Anonymous and others start leaking

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:35 AM, kaini said:

there was a very strongly worded memo to all US diplomatic staff issued this morning reminding them that leaking dox is breaking US law and would be punished with the strongest possible penalties. this was on sky news. so i don't think that it's fair to say that there is no foreseeable consequence to this so far, at least for potential document leakers.

ok so a worthwhile consequence to persue with this is the firing and incarceration of your sources?

but it is still a pretty shallow consequence in the big picture, so som epeople may get fired and(or jailed. new people will take their places, and the world keeps going.

my mom had cnn or msnbc on (whichever has the show "hardball") and i heard a snippet of some talking head calling wikileaks "terrorist hackers" who are endangering all our lives.

i think they're just trying to frighten people with things they don't understand, as per usual.

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:38 AM, GORDO said:

i think the world could benefit to know about some stuff about the inner workings of financial institutions. because it may turn out that their evaluation of risks is not really up to the task.

why this is surely not the case. what ever would give you this idea?

<tinfoilhat>

then what if this is all planned to put fear into the hearts of americans? (again)

the plan: let's get some bland secrets out and act like is a grave national threat. then we can invade switzerland.

</tinfoilhat>

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:44 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:38 AM, GORDO said:

i think the world could benefit to know about some stuff about the inner workings of financial institutions. because it may turn out that their evaluation of risks is not really up to the task.

 

why this is surely not the case. what ever would give you this idea?

it was an exageration but it's based on true concerns. i've been told, for instance, that firms like fitch or standar and poor's don't really use the lastest and acepted methods for evaluating risks. we don't know how they do it tho, and they ratings are a big influence on the market. but it may turn out that they're not reliable at all (they've been wrong before).

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:48 AM, GORDO said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:44 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:38 AM, GORDO said:

i think the world could benefit to know about some stuff about the inner workings of financial institutions. because it may turn out that their evaluation of risks is not really up to the task.

 

why this is surely not the case. what ever would give you this idea?

 

 

it was an exageration but it's based on true concerns. i've been told, for instance, that firms like fitch or standar and poor's don't really use the lastest and acepted methods for evaluating risks. we don't know how they do it tho, and they ratings are a big influence on the market. but it may turn out that they're not reliable at all (they've been wrong before).

i was being sarcastic. after the last three years i have no faith in financial institutions of any kind.

but i will agree with some that all the recognition wikileaks is getting has clearly gone to assange's head. time for a new leader or a different organization

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:38 AM, GORDO said:

but of course someone should draw the line and i don't think the wikileaks team is specialized enough for the job of discriminating information.

well that isn't their job or intention ( to discriminate the info they release in a particular leak) however they have made several attempts (at least the last 2 big leaks) to provide 3 big news agencies (der spiegel, the guardian, ny times) with the data about a month in advance so that they can have a chance themselves to decide what to cover. Basically the media coverage we are seeing now is predominately influenced by Der spiegel, guardian and Ny times original coverage of it since they had a head start on everybody else.

The idea of having someone (even a member of wikileaks) censor or redact certain information before a leak comes out to the public i think would diminish Wikileak's purpose.

re: the other point you made, I really think there will be more fallout from this than a few people getting fired. It could change the relationship between the US & the UN, it could impact relationships between the US & a number of nations mentioned in these cables. All of these are hypotheticals,

what is their job then? just to put stuff out there?

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:54 AM, Z_B_Z said:

 

but i will agree with some that all the recognition wikileaks is getting has clearly gone to assange's head. time for a new leader or a different organization

this may seem look a good idea but think about what would happen if some new organization did the exact same type of leaks wikileaks is doing, the media and the pentagon would simply switch their departments to start digging up dirt and smears on this new group. Sure Assange could have dressed less ridiculous in his first media appearances, he could said something less provocative than ' i like to crush bastards' but it doesn't make a difference. An organization that leaks internal and classified US military documents is going to be in big trouble no matter how they operate themselves

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:05 AM, GORDO said:

what is their job then? just to put stuff out there?

to make open what was once secret, in their mind they think think this does a public service, letting all people have a more transparent view of ultra secretive organizations like the Pentagon and i can't help but agree (there are only some instances where i wouldn't agree with doing this).

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:10 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:54 AM, Z_B_Z said:

 

but i will agree with some that all the recognition wikileaks is getting has clearly gone to assange's head. time for a new leader or a different organization

 

this may seem look a good idea but think about what would happen if some new organization did the exact same type of leaks wikileaks is doing, the media and the pentagon would simply switch their departments to start digging up dirt and smears on this new group. Sure Assange could have dressed less ridiculous in his first media appearances, he could said something less provocative than ' i like to crush bastards' but it doesn't make a difference. An organization that leaks internal and classified US military documents is going to be in big trouble no matter how they operate themselves

true, but why does an organization like wikileaks even need a figurehead? why cant they just be an anonymous collective?

they should team up with 4chan

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:15 AM, GORDO said:

they should team up with 4chan

lol saw that one coming

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:13 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:10 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:54 AM, Z_B_Z said:

 

but i will agree with some that all the recognition wikileaks is getting has clearly gone to assange's head. time for a new leader or a different organization

 

this may seem look a good idea but think about what would happen if some new organization did the exact same type of leaks wikileaks is doing, the media and the pentagon would simply switch their departments to start digging up dirt and smears on this new group. Sure Assange could have dressed less ridiculous in his first media appearances, he could said something less provocative than ' i like to crush bastards' but it doesn't make a difference. An organization that leaks internal and classified US military documents is going to be in big trouble no matter how they operate themselves

 

true, but why does an organization like wikileaks even need a figurehead? why cant they just be an anonymous collective?

because cryptome has been doing that for much longer than wikileaks and has yet managed to pass under the radar of almost every major news organisation?

