Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack
wiredmikey writes "WikiLeaks has reported that its Web site is currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack. The attack comes around the time of an expected release of classified State Department documents, which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies."
They said the Iraq war documents would put people at risk, too. They didn't, though, and the administration was forced to admit that after the release. Seems to me that Wikileaks, whatever their other merits or lack thereof, have been pretty responsible about how they handle this stuff thus far.
I'm less concerned with these leaks than I am with the day to day constitutional trampling the feds do, using all three branches of the government to leverage their oath-breaking.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's always a possibility that they're doing it themselves/hired people to do it in order to drum up business. I mean, Assange loves playing the victim card all the time - it's not much of a stretch to imagine WikiLeaks DDOSing themselves just for the publicity.
DavidWaldock David Waldock
Dear government: as you keep telling us, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear #wikileaks
Thought it was worth sharing.
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
That "justice" only ever existed for the war criminals on the losing side. Silly.
The leaks are not the problem. The root of the problem is the hypocritical policies and unsavory conduct that the leaks are exposing. The best way to keep your dirty laundry from being aired is to not engage in dirty conduct in the first place.
When all else fails, run.
I say they are right in being released. It shows what the 'private' core of politics really stands for. Deception, supression, paranoia and intent to manipulate everything as much as possible.
Sure, it erodes the level of trust in politics and goverment, but they deserve no less, they should've never been allowed to be the closed club of friends they are while enjoying even the rather shabby trust of the people they recive today.
This reveals how bad it have become, should we hide it all and let it get even worse? In my opinion it's better to expose the flaws before the bridge collapse, even if doing so would result in said bridge being demolished.
Congratulations, AGENT-KAGURA on your successful work in the cyberspace battlefront managing this latest "event." Your work will not go unnoticed by the Overseer. 2MWPQB56
... and then they built the supercollider.
"Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me."
Ditto. And even that wasn't terribly surprising.
The real surprise is that any of these things are marked as 'SECRET, NO FOREIGNERS' when most of the foreigners already know them because, duh, they live in these countries. I'm sure that no Russian thinks that their government is linked to organised crime and every Briton believes their military is doing a great job in Afghanistan... oh, hang on.
Sigh, do we have to point out every single time that Wikileaks is _not_ an investigative organization, but merely posts what is sent to them while protecting the source, and that maybe they just get more data from US than from $COUNTRY?
Dilbert RSS feed
Quoth the BBC:
The UK Ministry of Defence has urged newspaper editors to "bear in mind" the national security implications of publishing the information.
You can make a plausible case that the leaks will put lives at risk. But warning the media about publishing excerpts after the stuff is already made public? That's got fuck all to do with national security, that's politicians worrying about public relations.
You are so full of yourself. Governments around the world do illegal things and get pissed off when they are found out. It's too bad this poor individual has to pay the price. These documents are only embarrassing because the actions they reveal are an embarrassment.
Is it an actual attack, or have they just given the entire world a heads-up that they're going to release some sensational information and so have far more traffic than their servers can handle?
You keep talking about "our agents."
Wikileaks does not have agents. Wikileaks is NOT pro-US, or anti-US.
Basically your complaint is that Wikileaks is not taking your side. You have bought into the position that "we are on the side of good." Maybe "we" are, maybe not.
But you cannot expect a TRULY neutral party to decide that one nation deserves its protect and support and their help keeping its secrets, and another doesn't merit it.
You would not complain if Wikileaks disseminated documents from North Korea, or Iran, or wherever else, if they got them - and Wikileaks WOULD release those.
Wikileaks owes your side nor any other side no loyalty.
This space available.
That guy did not work alone or among machines, if there were problems this serious, then they should have been spotted and solved long ago. And how the hell did a private get access to those documents?
It seems there are much more serious problems in the US Army than one disgruntled soldier.
Wikileaks should be exposing corruption...
That is exactly what these documents allegedly contain. US diplomatic reports of corruption and other shenanigans in practically every country where the USA has an embassy. This is only damaging to the US because it can't keep a lid on other people dirty laundry it's the people who own the dirty laundry that will be most affected.
It is not only damaging to the US; you should take off your blinders and RTFA.
Example: You will read, just like Iran (and, of course, Muslim fundies that support them) will, about Saudi and other Gulf states calling for the US (or whomever) to do whatever it takes to erase the Iranian nuclear weapons threat.
The short term result? Increased destabilization of an area of the world that really, really does not need that. Slightly longer term - war, quickened by this release. A war that otherwise might have been avoidable, or conducted on more favorable terms to those who don't want Iran to have nukes - which includes parts of Europe that are in range of their missiles, as I recall.
I hope I am wrong. I have a gut feeling that I'm not.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
Apparently it's not a crime if the President of a superpower authorizes it.
