Slashdot Mirror


Wikileaks Was Launched With Intercepts From Tor

The New Yorker is featuring a long and detailed profile of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. From this Wired's Threat Level pulls out one salient detail: that Wikileaks' initial scoop came from documents intercepted from Tor exit routers. The eavesdropping was pulled off by a Wikileaks activist — neither the New Yorker nor Wired knows who or even in what country he or she resides. "The siphoned documents, supposedly stolen by Chinese hackers or spies who were using the Tor network to transmit the data, were the basis for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange's assertion in 2006 that his organization had already 'received over one million documents from 13 countries' before his site was launched ..." Update: 06/02 06:31 GMT by T : In reaction to the Wired story, and the New Yorker story on which it drew, Andrew Lewman of the Tor Project points to this explanation / reminder of what Tor's software actually does and does not do. Relevant to the claims reported above, it reads in part "We hear from the Wikileaks folks that the premise behind these news articles is actually false -- they didn't bootstrap Wikileaks by monitoring the Tor network. But that's not the point. The point is that users who want to be safe need to be encrypting their traffic, whether they're using Tor or not." This flat denial of the assertion that Wikileaks was bootstrapped with documents sniffed from the Tor network is repeated unambiguously in correspondence from Wikileaks volunteers.

157 comments

  1. So what? by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary is written as if Tor is suppose to be secure from eavesdropping. It isn't. It's supposed to offer anonymity. There's nothing to indicate that the _source_ of the documents was compromised.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a very simple solution to this problem:

      Encrypt your data before sending it over Tor

      I sincerely hope any serious US agency using Tor for operations would take this precaution; it seems stupid not to do so, unless the goal is to provide disinformation

    2. Re:So what? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why would you hope that? So that America remains as effective in screwing the world, dominating the weak, and murdering innocents?

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...because if the US govt agencies DIDN'T use such common-sense security tactics, they (and me, and my family, and my community) would easily be taken over by another government that is just as effective in screwing the world, dominating the weak, and murdering innocents.

      I don't excuse our government's behavior, but it's not as if the rest of the world is made up of sane, caring individuals...

    4. Re:So what? by druke · · Score: 1

      god damn.. I already used my mod points

    5. Re:So what? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They use the same secrecy to turn you into a slave.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    6. Re:So what? by iwannasexwithyourmom · · Score: 0

      haha you dumb troll.

    7. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, this article reflects on Wikileaks not on Tor. The summary is written as if some information was more stolen than purposely leaked. This reflects on Wikileaks in two ways:

      First, it seems somehow more noble when an internal dissident leaks an embarrassing secret, for example the Pentagon Papers. Whereas coming by information that was not purposely leaked is more suspect. (Though still possibly useful and possibly ethical. For example, publishing specs of the lost iPhone 4G.)

      Second, since this information was intercepted by Wikileaks while being stolen *by someone else*, it points to Wikileaks' role in highlighting a security flaw in the source organization. Perhaps they wouldn't even have known about that theft unless Wikileaks published it.

      So this isn't really about Tor per se.

    8. Re:So what? by burris · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's supposed to offer anonymity.

      No, TOR provides untracability. Whether you want to be anonymous, use a pseudonym, or use your Real Name is up to you.

    9. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As long as they entertain us, we don't care. In fact, you're blocking the TV.. move out of the way..

    10. Re:So what? by Unordained · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I use a car to get to work. Terrorists use cars to blow things up. Clearly, the tool is equal to the usage.

    11. Re:So what? by blai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Terrorists use bombs to blow things up.

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    12. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Terrorists use your mom to blow things.

    13. Re:So what? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Though still possibly useful and possibly ethical. For example, publishing specs of the lost iPhone 4G

      No wonder you posted AC. A brave soul, indeed, claiming on Slashdot that the publishing of the iPhone 4G specs could in any way be construed as 'useful', or even 'ethical'. Be ready for your attitude readjustment from the RDF faithful...

    14. Re:So what? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Hey now, I'm usually accused of being an angry anti-apple troll, and even I think that gizmodo was out of line. Apple employee loses a phone he was road-testing, gizmodo buys it (selling property you don't own is stealing, and buying it is receiving stolen goods), and then they rat the guy out, putting his job in jeopardy. It doesn't count as 'reasonable effort to return stolen goods' that they phoned some sales goon who said "um wat idunno".

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    15. Re:So what? by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      So what is right. Who cares if WikiLeaks is downright stealing a lot of their leaks. Not that they are, this could be some disinformation made by people who are threatened by some things that have come out on that website. But even IF they're stealing, those documents are vital to keeping a lot of the power structure in check with the everyday citizen. Videos of military murders that had been misreported in the official story, etc...

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    16. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't fight for freedom if you're dead.

    17. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you question my fishing method?

    18. Re:So what? by msauve · · Score: 1

      I suggest you let Tor know. The headline on their web site says "Tor: anonymity online."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    19. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and who guarantees, the realname i'm using is MY realname, if i'm posting anonymous?+

    20. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So?? I build bombs in my basement all the time for perfectly legal means!!

    21. Re:So what? by RichiH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People making tunnels, savely detonating avalanches, digging for resources, destructing old buildings use bombs. Terrorists use cars to blow things up. Clearly, the tool is equal to the usage.

      And while the bomb may cause the explosion (or rather the explosive in the bomb), cars are used regularly as a deployment vector of the bomb.

    22. Re:So what? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they send unencrypted sensitive data over a public network they get everything they deserve ...

      Private secure networks are there for a reason

      Encryption is there for a reason

      Tor (Anonymizing networks) are there for a reason

      Use the combination you need depending on the data you need to send ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    23. Re:So what? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      one question tho, unless one is using a throw away key, wont the use of encryption defeat the purpose of tor in the first place?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    24. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bombs can be used to build roads and tunnels as well.

    25. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semantic asshattery.

    26. Re:So what? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      No. Let's say you are ratting out a bad guy who is likely monitoring your network (government, employer, etc.). If you forward incriminating documents via encrypted transmission what you sent is concealed, but the fact that you sent something, and the destination to which you sent it are not.

      If you use TOR to cover your tracks, the destination may be obscured, but what you sent may be in the open if not protected by encryption above and beyond what TOR uses internally.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    27. Re:So what? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      ok, i see i was not clear about my thinking. What i had in mind was the most used encryption system today, where one have a public and private key. Cant the public key being used in the encryption rat out where the message is going, even if one use tor?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    28. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...which also have non-criminal uses.

    29. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay let's have it your way then:

      I use a bomb to get to work...Nevermind.

    30. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try pulling off WTC without any planes.

    31. Re:So what? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Good question, and beyond my ability to answer with certainty, but my guess is "no".

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    32. Re:So what? by tibman · · Score: 1

      I see what you're saying. If the private key could be tied to a specific person then i'd say you're boned. But there's nothing stopping you from generating a new key-pair that nobody knows about.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    33. Re:So what? by kabloom · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the GP was thinking terrorists who use car bombs to blow things up.

    34. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when a plane is defined as a bomb.

    35. Re:So what? by daeglo · · Score: 1

      Your mom uses terrorists to ... nevermind.

    36. Re:So what? by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Note to future self: avoid car analogies, use gun analogies instead. Example: "They use the same gun to shoot your dinner."

    37. Re:So what? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      And terrorists would use over-ripe cantelopes to blow things up (or shoot people with roofing guns) if more effective alternatives were not available. In the 13th century they'd cut off people's heads (and governments would do same/similar) with swords; today, they do other things, because they're more effective.

      The tools used are inconsequential; it's the actors we should be concerning ourselves with.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    38. Re:So what? by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      Building-7 wasn't hit by a plane.

  2. Re:Old News Is Old by sammyF70 · · Score: 1, Informative

    I didn't.

    --
    "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
  3. A leak != Espionage by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

    Should rename them WikiThief.

    My big question is whether or not their tactic for acquiring the documents is still usable by say, the Chinese Government.

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:A leak != Espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well from what I understand, China would have to be the end-node in the area where the server is actually being queried.

      Still, despicable behavior by WikiLeaks. WikiThief indeed.

    2. Re:A leak != Espionage by linzeal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heh, there have been rumors this has been a bonanza for the intelligence community. If wikileaks is doing it you can bet every three letter agency in the world has been doing it too.

    3. Re:A leak != Espionage by mysidia · · Score: 1

      WikiWireT[r]ap.

    4. Re:A leak != Espionage by Mithyx · · Score: 1

      Based on recent experiences, I doubt the DMV has been doing anything this advanced.~

    5. Re:A leak != Espionage by linzeal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The DMV has been given extraordinary powers since all these MADD sponsored mandatory DUI sentencing guidelines have begun to be expanded. My friend was arrested for suspicion of DUI in Oregon 2 years ago and was never charged but he still can't get it off his record.

    6. Re:A leak != Espionage by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      ::Shakes fist in the air::

      Damn you, NPS!!!

    7. Re:A leak != Espionage by Tycho · · Score: 1

      So what does the USGS, USDA and the NOAA use to gather foreign intelligence? Well aside from contacting the foreign authorities through the standard methods.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    8. Re:A leak != Espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so quick to judge Wikileaks based on nothing more than claims about a mysterious hacker.

      They have denied that this is true. Is their denial itself true? Who knows (obviously if there was meat to the story, they wouldn't just admit it), but one thing that's worth keeping in mind is that a 2008 report from the DoD (leaked, ironically enough, by Wikileaks in March this year) talked about the threat the site posed and the need to "marginalize" them.

      It seems to me that spreading FUD like this (if it is indeed FUD) would be a good way of going about that.

    9. Re:A leak != Espionage by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      + 1 Hilarious

    10. Re:A leak != Espionage by HBI · · Score: 1

      Criminal records are not composed of arrests. Convictions are the only thing that count.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    11. Re:A leak != Espionage by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Not for insurance it doesn't.

    12. Re:A leak != Espionage by HBI · · Score: 1

      I get your point. This is a problem from a privacy perspective. Insurance companies should not have more information than is available in criminal records and accident reports - ie, if you have a DUI/DWI, that would show, but an arrest on suspicion, but not a conviction, should not be.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  4. Hmmmmm by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sounds like an excellent way to spread disinformation.....even better than say.....the New York Times.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, "disinformation" implies that incorrect information is being deliberately provided. IMHO, the NYT actually believes what they print.

    2. Re:Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, their credulity of power is what makes the New York Times a useful tool for disinformation. Also note that sometimes a piece of information which is true can be misleading when taken out of context or blown out of proportion.

    3. Re:Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah -- which is why government officials (speaking on condition of anonymity, natch) sometimes tell believable lies to NYT (and other) reporters looking for a scoop. To spread disinformation. Which the NYT believes when they print it.

      Moron.

    4. Re:Hmmmmm by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like an excellent way to spread disinformation.....even better than say.....the New York Times.

      You know, even as recently as the salad days of my youth, I could have labeled you a troll for writing that about the NYT.

      Now, alas, all I can do is nod my head sadly in agreement.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    5. Re:Hmmmmm by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an excellent way to spread disinformation.....even better than say.....the New York Times.

      You know, even as recently as the salad days of my youth, I could have labeled you a troll for writing that about the NYT.

      Now, alas, all I can do is nod my head sadly in agreement.

      Of course, you would have been wrong. I would be surprised if there is anybody on this forum old enough to have a childhood before the NYT won a Pulitzer for its reports that the famine in the Ukraine under Stalin was not happening.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really have to say "salad days" and "of my youth" ?

  5. transparency by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Transparency is what the information age is for. It will be interesting to see how political bodies adjust... on one hand, the leaks are damaging, and truly innocuous or routine things can be spun and blown way out of proportion by opposition groups. On the other hand, they now have to behave to higher ethical standards (or at least the appearance of high ethical standards) because virtually anything could become public knowledge.

    1. Re:transparency by Strong+Arm+Coat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where's the "Wishful Thinking" mod when you need it?

    2. Re:transparency by Willbur · · Score: 3, Informative

      I highly recommend this link on why transparency is not enough.

    3. Re:transparency by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      If higher ethical standards were incompatible with efficiency in a given process, I would like them to make their case and their point. The public opinion doesn't have very high ethical standards either.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  6. Well I guess by stillpixel · · Score: 2, Funny

    those chinese hackers are good for something.. I'm thinking if we ever catch one though.. we'll sentence them to work in that Foxconn plant making iPhones ...

  7. Re:Old News Is Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to admit though, whatever his crimes, that Julian is a mysterious and exotic person, who has the most with beautiful hair.

  8. Re:Old News Is Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He looks like an extra vacant Bill Maher.

  9. Worry by cappp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally reading the linked articles made me really, really uncomfortable. Obviously wiki-leaks as a site has its own particular biases and political goals, everyone does, but the way in which they went about gathering this payload fills me with a really agonising ambivalence.

    It really strikes to the heart of my feelings about wikileaks itself. Democracies require informed populations and accountability – they’re premised on the fundamental idea that the voting public makes choices based on more than partisan, or self, interest. For the most part, when considered on a population-wide basis, this tends to happen. For every insane extremist there is a balance on the opposite side of the political spectrum leaving those who cluster around the middle to chart a more reasonable course. That being said, moderation is not always the best of all options (only killing half of all people with foreign accents is hardly the ideal resolution to the war on terror) but it’s the best one we have. Wiki gives us a level of information we previously lacked.

    However, the fact that they were born out of some ethically questionable actions worries me. It makes me question the source of their information, its reliability, and its purpose to a far greater extent than previously. I am forced to wonder what their goal actually is, and worry that I’ve been naive in believing that they’re interested in mature and reasoned public discourse. Perhaps that’s an over-reaction. Does the idea of Fruit-from-a-poison-tree apply here?

    1. Re:Worry by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't question the validity of their information. If their information wasn't valid, then companies wouldn't sue to have it taken down the way they have been. They'd be going with anti-defamation suits. They haven't been.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hard to see how we can talk about public reason when one side has information the other doesn't. In Soviet Russia much of the samizdat was of a purely factual nature, and by contradicting official reports delegitimized the government.

