Slashdot Mirror


China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack?

theodp writes "While Wikileaks itself is under a DoS attack, details about the US State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks are starting to come out via the mainstream media. Among the most newsworthy, reports Techcrunch's Erick Schonfeld, is one set which deals with the massive computer attack on Google and other companies which was first revealed last January. According to the NY Times, some of the new leaked cables point directly at China's Politburo for instigating the original attacks, which should shed some more light on why the White House and State Department backed Google so vociferously at the time. Developing, as Drudge likes to say."

142 comments

  1. headline? by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hrm... an alternate headline might be: "Is the United States behind the DDoS attack on WikiLeaks?"

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:headline? by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the USA suppresses information that china's government engaged in illegal hacking, and the USA is behind the DDOS attack on wikileaks. Why can't China be behind it after a US agent tells a chinese agent what is happening.

      I know because China is good and the USA is bad.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:headline? by russotto · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hrm... an alternate headline might be: "Is the United States behind the DDoS attack on WikiLeaks?"

      Naa, the US prefers the personal touch of hired goons. Either that or redirects to seizeddomains.com.

    3. Re:headline? by Splab · · Score: 2

      I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

    4. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

      He is smart enough not to leak Russian secrets.

    5. Re:headline? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

      Well, I gotta hand it to the guy for having some serious huevos. It's almost like they're all afraid to bump him off. Maybe they think he'll come back to haunt them by releasing his own death warrant on Wikileaks.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a guy on twitter claiming to be behind it (as referenced by another poster in the last thread)

      He claims to be a general activist going after 'general badguys' but his history seems to suggest that he's just going after anti-US viewpoints (in particular extremist muslims) and ignoring anything else. Cyber-vigilante type.

    7. Re:headline? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Can't get much more paranoid then that. Yep, the US is behind the evils of the entire world.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:headline? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

      The fact that he is still alive raises some questions, for me. WHY is he still alive if what he had to leak was as important as has been said? Was the information not as significant as we have been told? Is the CIA really off their game, and not capable of clandestine actions anymore?

      The US government knows what Assange knows, they say him divulging it will endanger security, yet they don't stop him? Is he a necessary demon, needed for the future of their security theater? Something about this saga just doesn't add up.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    9. Re:headline? by rainmouse · · Score: 0, Troll

      So the USA suppresses information that china's government engaged in illegal hacking, and the USA is behind the DDOS attack on wikileaks. Why can't China be behind it after a US agent tells a chinese agent what is happening.

      I know because China is good and the USA is bad.

      Well it would take incompetence of monumental magnitude if the DDOS attacks came directly from government networks. The very logical choice would be to look at where has been a threat of cyber attacks recently in the news and pay some criminals from that country. Really the huge motive and endless press releases begging or emotionally blackmailing wikileaks not to release the documents sure makes it clear in most peoples minds who is really behind the DDOS attacks.

    10. Re:headline? by Formalin · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Americans seem to use a little more restraint in disappearing high(ish) profile folks.

    11. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be perfectly honest, if you look at the flow of money and the financing and who has placed particular political groups in strategic positions of power around the globe, the mathematical conclusion is that, yes, the United States _is_ behind a good portion of the world's grief.

      If, however, you do not like that option then you are free to conduct your own research and determine who is providing the United States with financial authority and pulling their strings to direct how that money is dispersed. Vicious cycle... yes. Do "we" know who is behind it? Well, that depends upon who you believe "we" to be. The people who are controlling the flow of world capital have a very logical interest in obscuring their play (and profit) from world conflicts and financial conquest of nations.

    12. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw. Are these dumps not damaging the US the way you'd like? Wrong headlines appearing?

      Another you're not going to like:
          NK sold Russian ICBMs to Iran

    13. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US government has a known leaker who's talented at personally discrediting himself and deals primarily in proof of widely-known information that's humiliating (sometimes for our rivals rather than us, see this story!) but of low operational value. He also leaks to the public rather than foreign security services, and gives them a month or two for preemptive damage control.

      I'm sure he's not exactly in great graces, but the terrible PR of him coming down with a sudden case of the dead would quite possibly outweigh that of everything he's leaked. And then who would they watch, and how would they be able to see leaks coming just by keeping a pet reporter or two at the Times and the Guardian?

    14. Re:headline? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      so innuendo, is worth more than facts.

      i am not saying the USA isn't behind the attacks, what i am saying is that there is zero proof. And right now if wikileaks pointed to proof it is not very credible unless backed up by multiple independent sources. Because assange was been begging, and telling people who is after him.

      I don't believe the USA is behind it, simply because the government of the USA really isn't that technologically intelligent enough to do so. power mad and corrupt enough, you betcha. However the military, hates to use encryption on their datalinks, has so poor security that a demoted enlisted man had full access to all sorts of diplomatic, and covert records. Does this group sound capable of not only creating a DDOS but doing it in such a way that it can't be tracked back to them?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    15. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just some douche with narcisstic personality disorder, he's got nothing to do with it. There's about 500 other "1337" fags trying to take credit too. Losers.

