Slashdot Mirror
With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair
JDRucker writes "Supporters are concerned. Very concerned. Would-be whistle-blowers hoping to leak documents to Wikileaks face a potentially frustrating surprise. Wikileaks' submission process, which had been degraded for months, completely collapsed more than two weeks ago and remains offline, in a little-noted breakdown at the world's most prominent secret-spilling website."
wikileaks is pants
Wikileaks provides an extremely useful service, one which is only possible on the Internet, considering its widely accessible scale. Here's to hoping things get straightened out -_-;;
Living With a Nerd
Wikileaks lost the majority of their credibility in January when they decided to stop actually being a decent site and instead beg for donations for a few months.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Manning got caught whistle blowing because he was tooting his own horn.
If you leak shit, stfu about it. While I don't agree with Manning on leaking the cables, the video was a little more understandable. I have also lost a lot of respect for Wired and their coverage of this. They are far too involved and it looks like a serious conflict of interest.
Either lack of funding, or fear of repercussions. I personally don't know what is worse, having the world's government spooks on your ass for propagating their no-no's publicly, or having Islamic radicals after you for propagating 'heresy'. Either way, people want you dead.
They are either afraid of, or in cooperation with the groups whose documents they leak, or are truly out of funds. I am placing my faith of judgement in one of the former.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
the list of which bankers, world leaders, and radio hosts are lizard people from other planets.
now you'll never know.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This is the fault of niggers.
Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17498238199 is this:
"Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' http://bit.ly/aZm4US"
Not so quick to judge Wired's coverage at face value...
Did they use an iPhone 4 to host WikiLeaks ?
Someone must have pressed it too tight. Now antena is not working anymore and Wikileaks is disconnected.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Nice job quoting an article with more spin than a v8 unicycle.
For those who actually follow these things thou, it's important to note that Kevin Poulsen (of Wired) is the same Journalist (and I use the term loosely) posting the edited chat excerpts from conversations between whistleblower Bradley Manning and wannabe hacker/cum police informant Adrian Lamo.
So much for an actual story.. moreso just Wired trying any attempt it can to bring down Wikileaks.
(Protip: Reading the comments on the wired story alone give you most of the information publicly available on the Poulsen/Lamo lovefest)
I uploaded the President's Book of Secrets to Wikileaks three weeks ago. Does this mean that the NSA has it now, along with my IP address and Chat Roulette screen-grabs?
the list of which bankers, world leaders, and radio hosts are lizard people from other planets.
now you'll never know.
Let me make an educated guess - All of them?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Kids these days.
"With World Watching, Wikileaks Withers Woefully While Walruses Wrangle Wrapped Wrens"
Although Leaking in some sense is an good thing when you are talking about dealing with the extremist of the world, leaking can also be, and more often is, done for less honorable reasons. 30 years ago the politicos and the media, especially the Main stream media were MORE trustworthy. Now I question the reason why anything is leaked. politicos, media types, governmental employees, people with an axe to grind, liars, cheats, thieves, criminals defense lawyers, and people that just do not like some policy use "leaks" as a way of getting information, often un-vetted, or purposely false and vicious. out in the public eye. Even the person(s) that ran wikileaks is not above doing this if it were to meet their personal agenda.
Apparently they're just upgrading:
http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17461648435
And even if Wikileaks was to disappear, there's always Freenet if you want to leak something:
http://freenetproject.org/
Of course, you'd have to check your own data to make sure there's no metadata that can be used to identify you. But Freenet covers the anonymous distribution angle.
the list of which bankers, world leaders, and radio hosts are lizard people from other planets.
now you'll never know.
Let me make an educated guess - All of them?
You'd be surprised. Note that he left "garbage collectors" off of that list...
I've said too much already.
Or sabotageeee?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Such a sad thing.... Not.