    3. Re:Worry by cappp · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That's an interesting point, I'd not heard of Samizdat before. For anyone else who's out of the know - wikipedia defines it as

      Samizdat was a key form of dissident activity across the Soviet bloc in which individuals reproduced censored publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader, thus building a foundation for the successful resistance of the 1980s

      . I guess what I'm trying to say is that WikiLeaks is straddling the gap between public interest and public concern in a way that is beginning to make me feel uncomfortable. Just me. Despite what the mods have deigned from on high I'm not trying to troll or anything like that. I am genuinly concerned that the project is grounded in what I consider to be ethically-suspect actions that potentially reflect an attitude to privacy, security, and mature discussion that I find distasteful.

      As to the accuracy, who knows what they're chosing not to show? That's a somewhat facicious point but there is an element of truth. If they're not above a little serrupticious information gathering then how can I trust that they're not also willing to make a few alterations here and there in what they chose to publisize. When they posted that video of military action the New Yorker ran an interesting piece at http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/04/truth-but-not-the-whole-truth.html which makes some compelling points about the video as presented:

      The producers themselves have chosen not to provide them. There appears to be a purpose to the omissions, which is underlined by the Orwell quote at the start, the prefatory explanation, the quotes and dedication at the end, even the way the helicopter crew’s cruel remarks are edited in a few places for effect. Although the producers identify the camera of the Reuters journalist who, along with his assistant, will be killed by Apache cannon fire, they don’t point to the AK-47 or the RPG launcher carried by other men with whom the journalists are walking in a group. Stripped of much context and weighted with commentary, this video is both an important document of the war, courageously leaked after the military had steadily refused to release it, and, in its way, a propaganda film.

      I'm concerned that we're trading one kind of spin for another.

    4. Re:Worry by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I am genuinly concerned that the project is grounded in what I consider to be ethically-suspect actions that potentially reflect an attitude to privacy, security, and mature discussion that I find distasteful.

      There should be no expectation of privacy for any unencrypted communication ever.

      It is ridiculous to send unencrypted information via the *inter*net and then get annoyed when your 'privacy' is invaded.

      I fully support privacy but ONLY when the person who wants privacy takes reasonable precautions. Otherwise they are idiots and deserve neither support nor sympathy.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:Worry by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia much of the samizdat was of a purely factual nature, and by contradicting official reports delegitimized the government.

      Only if you count Solzhenitsyn's historical fiction as factual. Because the rest was obviously fictional, merely seen as hostile by the government -- with genres from poetry to fantasy and science fiction.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    6. Re:Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet it is largely illegal to intercept a phone call without a warrant because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy wherever we as a society decide there is.

    7. Re:Worry by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Your problem, if I may be so blunt, is that you seem to think there might be one universal truth to any given situation. There isn't. There are only different perspectives.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    8. Re:Worry by WNight · · Score: 1

      Only because of laws that don't respect reality.

    9. Re:Worry by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      They are.. leaking.. supposedly.. restricted information /Shatner. This will always be considered "ethically questionable" - to those who wouldn't have wanted the leaks. Also, how do you think information in general is leaked?

      1. Information at some point gets into the hands of some person A who is prepared to do with it other than what the information "owner" B intended.

      2. A redistributes that information somehow, usually without B's initial knowledge.

      If people exchange unencrypted stuff over Tor - i.e. they're consciously setting up a non-mainsteam network tool then consciously distributing valuable unencrypted information to unknown third parties - what exactly is "ethically questionable" about calling foul when you get your hands on that information? If you found a document lying around describing some corruption you believe it is very much in the public interest to distribute, do you think, "Oh, well, obviously that document wasn't put there for me to read, so it'd be WRONG for me to do anything about it!" If so, you're part of the problem, because you're respecting the "rights" that a criminal does not have.

      Your only excuse for not making the public aware is that you're a coward - it obviously takes a lot of courage to help in publishing that sort of thing.

      And this article, like many recent Wikileaks articles, is an attempt to discredit it. Why would there possibly be a stream of articles attempting to discredit a site which publishes various leaks? Yes, they ask for donations too much. Yes, they seem to be technically incompetent when it comes to keeping their site up. So tackle those problems specifically.

    10. Re:Worry by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I'm worried for more reasons than just the probity of the data and editorial bias, which are important issues on their own. I am far more worried about what this means for privacy in general, and the extent to which the fourth estate will go in violating privacy freedoms to advance their own cause.

      Where's the outrage, people? Let's just flip this picture around for a minute; what if someone (Wikileaks, maybe) ran a story saying that the US or Russian or Chinese govt had compromised TOR in the same way Wikileaks supposedly did? The howling from aggrieved civil libertarians on slashdot and elsewhere would make the outcry over the Patriot Act pitiful by comparison.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:Worry by alexo · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting point, I'd not heard of Samizdat before.

      Just FYI, "samizdat" is literally "self publishing".

    12. Re:Worry by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Among civilized people, there is a perfectly legitimate right to and expectation of privacy when communicating via electronic means. Witness the brouhaha over the Patriot Act, "warrantless wiretaps", etc., and various privacy laws around the globe. That's not to say that it wouldn't be trivial to violate those rights, but that it would be wrong. In fact, it's the kind of thing that Wikileaks would likely expose if it found evidence the US government did it.

      I'd say that by using TOR, the users here were clearly seeking privacy, albeit imperfectly. Wikileaks apparently used this very fact to expose their secrets.

      Make no mistake. Wikileaks is not here to help you or respect you and your rights in any way. They are here to help Wikileaks only. What benefit they may provide to the rest of us is only incidental to that fact, and is apparently bought at a cost. They have built their reputation on privacy for the whistleblower, but if this report is true, their lack of respect for privacy and confidentiality is rather surprising.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    13. Re:Worry by tibman · · Score: 1

      Great link, thanks.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    14. Re:Worry by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Well that's why I always figured that you have to take Wikileaks, like all information on the internet, with a healthy dose of skepticism. Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is a great resource and tool for a vigilant populace. However, like any other tool, it can be misused and abused. Who is to say that everything on wikileaks is legit? Who is to say that everything posted to wikileaks was actually leaked from somewhere? Who is to say that the things posted don't have some ulterior motive?

      I remember my dad once told me, when I was younger, that you should listen to everybody but trust nobody. That seemed like a bit of a rough cliche at the time, and still does to some extent. However, it is a good guiding piece of advice when approaching any part of the internet, wikileaks included. Read what they post. Check out the documents. But consume them with the knowledge that they are being posted to a watchdog site that does not list its sources. That's all you can take them as, one more source of interesting information that may be part of the signal and may be part of the noise.

      I mean, it's not like we believe everything else we read on the internet right? Or do you consider all Slashdot comments (even highly moderated ones) to be accurate, infallible sources of information?