    16. Re:headline? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. The US government arn't complete idiots (At least not all of the time) and must be well aware that Wikileaks has backups all over the world, including I imagine quite a few that arn't publicly known. With their paranoia, they probably have volunteers sitting on backups with instructions to send them to every paper they can if anything happens. A DoS isn't going to do anything more than delay the release by an hour or two at most. It may be another government, or it could be some well-meaning patriots.

    17. Re:headline? by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can ask the same question of Fidel Castro.

      ---
      "Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine, renounced his citizenship, defected to the Soviet union, married a soviet wife, came back to the USA with state department blessing ,and shot the president all during the hight of the cold war without any assistance from any outside agency whatsoever."
      -U.S. Government publication

    18. Re:headline? by mug+funky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      all it takes is the b-tard kid of one G-man and suddenly they know how to ddos. it's not rocket science (and they are at least a little bit competent at that).

      and considering the story's only just broken, innuendo is all anybody has. and usual suspects. and occam's razor.

      i would be very surprised if the US didn't have some part in the ddos, though there are plenty of other governments that would gladly join in. ...or wikileaks hasn't got as robust a site as we all thought, and it's just been slashdotted by geeks and journalists the world over.

    19. Re:headline? by Splab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would be an act of war.

      Killing a citizen is just espionage and will get you in a big of hot water.

    20. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huevos are eggs ... ?are you saying he's gay?
      I think you meant cajones, gringo.

    21. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't surprise me if quite a lot of them actually are involved in the DoS. It wouldn't be the first time different individuals have attacked a given target independently.

      Given it's maintained on donations, WL probably doesn't have the infrastructure to shrug off more than one or two simultaneous attacks... I wonder if any of the news sites directly reporting the leaks (Guardian, New York times, et al) are being attacked as well?
      It's kind of pointless to attack WL alone at this point, given that they're no longer the sole data source.

    22. Re:headline? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      huevos are eggs ... ?are you saying he's gay? I think you meant cajones, gringo.

      Nope

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    23. Re:headline? by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be? If this happened to any of several dozen other countries Assange would be dead already, and there is no doubt that he would be dead if the CIA were ordered to make it so.

      Actually, I'm surprised some other country hasn't had him killed just to place blame on the US.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    24. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Callate chiquito, los adultos estan hablando.

    25. Re:headline? by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

      I know. I was trying to be funny, but I forgot the last line of the post, which should have been:

      *ducks*

      The U.S. government is very unlikely to be behind a DDoS attack of the wikileaks web site. These types of attacks typically reveal the political leanings of some 15 year old botmaster who happens to p0wn fifty or a hundred thousand unsuspecting zombie home PCs with cable internet access.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    26. Re:headline? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      What good would it be for them to kill him?

      Would it stop people from leaking and divulging information? No.

      Would it make people stop caring about the leaks? No, on the contrary.

      You also don't know what kind of "dead man switches" Wikileaks may have implemented. Perhaps a barrage of damaging classified information could come out at once. Maybe something that really shouldn't / won't be revealed like the locations of CIA agents, etc.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    27. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      [T]he military, hates to use encryption on their datalinks, has so poor security that a demoted enlisted man had full access to all sorts of diplomatic, and covert records. Does this group sound capable of not only creating a DDOS but doing it in such a way that it can't be tracked back to them?

      Well the managed to arrange 911 and make it look like foreign terrorists were responsible. And that's never been traced back to them, has it?

      At least that's what the dude on the train with 'TRUTH' on his tee-shirt was telling me ...

    28. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be an act of war.

      When did that ever stop the CIA?

    29. Re:headline? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If Assange were assassinated it would raise the stakes of leaks pretty substantially. I suspect it might cause at least some whistle-blowers to think twice.

      Ultimately, if everyone's guess as to who leaked the documents is true, Wikileaks got very lucky in being in the right place at the right time. They probably won't get such a mother lode again any time soon.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    30. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up anon for great justice

    31. Re:headline? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since Assange claims to be in regular contact with the US government and leaks lots of stuff of questionable value, there's a good chance that he's a total fraud. Supposedly this was all leaked by that army PFC... so the data have been sat on for months.

      If you read magazines like the Economist or Foreign Affairs, you've already read paraphrased summaries of all of this stuff. My guess is that these leaks contain misinformation to misdirect folks like the Chinese who have already hacked State Department networks and probably have a limited collection of these already.

      Think that sounds far-out? Just Google "Operation Mincemeat".

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    32. Re:headline? by gnola14 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And I think you meant cojones...oh, and btw, "having huevos" it's also used in many Latinamerican countries the same way you use "having guts"...

    33. Re:headline? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      And I think you meant cojones...oh, and btw, "having huevos" it's also used in many Latinamerican countries the same way you use "having guts"...

      Correct, which if you'll re-read my post was the exact context in which I used it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    34. Re:headline? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Historically, war has been waged for much smaller stuff. In the event war is initiated, it's all a matter of looking back to figure out "who started it"? Wikileaks could soon be playing a much larger part than it ever wanted too, including being a target of special ops.

      It's no longer child's play. I hope they realize this.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    35. Re:headline? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That would be an act of war.

