Slashdot Mirror

"One of my trusted former CIA cronies reports Wachovia laundered $70"

"The FBI has a classified investigation on PETA operatives. I'll see what I can uncover"

"One of my trusted former CIA cronies reports Wachovia laundered $70"

"The FBI has a classified investigation on PETA operatives. I'll see what I can uncover"

In one example, emails reveal that Stratfor had been tracking the political performance art collective The Yes Men, a group famous for impersonating politicians and corporate representatives in order to showcase the absurdity and corruption present within powerful institutions. But “tracking” in this case merely involved selling the government a list of public appearances planned by the group’s members.

but the very page they link to in that quote has the "Yes Men Monitoring" related emails being sent to:

mkolleth@dow.com, sbwheeler@dow.com, tomm_sprick@yahoo.com, mediarelations@unioncarbide.com, CMKnochel@dow.com

none of which suggest that they are "selling the government" this information.

Here's a fun leak. Complete with passwords like:
changeme
and
stratfor

WISE International Business Directory

I can't read the cable from the link in the article linked to in the summary. You start reading and all of a sudden up pops a plea for money and a video supporting same. I'm sure it could be easily circumvented but damn, hard to get the word out when you won't let readers read the damn cable. Yes, I know, the world needs money (as do Assange and Wikileaks) to go round and round but blocking the important information (to some) is counter productive to what they're trying to accomplish.

Here is the link:

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08CANBERRA1197.html/

Funny, I can't get to the link from the url above, something about maintenance.

  Works just fine if you go to the link from the following paragraph from the article:

"The Canberra Wikileaks cables revealed the US Embassy sanctioned a [conspiracy by Hollywood studios] (This is the linking text) to target Australian communications company iiNet through the local court-system, with the aim of establishing a binding common-law precedent which would make ISPs responsible for the unauthorised file-sharing of their customers."

See article for link and more info..... I really don't like the way this information is presented by Wikileaks, or not presented in my case.

Yes http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009
"learn relationships between people and organizations through websites and social networks."
i.e. hunt weblogs, chat sites, news reports, and social networking sites create automatic dossiers on individuals.

Don't know for average Joes in US, but here in France the week after they put the "3 strikes and you're out" laws in place, everyone was subscribing to VPN or Usenet services.
They start monitoring: everyone goes deeper to avoid detection. They then lose all kind of control/visibility they might have had before.
A bit like what is described here :http://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn

Then you get to see fake VPN services, built by labels/movie studios. Not to mention those created by mafia groups to harvest private data...

So, SOPA (or whatever name your local government uses) might provide more control/visibility, but not for a long time.
What's next ? We'll be required to install a mandatory government spyware on our endpoints to be allowed access to the Internet ?

Apparently in the technological computer and internet age, this is no longer true. It has become apparent, who has the most hacking and cracking power wins.

The frustration of the corrupt have the most money and who has the most money wins, when you are trying to work together to achieve a fairer system, points to using methods to achieve change that are outside that system.

The occupy wall street movement is now shifting from being a protest to a rebellion against corruption and a demand for justice. A demand that corporate and political criminals be investigated and prosecuted. With Unions joining in with OWS and other protest vehicles like "Anonymous" adding to the effort, perhaps it can spread to more generally conservative nerds and geeks.

In the digital age, digital protests can be truly powerful and very effective. How effective can something like https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/murdoch-block/?src=api when spread far enough. How much change can be achieved by outing http://www.occupythegame.com/lieutenant_john_pike/ the thugs of corruption. Can sites that release those dirty dark secrets like http://wikileaks.org/ really bust the system wide open.

Can nerds and geeks in the digital age, become leaders and enablers in the rebellion against the corruption of the 1%. The reality is, nerds and geeks combined pretty much have access to every secret that's out there, have their fingers upon every keyboard that can make or break the machine. How powerful can the online protest become, in highly technology bound societies can it become far more powerful than the street protest.