  10. Re:Old News Is Old by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You should try going elsewhere for you news aside from /. :p The first referenced article is the one I read.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  11. Fundamental Flaw? by IonOtter · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Would this be a fundamental flaw of the TOR network? If you don't know who's controlling the exit nodes, then you will never know if the information you send is truly secure.

    One of the things we were trained for in the Navy-and something in which I got an abject lesson-is "Trust but verify". I "trusted" my senior petty officer when he told me that he'd secured the transmitters when we went to go raise the antennas. When I got back to radio to restore the "secured" transmitters, I found them happily pouring out 1000 watts of power with each ping, which were coming 2-3 per second.

    My "Link-11 Sunburn" taught me that very important lesson: Trust but verify.

    If you can't verify the network yourself, then don't trust it. Make sure the information you send over it can't be traced back to you in any way. Good luck with that, but do your best anyway.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by Cougar+Town · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would this be a fundamental flaw of the TOR network? If you don't know who's controlling the exit nodes, then you will never know if the information you send is truly secure.

      Tor offers anonymity, not security. Encryption and signing is for security. The two can be combined.

    2. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by DavidJSimpson · · Score: 1

      No, this is not a flaw in TOR. As has been stated in a previous post, the purpose of TOR is not security, but anonymity. If you want to have a secure connection, use an SSH tunnel (for continuous communication) or encrypted email (for a one-time secure message). Note that both of these protocols offer security, but not anonymity. If you want security and anonymity together, I suppose you could create an SSH tunnel through TOR, but performance would obviously suffer.

    3. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by Virak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, this is a fundamental flaw with unencrypted communication, which is exactly what you're doing when you use Tor to access things outside of the Tor network without additional encryption. Either stay inside the network or ensure whatever you're running over it has its own encryption, simple as that. As always, the biggest threat to security is incompetence.

    4. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by LaZZaR · · Score: 1

      The purpose of Tor is to provide anonymity. Given that in order for Tor to work it requires "community" participation, that means anyone can operate an exit node, but there is also an understanding that exit nodes can be used to siphon data. The key point here is that the exit nodes cannot determine the origin of the data, hence anonymity.

      However, there is nothing preventing you from encrypting data over Tor.

      --
      I lost me sig.
    5. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >Would this be a fundamental flaw of the TOR network?
      Depends on your point of view. It is certainly a well known issue. And there are other issues as well:

      https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ?action=recall&rev=554#AnonymityandSecurity

    6. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you don't think Tor is secure in the manner you suggest?! It's not meant to be. Tor is for anonymity, not security for your information.

      To put it more concretely, you want to use Tor if you don't want someone to know _you're_ doing something, which is not necessarily bad I should add. For instance, if you want to blog about what you saw last night in the alley. Tor isn't for sending information you don't want _anyone_ to read.

      Anonymity protects you, not your data. So, you should use Tor for complaining about the government, and not to broadcast the location of your buried treasure!

      --
      "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    7. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by Burz · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that the secure/insecure distinction has an explanation that is buried somewhere in a faq on the website. It would be better if people were given a browser with Tor that in one unified visual element allow people to tell immediately what the anonymity and security levels are at the moment.

    8. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Actually, SSH through Tor should be no slower than regular traffic through Tor. Assuming you have something more powerful on hand than some 1990s Pentium laying around.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's broadcast all over the Tor client window every time you start it up.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the poster wasn't talking about ssh being slow, he/she/it was referring to how slow TOR is. User yer noggin, that's what it's there for.

    11. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by joshki · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of a tagout bill?

      --- Navy Chief ET

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    12. Re:Fundamental Flaw? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If wikileaks is getting documents by being a Tor exit node, then for someone who is trying to secretly leak stuff to wikileaks, I'd say this is not a flaw, this is a feature :).

      --
  12. THIS IS WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYING, P2P IS FOR COMMIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only the bad guys use P2P. FACT!!

    Are you user of P2P?

    You are a bad guy !! FACT !!

    Commies, go home !!

  13. you know you'll like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    take him to the greek looks totally gay. lots of slashfags will probably like it.

  14. Wikileaks funds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you want to see how even Wikileaks volunteers don't know how funds are used in their organization read the following link at Cryptome

    http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-funds.htm

    Cryptome has also published a lot of Wikileaks founder's personal emails in which, like many of us at different points in time in our lives, he speaks of how broke he is. After founding Wikileaks, he told an Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald that he did not use a single cent from Wikileaks for funding his personal expenses, but he has substantial private investments. Where did the money come from?

    Cryptome has all the inside information about Wikileaks.

    I am a supporter of the site thought. Not of the shady founder. Wikileaks good.

  15. Tor has leaked much by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/swedish-researc/
    As people might recall log-in and password information for 1,000 e-mail accounts belonging to foreign embassies where seen in plain text too.
    Tor was always one huge honey pot built on the US telco network with all exit nodes collectable to the NSA.
    Others are just building their own small data collection services on top.
    Another man in the middle data retention story :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Tor has leaked much by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Tor was always one huge honey pot built on the US telco network with all exit nodes collectable to the NSA.

      Perhaps the NSA has the power to surveille exit nodes in foreign countries but even if so describing Tor as a honey pot is misleading. As others have pointed out, anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how Tor works can easily figure out that you either just use it for surfing the web with Javascript and Java disabled and without giving away any personal information or you have to use an encrypted connection. The Tor docs made that clear from the beginning. However, securing a web browser not to leak information is admittedly not so easy.

    2. Re:Tor has leaked much by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      exit nodes in foreign countries - loop in via US telco peering.
      The US telco network is part Asia and the EU by default.
      Add in US bases and most of them would have friendly telco taps.
      So yes, the NSA is really many areas Bell's and private telcos.
      They grew up in the digital age, step by step and with each upgrade.
      TOR use would just be one more dictionary list. Getting the IP"s would have been fun, but once understood, a stable ongoing effort.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Re:Old News Is Old by chromas · · Score: 1

    Go somewhere else? I don't understand the concept.

  17. Exit Nodes by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anybody involved with TOR knows that EXIT nodes are a big potential risk, and not only have there been rumors of official government sponsored (and therefore tapped) exit nodes, but even /. had a story about it a long ass time ago. Recently the TOR guys have been trying to curtail this via a few different methods, but it is nothing new. Regardless, exit node sniffing is a novel way to get information, (for example, allow only .gov or .edu traffic)

    --
    "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
  18. That may be an understatement by Burz · · Score: 1

    Almost anyone could get into that game, at least in a small way with one or more Tor exit nodes.

    That's the problem with using something that bridges back to the normal Internet: Security can be quite low without painstaking preparation. I2P at least will not pose such a risk because your destinations are all inside the darknet, and even https is discouraged because the connections are considered secure as well as anonymous (your base64 address acts as the public key that pairs with your local identity which is secret).

  19. Re:Old News Is Old by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Why? I can stand to wait a day or two (or much longer, usually). In return, I have much less places I need bother to look.