I have documents showing that the NSA has consipired to weaken the security of Wikileaks. Unfortunately, I'm unable post them to Wikileaks at this time.
the one called wikipedia. it's an open collection of interested individuals
(for absurdity, here's the wikipedia article about wikipedia:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Community
and it works
what about wikileaks?
its run like the illuminati:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#History
and its a wheezing barely functional wreck
of course, editting a wikipedia article does not expose you to the kind of danger that vetting a wikileak does, but obviously, there is a lot of eager flesh out there that would LOVE to get involved and help wikileaks, in any capacity asked of them
how do you harness that enthusiasm? and how do you harness that enthusiasm in such a way that wikileaks is not compromised, and the enthusiasts are not harmed? its very challenging. you have to shield the newbs from mortal danger, and keep out the saboteurs. and still maintain a functional base of operations, somewhere, out there in teh intarwebs
but if wikileaks is to continue functioning, it has to broaden its base of operations
i'm not saying that's easy, because of the nature of what wikileaks is. but i am saying that that is the only way forward, however difficult that path is
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If sabotage, great. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch, and much less extreme than my own desire to walk into their server room and toast everything and everyone there with a flamethrower. These doofuses probably got some soldiers killed.
Time wounds all heels.
Destroy me and I will become more powerful than you can imagine.
To lie means that one day you will be caught in your lies, the longer it takes the worse it will be.
Karma is a bitch.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Since Wikileaks got sideways with the US military a few weeks back could it just be that they can not maintain their site right now due to fear?
This is on the home page:
Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:21:29 wikileaks: We are back. Sorry for the inconvenience, minor technical issues that needed to be resolved.
Must have been run by the russian spies. They could not focus on it any more after they knew their cover was blown.
You are all fools, wikileaks was a honeypot founded by the AUS-UK-USA intelligence alliance to detect, find and neutralize intelligence leaks. What better way to trap a leak then to provide a central, web-spanning outlet for the material? Since 99.99% of the material leaked is of no important, nothing happens. When something *important* is leaked, *shazaam*, they are dealt with.
Not by accident that Reporters Sans Frontiers has launched an "anti-censorship shelter" online, consisting of VPN, onion routers and training docs. Sound familiar?
Wikileaks is essentially a pilot project. They have demonstrated the need. The day-to-day work will be picked up by long running groups with funding models and full time staff and a CEO who doesn't go out his way to piss off every anti-secrecy activist who so much as murmur reservations about their comprehensive lack of transparency.
http://en.rsf.org/reporters-without-borders-unveils-25-06-2010,37809.html
Lizard people are a fake idea implanted into victims of monarch programming.
I don't see the problem with Wkileaks, frankly. All sites have downtime; people simply mock the famous ones when they are down. I hardly think that downtime is "falling into disrepair".
According to Wikileaks, this is a load of bunk.
There is a headline on the main page at http://www.wikileaks.org/ which is titled "wired's war on wikileaks continues" and links to the source article for this page. He also claims briefly that they are in the process of "updating."
Just goes to show, ALWAYS check your sources, you never know if there is something strange going on.
Yes, they produced an edited video that demonstrated a point of view. Quelle horreur! That's completely unlike the Washington Post, the IHT, the Economist, the NYT... Ahem.
In fact, what is completely unlike them, Wikileaks published the unedited video at the same time. Unlike establishment journalism, Wikileaks offered source material from which you can form your own opinions.
Given the choice between an organization that offers an opinion and also the unedited information from which they formed that opinion, and one that only offers the opinion while withholding the unedited information, which one do you want to call a "propaganda group"?
I forget what 8 was for.
With all of the big corporate entities buying and merging, your radio, newspaper and television media is increasingly controlled by fewer and fewer people.
With the internet it's relatively easy to join the media, the hard part being getting found.
At least in government there's always the threat that a politician will lose his or her job if they displease the people.
Bush only lost his job because of the term limit presidents have. That despite the fact that he started a war many people opposed. I'm still waiting to see those WMDs it was claimed Sadam had. Obama's approval rating isn't good, actually 45% strongly disapprove while 44% approve of Obama's performance as president.