      Yeah, Cuba is so going to jump on it and invade the USA - it's the only thing they've been waiting for!

    36. Re:headline? by jandersen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be?

      Hmm, is that the peevish whine of self-pity I hear there?

      America has dispensed heavy-handed criticism out to just about everybody over the years; it is only fair that you guys get some back, I think. But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised - in fact, I think it is the duty of a friend to tell you when you are getting things wrong. Your friends - and you have many - wish you well and expect you to do better than just scraping the bottom. In other words, have a some pride and show a bit of dignity.

    37. Re:headline? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Well the managed to arrange 911 and make it look like foreign terrorists were responsible.

      Better than that. 911 was arranged by Saudi terrorists, and the US managed to make it look like Iraq was responsible!

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    38. Re:headline? by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      If the man gets a cold it will be considered political retribution, and the media will spin out stories speculating upon which world power could possibly have stuck him with their dreadful biological weapon. Beyond that, as I understand it he's little more than a face for the organization to throw up in newspapers. Doesn't seem to be any purpose to "disappearing" him, beyond the intimidation.

    39. Re:headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised.

      Dude, the gp said he was surprised the US had not secretly murdered a citizen of another country. Is that the valid criticism we're supposed to be having a rational discussion about here?

    40. Re:headline? by Celestialwolf · · Score: 1

      That, and everyone already knows who he is now; if he suddenly disappeared just before a big leak was slated to happen, don't you think that would make people wonder?

    41. Re:headline? by gnola14 · · Score: 1

      Well, replying a bit late to this, but I was correcting AC, not you. As a matter of fact, I was actually supporting you...

    42. Re:headline? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, replying a bit late to this, but I was correcting AC, not you. As a matter of fact, I was actually supporting you...

      My apologies. I was typing on a small screen at the time.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. dang... by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    I forgot to *duck*.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  3. WikiLeaks actually CIA by spynode · · Score: 1

    Well I guess then that the earlier mentioned possibility that CIA is behind WikiLeaks also could be true. It is extremely wild theory but these days nothing about how the U.S. government and it's intelligence agencies work couldn't surprise me.

    1. Re:WikiLeaks actually CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An "extremely wild theory" is called a hypothesis, not a theory. It "could be true", just as it could be true that Google is behind China and the Mossad is behind al-Qaeda. I wouldn't even call this one a hypothesis because its originator, John Young, doesn't even believe in it himself. He just launched it because he was pissed that Wikileaks is getting all the attention and money and his site cryptome.org isn't. Read anything Young wrote and you'll see that his narcissism makes Assange look sane in comparison. Of course that doesn't prove that Wikileaks isn't a CIA front, but why would the CIA leak documents that make themselves look bad?

    2. Re:WikiLeaks actually CIA by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Of course that doesn't prove that Wikileaks isn't a CIA front, but why would the CIA leak documents that make themselves look bad?

      The same reason they would plan 9/11: It provides something to point at and demand new invasive laws. "We need to be able to see your junk and remove websites from the DNS to stop these evil terrorists" etc.

      Of course, like the 9/11 conspiracies, it seems implausible. The government doesn't need to fabricate actors when they can just conduct a PR campaign against people they didn't much like in the first place until those people are sufficiently "evil" in the minds of most people that "defeating" them can be used to rationalize whatever horrific invasion of rights they're hawking this month.

  4. China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Old news, folks!

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? by Tranzistors · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is always someone who, after something is relieved, says "told you!" Well, one thing is to speculate, another is to have some [more or less] solid proof. Or are your speculations "good enough"?

    2. Re:China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? by Sepodati · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?

    3. Re:China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?

      1. mind the "more or less". Fine, I should have said "evidence" instead;
      2. OP is making a point (as brief as it is), that conformation to suspicions are pointless. I am saying, that the more evidence the better. Because, you know, a lot of people don't believe all the crap that is said on the internet, and internal US intelligence is a nice second opinion.
    4. Re:China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      I understand what you're saying, but this is just another data point. This isn't "US Intelligence", it's Ambassador Bob saying Mr. Chu said "blah, blah, blah". Be careful how much weight you assign to individual data points.

  5. Just because the American government says it by compucomp2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    means it's true?

    So this means that Wikileaks is an evil organization jeopardizing lives and setting back the cause of freedom and democracy, since that's what the American government been saying? Just like how Osama and the Taliban were freedom fighters against the "evil empire" Soviets and Saddam was a moderate secular leader who was the bulwark against the evil Iranian mullahs back in the 1980's?

    Accepting this as truth is Western/American hypocrisy at its finest. As usual, people here will believe something they want to be true, because they hate China and hate the fact that it is no longer an impoverished third-world country but instead is an emerging power capable of competing against the Americans on many fronts, logical consistency be damned.

    1. Re:Just because the American government says it by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it's said in a private communication between diplomats, the chances are they believe it to be true themselves. Not to say that makes it unquestionably true, of course, but it does make it an awful lot more credible than the PR they dish out to the public. I give these documents a lot more credit than I would to public statements made by the US government, and I see no hypocrisy in that; I'd be interested to hear if you think otherwise.