    I, unlike some others, don't have an addiction to knowing what is going on RIGHT NOW everywhere else in the world.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  20. Dedupe Bandwidth Savings by Nemilar · · Score: 1

    The author mentions the disk access for deduped primary storage (he points out (rightfully so) that deduped primary storage will perform slower than non-deduped primary storage), but he failed to mention what I think is an important point when discussing deduplication and network performance/bottlenecks.

    If you dedupe your backups (the author mentions, for example, a VTL solution), you then gain the ability to replicate only the unique data to your DR site. In terms of saving bandwidth, this can be an absolutely huge savings. Imagine if you backup to a VTL, and with dedupe you get an average 25:1 ratio; that means that, for the purposes of DR, you can replicate 25x more data through your pipe than you would have been able to, without dedupe.

    --
    Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
  21. Innocent world theory does not apply to govs. by elucido · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No government is innocent. No large group of people are innocent. No Corporation is innocent. The weak exist to be dominated as long as capitalism is the religion of the world.

    As long as it's not our weak being dominated, thats the best we can hope for in the current world.

    1. Re:Innocent world theory does not apply to govs. by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The attempts by large groups to dominate the weak occurred long before capitalism, and will continue should capitalism ever cease to exist. It is simply one model of domination. There are many more in existence.

    2. Re:Innocent world theory does not apply to govs. by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      The attempts by large groups to dominate the weak occurred long before capitalism, and will continue should capitalism ever cease to exist. It is simply one model of domination. There are many more in existence.

      The thing is, Capitalism + Democracy are "sold" to the masses as Freedom. In fact, the US, the largest country which has adopted that model activelly tries to export it's version of it to other countries and continously brain-washes their own people with the idea that everybody has a chance to raise to the top (not quite so: the US' upwards-mobility rating is lower than most countries).

      At least with Feudalism the Peasents weren't bulshited about their function being anything other than produce wealth for the Nobility - not so with Capitalism.

      Capitalism is maintained by marketting (it is mercantilistic in nature and only really works as long as the masses remain convinced that all hapiness comes from consuming short-lived goods and services) so in the war of ideas, the only way to balance it is to constantly point out that "The King has no clothes".

    3. Re:Innocent world theory does not apply to govs. by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    4. Re:Innocent world theory does not apply to govs. by Putr · · Score: 1

      ... and will continue should capitalism ever cease to exist.

      Not should it ever cease to exist, but when. Since capitalism is by designe a system with an end. And the end is near.

    5. Re:Innocent world theory does not apply to govs. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Capitalism + Democracy are "sold" to the masses as Freedom.

      Private property rights in the means of production (capitalism) is what separates one man's plan from another man's plan. Without it, there can only be one plan for all, imposed with terror from the top-down.

      (not quite so: the US' upwards-mobility rating is lower than most countries).

      No doubt according to heavily massaged statistics using some incomprehensible methodology.

      Instead, if we look at where the wealthiest people in America come from, we see that the majority of them (around two-thirds) are self-made, and a list of the wealthiest people shows substantial turnover in a generation. This indicates substantial social mobility. How many of the wealthiest Western Europeans are self-made?

  22. This is why I only use Tor by fishexe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...for getting around the Great Firewall to d/l porn and access facebook, not for doing anything that needs to be secure.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    1. Re:This is why I only use Tor by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      I use Tor to browse porn, too :)

      I bet there's one in the CIA that starts every morning like this :
      "One more day of checking Tor image captures for hidden data. *picks up extra large hand lotion bottle* God I love this job!"

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  23. Re:Old News Is Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I didn't.

    This is informative? Must be editors with mod points. Otherwise how does whether one person's first exposure to this story came from Slashdot inform the rest of us about anything? If this is informative then the parent post talking about how he had already read this elsewhere before it appeared on Slashdot is equally informative. Confirmation bias at its finest, folks.

  24. rather, stuff coming from exit nodes by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More precisely, it is not the nodes themselves that are the risk, but the (unencrypted) communication coming from the exit nodes.

  25. SSL any better? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    While we're at it, your browser SSL encryption is only as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts. Any time your browser shows a secure and validated SSL connection it's because someone in your authorities list said it was okay. Just one authority. That's all it takes.

    Go look at the list of CAs your browser trusts.

    I just checked mine and I see 86 certificates belonging to maybe 30 different organizations. If any single one of those 30 organizations has a compromised certificate, my browser could show a bogus SSL connection as valid. So, I connect to Bank Of America, and the connection appears like a good SSL connection, but that's only because the fake cert in this attack was authorized by some rogue operator at "TÜBTAK UEKAE Kök Sertifika Hizmet Salaycs - Sürüm 3" or whichever of the 30 companies. That's a pretty long chain to deal with for a weakest-link-screws-you scenario.

    Maybe some folks here didn't realize that this is how the model works. That's part of the problem.

    So I might suggest understanding the difference between an anonymized connection and an encrypted one. Folks should understand how Tor works before using it. Already we have a problem with people using SSL without understanding it.

    Anyway, I installed Tor and Torbutton recently and kept running across notices of how Tor works and that I should be aware of how it works to receive the benefits of it.

    Here's another way you can protect yourself against bogus SSL certs, by the way: Perspectives. See the demo. There's a Firefox extension.

    Perspectives shows you an SSL cert's history. That is, how long that cert has been in use by the host you're SSL connecting to (as seen by a number of other hosts on the net). If the cert changed on you today, that's suspicious. If it changed today and you are the only person seeing that new cert, you might consider not using that connection for sensitive communication.

    1. Re:SSL any better? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      While we're at it, your browser SSL encryption is only as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts.

      Rather, its only at most as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts; its quite possible that either your computer or the server you are accessing is, itself, less secure than any of the CAs involved, in which case those are the limiting factors.

    2. Re:SSL any better? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      While we're at it, your browser SSL encryption is only as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts.

      Rather, its only at most as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts

      Yes, this is what I'm saying. Maybe I could have written it more clearly.

      And I suppose we really shouldn't be referring to any one system's security as a limiting factor when all the systems -- your computer, the server accessed, the CAs -- add in.

  26. Re:Old News Is Old by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    I don't either, and generally I don't read the online (or offline) papers. I do get news from several sources though (mainly because I subscribed to a feed for keeping up with what groups are doing politically).

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  27. Re:Old News Is Old by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    probably a /. mod with an ax to grind. I tend to piss people off for one reason or another.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  28. Confirms my suspecions ... by BitZtream · · Score: 0

    That Julian Assange is a fucking douche nozzle with a side of ass goblin. :)

    Yes, mark me as a troll for assaulting the precious wikileaks, but really, he's a douche promoting what essentially amounts to corporate espionage in almost every case.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Confirms my suspecions ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you call "corporate espionage" on behalf of the society as a whole, though?

    2. Re:Confirms my suspecions ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm here to confirm that national governments are corporations.

    3. Re:Confirms my suspecions ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, mark me as a troll for assaulting the precious wikileaks, but really, he's a douche promoting what essentially amounts to corporate espionage in almost every case.

