Slashdot Mirror

Very true. Recall the EU social network spy system brief, INDECT
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief%2C_INDECT_Work_Package_4%2C_2009
You can have all the IM, OS and browsers you want, over time shared database logs build a pattern of 'you' and your friends once a set of "dictionary" words are tripped.
Your text flow becomes justification.

and they have the right to not do business with anyone they don't want to.

I am afraid you are wrong. Financial companies do not have the right to block payments to legal companies/individuals that they just do not happen to like. They have special permission by society to operate within our borders, so they damn well have to play by the rules. A good example is the recent Icelandic Supreme court win by wikileaks against the banking blockade. Apparently they are in the process of getting similar ruling in the EU, then they have stated they will then be suing for damages. It must have Mastercard and Visa worried, as they appear to be back-peddling from their illegal acts, and fast.

"It violates the competition laws and trade practice legislation of numerous EU states." . "The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has openly criticized the financial blockade against WikiLeaks, as have the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression..."

Don't forget this:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html?snow

Monday July 1, 21:40 UTC
One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised Ã" and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

Edward Joseph Snowden Monday 1st July 2013

Allow me to draw your attention to this line from: Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow

"Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. "

Maybe you can change that last line to: Read, then post.

On the one hand the NSA is one of those agencies that really seems to deliver value. And now it's being damaged by being put in the spotlight and having details of its most basic data-gathering methods advertised on the Internet. For a spy-agency, such leaks can ruin its effectiveness because smart targets can now take specific measures to evade this particular system.

And about the whole PRISM business: its such a lot of data that you really don't know what to look for. So unless you want to risk missing something vital, you collect *everything* and then scan the lot. And since you probably can't do that in real-time, you need to store it for awhile. Like e.g. the NSA seems to do with its PRISM program.

It can't come as a surprise really, in view of this slashdot story: http://slashdot.org/story/06/06/15/1829246/government-adds-consumer-databases-to-mining-queries . Remember that admiral Poindexter with his Total Information Awareness (TIA) programme? It looks as if his ideas have been implemented from the first to the last, only better.

On the other hand, I'm getting a bit worried in that the NSA really does seem to be operating outside its original brief and that politicians don't seem to be aware that it does. Of course it's terribly inefficient to have two agencies monitoring communications when one party happens to be in the US. And even if you did hand over to the FBI as soon as it involves anyone on US soil, it would probably still have to be the NSA that operates the computers.

In this respect however I was uncomfortably reminded of the following quote from Henry Kissinger:

Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that. (see http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html )

Judging from the context he probably was only half joking. Clearly the executive arm really does have a dynamic of its own and should therefore be adequately monitored. Even if its power against well-prepared enemies might be "barely sufficient", its current abilities and modus operandi carry a definite potential for wide-spread abuse against ordinary US citizens.

The problem is of course that there is tension between being effective, cost-effective, and safe: you can only get two out of three.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Henrik_Alexandersson_FRA_Swedish_spying_documents
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Swedish_communications_intelligence,_F%C3%B6rsvarets_Radioanstalt,_overview,_2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Intelligence_and_Security_Service

Its methods and authorities include
telephone and internet taps authorized by the minister of internal affairs (as opposed to a court order)

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Har-avslort-ulovlig-PST-overvakning-av-norske-muslimer-7183429.html

That's just from a 2 minute googling of translated keywords, I can bet native speakers will find more.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Henrik_Alexandersson_FRA_Swedish_spying_documents
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Swedish_communications_intelligence,_F%C3%B6rsvarets_Radioanstalt,_overview,_2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Intelligence_and_Security_Service

Its methods and authorities include
telephone and internet taps authorized by the minister of internal affairs (as opposed to a court order)

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Har-avslort-ulovlig-PST-overvakning-av-norske-muslimer-7183429.html

That's just from a 2 minute googling of translated keywords, I can bet native speakers will find more.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009

We identify things by both their characteristics and their context.

For example, if something looks like a duck we are tempted to say that it's a duck, and without regard to context that's the most likely explanation.

But then consider the context: If the context doesn't match, we change our assessment accordingly. If it's on top of a mountain, we think it's a rock that resembles a duck. In a store window, we think it's a stuffed-doll resembling a duck. If it's in the MIT swimming pool, we think it's a robot resembling a duck.