With a corporate entity, they don't have to appease anyone as long as they make money.
Corporate entities, most anyway, only make money when they appease enough to have enough buyers.
Personally as I've been saying for years I want the FCC abolished and people allowed to homestead the airwaves. If I wanted to and could afford it I should be able to start a radio station that is for say model railroad enthusiasts, who were some of the first computer hackers.
Taxpayer-funded national broadcasters, like ABC (Australia), BBC or CBC can be critical of the government in a way that corporate broadcasters cannot be critical of their parent company.
I can't speak about elsewhere but in the US the national broadcasters can be, but aren't always, critical of government. Fox News is pretty critical of Obama, just as it was about Clinton. On the other hand I haven't heard any national news broadcaster, including Fox, ask Bush where all those WMDs Bush said Saddam had are. And with the airwaves homesteaded there could be even more voices to listen to.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When you think about it, what is even the point of Wikileaks? The entire internet is a forum for the content they were posting. Someone simply had the idea to aggregate these leaks which also means there's a single target to draw the ire of governments and corporations. And not only that, having a single source for this stuff meant it being filtered through the perspective of the people running Wikileaks. I suppose the only benefit Wikileaks provided was a means of revealing information anonymously, but there have to be a million and one ways to accomplish that.
Garbage collectors, the real ones, the guys who come around on the truck into which they empty your garbage cans, and do it in whatever the weather is, as long as the truck can get through, are far more important than any of the other categories indicated.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The more I look into the relationship between Lamo and Wired, the bogus Auspergers story, etc, the more I am coming to believe that this entire affair is a PR snowjob. WikiLeaks has bloodied the nose of the American Military War Machine, and they have used their leverage over ex-con-hacker-types to smear the organization. They appear to be trying to kill the credibility of WikiLeaks before the release of any further material, and might possibly be interfering with them in a technical manner as well.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and we can only hope and pray that everything works out. This is a situation where 'the Man' needs to lose. Go go 'little guy'!
Meanwhile we need a real reporter with actual sources to dig deep and blow the lid off of this poorly disguised farce.
Given the sensitivity of the site, I wouldn't recommend downloading files from them without Tor, much less uploading them.
In my opinion the wikileaks site should only contain a Tor link to the hidden site and instructions for setting up Tor, which everyone should install anyway.
But... the future refused to change.
The US Gov is undermining CREDIBILITY of Wikileaks, to discourage leakers.
You ARE familiar with the 2008 Army Counterintelligence Agency report, which specifically calls to discredit Wikileaks through disinformation and propaganda, are you not?
The HIGHLY suspect connection of Manning with Greenwald STINKS of a PsyOp, then, hot on the heels comes this tidbit. Where from? Oh! DangerRoom on Wired.com.
I think we can now see wired.com as another polluted information channel, co-opted by the spooks. Leak meaningless true tidbits on intelligence and surveillance to establish/maintain credibility - then use this established route for the insertion of disinformation messages.
The next stage is to plant doubts about Wikileaks among its advocates, who will begin to speculate if the project is not a honeypot, designed to attract and expose leakers.
"To live outside the law, you must be honest."
-- Bob Dylan
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
There's two reasons that this video wasn't released to the public:
1) The government doesn't make a habit of releasing all information they have. You can chalk this up to paranoia or the like and there might be some truth, but the larger part is simply there's too much. The government generates a staggering amount of data of all forms, most of it useless. Thus releasing it all would be a nightmare to deal with. I mean remember that the camera on this copter is always running, as it is on all of them. Then think about the logistics of collecting all that data (they don't store it for long, it is just for mission review) and getting it out where the public can get at it. Then multiply it by the many orders of magnitude more stuff the government cranks out. It just isn't doable. Hence the FOIA and so on. You ask the government for the info you want, they have a look see and give it to you if it is available and not classified.