      If it takes a douche to blow the whistle on evil corporations breaking the law, then bring on the Summer's Eve. (I just like that one because it sounds like a pornstar)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. There are many things about julian that are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not quite right. I am a little upset with julian assange over the book he co-authored many years ago called Underground. Alot of what he wrote were pretty much out and out lies and activities assigned to one person or group were actually performed by others. particularly things assigned to the australians and himself. He and the australians claimed they did alot of stuff performed by a good friend of mine who has never gotten the credit he deserved, he doesn't really care as he's not like that but he does get pissed off that people like julian, ropp, phoenix, gandlaf, electron, MoD, 8lgm and others parlayed his exploits into their fame and fortune and he didn't even get more than a few sentences in the book.

  30. Education by somenickname · · Score: 1

    In the not so distant past, things like Algebra and Geometry were considered "premium" learning. Now, anyone who has been through high school has been exposed to those concepts and, even if they can't use that math, they have been exposed to it. The internet has become such a pervasive part of our culture that an understanding of how it works and even ethics classes on how to use it should be taught at an early age.

    That doesn't preclude idiot bureaucrats without that education from thinking that sending information via tor and expecting the exit node to be secure but, it does put society in a place where basic knowledge about the fundamental structure of the internet is almost common sense.

  31. Re:Old News Is Old by sammyF70 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Probably because my answer was just a different way of saying "so what? just because you read it elsewhere yesterday doesn't make it any less interesting for those who DIDN'T read it elsewhere. Considering the news in question, one day, or even one week, late doesn't make a difference"
    I just put it in less words the first time around

    --
    "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
  32. Whole picture by manaway · · Score: 1

    Films like this deserve to be seen. Anonymous distribution is, so far, one avenue to make that possible. If intercepted at an exit node by more than one party, that just gives more opportunity for an honest publisher and any propagandist a video to deliver to the public. Obviously it would always be best to have the whole unedited film available for reference. Though even then you have to use your critical skills to interpret what you're viewing.

    For example: the New Yorker's "compelling points" of the video are, in my opinion, tangential and minor in the context of the shooting. You can ignore the audio and items circled, and still come away with the big picture. Some empty-handed locals, some locals with weapons, and journalists with cameras are walking around. Some foreign guys with weapons, part of an invading and occupying foreign military, are flying around in helicopters. The foreign guys initiate the killing of locals and journalists on the ground. Another group of weaponless locals drives in and tries to rescue the wounded, but are also shot, along with their kids, by the foreign guys. Make of that what you will. Looks like murder of innocents to me.

    1. Re:Whole picture by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Some empty-handed locals, some locals with weapons

      That's what insurgents look like. They kill Americans all the time. They were approaching an American position. That's who the helo pilots and gunners were there to stop.

      initiate the killing of locals and journalists on the ground

      You assume foreknowledge. Impossible for the gunner to tell he was killing journalists. As you mention, some of the guys on the ground were carrying weapons. They crew in the air were - to the best of their knowledge, - protecting their fellow soldiers on the ground who were being approached by armed men.

      weaponless locals drives in and tries to rescue the wounded, but are also shot, along with their kids,

      Again, that assumes foreknowledge that the helo crew can't possibly have. The van obviously opaque. There is no way to see whether the occupants are armed, or whether they were crazy and stupid enough to bring kids into a live-fire area.

      Looks like murder of innocents to me.

      Murder implies intent. For instance, a suicide bomber who detonates in front of a mosque is clearly targeting innocent civilians. That is murder of innocents. If murder was the plan, the Americans in the film sure botched it ... they didn't even kill the kids. Instead, they ran them to an ambulance. If they just wanted to murder civilians, why not buzz a school, fire rockets, shoot up the classrooms? Obviously, that's not what they were after.

      It was tragic. It was awful. It was an accident.

      Look, I get the idea that this film fit your own preconceived notions about the war, which is why it is apparently easy for you to dismiss legitimate criticism from the NYT (not known for its conservative positions) about the film. You were right about one thing - the possibility of a propagandist disseminating a film like this. The heavy-handed editing done to the film makes it apparent that the people producing it don't want you to draw your own conclusions - they want to feed you the narrative they like best. I'd love to get my hands on the unedited footage. Maybe some of it would change my mind. Maybe some of it would change yours.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Whole picture by manaway · · Score: 1

      Let's presume that we agree on two things: the golden rule is a moral fundamental and facts are important.

      Some empty-handed locals, some locals with weapons

      That's what insurgents look like. They kill Americans all the time. They were approaching an American position. That's who the helo pilots and gunners were there to stop.

      Let's try a golden rule counter-example. You have a gun and I have a camera and we are walking around our neighborhood, say a block from your house. Italy invaded our country 7 years ago under some pretense and continues to occupy our country. Currently there is an armed Italian helicopter flying over us about to open fire. Whom is the insurgent? How would an Italian describe the situation?

      That's what insurgents [you and I] look like. They [we] kill Italians all the time. They [we] were approaching an Italian position. That's who [us] the helo pilots and [Italian] gunners were there to stop.

      No one in the world (95+%) views the situation like you describe it except media-educated US citizens. This is Iraq. The majority of Iraqis do not want American military and American-funded mercenaries in their country. Therefore it is the Americans who are the insurgents. The rest of your argument falls apart once this fact is recognized.

    3. Re:Whole picture by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      You have a gun and I have a camera and we are walking around our neighborhood, say a block from your house.

      If I am armed and you are travelling through a war zone with me, then we implicitly understand that our lives are at stake. At this point, getting shot at should NOT be a surprise.

      Since we're indulging in a little make-believe, let's explore this a little further. If you are a journalist and I am an insurgent fighter, why are you following me into a war zone? Probably to film the imminent firefight between my group of fighters and the occupying Italians. Any Italian gunship crew in that position is going to light us up with gunfire, just like the American crew did. Whether I'm a foreign mercenary or an American patriot doesn't factor into their equation. They would be defending their brothers on the ground.

      Why else were one or more journalists moving with armed men towards American troops? The group he was travelling with seemed a little too large for purely personal protection.

      I don't condone the killing of civilians or war correspondents. However, in this case I think I can understand how it happened, and I don't attribute it to any malice on the part of the gunship crew. They were doing what they were there to do - protect their fellow GIs on the ground.

      Whom is the insurgent? How would an Italian describe the situation?

      I don't have much trouble figuring out who the insurgents are. By definition, insurgent forces fight against the established authority, while occupying forces project foreign authority. Engaging in a bit of sophism by renaming the occupiers as insurgents is an interesting rhetorical exercise, but it is just an exercise, and it doesn't change the truth on the ground in Iraq. So just to be clear, whether we are talking about an occupied Iraq or an occupied USA, the rebels are insurgents, and the invaders are the occupying force.

      Furthermore, I don't buy into the moral equivalency of the two positions. Many of the "insurgents" in Iraq have no local patriotic ties, but are instead serving foreign agendas (albeit agendas that are better hidden) in a proxy war against America by killing Iraqi civilians, intentionally targeting women, children, and old men. I'd consider them more an occupying force than an insurgent one. So instead of asking who the real insurgent is, I'd ask who the real occupier is?