Absent any context, Sweden's request for extradition is innocent and benign - how could he possibly refuse such a simple legal request?

But the context surrounding the extradition does not match. There's a number of contextual inconsistencies with the situation, all of which indicate that this is not an extradition, it's something different.

It is abundantly clear that we're not seeing an actual duck. You can argue the probability in various ways, but it's not 100%.

You might next consider "so what?" What's so bad about being extradited to the US?

Consider the risk/reward equation. Julian probably carries around in his head contact information for informants and associates which the US does not know about, and activities of various people which the US would consider evidence of espionage. Once on US soil, it would be nigh impossible to keep this information from the US authorities. He would be forced(*) to give up not only his own freedom, but the freedom of people who put their trust in him. (Not to mention the chilling effect this would have on future whistle-blowers.)

It's likely that the value of this information is so high that even a tiny risk of extradition multiplied by the value potentially lost results in a negative payout. Taking the chance is too risky, it's not a good bet.

... There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.

See previous link, or google for yourself. Plenty of evidence, you are stating an untruth.

(*)Ref: Bradley Manning's treatment

Read & Learn:

http://www.buggedplanet.info/
http://wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles.html

They have published lots of things recently, namely the Global Intelligence Files. http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:China

but criticizing and screwing with [sic] America is pretty safe these days

You said it, so it must be true.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:China

but criticizing and screwing with [sic] America is pretty safe these days

You said it, so it must be true.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:China

but criticizing and screwing with [sic] America is pretty safe these days

You said it, so it must be true.

How come so called "activists" such as anonymous or wiki-leaks don't target [sic] North Korea?

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:North_Korea

I assume almost everyone is infected with some type of state sponsored malware.

For those interested:

http://wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles.html

http://wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles.html

"Mass interception of entire populations is not only a reality, it is a secret new industry spanning 25 countries

It sounds like something out of Hollywood, but as of today, mass interception systems, built by Western intelligence contractors, including for â(TM)political opponentsâ(TM) are a reality. Today WikiLeaks began releasing a database of hundreds of documents from as many as 160 intelligence contractors in the mass surveillance industry. Working with Bugged Planet and Privacy International, as well as media organizations form six countries â" ARD in Germany, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the UK, The Hindu in India, Lâ(TM)Espresso in Italy, OWNI in France and the Washington Post in the U.S. Wikileaks is shining a light on this secret industry that has boomed since September 11, 2001 and is worth billions of dollars per year. WikiLeaks has released 287 documents today, but the Spy Files project is ongoing and further information will be released this week and into next year.

International surveillance companies are based in the more technologically sophisticated countries, and they sell their technology on to every country of the world. This industry is, in practice, unregulated. Intelligence agencies, military forces and police authorities are able to silently, and on mass, and secretly intercept calls and take over computers without the help or knowledge of the telecommunication providers. Usersâ(TM) physical location can be tracked if they are carrying a mobile phone, even if it is only on stand by.

But the WikiLeaks Spy Files are more than just about â(TM)good Western countriesâ(TM) exporting to â(TM)bad developing world countriesâ(TM). Western companies are also selling a vast range of mass surveillance equipment to Western intelligence agencies. In traditional spy stories, intelligence agencies like MI5 bug the phone of one or two people of interest. In the last ten years systems for indiscriminate, mass surveillance have become the norm. Intelligence companies such as VASTech secretly sell equipment to permanently record the phone calls of entire nations. Others record the location of every mobile phone in a city, down to 50 meters. Systems to infect every Facebook user, or smart-phone owner of an entire population group are on the intelligence market.
Selling Surveillance to Dictators

When citizens overthrew the dictatorships in Egypt and Libya this year, they uncovered listening rooms where devices from Gamma corporation of the UK, Amesys of France, VASTech of South Africa and ZTE Corp of China monitored their every move online and on the phone.

Surveillance companies like SS8 in the U.S., Hacking Team in Italy and Vupen in France manufacture viruses (Trojans) that hijack individual computers and phones (including iPhones, Blackberries and Androids), take over the device, record its every use, movement, and even the sights and sounds of the room it is in. Other companies like Phoenexia in the Czech Republic collaborate with the military to create speech analysis tools. They identify individuals by gender, age and stress levels and track them based on âvoiceprintsâ(TM). Blue Coat in the U.S. and Ipoque in Germany sell tools to governments in countries like China and Iran to prevent dissidents from organizing online.