2) Everything relating to an active military operation is classified by default. The reason is because you have to assume your enemies have the Internet and watch the news. You don't want to leak something, only to find out it proved really valuable to them later. Ask Yamamoto how well it worked out having the enemy know what you were doing (if you are unfamiliar, he was the CIC of the Japanese Navy during WWII and lost the battle of Midway, and later his life, because the US cracked the code his forces used to communicate). So by default, military information for an active battle is classified. It can be reviewed later for declassification.
Now, I'm not saying that means that the government's reasons outweigh the public's right to know. However if you believe the public's right to know is more important than certainly it has to be the whole, unedited, uneditoralized tape. If we need to know the truth of the situation, we need to know all of it. To me, it really smacks more of propaganda. There is a situation that is morally ambiguous and perhaps legally questionable (though it doesn't seem so, no charges are being brought against the helicopter pilot and gunner), but it is cut and released in such a way to try and make them look like the bad guys. That isn't right.
As a simple example of how editing can change meaning, watch "unnecessary censorship" by Jimmy Kimmel. He takes regular statements from TV and film and bleeps out words. Your brain fills in the curse word that would presumably go there because of the bleep, and the meaning is drastically changed, to be very funny. All that was done is editing, yet meaning and perception were changed in a big way.
Reporters Sans Frontiers/Reporters Without Borders are primarily funded by the US government [zcommunications.org] through the National Endowment for Democracy which was founded during the Reagan administration to channel funds to organizations abroad that would support US foreign policy. Sometimes this funding is direct [ned.org], sometimes it is conducted through the international arms of the US Democratic Party or Republican Party [counterpunch.org].
I'm sure that the US government would much prefer that whistleblowers send any leaked video of massacres by US troops or State Department cables to this new site rather than Wikileaks [wikileaks.org]. The only way it would be easier for them to discover the identity of the whistleblower would be if the leak went directly to the CIA with a return address.
It appears to me that this new Reporters Sans Frontiers project is a honeypot intended to catch would-be whistleblowers.
It does shoot down your post. In it you said Lamo was not a journalist, whether he was or not he did claim to be one.
as the first thing I said was that the Shield Law has absolutely ZERO impact on this case, as it protects Journalists from being forced to identify sources, but does nothing to prevent them from voluntarily giving up their sources.
True but that is not what my post was about. My post was to point out Lamo did in fact claim to be a journalist, and as such he could protect his sources.
Oh and nice effort at Godwin-ing the thread. Associating me with the NAZI's doesn't weaken my points.
Another mind reader who can't read my mind. I did not attempt any effort at "Godwin-ing the thread". I simply pointed out that like many Germans you refuse to look at facts, and the fact is is Lamo told Manning he was a journaist. If you can not understand that I see no reason to continue, why when you don't understand?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Can you provide a host that provides that for that much money?
Yes. :-) Have a look at hosteurope.de (website only available in english, so I'm posting a google-translation link).
2GB Webspace, 2 MySQL databases, PHP 5, Python, Ruby, CGI-scripts, traffic-flatrate, EUR 15,- (USD 18,-) setup, EUR 3,50 (USD 4,34) per month.
Or: EUR 13 (USD 16) per month for a virtual linux server with unlimited traffic and 50GB diskspace.
Okay, thanks. I see that that's in Germany but as Wikileaks is international it could held there. Does Germany have safeguards for leakers though? Recently Iceland passed a law just for this. Iceland Votes "Já" To Proposed News Haven. Cheap rates doesn't matter if a host has to allow the government to know who sends leaks to Wikileaks.
And before you have to ask: I'm just a satisfied customer...
I wish the US had such low bandwidth costs. T1 lines costs hundreds of dollars.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'll second that warning: Reporters Sans Frontiers/Reporters Without Borders are exactly the sort of people that whistleblowers need to avoid.
Putting a brave title on an organization does not make it good or trustworthy.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
It also gives you bad karma