      It would be as if the Canadians and Mexicans slipped over our borders (no double entendre intended regarding the Mexicans) and started blowing up innocent Americans in our churches and police stations to drive out the Italians.

      No one in the world (95+%) views the situation like you describe it except media-educated US citizens.

      That's an interesting distinction you draw there, between the "media-educated US citizen" and the 95% of the rest of the world. Exactly how does the other 95% of the world form their opinion on the matter? Surely not from first-hand experience. Throughout the world, news is not simply disseminated; it is shaped, filtered, edited, etc. by people and institutions with agendas. That's not unique to the US or any other locale. Wikileaks is one such entity, and this article shows clearly that they are not unbiased or pure in their actions or motives.

      If you want to be a well-educated consumer of media, read many sources from different points of view, including those you disagree with. What is covered and how it is covered will help you to see through the agendas being forced on you. Many of the 95% you speak of live in conditions that do not permit the freedom of communication (and therefore thought) you and I enjoy.

      Furthermore, numbers aren't everything. Clearly your number is an approximation based on world population, not a survey of 6-point-something billion opinions, and the assumptions that a) everyone in the US agrees with each other, and b) everyone outside the US agrees with each oth

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:Whole picture by manaway · · Score: 1

      You have a gun and I have a camera and we are walking around our neighborhood, say a block from your house.

      If I am armed and you are travelling through a war zone with me, then we implicitly understand that our lives are at stake. At this point, getting shot at should NOT be a surprise.

      This jumps right past the most important step. It is the step which most of the world can see but indoctrinated Americans are trained to ignore. To be a morally acceptable act, the invading military must justify its violent invasion, otherwise it is aggression. And unjustified aggression is universally immoral and commonly illegal. Once unjustified aggression has begun, horror follows, and all of the immoral acts that follow, by all individuals, are the responsibility of the original initiators. We should keep this in mind while discussing the American occupation of Iraq.

      Since we're indulging in a little make-believe, let's explore this a little further. If you are a journalist and I am an insurgent fighter, why are you following me into a war zone? Probably to film the imminent firefight between my group of fighters and the occupying Italians. Any Italian gunship crew in that position is going to light us up with gunfire, just like the American crew did. Whether I'm a foreign mercenary or an American patriot doesn't factor into their equation. They would be defending their brothers on the ground.

      Why else were one or more journalists moving with armed men towards American troops? The group he was travelling with seemed a little too large for purely personal protection.

      The journalist could be accompanying locals into an "imminent firefight," or the locals could be accompanying the journalist, or there could be another combination of purposes for that loose group of people walking together. Are a cameraman and an inquisitive journalist going to gather a group? Yes, groups of varying sizes frequently gather around video journalists. In the video several locals appear to be carrying rifles, and some are walking empty-handed, at worst carrying a handgun or small grenade. So several apparently empty-handed locals are walking toward an "imminent firefight" against US tanks and rockets and machine guns, with a noisy attack helicopter overhead circling their position and obviously radioing the target of their approach? The least likely scenario is the "imminent firefight."

      I don't condone the killing of civilians or war correspondents. However, in this case I think I can understand how it happened, and I don't attribute it to any malice on the part of the gunship crew. They were doing what they were there to do - protect their fellow GIs on the ground.

      During war civilians are killed (something like 50-90%, though I can't find a source right now so feel free to question or research it). If you condone this war then you condone the killing of those civilians (perhaps with the justification that it is "worth it," as Condoleeza Rica said). With a little more research (i.e. the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram's Authority Experiment), you'll find that the soldiers actions are exactly what you'd expect in their situation. Or watch the 1970s documentary Winter Soldier (seriously, it's worth the time) where a veteran describes the situation clearly: "It was us against them, if I made a mistake in judging who was dangerous then I could die, and I wasn't going to make that mistake, so everyone was a target" (paraphrased).

      From the outside, the helicopter's gunning down the locals is obviously immoral; to quote "we have a van that's approaching and picking up bodies, permission to engage" and then getting permission from the authority. From inside an insane situation, the killing is understandable; and responsibility for these acts goes back to the instigators, the US government, and you and me for allowing them to have con

    5. Re:Whole picture by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Although I disagree with some of what you say, I agree with other parts, and I respect you for being sincere, respectful, and thoughtful. Thanks for that.

      I apologize if some of this is out of order. Also, I didn't respond to everything you wrote. I wish I had more time to delve into these things.

      To be a morally acceptable act, the invading military must justify its violent invasion, otherwise it is aggression. And unjustified aggression is universally immoral and commonly illegal. Once unjustified aggression has begun, horror follows, and all of the immoral acts that follow, by all individuals, are the responsibility of the original initiators.

      I consider the justification for the invasion of Iraq a separate topic from the question of whether the gunship crew acted correctly given the circumstances they were in and the information at their disposal.

      Discussion of the war, its causes, it casualties, and the lies that are intertwined into it could go on - and likely will - practically forever. But what this particular topic rests on are the actions of the gunship crew, those on the ground, and those who brought this film to light.

      So several apparently empty-handed locals are walking toward an "imminent firefight" against US tanks and rockets and machine guns, with a noisy attack helicopter overhead circling their position and obviously radioing the target of their approach? The least likely scenario is the "imminent firefight."

      I disagree. From the gunship's point of view, you see some armed individuals, others who are carrying items which are hard to distinguish (turns out later to be camera w/telephoto lens), and some who may be unarmed, or possibly concealing arms (a suicide belt, for example). Given that Palestinians are known to attack fully armed Israeli troops with nothing more than rocks they can throw, the idea of unarmed or lightly armed fighters approaching US troops with hostile intent is not out of the question.

      During war civilians are killed ... If you condone this war then you condone the killing of those civilians

      It bears mentioning that the number of civilian casualties depends on at least three primary causes in this war. 1) The accuracy with which a target can be discerned, classified, and hit. 2) The degree to which the insurgents have camouflaged and shielded themselves among civilians. 3) The frequency and lethality of insurgent strikes against civilians.

      The US has spent billions upon billions of dollars developing weapons systems that are ultra-precise and reliable. This is primarily done to increase the potency of America's fighting forces, but is also specifically intended to lower civilian casualties.

      The insurgents have made it a habit to hide among civilians as civilians. Culpability for resulting civilian casualties must also rest on them as well.

      The US does not, as a matter of policy, deliberately attack civilians. The insurgents do.

      Surely we agree that the number of Iraqis killed by provocateurs is miniscule, though no less dreadful, compared to the number of people killed by US bombs and guns.

      I don't agree that the number of Iraqi civilians killed by insurgents or other non-US/coalition forces is "miniscule", either in actual number, or as a percentage compared to the civilians killed by the US.

      Either way, we need to look at the numbers of deaths claimed, which is an exercise in sifting through inaccurate, incomplete, and often deliberately misleading information. Official government counts by the US and Iraq put the total number of civilian deaths at 100-130k. These numbers are solid in that they count documented, reported deaths. From this, we can assume that these represent a minimum to start from. Due to local burial customs, fear of the authorities, lack of communications, etc, it is commonly held that these numbers represent a significant

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    6. Re:Whole picture by manaway · · Score: 1

      I consider the justification for the invasion of Iraq a separate topic from the question of whether the gunship crew acted correctly given the circumstances they were in and the information at their disposal.