  6. In other questionable news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Is 4chan exclusively populated by accountants?
    Anonymous Coward a greater lover than Cassanova?
    Will North Korea get the 2022 Olympics?
    Lizard people secretly controlled by cabal of elected politicians?
    Procrastination: the solution to all your problems?

  7. Surprised? by JakFrost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that hardly anyone is surprised that China's Politburo (a group of 24 people who oversee the Communist Party of China) was behind the hacking of the Chinese Google office computers. You can see the seriousness of the issue after reading Google's response to the hacking and their threat to pull out of China all together and also after reading the Department of the State's involvement in this issue. The Department of the State, and someone as high up as Hillary Clinton, getting involved in this issue shows how important this single hacking event was, and not just because Google is everyone's the current favorite company.

    US asks China to explain Google hacking claims

    Bobbie Johnson in San Francisco
    guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 08.19 GMT

    Hillary Clinton calls on Beijing to answer 'serious concerns' over internet security
    Google pulls out of China: what the bloggers are saying

    The US government is investigating allegations of a Chinese hacking attack on Google amid what Washington called "serious concerns" over internet security.

    The strike, which the company said was aimed at uncovering information linked to political dissidents in the country, led Google to announce last night that it would no longer censor its search engine in China.

    The move could result in Google being forced to pull out of China four years after it controversially announced its intention to launch a censored version of google.cn, the local version of its search engine.

    Faced with a conflict between one of America's most powerful companies and the Chinese government, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, called on Beijing to discuss the situation.

    1. Re:Surprised? by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Heh. In other words, duh?

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  8. And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by thesandbender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Chinese government has proven that they'll do anything to stop distribution of negative information about them. If they're behind the DDoS the goal probably isn't blacking out WikiLeaks... just suppressing it long enough that they can configure the "Great Firewall" to block it (content filters, etc).

    It makes sense for a few reasons:

    1. The Chinese government has already proven they're not above this.
    2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.
    3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.

    There's also a good chance it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.

    1. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The only attention whore I see is you (don't think for a second you're writing this for a "greater good" ... the OP _loves_ to appear intelligent.

    2. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by martas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.

      Uh huh, and what exactly are you basing this on? Not saying it's not true, but I've seen this opinion on /. pretty much every time there's a wikileaks related article, and I'm just trying to figure out what I missed ('cause I don't recall any incident that'd justify such an opinion about Assange).

    3. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by thesandbender · · Score: 1

      Is there anyone who _loves_ to appear stupid?

    4. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by thesandbender · · Score: 1

      I'll freely admit this is a WAG (Wild Ass Guess).

    5. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Chinese government has proven that they'll do anything to stop distribution of negative information about them.

      the only difference in between the us government and chinese government, is how they approach the concept of 'doing anything' to stop distribution of negative information.

      one does it directly, by arresting or killing those who distribute it, the other does it through underhanded, but improvable means.

      Clashes with Europe over human rights: 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.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

    6. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yea right.

      The U.S. and its allies have every reason to DDoS the site. It buys them time to try to clean up things diplomatically before the release and making it inaccessible will limit the excitement around it.

    7. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by eloki · · Score: 1

      I feel a little surprised that China wouldn't have already had Wikileaks blocked.

    8. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans?

      Oh my gawd this kid I got from the day care is not like the one on the family photo lololololo wtf?

      Oh I accidentally the kid inside the car on a hot day.

      -- Americans seem to feel like shit like this is normal, so

    9. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. No country is above this. Most of Slashdot readers have even dabbled in this as some point or another.
      2. No they don't. And they're right. It's only a matter of time before the US government figures out a way to crush wikileaks in a way that makes no one else ever try it again.
      3. Plenty 12 year olds have the capability of launching a DDoS attack. The US wouldn't be tipping any hand. And, just because they are under a DDoS attack doesn't mean that's all that's going on. This may very well be a symptom or a diversion of something else entirely.

      Yes, wikileaks is DDoSing their own site for attention. On the day they probobly got more hits than any other site on the internet they feel the need to DDoS themselves so no one can read what their publishing, so they can get more attention... even though they already have every News organization and Political party on earth staring directly at them. You're brilliant.

    10. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by Mana+Mana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wikileaks is China's friend. The PRC loves it, it does their work for them. The west's secrets are handed to them, what's easier. It does double duty besmirching the USAs reputation to their own Chinese people; no Chinese bureaucrats needed. Gravy all over.

    11. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From your low number you should be an adult but your behaviour indicates otherwise. There is no point at all pretending that the world is as simple as a sandpit game other than that of attempting to mislead others.

    12. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by LS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just suppressing it long enough that they can configure the "Great Firewall" to block it (content filters, etc).

      You misunderstand the purpose of the GFW, and overestimate its level of sophistication

      2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.

      No, but they can slow it down until they've assess the content and created a narrative to counter the negative aspects.

      3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.

      And this is the least convincing of your statements. Do you think anyone, let alone the US gov, would execute a DDoS without covering their tracks? A DDoS can be executed by a child without getting caught. You don't think the US is also capable? jeez

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    13. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you're an idiot and an asshole. Congratulations.