Can MIPS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_instructions_per_second kick monies arse?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/maureen-tkacik-the-anti-occupycia-connection.html

http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/list/releasedate/2011-12-08.html#

Here is but a few worrying examples from this past couple of weeks alone! US wants to censor anything it doesnt like online, across the world: http://stopcensorship.org/ US wants to lock up US citizens without trial or charge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8mPZlysCAm0 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/congress-to-vote-next-week-on-explicitly-creating-a-police-state/ Wikileaks exposes secret spying industry: http://wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles.html Ron Paul tells it like it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XeCpLcjxOq4 Shameful actions of US military: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-CpCUOygqU&list=PLB9FE42FDCEFA73B8&feature=plpp_play_all Commercialisation of TROLLING?? http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/13/facebook-opens-doors-to-a-new-way-of-suppressing-information-activists-constantly-banned/

Well, duh, what could you expect from a group called "gaffe"?

Now, I don't see what's particularly embarassing about the number "422". And the rumor about some (or all) of the founding Zetas having been trained in the US is just that, as no source that claims it can provide a single name, not even Wikipedia's (omg!): US-trained cartel terrorises Mexico. The Embassy in México is much more credible in this respect:

The Embassy conducted an extensive
cross-check of our database of Mexican military officials who
participated in U.S.-funded training programs against lists
of known members of Los ZETAS. The comparison of databases
did not produce any hits. However, intelligence from other
sources yielded the name of one individual was reportedly
trained by U.S. forces, retired from the Mexican Military,
was forcibly recruited into Los ZETAS

It's not even surprising to find some tabloids that use this same cable as proof that "several US trained soldiers switched to the ZETAS."

So I would tell you to leave the flag burning aside and stick to the facts, lest you end like Michael Moore. But fact is, we don't have enough. Yes, we know that the cartels could not grow so big without being in direct collusion with the government. Heck, some of them are demanding equal treatment, as it seems they are envious of the high connections of the Sinaloa's cartel! (which seem to be working, if you're to believe the pretty maps in the NYT or BBC News, which show it controlling the whole west half of México)

We know that corruption reaches on every level of government and military. Just look at Raúl Salinas, brother of former president Carlos, which ended up in jail, not for his crimes, but for political vendettas. And it was also politics what eventually led to his acquittal. We know he's guilty, we know where his hundreds of millions came from. But the people that could provide the proof won't, if they value their life style, or life itself.

And that's the real problem, me thinks: values. When we're bombarded from every angle with the idea that the only life worth living is in the numb comfort of expensive stuff, wild sex, hip drugs and sugary rock, then it just follows that you will have lots of people trying to obtain money by the easiest means available so they can fill their emptiness with shiny things and/or get wasted in style every weekend, be it on Tijuana or New Jersey. The common good can't compete with a 20mil house, honesty is just another commodity (on a sharp downward trend), and why read a boring poem when you can freaken hallucinate your own. "It was the envy of virtue, what made of Cain a criminal / Glory to him as it's vice, what is envied most today!"

But daydreaming aside, the only way to have truth and justice right now, is to buy them. And as long as the rich kids keep paying with fat wads and big guns, the drug and political cartels will outbid the rest of us. Still, outgunned as we are, we should aim for the truth and search for the facts, however tempting it is to brandish rumors and propaganda.

Rather, the media has the attention-span of a goldfish, and needs a steady stream of information instead beinh nuked with a torrent. They'll sift through the torrent for the juiciest bit, report that bit in synchrony and cast the small fries away, cut to commercial, and then back to reporting on washed out hollywood-stars. That is what they're trying to accomplish.

Only a fool would think the whole torrent (or rather the password for the encrypted torrent already out there) wont hit the net if there are no alternatives.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_SSL_Interception_letters_-_Bavaria_-_Digitaskwikili wikileaks has something on digitask...

Oh and to make my point. http://911.wikileaks.org/files/messages_2001_09_11-19_30_2001_09_11-19_34.txt
Notice real peoples phone numbers posted on wikileaks.org and in no way revealing bad acts or actors!

Wikileaks does not record any source-identifying information and there are a number of mechanisms in place to protect even the most sensitive submitted documents from being sourced. We do not keep any logs. We can not comply with requests for information on sources because we simply do not have the information to begin with.

This has always been like this. The clean track record of Wikileaks, many years, thousands of leaks, supports the above. For whatever reason, DDB is pushing the Pentagon-friendly view that Wikileaks is a threat to leakers.

Also, what I read is "[Domscheit-Berg] said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could not guarantee a safe handling of the material".