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:13 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:10 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:54 AM, Z_B_Z said:

 

but i will agree with some that all the recognition wikileaks is getting has clearly gone to assange's head. time for a new leader or a different organization

 

this may seem look a good idea but think about what would happen if some new organization did the exact same type of leaks wikileaks is doing, the media and the pentagon would simply switch their departments to start digging up dirt and smears on this new group. Sure Assange could have dressed less ridiculous in his first media appearances, he could said something less provocative than ' i like to crush bastards' but it doesn't make a difference. An organization that leaks internal and classified US military documents is going to be in big trouble no matter how they operate themselves

 

true, but why does an organization like wikileaks even need a figurehead? why cant they just be an anonymous collective?

I think Kcinsu made a good point earlier that something like that, an anonymous organization might have a lot more trouble gaining any footing in the national headlines. The media likes to interview people, so it makes sense to have a surrogate human being to play that role. It might as well be him since for all his faults he's actually really good at maintaining his cool in front of the press. Most people wouldn't be able to handle this type of pressure.

so in the end it comes down to pr. which is a shame because the leaks should stand on their own.. wouldve been interesting to see the same docs released without a figurehead.. surely they wouldve still got international coverage, no?

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:19 AM, Z_B_Z said:

.. surely they wouldve still got international coverage, no?

well the earliest leak i can recollect Wikileaks being associted with was the Sarah Palin e-mail box leak fro the 2008 elections. At this point you never heard the term Wikileaks in the headlines, it was only briefly mentioned in the Sarah Palin email story.

It wasn't until the 'Collateral Murder' the story was no longer about these periodic leaks, Wikileaks itself became the story. I don't think these last 3 leaks would have gotten nearly the same amount of attention if the Collateral Murder video didn't come out first, it generated the credibility they needed to have the press clamoring to them for each new subsequent leak they announce.

yeah it seems you need to reach a certain 'critical mass' in order for this sort of thing to break out from internets to traditional media. it's a consequence of the fact that the internet allows everyone from timecube guy to wikileaks to express an opinion to whoever wants to read it. it's a problem.

well, if he is found at the bottom of a ravine cause his brakes failed I wont be surprised

  On 11/30/2010 at 6:31 AM, marf said:

well, if he is found at the bottom of a ravine cause his brakes failed I wont be surprised

his high profile may help keep him alive

if he gets fucked it'll be some allegations of deviant behavior, again (not that i could know if those charges were false but the timing was a bit convenient for the US)

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:16 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:13 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:10 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:54 AM, Z_B_Z said:

 

but i will agree with some that all the recognition wikileaks is getting has clearly gone to assange's head. time for a new leader or a different organization

 

this may seem look a good idea but think about what would happen if some new organization did the exact same type of leaks wikileaks is doing, the media and the pentagon would simply switch their departments to start digging up dirt and smears on this new group. Sure Assange could have dressed less ridiculous in his first media appearances, he could said something less provocative than ' i like to crush bastards' but it doesn't make a difference. An organization that leaks internal and classified US military documents is going to be in big trouble no matter how they operate themselves

 

true, but why does an organization like wikileaks even need a figurehead? why cant they just be an anonymous collective?

 

I think Kcinsu made a good point earlier that something like that, an anonymous organization might have a lot more trouble gaining any footing in the national headlines. The media likes to interview people, so it makes sense to have a surrogate human being to play that role. It might as well be him since for all his faults he's actually really good at maintaining his cool in front of the press. Most people wouldn't be able to handle this type of pressure.

didn't assange himself said his job was to be the lightning rod for wikileaks or something like that? i think i read it somewhere but i may be making things up.

All the stories I've heard/read about the leak so far make it seem like this particular leak will only have two consequences:

1. The government will tighten up their oversight on highly sensitive internal information.

2. Our foreign relations will be set back significantly based on a few choice, private and off-record remarks.

I don't see those consequences as making the news dump worth it. I would only have made the leak public if it contained something of greater consequence than 'so-and-so from country A is a dumbass' or 'X, y and z want us to attack country B.' Those kinds of 'secrets' are not at all a surprise and revealing them is counterproductive to our political interests.

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:39 PM, encey said:

' Those kinds of 'secrets' are not at all a surprise and revealing them is counterproductive to our political interests.

What about the US spying on Ban-ki Moon and the UN ? I've been thinking that this is actually the only piece deserving to be made public. The rest is mere gossip and political strategies that don't need to be known from the public indeed. However, you may or may have not noticed that Assange is well aware that the leaks could be counterproductive and pissing off the US administration is pretty much his agenda I guess.

Yeah, this all seems like a good idea now, but wait 'til the Internet Police turn up.

enjoy it

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/898848--sarah-palin-s-solution-to-the-wikileaks-problem?bn=1

  Quote

Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly thinks whoever leaked the embassy memos should be executed. Wikileaks, he noted with a knowing nod, is “based in Sweden.”

  On 11/30/2010 at 5:06 PM, the anonymous forumite said:

What about the US spying on Ban-ki Moon and the UN ? I've been thinking that this is actually the only piece deserving to be made public. The rest is mere gossip and political strategies that don't need to be known from the public indeed.

Sorry, fair point; I agree with you, even while I suspect that the countries whose heads we're collecting info. on (although maybe not Ban-ki Moon himself) are doing the same thing.

  Quote

However, you may or may have not noticed that Assange is well aware that the leaks could be counterproductive and pissing off the US administration is pretty much his agenda I guess.

That is what rubs me the wrong way, a sort of Rage Against the Machine knee-jerk petulance toward any form of governance whatsoever. Immature!