    14. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      If you watch any of his interviews (twice on the Colbert Report, for example), it's pretty clear that he revels in the attention. He oozes more smug than a coffee shop full of Macbook Pro users who think the J in WWJD stands for Jobs, which is, incidentally, enough smug to power Wikileaks for 3-4 years.

      I say this agreeing completely with the philosophy of Wikileaks. It would be nice to have a more affable face on the organization, but nothing's perfect.

    15. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by martas · · Score: 1

      OK, you get +5 most awesome analogies. That being said, I just watched one of the Colbert interviews, and I didn't get the same impression as obviously you did. It was the interview about the apache attack, and Colbert did raise a very good question -- that they called the [edited] video "collateral murder" to essentially manipulate public opinion for maximum outrage, hence turning Wikileaks into an editorial, rather than a pure journalistic outlet. That I agree with, and it is perhaps a regrettable aspect of how they do things. But I'm still not sure that that demonstrates spotlight-seeking behavior. A more innocuous explanation would be that they themselves felt very strongly that a wrong had been committed, and decided that "editorializing" the release would increase the chances that justice would be served, by maximizing visibility. In other words, perhaps they were seeking the spotlight, but for the information they were releasing, rather than themselves. I believe this is not an inconsequential distinction.

    16. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I concede that your distinction may be valid, but WikiLeaks isn't exactly hurting for attention in the first place. I admit I'm a cynic, but it seems to me that the only agenda served by Assange doing a talk-show is that of satisfying a personal desire for publicity and/or validation. Now you may be right that he's of the mind that drawing (more) attention to the issue at any price is worthwhile, but I think it's far easier to argue against a personal desire for attention when one avoids attention in the first place. PJ/Pamela Jones of Groklaw is a perfect example, refusing nearly all interviews, particularly televised, and letting her work speak for itself. If you are correct about Assange's motivations, then I would characterize his recent time in the spotlight as, at best, a miscalculated approach. Rather than drawing more attention to the issue(s), it only put more attention on him, as indicated by the fact that he's part of the discussion right now, along with the recent attention his personal life has received. Now it's possible his personal life would have been dragged into the spotlight regardless of whether or not he was complicit, but the fact that he was complicit doesn't help.

    17. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by martas · · Score: 1

      Hm, that's a good point (about him getting personally dragged into the issue as a result of public appearances). I think you're absolutely right about that, and if he had shunned the spotlight like that Jones lady, who knows if he'd ever "raped" anyone... Still, if I had to guess, I'd say that his interviews were intended to bring visibility to wikileaks, not himself. And note that while you and I have known about wikileaks for a long time, that's probably not true about the general public. He might've though that he needed to appear personally, to make sure people got the correct idea about what kind of people are behind the whole thing/why they're doing it.

    18. Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS by Suhas · · Score: 1

      Get off his lawn!

  9. Most newsworthy? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0

    Among the most newsworthy, reports Techcrunch's Erick Schonfeld, is one set which deals with the massive computer attack on Google and other companies
     
    The most newsworthy item is that war with Iran is apparently inevitable. Who cares about Google hacking.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:Most newsworthy? by khallow · · Score: 1

      The most newsworthy item is that war with Iran is apparently inevitable. Who cares about Google hacking.

      I find that a bit of an extraordinary claim, though not in itself unrealistic. Where's the evidence?

    2. Re:Most newsworthy? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just search for cables about Iran: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks It becomes clear pretty soon that most countries in the region are far most hostile to Iran that I ever knew before (including words like existential threat and direct urging by a number of countries for the US to strike, bunch of leaders call Iran evil and a fascist state) and that Israel will definitely not be willing to live with nuclear Iran and that apparently Iran is not negotiating in good faith and is only buying time until it has enough material for a bomb. Unless Iran backs down, I don't see how that does not lead to a war.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:Most newsworthy? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The US changes president every four years, and each time has a roughly 50% chance of a new party taking the office. It's approach to Iran is 'put it off until it becomes the other sides's problem.' There isn't any nice and tidy solution. The US doesn't have the manpower to occupy Iran now, not while holding Afganistan and Iraq, so there are really only two options: Precision attacks on military facilities and anywhere that works on the bomb program (likely to force Iran into a counterattack, this forcing the use of the second approach anyway) or just bombing every government structure back into the stone age - thus removing the military threat, at the expense of a massive humanitarian crisis. Either way, both major parties would rather the other one be in charge when the order goes out.

    4. Re:Most newsworthy? by khallow · · Score: 1
      My, you are quite correct.

      UAE prince fears 'logic of war' (February 9, 2010):

      The UAE leadership sees Iran as its primary external threat, and one that is existential in nature. Like much of the international community, the UAE finds the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons unacceptable and thinks this eventuality would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least as worrying to MbZ are Iran's aspirations for regional hegemony by support for terrorist proxies (Hizballah, HAMAS, possibly underground organizations in the Arab Gulf countries). MbZ is skeptical that Iran can be convinced to end its nuclear weapons program, and is not convinced that the international community will adopt tough sanctions. In other words, he sees the logic of war dominating the region, and this thinking explains his near obsessive efforts to build up the UAE's armed forces.

      [...]