It's because Wikileaks is completely honest. My understanding is that the submission system strips all identifying information when the materials is uploaded to Wikileaks. Even though, it's downright impossible to "guarantee" that the source will never be identified, it would be actually be dishonest to claim so. Even the source might not know that the materials he is leaking might contain identifying information, let alone Wikileaks knowing about it. So Wikileaks is being honest by not casting the mirage of "guarantee." You will see that Wikileaks provides useful advices to go as far as possible to stay anonymous, and in his interview with Pilger, Assange makes it clear that "nothing in this world is guaranteed." DDB knows this but it serves his selfish purpose to brand this impossible to fulfill promise as the reason to not return the material.

And now consider the case of the wikipedia pages that are ruled by hired guns and sock-puppets, take a look at places like the New York Times message blogs and so on... ask yourself how we can possibly build an infra-structure of the future without real ids to work with. Lancet doesn't publish medical research by anonymous contributors, why should wikipedia carry summaries of that research by effectively anonymous agents?

Not only do we need "real name policies", we need real names that are verified in some way, e.g. by a ten cent charge on a credit card.

Yes, there's also a role for anonimizing services like wikileaks and openleaks, but that really shouldn't be the default way we deal with the world.

And by the way, there's a tendency for people to post a lot of stuff while hiding behind a pseudonym, and then get an unpleasant shock when they realize that their pseudonym has been penetrated. Try asking a different question: is it irresponsible to promise people anonymity when in reality, that's not so easy to deliver?

Footnote: can we please agree that using a pseudonym is equivalent to being anonymous? Places like slashdot have really corrupted the meaning of "anonymous".

And now consider the case of the wikipedia pages that are ruled by hired guns and sock-puppets, take a look at places like the New York Times message blogs and so on... ask yourself how we can possibly build an infra-structure of the future without real ids to work with. Lancet doesn't publish medical research by anonymous contributors, why should wikipedia carry summaries of that research by effectively anonymous agents?

Not only do we need "real name policies", we need real names that are verified in some way, e.g. by a ten cent charge on a credit card.

Yes, there's also a role for anonimizing services like wikileaks and openleaks, but that really shouldn't be the default way we deal with the world.

And by the way, there's a tendency for people to post a lot of stuff while hiding behind a pseudonym, and then get an unpleasant shock when they realize that their pseudonym has been penetrated. Try asking a different question: is it irresponsible to promise people anonymity when in reality, that's not so easy to deliver?

Footnote: can we please agree that using a pseudonym is equivalent to being anonymous? Places like slashdot have really corrupted the meaning of "anonymous".

This kind?

They DO accept bitcoin. See: http://www.wikileaks.org/Donate.html

What do you mean, he wasn't hosting anything? That is patently incorrect. He was hosting a webpage which contained links to material which was copyright. He wasn't directly hosting material which was copyright, but he was aiding and abetting the unauthorized publishing by the third party sites of material which was copyright. I guess if it was a few random links in a sea of unrelated links, most of them untainted (as is the case with Google), he wouldn't be in a pile of trouble. After all, he wasn't just helping people who asked him how to find certain specific files (like Google does), he was proactively telling them through his site.

By your logic, If I post links on my website which point at Wikileaks then I am aiding and abetting espionage and treason against the United States (well, at least according to the US Government). In fact, just posting this link makes me liable to prosecution for these alleged crimes? Assuming, of course, I refuse to remove them from my website when asked.

Not so much, I think. And before you say it's not the same thing, think about it. Just replace the term 'material which was copyright' with 'secret government documents' in your statement. And so, by your logic, posting this: Wikileaks and refusing to remove it means that I should hang by the neck until I am dead, dead, dead for espionage and treason? Sigh!

Posting anonymously as I've moderated on this thread and, oh right, because I don't want to swing for it :)

What do you mean, he wasn't hosting anything? That is patently incorrect. He was hosting a webpage which contained links to material which was copyright. He wasn't directly hosting material which was copyright, but he was aiding and abetting the unauthorized publishing by the third party sites of material which was copyright. I guess if it was a few random links in a sea of unrelated links, most of them untainted (as is the case with Google), he wouldn't be in a pile of trouble. After all, he wasn't just helping people who asked him how to find certain specific files (like Google does), he was proactively telling them through his site.

By your logic, If I post links on my website which point at Wikileaks then I am aiding and abetting espionage and treason against the United States (well, at least according to the US Government). In fact, just posting this link makes me liable to prosecution for these alleged crimes? Assuming, of course, I refuse to remove them from my website when asked.

