WikiLeaks

[bascule]

Lately WikiLeaks has really fascinated me. I'm not really talking about the Collateral Murder video so much as Wikileaks in general.

I really like Bruce Sterling novels and was fascinated with the idea of "data havens", a concept that William Gibson would carry over into his writing (e.g. the Walled City). Neil Stephenson introduced the idea of CryptNet in his novels.

It would seem that data havens are quite real and there are people who are fighting tooth and nail for information to be free. And I like it...

What do you think?

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

I like WikiLeaks in general. I like the mentality of posting something and essentially saying, "What are you gonna do about it."

My only comment about Collateral Murder (since you did take the effort to mention and link to it) is that they really should have obtained some outside assistance before they posted the video. The reason I say this is because it is pretty obvious that they have little or no experience with what they're looking at. I'm not justifying what happened, but they miss *a lot*. This post in particular sheds some interesting perspective on the video.

[Agent X]

Re: WikiLeaks

Along with their moves in Iceland (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/bu...ia/22link.html) they are up to some interesting stuff. It should also be noted that some of the technical people involved with Wiki leaks are Defcon attendees.

[bascule]

Re: WikiLeaks

My only comment about Collateral Murder (since you did take the effort to mention and link to it) is that they really should have obtained some outside assistance before they posted the video. The reason I say this is because it is pretty obvious that they have little or no experience with what they're looking at. I'm not justifying what happened, but they miss *a lot*. This post in particular sheds some interesting perspective on the video.

Regarding Collateral Murder, I just wish they would've posted the relevant material sans the editorializing. I understand their desire to post all the relevant context, but instead they posted it with a complete narrative they wish for you to subscribe to.

I really wish they could provide all the relevant information without editorializing.

[bascule]

Re: WikiLeaks

..........

[g3k_]

Re: WikiLeaks

Back when I was involved in Chanology, a lot of documents that were discovered from hacking into Scientology servers(I, personally was not involved)/leaked from people who saw a chance, Wikileaks provided a 'safe haven' for the information that was gleamed. I had actually never heard of it till it had all gone down. I think it is an amazing place, and should be kept alive, as long as they are objective. (which they seem to be failing at)

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

Regarding Collateral Murder, I just wish they would've posted the relevant material sans the editorializing. I understand their desire to post all the relevant context, but instead they posted it with a complete narrative they wish for you to subscribe to.

I really wish they could provide all the relevant information without editorializing.

Exactly, and agree 100%.

Post the video for what it is, and let others do the editorializing.

[YenTheFirst]

Re: WikiLeaks

doncha know, right on their site
http://www.collateralmurder.com/file...ll.mp4.torrent
unedited.

[Demon002]

Re: WikiLeaks

This site is interesting and i hope it doesnt fall short of its goals, but....sometimes a decision needs to be made if information SHOULD be disclosed. Rules of engagement...troops positioning and the list goes on. Kind of nerve racking tbh

[AccessDenied]

Re: WikiLeaks

My biggest issue is classified information is that way for a reason. There are plenty of parts of classified information that can be released in an unclassified manner. However when it comes to certain things like US vulnerabilities and source protection, there are reasons information should not be shared. Let say just as an example, somehow or another a wire conversation is picked up between two individuals, and the things they discussed gets leaked. Best case scenario at that point is these individuals realize they're being monitored and stop using their phones to discuss relevant information that may help the US. The other option is one of the individuals thinks the other person leaked this information himself, and ends up dead.

I like the fact that a someone is willing to attempt to be an unbiased source for any and all information, no questions asked period. I however do NOT like the fact that it's an open venue for information that puts national security and peoples lives at risk. The site itself talks about how it protects it's sources. What would happen if they suddenly published everyone who sent which documents to it. There's a reason information is classified.

However, the main problem is with the people leaking classified information, and not the site itself.

Overall, I'd have to say that it's on my dislike list because there's more potential for harm then their is for good.

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

The site itself talks about how it protects it's sources. What would happen if they suddenly published everyone who sent which documents to it. There's a reason information is classified.

Transparency is the ultimate hypocrisy of Wikileaks. They want transparency, but don't practice it themselves.

As I have stated above, I think the idea of Wikileaks in general is a good thing. IMO, with the Bradley Manning affair, they've become wrapped up in a political agenda that has perverted their overall mission. Likewise, demonizing Adrian Lamo doesn't advance their mission in any way.