      MbZ's main message to us during his September visit was that we needed to be better coordinated for Iran contingencies. High level engagement by CENTCOM planners have helped to address this concern, but he believes we have made less progress in addressing what he sees as the slow pace of deliveries of US security assistance and he is still worried that he does not have enough equipment in place to defend his people when war with Iran breaks out. (And for MbZ it is a matter of when, not if.) We have repeatedly presented to his staff the various explanations for what he perceives as delays, but he remains unconvinced that we are addressing his concerns as a matter of priority.

      UAE fret over Iranian meddling (February 22, 2010):

      The UAE views Iran as a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities. Iranian support for terrorism is broader than just Hamas and Hizballah. Iran has influence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Eastern Province of KSA, and Africa (AbZ mentioned Nigeria specifically). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have close, cooperative ties. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the expeditionary aspect of its foreign policy will become ever more challenging for neighboring states.

      [...]

      Lowey asked what AbZ thought about tougher sanctions against Iran and how the UAE can help with China. AbZ said the US and its allies "have to decide how to stop Iran" and that the UAE was surprised at the Chinese attitude. AbZ noted the Emiratis and the Saudis have spoken to the Chinese, and the UAE expressed a willingness to expand its energy ties (Note: AbZ seemed to be indicating that this was intended as a carrot, but he acknowledged the difficulty of supplanting an Iran-China trade relationship that reached $50 billion last year. End Note.)

      [...]

      In response to questions from members of Congress, AbZ said that if Iran goes nuclear others in the region will move forward on the same track and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down. He said a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide. 14 million barrels a day pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That said, he noted that the US and UAE militaries have plans to keep Hormuz clear.

      US steps up pressure on Turkey over Iran (February 25, 2010):

      Burns strongly urged Sinirlioglu to support action to convince the Iranian government it is on the wrong course. Sinirliolgu reaffirmed the GoT's opposition to a nuclear Iran; however, he registered fear about the collateral impact military action might have on Turkey and contended sanctions would unite Iranians behind the regime and harm the opposition. Burns acknowledged Turkey's exposur

    5. Re:Most newsworthy? by ushering05401 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting post, but hobbled by a lack of accounting for Syria.

      I first heard rumor not about a Syrian program in 1994, it was emphasized by the CIA (2003), and the Israelis (2007).

      The reason you aren't hearing about it is because Damascus is not the oldest continually occupied city on earth by chance. Furthermore, their Jordanian counterparts have a penchant for reaffirming covenants with the U.S. & Israel, performing economic due-diligence, sending their children to American Universities (even their presidents!!), and generally being sane and available to Western actors.

      Any belief that Syria and Jordan aren't at least ready to go back-to-back if the Middle East disintegrates is unrealistic.

    6. Re:Most newsworthy? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I first heard rumor not about a Syrian program in 1994, it was emphasized by the CIA (2003), and the Israelis (2007).

      Keep in mind that the Israelis bombed it in 2007. And they did so by completely compromising one of Russia's most advanced air defense systems. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Syria is still working on its program, but evidence seems to indicate that they suffered a big set back. But yes, you do have a point about Syria being fairly sane by Middle East standards.

    7. Re:Most newsworthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is it any wonder Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are afraid? They are well aware that once their natural resources out, they will be abandoned by the US. And when they fall away from US' grace, they will most likely face devastation. And for a reason, and they know it. There's even a Saudi saying, 'My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel', uttered by a Sheikh.

  10. wikileaks by omar.sahal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For such an embarrassment these leaks do go some way to promoting the US world view, or is that just editing from the media outlets. Examples such as many middle eastern counties (Saudi, Jordan and Egypt etc) urging US to bomb Iran, as well as the links below
    Iraq document leaks show US forces found WMD after invasion - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
    Wikileaked documents normalise Iraq civilian death toll at 'massive' 66,000

    1. Re:wikileaks by krou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      John Young of Cyprome has claimed for some time that Wikileaks is a CIA front, almost right from the start.

      Sure, everyone's paranoid when it comes to the world of intelligence, but still, it is an interesting thought. Selective "leaking" to Wikileaks, which disseminates it to key media outlets ... that would be a fantastic propaganda tool.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    2. Re:wikileaks by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy theories are fun but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Some day we'll find that Assange was a CIA agent all along, but of course that will be a leak too.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:wikileaks by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Promoting the US view? According to that article they found a few remnants. It's hard to get exact numbers out of that article with wikileaks being DoSed, but I don't think that some rusty artillery shells (it strikes me as a very bad idea to try to fire a round that's leaking) and the 10 rounds amount to anything significant and justify the war.

    4. Re:wikileaks by Lakitu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you really surprised that diplomatic cables between US diplomats express a "US world view"?

    5. Re:wikileaks by AndyBoot · · Score: 1

      And reading the Guardian's analysis of some of the anti-Iran stuff, it just screams out that Stuxnet is the US trying to bomb the Iranian facilities without using bombs.... "Any means possible..." and all that.

    6. Re:wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it's just that the rabid over the top anti-US haters are delusional, insane, abysmally stupid, or evil?

      Anyone older than 30 and remotely attached to the real world knows that's a rhetorical question.

