Slashdot Mirror

Actually, it's more like the Pentagon Papers, which as you might remember were stolen, though they disputed the charge based on him not using them for personal gain and eventually got the charges thrown out due to illegal acts by the prosecution.

Even if we assume the DNC leak was a Russian hack despite the fact that most of the evidence boils down to what can be paraphrased as "trust our anonymous sources, they've got this, it's totally not like that time with the WMDs where we helped cause a war over nothing," the harm from these leaks were the revelations that peoples' votes for Bernie didn't matter and the media will print whatever the DNC tells them to, followed by the media carefully avoiding any actual reporting on the leaks. You saw this on Slashdot where they ignored the important, meaty submissions and posted fluffy crap like the "food groups" of VP candidates (they were sorted by race & sex, with Bernie off by himself in the special group), never mind that we had other leaks showing Tim Kaine was always going to be the VP pick in a quid pro quo arrangement and the entire exercise was a farce where they went through a dance to make it look legitimate.

I mean, just look at how pathetic the media has become:

“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything,”
- Politico reporter Glenn Thrush via the Podesta dump

Do you really expect journalism when we have pathetic hacks like this doing our reporting? I do more actual journalism than this and I have a real job and write comments whenever I'm bored or can't sleep.

1. Very few of the emails are DKIM signed. Check for yourself.
2. Even where DKIM is signed, it relies on the following assumtions.
A: The attacker has not compromised the Google private key
B: The attacker has not compromised DKIM or any of the technologies it relies on
C: The attacker had not compromised the sending account at the time of sending.

The requirement of assumption C is applicable regardless of who the attacker is. Assumptions A and B fail when considering a highly motivated state actor. It should go without saying that everyone here knows that major powers actively work on things like A & B, and C is their bread and butter.

Do I think that a power like, say, Russia, has compromised DKIM itself, or any of the technologies it relies on? Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Do I think that said entity has compromised the Google private key? Probably not, but again, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I absolutely would not put C past them - but it depends on the importance attached to the topic at hand.

To reiterate: the majority of the leak will be real. But there is an active, demonstrable history this cycle, of the attackers salting the leaks with fakes, using the real content to try to legitimize the fakes, so try not to be naive about all this.

>Link please.

https://www.wikileaks.com/

Other than admission that the email scandal was, in fact, a real scandal and that the Clinton team knew that what they were doing was wrong. Or coordinating with the media to spike damaging stories. Or how the San Bernadino shooting situation would have been better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.

If Alphabet wins.. they are saying that "information" taken from one nation and stored in another deserves no protection once outside it's boarders.

The protection information receives outside its borders is determined by jurisdiction and international agreements. There are agreements on copyrights and extradition. There is no general law or principle about "protection of information". Furthermore, Google search results don't "take information", they merely link to a source in whatever country the information resides in.

Assange couldn't be prosecuted if this prevails (yes, I know that it's only a secret grand jury at the moment) because https://wikileaks.com/ is physically outside of the US

Assange can be prosecuted in the US if he violated a US law, and if his offense is an extraditable offense under a treaty with a nation that he happens to reside in, then that nation would extradite him.

If Alphabet wins.. they are saying that "information" taken from one nation and stored in another deserves no protection once outside it's boarders.

Assange couldn't be prosecuted if this prevails (yes, I know that it's only a secret grand jury at the moment) because https://wikileaks.com/ is physically outside of the US and US laws don't apply? In that case wikileaks would only need to install a region filter to demonstrate "token" compliance. Now, if he was somehow kidnapped and found himself on US soil he would be in trouble.

Lets hope in this case the mega corporation wins... which could be a limited victory for everybody.

it's been rainy here by the Beach

> How is the government not concerned about corporate espionage, terrorism, and other criminal activity, you'd think from a security standpoint, they would want encryption to be legit.

Because such measures limits the capacity of the government to conduct corporate espionage, terrorism, and other criminal activity?

http://wikileaks.com/
?

If this doesn't make you go donate $20 to WikiLeaks, I don't know what will.