Trovicor, previously a subsidiary of Nokia Siemens Networks, supplied the Bahraini government with interception technologies that tracked human rights activist Abdul Ghani Al Khanjar. He was shown details of personal mobile phone conversations from before he was interrogated and beaten in the winter of 2010-2011.
How Mass Surveillance Contractors Share Your Data with the State

In January 2011, the National Security Agency broke ground on a $1.5 billion facility in the Utah desert that is designed to store terabytes of domestic and foreign intelligence data forever and process it for

In 2005 such a DNS based filter was rolled out here in Denmark, First toured as a filter against Child pornography, as a none binding aggrement between the danish branch of save the children and the biggest Isp. By design its ofcause a none public liste, later in 2006 allofmp3.com was blocked using the same system, then the pirate bay was added, then sites that sells medicin that requires a prescription, and the lates addion was gamling sites that doesnt pay danish tax. In 2008 the list was leaked ( http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 ) , was found to be blocking sites not related to what it was intented to, legitime sites. It always starts out as against Child pornography, and then they will start put more and more into it.

IIRC the payment processors have performed this economic blockade without due process or a legal ruling, so to clobber this organisation would take a court hearing, which may be what EFF is angling for.

Why would the payment processors have to provide due process or obtain a legal ruling? They're private businesses, not government agencies. The mere fact that they're large businesses does not mean that they are forbidden from behaving like any small business or individual -- if they do not want to do business with someone, they cannot be forced to. You should research the term "concerted refusal to deal," and then consider that there must be an actual prospective agreement, not merely independent action, before someone can successfully attack a refusal to trade on antitrust grounds. Hence decisions like the recent EC decision declining to go after the payment processors under competition laws.

The converse would be hilarious. Anyone boycotting a business or organization would have to provide due process and obtain a legal ruling that would permit them to refuse to trade with, say, Walmart. Hilarity ensues.

Production of child pornography should obviously be illegal because it clearly harms the children involved.

That's actually not necessarily true.

And distribution of illegally produced material should also be illegal.

Ah, so you're pro-censorship; fantastic. The first one was fine, but this one is simply insane to any individuals who hates censorship.

Go here: http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html (or any one of their leak pages)
Click on any one of the articles on the left hand side.
Enjoy your paywall.

I clicked this link on the front page of wikileaks.org and was immediately confronted with a paywall that matched the description in the article. That's great if you don't see a paywall where you are from, but that doesn't make those that do see it a "sack of lying shit".

Who rated this interesting? Did they miss the button for "sack of lying shit"?

Who rated this informative? Did they miss the button for "knee jerk stupidity"?

It was there. You can still see it here.

Just because they took it down isn't a good reason to call people a "sack of lying shit". Actually, there's no good reason to do that. Why not treat people fairly? How did it feel when I responded to you the same way? I've noticed that most name calling jerks don't take that very well.

Block: http://wikileaks.org/static/js/inb.js

No paywall for anyone willing to check

For those too lazy The files supposedly hidden behind a paywall

which seems to have had the details back in 2008. I wasn't aware of something that intercepts skype, but based on the wikileaks article it appears that it works by installing malware on the target's computer.

What is the next step?

First we need proof.

What the heck do personal attacks against Julia Gillard from some political extremist nutjob have to do with a defamation lawsuit??! Do you think Gillard thought "oh, poor Assange, he has most of the free world comin down on him like a ton of bricks, calls for his assassination, better not call his a criminal until it is actually proven - I am a lawer after all". No sensitivity shown by her actions there, and your lamenting the timing of a lawsuit? Not the only criminality she has been tied to.

However, its not a good time to be seen to be attacking Julia Gillard given all the personal attacks she has received. I would expect it to do more harm than good.