      Too bad those "anti-US" fuckers (who should simply all die of shame) make so much noise that the real serious issues where the US is actually wrong get completely drowned in noise.

      It's a lose-lose situation and you're part of it aren't you... please kill yourself without killing anyone else (bet you can't even if you try).

    7. Re:wikileaks by usul294 · · Score: 1

      While the diplomats are (if they are doing their job) working to benefit the US, if they are doing their jobs competently, the information disclosed in working communications should represent their perception of reality more so than publicly disclosed information, which would obviously be said in a way to make the US look good. Hopefully the diplomats have a fairly accurate perception of reality.

    8. Re:wikileaks by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      Based on Fictional books written by former Military Officers the US diplomats have only a slight connection to the real world. Tim S.

    9. Re:wikileaks by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      If those cables include replies from Saudi Arabians urging a strike on Iran, yeah, that is pretty surprising.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    10. Re:wikileaks by dbIII · · Score: 1

      For one thing they are capable of keeping a web server running so that rules out being organised by the CIA :)
      Selective leaking to friendly media has already happened many times without needing wikileaks - Valerie Plume etc.

    11. Re:wikileaks by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      That's not very surprising at all, and it has been reported in the media over the last year or so. Searching quickly found a Jun 12, 2010 article in the Times (now behind a paywall) titled "Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites".

  11. cyber war? by monkyyy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is that 3 ddos attacks going at once?
    at this rate the whole idea of a cyberwar is much less idiotic?

    --
    warning pointless sig
  12. How the hell is this modded interesting? by compucomp2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I know why. Because Slashdot is full of irrational China-haters.

    This post asserts one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Why would we engineer a DDoS to block release of AMERICAN GOVERNMENT documents, which no matter what it says, we can easily explain away by saying it's just American propaganda, because that's exactly what these documents are? State Department communications are American propaganda directed toward other countries essentially. We welcome the release of these documents, because they make the Americans look worse, and thus us look better, and the Americans are taking heavy handed actions against Wikileaks and Assange, which makes them hypocrites if they then try to complain about our actions against say the Falun Gong.

    But no, it's always China's fault. China is the new bogeyman. I suppose it makes the simpletons here on Slashdot feel better.

    1. Re:How the hell is this modded interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We welcome the release of these documents, because they make the Americans look worse, and thus us look better.

      From up here, you both look silly.

    2. Re:How the hell is this modded interesting? by thesandbender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not vindicating the American government in anyway. They (and by proxy I) do their fair share of very despicable things. That's all I'm going to say. The volumes of evidence against the Chinese government, from multiple sources outside the US, speaks for itself.

    3. Re:How the hell is this modded interesting? by dcollins · · Score: 1, Informative

      "China is the new bogeyman."

      China was also the old bogeyman, 2000-2001, before we went drooling and raving for 10 years about guys in caves who got off one lucky, unrepeatable shot.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Team_%28U.S._politics%29
      http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_military_specific_cases_and_issues=us_military_tmln_spy_plane_crash_in_china&timeline=us_military_tmln
      http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Asia/Revving_China_Threat.html

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    4. Re:How the hell is this modded interesting? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The bogeyman that manufacturers just about everything the rest of the world uses now.

    5. Re:How the hell is this modded interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since when in your united states did evidence against anyone mean anything exactly?

      captcha: corrupts.....

      wow.

  13. Attention wh0re? by skywatcher2501 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everyone seems to dislike Assange's approach to public relations. But then again, how many people know/knew Anna Politkovskaya? Assange seems to be quite the media's darling and whatever, but that might be essential for his own safety.

    1. Re:Attention wh0re? by thesandbender · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't take issue with him being in the lime light... but he purposefully stretches it out. He doesn't just release information... he announces the release ahead of time so he can create a sensation. If they were really concerned about access to the information and not publicity the would "soft release" to trusted groups on BitTorrent a few days/weeks before they announced it. That way the data is well seeded and a DDoS would be very difficult. That's why I'm accusing them of attention wh0ring... there are very easy ways of preventing this DDoS and they are smart enough to know that.

    2. Re:Attention wh0re? by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't take issue with him being in the lime light... but he purposefully stretches it out.

      I think this tactic is known as 'running cover'. Assange knows that someone has to be the focal point for the ogranisation, to make contact with media reps and various others in order to ensure the responsible dissemination of the data. Doing so allows a great many others to work quietly, undisturbed in the background. Say what you like about his motivation, he's chosen that role. I'd argue that, as someone who believes more in daylight than shadows, he's using the spotlight to keep himself out of harm's way.

      he announces the release ahead of time so he can create a sensation

      Sure. This actually is one of the largest leaks of information in modern history. It's sensational in its very essence. Given that wikileaks' reason for being is to disseminate leaked information as effectively as possible, advance press is perfectly understandable.

      If they were really concerned about access to the information and not publicity the would "soft release" to trusted groups on BitTorrent a few days/weeks before they announced it.

      Great idea. How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable media organisations in the Western world? How about giving them months of prep time, so they could conduct analysis. How about -shocking, I know- even telling the affected agencies what was about to be released and offering them the opportunity to assist in the redaction process? That's exactly what they did.