Not so much, I think. And before you say it's not the same thing, think about it. Just replace the term 'material which was copyright' with 'secret government documents' in your statement. And so, by your logic, posting this: Wikileaks and refusing to remove it means that I should hang by the neck until I am dead, dead, dead for espionage and treason? Sigh!

Posting anonymously as I've moderated on this thread and, oh right, because I don't want to swing for it :)

>Sony just wanted your money

Sony's one of those Japanese companies with a 500-year plan. They don't just want your money once, they want you carving pieces off yourself for them for generations. Brand-loyalty is a key to that strategy. Being oblivious, inconsiderate, exploitative fucktards is not. That's Ballmer's gig.

>or even making an attempt at keeping your data secure

Given the opportunities for abuse of their online gaming systems, they have put in place rather serious internet security controls. It appears it took inside intervention for this breach to occur. Which means they did good when it comes to the internet part of their security, but not so good when it comes to the human-factors part of their security. But then, even the governments of the world are vulnerable to time-variable human factors.

>You *can* live without their crap.

Sure. And I can live without yours, too.

...how about getting our own GOVERNMENT to follow these guidelines? I'd have a hard time following an edict by someone who won't follow it themselves.

What are you talking about, government transparency is fine.

Weird, Wikileaks still works here, from its original address. Maybe you meant "pressured Amazon into capitulating to his whims because he's a Senator, forcing them to simply change hosts."

But that just wouldn't sound scary enough.

oh yeah, leave it to government to ensure free speech online. Oops, the link doesn't work. I wonder why...

Australia has similar plans for its Internet Filter: the government is proposing that it be maditory for ISPs to enforce the government maintained blacklist.
WikiLeaks published the Danish blacklist and was therefore added to the proposed Australian list here in March 2009. WikiLeaks then published the Australian blacklist here. When the Stephen Conroy (a doofus) declared it wasn't the real one ('This is not the ACMA blacklist.') WikiLeaks updated their list as at 1 day old.
I fully expect a French blacklist very soon.

Australia has similar plans for its Internet Filter: the government is proposing that it be maditory for ISPs to enforce the government maintained blacklist.
WikiLeaks published the Danish blacklist and was therefore added to the proposed Australian list here in March 2009. WikiLeaks then published the Australian blacklist here. When the Stephen Conroy (a doofus) declared it wasn't the real one ('This is not the ACMA blacklist.') WikiLeaks updated their list as at 1 day old.
I fully expect a French blacklist very soon.

The links below have been reported to contain Malware, so don't click without reading first.

I'm confused. wikileaks.org redirects to mirror.wikileaks.info. That page looks like WikiLeaks did a year ago (a simple MediaWiki site), but it has up-to-date content. Meanwhile, the official domain we have had for the past fortnight, wikileaks.ch is still running and serving the "new look" which seems to just have the cablegate stuff.

mirror.wikileaks.info links to wikileaks.ch if you click on cablegate. They also claim this is a false spam report; the spam report claims that "Wikileaks.info is NOT connected with Julian Assange or the Wikileaks organization" and that "We also note that the content at mirror.wikileaks.info is rather unlike what's at the real Wikileaks mirrors which suggests that the wikileaks.info site may not be under the control of Wikileaks itself, but rather some other group." (Fair enough; it does claim to be a mirror.)

So is wikileaks.info a malware site or a legitimate WikiLeaks mirror? I'm all for WikiLeaks mirrors, but it seems like the main wikileaks.org domain should link to the main website, not a very different mirror. And if wikileaks.info is a malware site, where do you go to get all the other WikiLeaks content from the old site (it doesn't seem to be available anymore from wikileaks.ch)?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BJGI0pmYUaYJ:cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09BRUSSELS536.html+site:cablegate.wikileaks.org+cables+netherlands&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TImP-cw6Rh4J:cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/09/09TRIPOLI771.html+site:cablegate.wikileaks.org+cables&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

This is Google's cache of http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09BRUSSELS536.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 2 Dec 2010 01:00:25 GMT.

I wonder now - when will the US Govt. go after Google and demand Google clean up its cache. Since Google is "hosting" (uh ... caching) the leaked cables.