Go to their web site now, scroll down to the PayPal form, and reply here once you've sent them a few bucks. Put Slashdot in your donation comment, so they understand how much normal people care.
http://www.wikileaks.com/

As someone that works for a blue-chip tech firm and has no connection whatsoever to them, I can tell you that I PayPal'd WikiLeaks $10 a couple weeks ago when I saw their full site was down due to lack of funds. Like others, I wondered if and when they'd come back. But after reading about the Collateral Murder release on Slashdot and Digg, I didn't think twice before sending another $100. WikiLeaks' unique ability to acquire and distribute information like this (and effectively promote it) is exactly why you should support them. Their own releases show that the US government (among others) is/was trying to bury them, but now it's going to be full-scale war -- they are sure to need your dollars more than ever. I got 5 minutes into the video before I felt sick and had to stop watching.

I truly believe the only reasonable action anyone can take to even have a chance at preventing future cover-ups like this is to send money to WikiLeaks. There is no other organization doing what they are at this level.

http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn

AC for very obvious reasons.

2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt

There's 40 sources about the details of the coup. As for your resignation letter, I love how you linked to the image instead of the page that covers it, where it is headlined Purported President Chavez resignation letter, and includes the description, "regardless of its veracity". And read the letter's talk page -- nobody there believes its veracity. For example:

"If I see correctly (resolution is too low) the letter is dated as April 13th, not April 11th. If Chávez renounced (Which I think he did) he did it the 11th, not the 13th, when he was almost certain to return. I oppose to Chávez, but I think this is a hoax. "

And, FYI, I don't type with my mouth. I think you'll find that you get a better words-per-minute rate if you use your fingers, as I do.

Not to worry, the Swedish government parties simply do not want to lose more votes in the EU-parliament elections that take place on the 7:th of june.

For this reason there is no 99-page government proposal for the implementation of the Data Retention Directive, but for some reason you can already download the proposal through the highly dependable Wikileaks network:

Both the directive and the government proposal states that the reasons for the comming law are terrorists and organized crime (human trafficing and narcotics). Although the law is intended to fight serious crime, the government states that it does not see any reason to limit what organizations can request information from the required logs.

... and invited to share their views on this law proposal are (naturally)... IFPI

Yes, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has been invited to share their views on a law against terrorists and drug smugglers. Their opinion? Well, a 6 month retention plan might be too short, but generally they appreciate the proposal.

Does anyone wonder why the Pirate Party are winning more and more votes?

The Finnish police have already censored the Wikileaks page on Finnish internet censorship; see my comment at the appropriate talk page.

WikiLeaks could run out of money before they get their next funding in September. They're asking for money to keep running their essential service in the meantime:

The Sunshine Press (Wikileaks) is in a dire financial position.

        We need your letter of support.

        Although we expect to receive some $2M in funding later this year,
        there has been no formal funding since last year.

        This organization's positive world impact has never been
        higher, but it is, as a consequence, also more expensive run and
        ran out of formal funding four months ago. Since that time our staff
        and lawyers have funded the entire organization from their modest
        personal savings and anyone else they can find to assist.

        The reason that impartial, revelatory investigative journalism has
        been traditionally funded by readers is that governments and
        billionaires alike will not support groups which are tasked to
        expose and reform them.

        Despite being universally recognized as being the most important
        stimulus of democratic reforms, government funding for
        such organizations is non-existent. At the same time organizations
        which are guaranteed to have no domestic political impact are well funded.

        On-line donations, an important buttress to our ability to take on
        all governments and companies with total independence, have amounted
        to around $10,000 since the beginning of the year. Costs outside
        of court actions are almost $400,000 per year.

        Our $2M funding injection later this year will support a radical expansion
        of our mission. Until then, your support, and that of your friends and
        colleagues, will mean the difference between continuing to
        fight the good fight and shutting down.

        If you support our work or have benefited from our cause, please
        write a strong letter of recommendation we can to present to
        additional funding bodies. You may examine our front page or google
        news for ideas.

        Also consider an easy on-line donation; every contribution, no
        matter how small, will directly extend the number of months and
        days we can continue taking on the world:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/

Send support letters to wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org

Thank you.

They already have one list, not IWF but Finnish censorship list: http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/797_domains_on_Finnish_Internet_censorship_list%2C_including_censorship_critic%2C_2008