      Taking an event out of context is omission, a way to deceive. Typically this is done where one outcome is desired, see also kangaroo courts.

      From the gunship's point of view, you see some armed individuals, others who are carrying items which are hard to distinguish (turns out later to be camera w/telephoto lens), and some who may be unarmed, or possibly concealing arms (a suicide belt, for example). Given that Palestinians are known to attack fully armed Israeli troops with nothing more than rocks they can throw, the idea of unarmed or lightly armed fighters approaching US troops with hostile intent is not out of the question.

      Curious that you use as an example Palestinians throwing rocks against invaders with guns and bombs, since there are more than a few parallels with Iraqis; but I suppose pursuing that discussion is larger than what we want to get into here. In summary: never bring a rock to a machine gun fight, unless you're making a symbolic gesture to show a basic unfairness and injustice which the world can perceive but the gunners use as justification.

      According to your description, "harmful intent" or "possibly concealing arms" is justification, so any human wearing clothing is fair game to be killed at the discretion of the shooter. If we're going to be golden-rule fair, this rule must apply equally to Iraqis, Americans, or any other nationality. Is that the guideline you want to use? Any person or vehicle possibly carrying a weapon is a fair target? It's handy, since this way the shooter can never be wrong, by definition. If you're wondering why the world finds this event and the American occupation to be morally wrong, this is one of the big reasons.

      It bears mentioning that the number of civilian casualties depends on at least three primary causes in this war. 1) The accuracy with which a target can be discerned, classified, and hit. 2) The degree to which the insurgents have camouflaged and shielded themselves among civilians. 3) The frequency and lethality of insurgent strikes against civilians. The US has spent billions upon billions of dollars developing weapons systems that are ultra-precise and reliable. This is primarily done to increase the potency of America's fighting forces, but is also specifically intended to lower civilian casualties. The insurgents have made it a habit to hide among civilians as civilians. Culpability for resulting civilian casualties must also rest on them as well. The US does not, as a matter of policy, deliberately attack civilians. The insurgents do.

      The primary cause of the above normal violent civilian casualties is the war. The stated reasons for the US invasion are, in chronological order: 2003) rid Iraq of WMDs, since proven false; 2004) rid Iraq of Saddam, since accomplished yet the occupation continues; 2005) get rid of terrorists and insurgents, which are instead increasing. When you start with an objective using some approach, and the opposite of that objective is happening, most people question the approach. If the approach continues to be used, then the stated objective is not the real objective. Most Iraqis, and the rest of the world, see the objective being corporate control of Iraq's natural resource (oil), imperialism, and neoliberalism (which the US calls "national security").

      Are US weapons ultra-precise and reliable? Let's take an example: the bombing of Saddam that initiated the war hit not Saddam's palace but did hit nearby; blowing a hole in, literally, a neighbor's front yard. For more examples, see this long sad list of "collateral damage" from "ultra-precise" weapons. If that is considered cherry-picki

  33. Re:Old News Is Old by fractoid · · Score: 1

    much less places

    many fewer places

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  34. Re:Old News Is Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why didn't you submit it yesterday?

  35. Wait a minute by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 1

    How did kdawson know it was either a "he" or a "she" ?
    http://dailycontributor.com/scot-turned-australian-becomes-worlds-first-legal-neutral-gender/12742/

    Confirms my suspicions...

  36. Re:Old News Is Old by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Yes but you can in this case have your cake and eat it too. Just go to Daily Rotation, make an account (If you want to have your settings saved and be able to access from more than 1 PC), choose which sites and headlines you care about, add any sites not listed with the handy "add site" at the bottom, hit save, and voila! All the major and minor sites headlines, all served up to you on a single page.

    I find it a whole lot easier to have all the sites I like including /. all on a single page. With all the cool new tech coming out it is hard to keep up otherwise, at least for me. Give it a try, I bet you'll like it.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  37. Always look on the bright side... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    Tor lets you collect your porn anonymously, but at a heavy bandwidth price. The three letter agencies are (we guess) providing Tor nodes with lots of bandwidth so as to be able to sniff the exit traffic.

    Result? The NSA is subsidising your anonymous porn collection!

    You don't have to care about encryption so long as you don't mind if the NSA has sniffed your porn before you do.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  38. This is a difficult subject by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    ... it's a Wired article which doesn't suck.

    Maybe Wired journalists are okay at writing about journalism?

    I'm not sure if I should continue ignoring this publication. It's confusing.

    Update: "...The point is that users who want to be safe need to be encrypting their traffic, whether they're using Tor or not." This flat denial of the assertion that Wikileaks was bootstrapped with documents sniffed from the Tor network is repeated unambiguously in correspondence from Wikileaks volunteers."

    Okay, I have my answer. Continue ignoring Wired.

  39. Re:Old News Is Old by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    I read about this yesterday.

    I read this first post yesterday.

    And the day before that. And the day before THAT. And the day be... well, actually, the day before that was some idiot 13 year old GNAA twit. But the day before THAT...

  40. Wikileaks attack in progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is precisely the attack that we are going to see more and more. Discreditation of Wikileaks is a high priority in combating its effects on governmental secrets. Go and read the (leaked) military document on Wikileaks: it explains the method of action quite well. The fact that the attack comes from a prestigious site does not mean that it's not an attack.

  41. Re:Real NEWS !! by shentino · · Score: 1

    Interestingly enough my business law professor skipped the ethics chapter.

  42. Re:Old News Is Old by X0563511 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whatever. Go shove your grammar book somewhere cramped and moist and don't bother me.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  43. Re:Old News Is Old by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    because my submissions have a history of being rejected (somewhere around a 12% acceptance rate). Also, I didn't think such a dry profile (as interesting as it was to me) was /. worthy.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  44. Pot and Kettle love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot takes stories from other sources not meant for Slashdot. Wikileaks takes stories from other sources not meant for Wikileaks. Both of which relies on other parties to deliver them goods that they themselves could not produce on their own. Just as Slashdot is the front end for pseudo-geek news from other sites, Wikileaks is the front end for TOR feeds. Pot have you met Kettle?

  45. And again... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

    Another post that says "nothing happened, and rumors that say it happened are false". What idiot poured redbull in kdawson today ?

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  46. I run a TOR node by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run a TOR node w/ a very generous amount of dedicated bandwidth. However, it's locked up in such a way that it's not an exit node. All it does is relay traffic within the network. That way I can still contribute to TOR, without having the liabilities of running an exit node. So this way the server's IP doesn't end up in all sorts of logs doing all sorts of bad things.

    At the very least, this is what most people should be doing to help TOR. Dedicate some bandwidth and only set it up as a relay. Whether on a server or desktop it can still help. All they ask for as a minimum is 20K/s of bandwidth. Anyone on broadband, even with BT running, can afford this.