More harm than good? The comment smells of a "Labor is better than Liberal" type mentality. Might I direct you to the Wikileaks revelation about the Labor party (not including the espionage spying scandal of their members on behalf of a foreign government), but the cable that reveals that Labors political agenda and policies are all but identical to that of Liberal. Like the United states and the UK, Australia has moved into a two party "moving center" system where both parties are essentially the same and little more than a Corporatocracy: CANBERRA 00000545 002 OF 003

Gillard recognizes that to become Prime Minister, she must move to the Center, and show her support for the Alliance with the United States. Albrechtson, who attended the June 2008 Australian-American Leadership Dialogue in Washington with Gillard, wrote that Gillard's speech "could have been given by the Howard Government."

On the sensitivity of Gillard:

[Gillard] enjoys taunting the Opposition but, as one journalist noted, "the only problem is getting her off the corpse." Late last year, in a widely publicized exchange, Gillard pummeled Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop (who was under pressure in a Treasury portfolio she has since relinquished). Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull later described Gillard as "very nasty" and "vicious." A visiting U.S. political scientist noted after watching Question Time that the Opposition normally heckled Government speakers but in stark contrast, they were completely silent when Gillard was on her feet.

http://wikileaks.org/
and even if the main site is taken down the mirrors will chug along.

Much better link to the due process free banking blockade against Wikileaks, currently running at 650 or so days...

In my opinion, Julian Assange is [...] an misogynic asshole

What evidence do you base this opinion on?

If Julian Assange had played by the (Swedish) rules, he would likely have been a free man within half a year from now. And Swedish authorities wouldn't have stopped him from continue his Wikileaks business during his time of imprisonment.

Implying that he would have stayed in Sweden and not been extradited. But then why did the UK government issue a thinly-veiled threat to invade the Ecuadorian embassy, reiterate that threat recently by refusing to rule out the idea of violating diplomatic immunity, and come pretty close to storming the embassy because of heavy US pressure to do so, according to former UK diplomat Craig Murray?

1. (SBU) Summary. Embassy Stockholm recommends that Sweden continues to be placed in the Special 301 Initiative, and not be on the Watch List for 2009. We are aware of the differing recommendations of the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) and PhRMA. Post recommendation is based on:...

...The sensitive domestic politics that the GOS needs to manage in order to step up internet piracy enforcement in Sweden....

Sickening.. and more so that no government will stand up and tell the Americans to piss off.

Don't kill the messenger.. On the contrary, they need our assistance.

Ah, but who else has a "watch list"? Who else has the power to enforce it?

According to there sales brochure, yes it runs on Linux and Mac

http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/289_GAMMA-201110-FinSpy.pdf

Well perhaps the US people should stop leaking their secrets to wikileaks? Or get better at keeping secrets.

It's not as if wikileaks hacks into the US embassies.

So try thinking about things a bit more before you post.

In case you have problems searching, they do release other people's stuff: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks

It's just that most people don't care that much about what the Peruvians do (for example): http://wikileaks.org/wiki/86_interceptaciones_telefonicas_a_politicos_y_autoridades_peruanos,_m%C3%A1s_del_caso_Petrogate,_2008
Peru is not a very powerful or influential country.

The US on the other hand, is one of the most powerful countries in the world if not the most powerful. It has done stuff like Operation Ajax. And in recent years stuff like the ACTA, and "drone military actions" that are somehow not wars. So what they do or plan to do, and their motivations/reasons, interests people around the world.

Well perhaps the US people should stop leaking their secrets to wikileaks? Or get better at keeping secrets.

It's not as if wikileaks hacks into the US embassies.

So try thinking about things a bit more before you post.

In case you have problems searching, they do release other people's stuff: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks

It's just that most people don't care that much about what the Peruvians do (for example): http://wikileaks.org/wiki/86_interceptaciones_telefonicas_a_politicos_y_autoridades_peruanos,_m%C3%A1s_del_caso_Petrogate,_2008
Peru is not a very powerful or influential country.

The US on the other hand, is one of the most powerful countries in the world if not the most powerful. It has done stuff like Operation Ajax. And in recent years stuff like the ACTA, and "drone military actions" that are somehow not wars. So what they do or plan to do, and their motivations/reasons, interests people around the world.

The problem with most ideological stances, is that they only work if the ideolody is applied to everyone else

Hence, Wikileaks stands for openness and public scrutiny of everything and everyone except Wikileaks. How much money has Wikileaks received in donations, and how much of it went in to Assange's pockets? Maybe an insider could post the answer on Wikileaks. No, wait...

No, wait... Indeed. They already posted financial transparency reports on Wikileaks by the Wau Holland Foundation, in the form of a press release no less.

Freedom of Information is a great idea, until you realise that all governments and companies need to undertake certain discussing in private in able to function effectively.

While that is true in the general sense, there is also the fact that governments describing themselves as democratic (let alone shining examples of that) should be as diplomatic and as open as possible. And at least our Western governments have not been all that great about that lately, ranging from ACTA, to war crimes (Abu Grahib, "Collateral Murder"-the-full-version-and-not-the-Wikileaks-edit), to unsavoury governmental-corporation incest (STRATFOR, News Corp), to ...

Wikileaks (even if it remained as effective as in its heydays) would never be able to get its hands on every piece of confidential information nor be able to publish it. Just like the fact that we beat ACTA doesn't mean that the IP-crazies are suddenly completely stopped in their tracks. Or just like the fact that we get to vote doesn't mean that corruption doesn't exist nor that we live in an ideal representative democracy.

However, society always has been and presumably always will be a melting pot influenced by everything that happens. Wikileaks, beating ACTA and voting are all part of that. In the grand scheme of things, I see them as counteracting forces against wrongfully denied freedom-of-information requests, warrantless wiretapping, trying to get IP-legislation enacted under the guise of free trade agreements without public oversight, ... I don't see that in the sense of fighting fire with fire or an eye for an eye, but as opposite influences that affect society as a whole and how it will continue to evolve.

And the problem appears to be that without actions that "open up" things, the natural reaction of many people in power appears to be to keep much more secret than is warranted or than is a good idea. Reasons could be because that is the way of the least resistance, or because those people at large probably often genuinely believe that they do know best, and that public debate would only slow down things and/or muddy the facts.

That behaviour however has to be counteracted and compensated for in some way to keep a democratic society healthy, and as far as I'm concerned Wikileaks is one expression of that in its own unconventional and loose-cannon way. I don't think Wikileaks is dangerous to a healthy society though. It will obviously cause at least inconveniences and may even lead to deaths or other catastraphies, and there are many more desirable ways to achieve the same goals (such as freedom-of-information requests, and the normally automatic public oversight over creating any kind of legislation). However, I think Wikileaks' wide general public support (or at least sympathy) is mainly a reaction to the failure of exactly these more convention means of openness in democratic governance.

Why don't you read some cables and decide for yourself?

Never mind that he/they have only "over turned power and exposed secrets" when it negatively impacted the West and/or the US. Unless, of course we're supposed to believe that he/they were never handed any embarrassing information or secrets about China/Iran/Russia/whoever. Nope, just the US and the West. No agenda there, is there?

Yup, they only release secrets about Western allies such as Syria.

It is odd that they've never really done such things much before. Also, you may notice that there is a strong emphasis on embarrassing "the west" even on that page. My point still stands.

Never mind that he/they have only "over turned power and exposed secrets" when it negatively impacted the West and/or the US. Unless, of course we're supposed to believe that he/they were never handed any embarrassing information or secrets about China/Iran/Russia/whoever. Nope, just the US and the West. No agenda there, is there?

Yup, they only release secrets about Western allies such as Syria.

So since you seem to be implying that the US and/or the West was behind a DDoS — because that's how the US rolls in the cyber realm: DDoSing targets [insert rolling eyes emoticon here] — I think you should turn your attention to this:

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/

---

Social Media Becoming Online Battlefield in Syria - Mashable

Social media is often credited with helping spread the Arab Spring, as activists shared messages of discontent and organized protests using Facebook and Twitter. More than a year after the Arab Spring began in Tunisia, it has become a megaphone for propaganda from both sides of the struggle in conflict-ridden Syria.

http://mashable.com/2012/08/09/social-media-syria/

---

Disinformation flies in Syria's growing cyber war - Reuters

On Sunday, it was a hijacked Reuters Twitter feed trying to create the impression of a rebel collapse in Aleppo. On Monday, it was another account purporting to be a Russian diplomat announcing the death in Damascus of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807

---

Reuters Twitter account hijacked, fake tweets sent - CNET

The hack of news agency's tech feed comes two days after its Web site was breached and defaced with a phony pro-Syrian government story.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57486971-93/reuters-twitter-account-hijacked-fake-tweets-sent/

---

Reuters hacked, phony Syria stories posted - CNET

Bogus posts reported on setbacks suffered by rebel Free Syrian Army fighting Assad regime.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57486463-83/reuters-hacked-phony-syria-stories-posted/

---

Nah, it's easier to live in the topsy-turvy bizarro land where the US is what's wrong with the world.