Here is Wikileaks' own torrent of the cables. http://file.wikileaks.org/torrent/cablegate/cablegate-201012031001.7z.torrent

Spread them far and wide. Fight the bastards.

Wikileaks?

Yours In Moscow,

P.S.: Please offer kindest regards to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her directive for U.S. diplomats to spy on U.N. officials.

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/12/06HAMBURG85.html

Presumably, you want your government to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

Care to specify where are the boundaries of this region in case of USA government?

Ah don't bother. The answer is right here:

To be a real power, Patten said, a country must be ready and able to adopt and implement a policy, even if the rest of the world considers it unwise. Europeans may agree or disagree with US policy, but they admire that the US is ready to carry out the policies it thinks best, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. Under this yardstick, the EU will never be a "real power" because there is always someone in the room who is overly cautious, and will insist on looking at matters "sensibly."

Wikileaks data !!!

I'm waiting for the Hillary Clinton CABLE requesting a hold on Koreagate for her new hairdo !

( It's working !!!)

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout, C.I.O.

I think you have that backwards, and it therefore is an argument for the leaking of more. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/wikileaks_yemen_revelations Source cable: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10SANAA4.html

Wikileaks option?

Yours In Minsk,
Kilgore T.

Just read this:

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

Intelligence sources are being put at risk by these leaks. Julian Assange claims to care about civilians but he leaks documents that can get people killed? Why? To solve what?

The world is not made safer. Nothing in these cables are worth the loss of civilian life. These cables don't prevent a war with Iran or North Korea, they make war much more likely.

I can't access wikileaks right now but if its the same thing that you posted earlier as "proof" then there is nothing in there that puts anyone at risk. And even if there was, it is the Pentagons fault for it being there in the first place. If stopping the leaks was really about saving lives then the Pentagon would have taken Wikileaks' offer to go over the documents for anything that would put people at risk. They denied to do so, proving that this is about pride and not about the safety of others.

Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.

Which is exactly why the release of these diplomatic cables really isn't that big of a deal, IMHO. Most of them involve loose transcripts of diplomatic meetings that took place; these diplomatic meetings always have minute takers on both sides. The parties fully expect that each respective government apparatus is going to dissect and analyze everything that was said

Go ahead. Read them. What you'll find should be no surprise: One cable talks about General Petraeus' meeting with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Soliman in Cairo, who told all present at the meeting that he would do everything he could to help Iraq's new government be welcomed into the Arab world and that his goals regarding Palestine were to undermine Hamas, support Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, and that Egypt would be working closely with the Israelis to send humanitarian aid to Gaza. I'm sure no one expected anything different coming from Egypt. Duh. Nor did it seem to me that Soliman told Petraeus anything particularly secret. Nevertheless, this cable is classified as SECRET/NOFORN. Why? It reveals nothing that anyone couldn't find out by watching CNN or Al Jazeera, or, indeed, listening to the public statements of the Egyptian government.

Just read this:

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

Intelligence sources are being put at risk by these leaks. Julian Assange claims to care about civilians but he leaks documents that can get people killed? Why? To solve what?

The world is not made safer. Nothing in these cables are worth the loss of civilian life. These cables don't prevent a war with Iran or North Korea, they make war much more likely.

Here is the Proof

3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
 

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

You can thank Julian Assange for this.

/. is in trouble now for leaking the US's inability to conduct a succesful DDoS campaign.

No - posting on slashdot is the US's DDoS campaign. Go on can you resist going to wikileaks to check it for yourself?

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

Thank your hero Julian Assange for putting this businessmans life at risk.
I don't know how you can be any more specific.

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

This all but names the intelligence source. How much more evidence do you need that Julian Assange is putting lives at risk? READ THE DOCUMENTS!

That's just wikipedia, if you follow that link it points to a wikileaks document that has not been available for quite some time
The only documents you can now access are USA documents, which actually supports Fnkmaster's argument.

> In regards to WikiLeaks, I agree with the point that wholesale document
> releases like this do little to create openness. I always pictured a leak as a
> bit of information that is released to correct something that is going wrong
> behind closed doors, this is more like a flood.

From http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
Currently released so far... 272 / 251,287

Uh...that's a trickle.

Also from that page:

>The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The
>subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical
>spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice.

At this rate it's going to take about 5 years! Isn't there a risk `something will happen` to the site or the people behind it? Why not release it all in one go?