/3/2010 at 4:23 PM, Macca said:

 

what I was thinking, I'm seriously hoping that the leaks that will come out and the leaks he holds in his "insurance" policy will change something earnestly, and that this isn't some massive idealist cock waving contest that is over romanticised

We are at a unique time in our history when governments and business are generating immense amounts of data and distributing it while trying to keep it confidential. This is clearly not possible, and Wikileaks dont have any special tech or knowledge, they just have balls and a simple idea that could never have been put into practice before this decade. Theyve just used existing tech to make it easier for people to anaonymously leak and then distribute those leaks.

I think the main change that will come out of all this is that big organisations (government, business) will have to accept that massive leaks are going to happen. They then have the option of being more ethical, or just not writing things down at all (which is not a practical option these days).

Very important data that isn't widely distributed can be secured, but anything with wide distribution it too expensive (in time, effort) to secure absolutely. And one little leak opportunity can leak lots of data.

So, mega-leaks are here to stay, and that will enforce more accountability on the powers that be. That is Assange's aim, and its going to work. There isn't really any other possible outcome.

There is a theoretically impenetrable form of encryption known as a one-time pad. If I recall correctly, the only way it could be compromised is if Wikileaks were to implement it incorrectly.

There are many ways to keep confidential information confidential, leaks do happen, but look what kind of bullshit ends up leaking. It's truly the tip of the iceburg compared to the stuff we already know about our government. It's pretty clear the reason why this information was so easily obtained.

Leaked information does not provide an incentive to behave ethically, merely an incentive to keep your controversial behavior under tighter wraps or code the information for specific individuals. The government/business is not going to change its behavior because they're scared people might find out. They have the option of being ethical, but there really is no point when being unethical provides massive benefits at a controllable risk.

Basically your mom caught you masturbating. Are you going to stop masturbating or start locking the door?

  On 12/3/2010 at 5:49 PM, 24ourange said:

 

Basically your mom caught you masturbating. Are you going to stop masturbating or start locking the door?

In America's case, I wouldn't be surprised if the goverment lets us watch them cum all over everything. American Idol with Politics.

lol now its ufos, the fuck

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=40491489&afid=1

maybe a way to gather more people..

  On 12/3/2010 at 7:05 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 12/3/2010 at 5:27 AM, kaini said:

i agree - after a read of the blog (which is sort of addictive), i am left in no doubt his intentions are good and he's very idealistic. but it all sorta reads like the musings of someone in their first year of eng lit in college or something.

 

and it actually weighs against the 'assange is not wikileaks' argument, i think. it would seem wikileaks is very much assange.

 

what makes you think after reading that 'wikileaks is very much assange'? i just watched a talk at a hacker conference that Assange was unable to attend, and Jake Appelbuam replaced him as keynote speaker. And for that moment was the PR spokesperson for Wikileaks The speech Appelbuam made was quite possibly the best and most concise mission statement from wikileaks that i've ever heard or read. It made me convinced more than ever that Assange is merely a scapegoat at this point almost playing the role of a human heat-sink. If Jake isn't bullshitting, removing Assange will do absolutely nothing to stop wikileaks leaking shit. And that is quite a powerful fact.

 

not super new but if you have any doubt of Wikileaks future influence on events in the USA or in the world in general please watch (there were federal agents standing on either side of the stage there to question Assange )

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX5yWgMzNXg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8AvX3OLjQM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr0bjZC6aBA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LyUeEBaanI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7042QbVEJg&feature=related

 

possibly a little 'emo' for some, but it answers all of the questions people were asking earlier ie 'what is wikileaks purpose' 'what do they want to accomplish'. Well here it is, and congrats to Appelbaum for making the speech knowing federal agents were probably going to question him immediately after speaking.

good stuff, does make it clear what their vision is.

I do find a bit of a contradiction in their philosophy, and somehow ironic that someone that works in the tor project is an advocate of full disclosure. I understand that there's is a difference with individual and organizational privacy bit it is still contradictory to some extent.

that moment when he said that admiting that other people are better qualified to make desicions than you are is an anti-democratic notion that you should reject it made me cringe. seems like a very naive and arrogant line of thought.

this all reminded me of that thread about the kid who was kicked out of school because his laptop had spying software and they saw him naked, i remember starting a discussion about privacy, i said i'd find it positive if the need for privacy was eliminated. I was talking about similar things that are talked about here, that you want to keep stuff secret because of the consequences they may bring, these consequences could be negative not necessarily because what you're doing is wrong but because poeple around you may be intolerant, both types of damage apply when privacy is breached wether it's individual or organizational.

  On 12/3/2010 at 6:17 PM, plstik said:

lol now its ufos, the fuck

 

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=40491489&afid=1

 

maybe a way to gather more people..

... read.

  On 12/3/2010 at 5:49 PM, 24ourange said:

There are many ways to keep confidential information confidential, leaks do happen, but look what kind of bullshit ends up leaking. It's truly the tip of the iceburg compared to the stuff we already know about our government. It's pretty clear the reason why this information was so easily obtained.

Leaked information does not provide an incentive to behave ethically, merely an incentive to keep your controversial behavior under tighter wraps or code the information for specific individuals. The government/business is not going to change its behavior because they're scared people might find out. They have the option of being ethical, but there really is no point when being unethical provides massive benefits at a controllable risk.

If you're a hard core conspiracy theorist, then yes, you'll have to assume that there is much more secret stuff that wikileaks will never get to. i dont think thats actually the case. But anyway thats kinda beside the point here. Assange's point is that even if it makes governments more secretive thats kind of a victory, becauses theres a huge efficiency trade off with being secretive. Here are his own words from a blog a while back:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#Thenonlineareffectsofleaksonunjustsystemsofgovernance

  Quote

31 Dec 2006

 

... The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

 

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.

 

Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what's actually going on.

  On 12/3/2010 at 5:33 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

My 2 big take-aways were: 1) this is a really good argument for why so-called brilliant people shouldn't run the world and 2) I wonder if everyone should be suspicious of the wisdom and psychological stability of any unmarried male over the age of 35 (this includes me btw lol)

Not having read or heard Julian Assange, I cannot comment on his brilliance, but I would think that you, out of all people on this board, living in the country that you do, would understand the importance of having an educated, experienced (read older) group of people as leaders. A little hint as to what happens when you let the uneducated youth try and run things: Cultural Revolution.

ie skinny jeans and auto-tune

new URLs: http://wikileaks.de/ http://213.251.145.96 http://wikileaks.nl

  On 12/3/2010 at 7:39 PM, 24ourange said:

ie skinny jeans and auto-tune

I was thinking more mass-murder and preventing economic progress for decades causing famine, hardship and massive fuck-ups but yeah those things too.

Also, when will WikiLeaks release that lost Aphex hard drive?

  On 12/3/2010 at 7:50 PM, chenGOD said:

Also, when will WikiLeaks release that lost Aphex hard drive?

Lol.

Who out of us here has _not_ led awake at night, wondering what happened to that?

(Actually rather than being a hard drive I believe it was an mp3 enabled portable cd player with a cd full of unreleased mp3s)