Let's find out, shall we?

Here's the link: http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/releases.html

UK postcodes are just a grid 1km I think, I am on the wrong computer to check. You can always import that leaked Postcode db into a mapping software to see what I mean. This normally translates in to a part of a street.

Not a grid, and their size does vary, but they are generally only a few hundred yards across; Google Maps will do an outline of the approximate area that a postcode covers, but as a rule of thumb a postcode covers an average of 15 properties.

Oh, and forget using any 'leaked postcode db'. The Ordnance Survey made available a CSV file that maps postcodes to coordinates as part of their OpenData project a few years ago; usage only requires attribution, not payment.

They are a grid on the data that I got from http://wikileaks.org/wiki/UK_government_database_of_all_1,841,177_post_codes _together_with_precise_geographic_coordinates_and_other_information,_8_Jul_2009

**take out the space in the url, I got a filter error trying to post**

The only reason I found that there was a variance was due to holes like parks etc... There are just gaps in the matrix.

The opendata project doesn't have postcodes, I just checked, but it does have some good stuff - thanks.

Why would Wikileaks' credibility be undermined? Wikileaks' primary purpose is to publish what is leaked to them, and they did just that in this case:

WikiLeaks believes that best way to truly determine if a story is authentic, is not just our expertise, but to provide the full source document to the broader community - and particularly the community of interest around the document ... Journalists and governments are often duped by forged documents. It is hard for most reporters to outsmart the skill of intelligence agency frauds. WikiLeaks, by bringing the collective wisdoms and experiences of thousands to politically important documents will unmask frauds like never before ... How does WikiLeaks test document authenticity?

From the email Georgy sent out after the release of emails.
"The release of these emails is, however, a direct attack on Stratfor. This is another attempt to silence and intimidate the company, and one we reject. As you can see, emails sent to many people about my resignation were clearly forged.
We do not know what else has been manufactured. Stratfor will not be silenced, and we will continue to publish the geopolitical analysis our friends and subscribers have come to rely on. "

Well possibly they were forged or maybe not.

If you go to their web page allegedly they are giving out all their "information" for free for a limited time, however what I see is nothing new or interesting and quite a bit of poorly written analysis (yes I know my writing sucks as well) after going through several of the articles I started wondering "what's the big deal about Stratfor?"
Decide for yourself:
Top 5 Stratfor Wikileaks Revelations (So Far)
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4833/top-5-stratfor-wikileaks-revelations-so-far

http://www.benzinga.com/news/12/02/2381070/wikileaks-stratfor-e-mails-reveal-an-investment-plot-worthy-of-a-spy-novel

All sources are suspect but you can always get the torrent file with their emails (alleged emails)
http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html

My advice is download them from a wireless cafe not your home IP, not sure what the legality is here and I am staying away from it.

Please do not mod the GP to five. It is just spreading more FUD and the parent post is supporting without checking all the facts.

The summary on every page of the wikileaks releases say the following:

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Also, everyone who claims to have bothered to visit the website, would know that Dow was just one of the clients.
List of clients is available here.
List of all releases by Wikileaks is available here.

I hope the parent post would have done some research before flaming others for making BS posts without visiting the wikileaks website.

Please do not mod the GP to five. It is just spreading more FUD and the parent post is supporting without checking all the facts.

The summary on every page of the wikileaks releases say the following:

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Also, everyone who claims to have bothered to visit the website, would know that Dow was just one of the clients.
List of clients is available here.
List of all releases by Wikileaks is available here.

I hope the parent post would have done some research before flaming others for making BS posts without visiting the wikileaks website.

Ok here it is. conus.army.mil address requesting tech support to get around their own filters, kinda sad actually. http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1956493_re-ct-fwd-fw-customer-service-technical-issues-atricles-on.html