We've consistently imprisoned people for waterboarding since the Spanish-American war. We convicted Japanese for it after WWII. We convicted our own troops for using it in Viet Nam. And we've even put some civilian law enforcement officers in prison for using it in Texas.
But suddenly it's OK...
Bet it wouldn't be OK if someone did it to our troops.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
its no problem while a war is being started under false pretenses and millions dying as a result, but, informants' names getting out, while exposing ALL that shit, is beyond reprehensible.
... OFF.
i have two words for you, as elaborate, eloquent and intellectual as words can be :
FUCK
Read radical news here
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies.
Didn't your daddy ever tell you the story about the little boy who cried 'wolf' ?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
so, its ok with saudi and other gulf states calling the us to erase iranian nuclear weapons threat at ANY cost.
but its not ok, when this information is released. because, it will 'destabilize' the area.
yeah. other countries pressurizing others to start a goddamn war, will not destabilize the area. lets just allow them to do that, behind an easy curtain of secrecy.
Read radical news here
Nor waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, "black" prisons/detention facilities, Abu Ghraib, drone targeting of a US citizen, Cheney's still largely hidden secret activities, etc, etc.
Lots of stuff shouldn't have happened. The more we find out about how our government is behaving itself, the better WE THE PEOPLE can have a chance at reigning in our governments behavior. Way too much really bad stuff has gone down in the name of national security, and I for one am sick and tired of the ruling elite using the cry of national security to get away with everythign from civil rights trampling to outright war crimes. The mroe is released the merrier, the US government has very little credibility left in almost any arena.
Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future.
Noone should ever be punished more harshly 'as an example', but only on the merits of what they deserve. If you want to send a message, write a letter.
Me and my wife are not elected to work in your interest. That's a big difference.
Leaking gossip seems to me to be rather less likely to destabilise a region than unmanned drones killing women and children as by product of collateral damage.
there are no 'secrets' or 'treason' in exposing wrongdoings of a government that goes against a country's founding ideals and constitution.
period.
traitors are those who call for continuance of that kind of violation, under ANY justification. like you. you betray your country's founding ideals.
Read radical news here
yes. they should be able to communicate frankly while engaging in filthy stuff that goes against their country's founding ideals, constitution, international bill of human rights, and modern ideals of liberty and freedom.
Read radical news here
This latest leak is probably the reason the US has been debating about having some kind of "internet kill switch."
``US ambassadors in other capitals were instructed to brief their hosts in advance of the release of unflattering pen-portraits or nakedly frank accounts of transactions with the US which they had thought would be kept quiet. Washington now faces a difficult task in convincing contacts around the world that any future conversations will remain confidential.''
And here I thought that last sentence would end "that any future conversations will be more civil". At least, I have always thought that saying "unflattering" things behind people's backs isn't the way to behave. If the conversations between the US and its contacts are of such "unflattering" nature that they give rise to diplomatic crises when uncovered, then perhaps the US should have trained their employees and contact to not behave that way.
I understand the anger at WikiLeaks, and I understand that it is not just about the unflattering communications. But still, on this one point, I think that if you don't want to take the heat for your missteps, the best way would be not to make them. So, rather than assuring contacts that, in future, this stuff will stay confidential, I would think that the right response would be to convince your contacts that, in future, you will work to keep things civil and decent.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I disagree. I think he's a hero because he's standing up for the notion of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". You can't have a democracy (or a democratic republic, which the US technically is) if the government keeps most of the important information about what the government does a secret.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap.
You'll pardon me for being a pragmatist since I don't have experience in love (as I'm certain experience would completely negate a pragmatic argument, no matter how true), but if your relationship is sustained by the fact she doesn't know what you said or what you feel, either you're a dick, or she's psycho--or you fear she's psycho / she fears you're a dick, which means you aren't even sure of the other's personality. Any of those might indicate that your relationship, and the friendship that's behind it, is shaky. Of course, given the divorce rate here in the US, I suppose those things do happen quite a bit.
If governance is running on the same shoddy model, that should be changed. I'm not saying it can be (easily or otherwise) anytime soon, but it should be.
I'm wagering that there's more than that in there. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.
Perhaps people should try being honest?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.
The leaks did reveal true wrongdoing. The Danish government has consistently been claiming that the Danish army did not turn over prisoners to torture at the hands of the Iraqi or Afghan armies. However, the leaks showed that not only did the Danish army turn over prisoners, they adopted a practice of embedding a couple of Brittish soldiers into their units. Whenever they caught someone, the Brittish soldiers would do the arresting and subsequent turning over of prisoners. This obvious attempt by the Danish army to circumvent the rules shows that they knew that they were doing something wrong. Unfortunately, the wikileaks documents did not show how far up this travesty goes, but one can hope this release sheds some light on the issue.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head