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."
US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomacy crisis
The aliens that don't want the notes of the US ambassador to the intergalactic union to be published.
"lives at risk" "threaten global counterterrorism operations" and "jeopardize us relations" all sounds like politicianese for "we really fucked up and don't want anybody to know about it"
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
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.
So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?
The answer to your question is actually posted right under the story above, under "Related Stories"...
"WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack by wiredmikey (1824622)"
#DeleteChrome
One self proclaimed "Hacktivist for good" claims responsibility for the DoS-Attack: http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r
He threatened before that he would do that when Wikileaks releases, see last comment on http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/wikileaks-insurance-policy-expired/
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.
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
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.
When the US State Department classifies a cable as secret, it's usually because of some situation that will embarrass the pants off of someone there.
Let' look at a typical situation that results in a 'classified secret' set of missives:
The US undersecretary of African Affairs refers to the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Democratic Republic of Bongo as a 'retarded monkey' because he stole half of the $150 million NGO grant for an egg farm and deposited it directly into his Swiss bank account without first wiring it through the Cayman Islands like the undersecretary told him to do. Now the transaction is transparent and the undersecretary won't get his $155,000 consultancy fee from the hedge fund firm that his Yale frat brother runs down there that was supposed to handle the transaction in the first place.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the US undersecretary and the Bongoian Deputy Minister are sharing a mistress who is a top fashion model. The undersecretary made the remark about the DM to his mistress in bed and she texted it to her sister in Paris. The communication was intercepted by the NSA/CIA and put into an official memo to the State Department. Now the DM will be pissed as hell and will make all sorts of accusations of 'USA imperialism' and 'racist corporate profiteering' at the United Nations. The undersecretary will have to buy the DM a new Mercedes to cool him down and get passed over for promotion until a new Secretary of the State Dept is appointed after the next election.
The only person who might be killed is the mistress/fashion model if she makes the mistake of going back to Bongo before the Deputy Minister gets his new Mercedes. Even then, she better allow the DM to indulge his special inclinations lest she find herself floating down the Bongo river, trying to catch up with her head.
-------- This is how diplomacy works and why all these cables have to be kept secret. Let's hope that the WikiLeaks people had the sense to make multiple copies and distributing them widely before announcing that they were going to post all this stuff!
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.
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. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.
You're not making sense, they're exposing corruption, wrongdoing and illegality, and you complain that they're doing it to someone you'd rather think of as uncorrupted. Boohoofuckinghoo.
You can't take the sky from me...
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
The basic reaction in the german Spiegel forum about the U.S.'s opinion of german politicans was: "Nothing new to see here. Just my opinion being confirmed." I guess this is generally true for most other countries.
Or to put it differently: If the U.S. assessment was widely different from what most people were thinking anyway, I would have been wondering if the U.S. diplomats and the world were living in parallel universes.
The document are out, and The New York Times is already reporting on the good stuff.
One of the more embarrassing items is this: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official "that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S."
This latest leak is probably the reason the US has been debating about having some kind of "internet kill switch."
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
First of all - Thank you so very much for the personal insult. {roll_eyes}
Secondly, to be clear about what it is we are referring to:
Definition of DIPLOMACY
1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact
With that definition in mind, that SA, the US, and/or other countries talk to each other through secret diplomatic channels and say things they may not repeat in public, does not surprise me in the least. This is a common, human thing to do. It allows one to express the depth of feelings or intentions about an issue without offending someone else, without creating issues with them so that discourse may go on perhaps to a satisfactory ending for all concerned, or might keep an antagonistic personality somewhat mollified, avoiding provoking them to attack.
Tell me how blowing this process out of the water is, could possibly be in any way good or beneficial for the stability of the region, for the diplomatic process going on between the nations there?
Third, and last: Do you personally have any idea of what the last word in that definition - "tact" - means? Apparently not. Might be a good one for you - and Wikileaks - to learn, then practice.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain