US Congressman Announces Plans To Probe Wikileaks

eldavojohn writes "Congressman Peter King (R-NY) is calling for a probe into Wikileaks with regard to the recent publication of half a million 9/11 pager messages. He has announced that he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation because Wikileaks' action 'raises security issues.' A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements."

Comments

"Raises security issues"?

[sopssa]

As pager traffic is totally unencrypted, it's not a surprise that someone might be intercepting them. Especially on Wall Street, like the article states, because it's high valued information. Of course, pagers are pretty much used only in USA... phone/sms traffic elsewhere is better encrypted.

So will government understand that all communications over the Internet too (browsing, email, im) have to be changed over SSL? Or will they do the normal thing; ignore the problem and just arrest and sue the guy who was intercepting that traffic and/or wikileaks because they're supposedly risk to security, along with demanding more government regulation on the Internet?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Red Flayer]

The realities of the issue don't make one iota of difference. King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.

The fact that pager signals are easily intercepted and are typically sent in plain text means nothing, nor does the concept of a free press to this man. He, like many career politicians, only cares for what serves his purposes.

Maybe I'm a bit overly cynical this morning, since I've only had one cup of coffee so far... but it's men like Peter King who would gladly usher in fascism if they stood to gain from it.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think you are being a little unfair.

Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them. The gains would just be gravy.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[slim]

Let me translate for you: the "interception" here was by the government. The "security issue" is that somebody in the government leaked that info, or (less likely) that it was swiped by someone outside the government.

We don't know that.
Schneier on the issue: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/leaked_911_text.html

Anyone could have been logging all that pager traffic. Not necessarily government. With 2009 technology, it wouldn't even be expensive. In 2001, it would only be a little expensive.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[elrous0]

They probably collected it, along with a ton of security cam footage/phone logs/witness testimony/etc., as part of the 9-11 investigation. The real news to me is that the telco's were keeping such extensive logs of all their pager messages and that they were willing to turn it all over without telling the public about it (which would no doubt had been a pretty uncontroversial action if they had just been upfront about it). It points to a pattern of secrecy behind telco/government interaction that's way more disturbing than the information that has probably actually been shared.

It's like the secret rooms that the NSA has been installing at telco hubs. I think that people would have accepted that if the government had simply told the public upfront they were doing it and said "And here are some of the rules we're following to make sure innocent people aren't specifically targeted" (and knowing the CYA aspect of government, I'd bet they do actually have such rules). As for the argument that this would have somehow tipped off the terrorists, does the NSA honestly think that terrorists (at least the smart ones, who are the real threat anyway) don't ALREADY realize their calls are being monitored?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Shakrai]

Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them.

He's already working on that. He recently introduced legislation that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process. He thinks the Federal Government should have the right to put your name on a list and take away your right to keep and bear arms without any burden of proof whatsoever.

What's wrong with that picture?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Shakrai]

Advocating for gun control measures in New York State is anything but "political suicide" I'm afraid. He'll sell this crap to his constituents as being "tough on terror" and the morons will eat it up hook, line and sinker. In the end the only thing that will suffer is our Constitution and civil liberties.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Shakrai]

I don't care what your opinion is regarding the 2nd amendment but I should think that you'd be smart enough to see in the danger in the Government having the power to take away your rights merely by placing your name on a list. No due process, no burden of proof.

This kind of fucking hypocrisy makes my blood boil. Many of the supposed civil libertarians in Congress have spent the last eight years screaming as loudly as they can about the lack of due process afforded those held in Gitmo. Now many of those same legislators line up to support legislation that grants the Government the power to strip away the rights of American citizens without according them due process. I'll ask it again, WTF is wrong with this picture?

Pot, kettle, black.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Nadaka]

What the hell are you talking about?
1: more people die from auto accidents every year in the US than die of fatal shootings.
2: more people die from tobacco related health issues (cancer, pneumonia, emphysema, etc) than of fatal shootings.
3: more people die from the seasonal flue than from shootings.
4: etc, there are more things than I can list that kill more people than guns.