As for the DoD banning soldiers from visiting Wikileaks, this is the equivalent of telling them what bars not to go to. Everyone wants to go there to find out why it's banned.

Finally, Wikileaks is now claiming that the DoD is trying to bankrupt them by refusing to participate in their "harm-minimization" procedures. Forgive me if I don't understand why the DoD would want to help Wikileaks to release even more classified documents.

[TheCotMan]

Re: WikiLeaks

Finally, Wikileaks is now claiming that the DoD is trying to bankrupt them by refusing to participate in their "harm-minimization" procedures. Forgive me if I don't understand why the DoD would want to help Wikileaks to release even more classified documents.

If you specify which items are of risk to cause harm to people, you leak additional information by acting as a proxy to confirming some part of a bit of intel to be censored is factual. While in civilian hands, a person that has knowledge of the sensitive content and less sensitive content becomes a target for "the enemy" to interrogate for both halves of this information.

Some might suggest that the DoD could use this as an opportunity to provide disinformation by "protecting" assets that are not really assets, and leaving assets of value uncensored. This would be a dangerous game from more than one point of view. First, if "the enemy" does not have to answer or be held accountable for their actions by the people and groups from which they would grab a target mentioned in the leaked docs, then they can make "mistakes" and grab the wrong people for interrogation without consequence. Who is going to stop them? Next, if this did happen and government employees or US Citizens as assets were kidnapped because their names were left public, then the political fallout here would be harmful to whatever administration is in power. Additionally, if our government moves to protect or negotiate the release of the person or take action because of the person kidnapped/tortured/executed, then it sends a message that they really were working for us, and the disinformation campaign is uncovered, letting "the enemy" know that other names left public in the wikileaks leaked documents are targets to add to their list for pickup, detention and interrogation.

Cooperation from the DoD is a losing offer for the DoD and a win for wikileaks. Wikileaks can now claim they tried to do their part to protect people but were not able to because, "the DoD doesn't believe in protecting people or else they would have helped us minimize harm." Now, when something bad does happen, they can say, "well... we tried," and wikileak supporters against violence will agree without really understanding how they were socially engineered to obey and follow.

Controlling and influencing people through media is an interesting topic. When done well, it is not obvious to most people and even when a small percentage of people recognize it for what it is, it is not newsworthy enough for wide public discussion.

Wikileaks gets bonus points for excellent strategy for this offer to the DoD. It is like a lesson from The Art of War.

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

If you specify which items are of risk to cause harm to people, you leak additional information by acting as a proxy to confirming some part of a bit of intel to be censored is factual. While in civilian hands, a person that has knowledge of the sensitive content and less sensitive content becomes a target for "the enemy" to interrogate for both halves of this information.

Precisely. In the same way you can infer things based on what people don't talk about.

Cooperation from the DoD is a losing offer for the DoD and a win for wikileaks. Wikileaks can now claim they tried to do their part to protect people but were not able to because, "the DoD doesn't believe in protecting people or else they would have helped us minimize harm." Now, when something bad does happen, they can say, "well... we tried," and wikileak supporters against violence will agree without really understanding how they were socially engineered to obey and follow.

Controlling and influencing people through media is an interesting topic. When done well, it is not obvious to most people and even when a small percentage of people recognize it for what it is, it is not newsworthy enough for wide public discussion.

Wikileaks gets bonus points for excellent strategy for this offer to the DoD. It is like a lesson from The Art of War.

Agree 100% with all of this. I probably should have specifically said that it seems obvious to me that this was all part of their media strategy, but you lay it out in a much better way that I ever could have.

[TheCotMan]

Re: WikiLeaks

...but you lay it out in a much better way that I ever could have.

Thanks, but I know the truth. I saw you speak at Defcon (2 or 3 years ago) to a packed room or people. They were quite interested in what you had to say, and I am pretty sure you could have done better than me up above if you so desired.

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

Thanks, but I know the truth. I saw you speak at Defcon (2 or 3 years ago) to a packed room or people. They were quite interested in what you had to say, and I am pretty sure you could have done better than me up above if you so desired.

Well, thank you for the compliment.

I find that I often write my comments with certain assumptions in mind, but I sometimes fail to actually lay them out in print. When I read your post, it spelled out your assumptions, and gave me pause to consider that I had not done the same.

When people take the time to clearly write what they're thinking, it rewards the readers by making them better critical thinkers.

And I'm pretty sure that made no sense.