Slashdot Mirror

I find it highly suspect that the most damage being done to Assanges reputation is by his erstwhile friends and colleges.

"Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public." ref

"Some enemies of WikiLeaks are not afraid to play dirty. Pro-WikiLeaks hackers (but not the organization itself) gained access to internal e-mails from HBGary Federal, a California-based security company that was allegedly offering to help companies like Bank of America (the rumored target of the next WikiLeaks dump) discredit the organization through falsified documents .. The e-mails also suggested that the company could pressure some of WikiLeaks' more public and vocal supporters (primarily journalists) by threatening to sabotage their careers." ref

A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]

I think we all can agree that 3.6GB was within Snowden's opportunity and ability to gather. But, 49GB and 349GB ?!! That is a LOT of data to quietly move to USB sticks. If the last two truely are Snowden files, then it looks to me like he may have had an accomplice. Wouldn't it be so cool if there is a freedom-loving mole in a high position of the NSA?

A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]

I think we all can agree that 3.6GB was within Snowden's opportunity and ability to gather. But, 49GB and 349GB ?!! That is a LOT of data to quietly move to USB sticks. If the last two truely are Snowden files, then it looks to me like he may have had an accomplice. Wouldn't it be so cool if there is a freedom-loving mole in a high position of the NSA?

A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]

I think we all can agree that 3.6GB was within Snowden's opportunity and ability to gather. But, 49GB and 349GB ?!! That is a LOT of data to quietly move to USB sticks. If the last two truely are Snowden files, then it looks to me like he may have had an accomplice. Wouldn't it be so cool if there is a freedom-loving mole in a high position of the NSA?

WikiLeaks insurance 20130815
A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent

~ $ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 292G 53G 225G 19% /

Hm... :|

WikiLeaks insurance 20130815
A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent

~ $ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 292G 53G 225G 19% /

Hm... :|

WikiLeaks insurance 20130815
A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent

~ $ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 292G 53G 225G 19% /

Hm... :|

Leigh is a weasel but he probably didn't know he was publishing 'the' key because Assange told him it would expire in hours. Also Leigh is typically technically incompetent Guardian hack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#September_2011_release_of_unredacted_cables

On 25 August 2011, the German magazine Der Freitag published an article about it,[62] and while it left out the crucial details, there was enough to allow others to piece the information together. The story was also published in the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information the same day.[64] By 1 September, the encrypted Cablegate file had been decrypted and published by a Twitter user, and WikiLeaks therefore decided to publish all the diplomatic cables unredacted. Their reasoning, according to Glenn Greenwald in Salon, was that government intelligence agencies were able to find and read the files, while ordinary peopleâ"including journalists, whistleblowers, and those directly affectedâ"were not. WikiLeaks took the view that sources could better protect themselves if the information were equally available.[6] The archive includes 34,687 files on Iraq, 8,003 on Kuwait, 9,755 on Australia, and 12,606 on Egypt.[65] According to The Guardian, it includes more than 1,000 cables containing the names of individual activists, and around 150 identifying whistleblowers.[66]

Leigh disclaimed responsibility for the release, saying Assange had assured him the password would expire hours after it was disclosed to him.[67] The Guardian wrote that the decision to publish the cables was made by Assange alone, a decision that itâ"and its four previous media partnersâ"condemned. The partners released a joint statement saying the uncensored publication put sources at risk of dismissal, detention and physical harm,[68] while other commentators have agreed with WikiLeaks' rationale for the release of unredacted cables.[6][69] Leigh was nevertheless criticized by several commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, who called the publication of the password "reckless", arguing that, even if it had been a temporary one, publishing it divulged the type of passwords WikiLeaks was using.[6] WikiLeaks said it was pursuing pre-litigation action against The Guardian for an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.

All of which raises the question of why Assange didn't make a session key for Leigh. Then if you'd need Leigh's copy and the Leigh's key to decrypt. Publishing the encrypted archive and then giving the key to someone as clueless as Leigh is morally not that far off just releasing the information unencrypted. In fact look at what Assange did when someone somewhere worked out how to decrypt - he published the unencrypted archive.

And look at this

http://vimeo.com/38670049

about 36 minutes in

Transcript here

http://wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%202/7.%20Assange%20Adjudication%20for%20publication.pdf

And on the Ofcom site

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb213/obb213.pdf page 112

Mr Assange: No, thereâ(TM)s no row going on about redactions at all....There was a group of reports where although they were not really intelligence informants there were sort of hotline tips...something called threat reports comprised one in five of the Afghan War Logs and so we held them back for a line by line redaction...But what we didnâ(TM)t do was redact one in five lines, putting black marker through it, we just removed them, and so it looked like we hadnâ(TM)t redacted everything but in fact we had