The right to bear arms is this nations last line of defense against our enemies, and here is the key "both foreign and domestic". Nothing gives the police-statists a greater sense of security when sending out their jack booted thugs than a populace that does not have the means to fight back. Responsible ownership of firearms is not only a right, but I believe it is a requirement for a well functioning liberal democratic society.

If you really wanted to reduce the shooting crime rate in the US, I would suggest the following actions:
1: provide mandatory firearm safety courses in high school.
2: provide, free of charge, firearm safes and safety locks to all families owning firearms to prevent accidental use by children.
3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public.
4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).

But hey, I am just one of those dirty freedom loving liberals.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[coaxial]

3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public.
4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).

Isn't that also just as terrifying, if not more terrifying than a police state? Why should I have to worry about every time I walk into a bar, and there's some drunk asshole picking a fight with another drunk, that lead is going to start flying? I always thought a gun was a like condom, you don't bring one unless you plan on using it.

Whenever I hear about people arguing that everyone to start carrying guns, I think back to this incident in Texas back in the early aughts, where two suburban soccer moms with concealed carry guns starting shooting at each other during a road rage incident.

Random crime just doesn't happen all that often, and it always seems to me that people that want more guns, more "protection" are overly scared to walk outside their house.

Waste of tax money

[siddesu]

What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back? With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.

Re:Waste of tax money

[purpledinoz]

Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it.

Re:Waste of tax money

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How many decades of our foreign policy have you slept through?

Re:Waste of tax money

[slim]

Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.

Oh wait...

Yeah, but he had weapons of mass... ... oh, right you are. Carry on.

Re:Waste of tax money

[eldavojohn]

Yeah that worked so good for TPB.

Well, Wikileaks has survived attacks (even physical attacks). And the important distinguishing factor between TPB and Wikileaks is that Wikileaks is providing documents the public wants to know about ... they may be copyrighted and protected but they contain newsworthiness. In the United States (before the DMCA), that used to be enough to protect people trying to get the word out. Not anymore. But if another country chooses to uphold that sort of common logic about what should be protected to benefit the public than you're not going to have a TPB repeat.

And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)

This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly. If those people are trying to stop you from disseminating information, you must be doing something right if not interesting.

Re:Waste of tax money

[Rob the Bold]

How many decades of our foreign policy have you slept through?

No kidding. If it turns out Sweden is responsible for this outrage, you can bet we'll invade Finland to punish them.

Re:Waste of tax money

[Shakrai]

you can bet we'll invade Finland to punish them.

That didn't work out real well when Stalin tried it......

Re:Second Flamebait

[theIsovist]

While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?

cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic

[mwilliamson]

So what is the big deal? This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation. It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept. There is no data security. Those considering it a secure medium have simply been mislead. Congress, as a whole, is rather ignorant of these technical concepts. There are programs that use a soundcard for data capture, but for best results make sure and use the receiver's discriminator output, not the filtered audio out. Google for "POCSAG and FLEX decoding" for all the goodies and software you need to do your own intercepts. -Michael

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic

[Shikaku]

Just because you can do something does not make it legal to do.

This line of text is illegal because of a DMCA takedown notice retroactively placed by me and cannot be read by anyone.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Rob the Bold]

Blatant trolling. I'm not religious, but Mods, hello?

Thanks for the advice AC. I'll look into it. Oh, whoops, I just posted. Well, maybe next time.

THIS STORY IS FALSE

[Dreadneck]

I just spoke with Congressman King's office and they were taken by surprise when I asked them about the Wikileaks probe. They said the congressman is NOT probing wikileaks. I gave them the url to the Newsday article and was told that the Rep. King's office will be working to sort out the matter.

Re:This story is AWESOME!

[Dreadneck]

Yes, it does seem to be getting stranger by the minute. After speaking with the Congressman's office I emailed the author of the original Newsday article. He replied that the Congressman was quoted accurately. So, the question is whether Rep. King was telling the truth about his intent to probe WikiLeaks or not.

If not, then why grandstand for the cameras? If so, then why lie about it now?

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.