      Now, there's no way a government could be seen to be negotiating with them, so this might be seen as grandstanding, but who knows what contacts might have been made behind the scenes? (Well, wikileaks, of course, but... you get what I'm saying.)

      That way the data is well seeded and a DDoS would be very difficult. That's why I'm accusing them of attention wh0ring... there are very easy ways of preventing this DDoS and they are smart enough to know that.

      Indeed they are. And indeed they have.

      You can characterise what they do as attention-whoring if you like. The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible on the data they're releasing. If you suffer from this process, you won't be glad about it. I can accept that.

      I have friends who were directly affected by information divulged to wikileaks some years ago. While I'm still angry at those who so cynically used wikileaks to release context-free data that wrongly created some very nasty implications, I don't blame wikileaks for releasing the information. That's just what they do.

      In fact, I'd rather see wikileaks do it than others. While they're occasionally guilty of editorialising about their data, at least they release all of it, providing others with the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Most media organisations do not do this. They run with what they think will lead, and leave the rest by the roadside.

      I don't always like the results of what wikileaks does, but at least they are exactly what the claim to be.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    3. Re:Attention wh0re? by thesandbender · · Score: 1

      I see your point... however:
      "How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable meia organisations in the Western world."
      That's not exactly what they did. They withheld information from all sources so they would have a "bombshell" to deliver.
      And, again, they didn't have to announce they had this information before release.
      "The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible..."
      That's not their stated mission... it's to release this information to as many people as possible. There is a *huge* difference.

    4. Re:Attention wh0re? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he had stayed some anonymous guy that nobody knows the name of....

      He'd be dead already.

      Accidents happen everyday to anonymous people.

    5. Re:Attention wh0re? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible..."

      That's not their stated mission... it's to release this information to as many people as possible. There is a *huge* difference.

      I can see the distinction you're drawing; it's quite a fascinating one.

      It would be really interesting, actually, to consider what other tactics and methods could achieve the same strategy (i.e. run a generic whistle-blower service).

      It would certainly elevate the debate about the nature of wikileaks, something which I think everyone would applaud. And it's vastly preferable to probing the rather facile question of whether Assange is an attention-whore or not.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    6. Re:Attention wh0re? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable meia organisations in the Western world."

      That's not exactly what they did. They withheld information from all sources so they would have a "bombshell" to deliver.

      I don't know where you're getting that. In the last three dumps, Wikileaks has followed the same pattern: Share the data with a limited number of news agencies, one each in multiple countries. Here's how the Guardian described this round:

      The electronic archive of embassy dispatches from around the world was allegedly downloaded by a US soldier earlier this year and passed to WikiLeaks. Assange made it available to the Guardian and four other news organisations: the New York Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, Le Monde in France and El País in Spain. All five plan to publish extracts from the most significant cables, but have decided neither to "dump" the entire dataset into the public domain, nor to publish names that would endanger innocent individuals. WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities.

      So yes, they did exactly what you accused them of failing to do: They quietly distributed the data to a few discreet (and discrete) sources prior to the initial launch.

      The only difference this time is that they haven't dumped the whole dataset. I was wrong to say they always do.

      Some may consider this newfound discretion to be a good thing....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  14. Gosh! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    This is the most surprised I have been all year!

    Sure, it's nice to have reliable confirmation, but still, this was kind of an obvious one.

  15. They need to find some to give him a code red by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    They need to find some to give him a code red

  16. note chinese news' silence by hansguckindieluft · · Score: 1

    unlike the last wikileak about Iraq, this one is not mentioned by china's own: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/

    1. Re:note chinese news' silence by hansguckindieluft · · Score: 3, Informative

      sorry, i erred. it's not on the frontpage yet but a search for wikileak gives results: http://search.news.cn/language/search.jspa?id=en&t=1&t1=0&ss=&ct=&n1=wikileak&x=0&y=0

    2. Re:note chinese news' silence by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      It's Sunday night now in China.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    3. Re:note chinese news' silence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that it mentions a non-China item from the leak (Saudi king...) so that any Chinese who are looking for info about the leak will find *something* and stop looking. So they will not see the China/Google hacking story. But I've heard that those in power in China these days are too timid and indecisive to have actually instigated something like this. They might have approved (well, not disapproved) when told of the hacks, but are unlikely to have ordered them, according to a few people I know who have met some of them.

  17. assassination by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assassination of Julian Assange wouldn't accomplish anything. He's just the messenger.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:assassination by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, killing him would make him the message, and that would be worth something.

    2. Re:assassination by nahdude812 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Killing him would make him a martyr, and would likely create more supporters of the WikiLeaks organization, including other people now willing to be a figurehead, but probably better capable of hiding themselves (such as the owners of botnets which possess tremendous capacity to hide their origin).

      Killing Assange would not halt the flow of information. WikiLeaks is a hydra, cut off its head, and two more will grow in its place. Killing him would likely increase the flow of information, and would legitimize it in the eyes of many.

  18. No bias necessary by EndoplasmicRidiculus · · Score: 1

    Examples such as many middle eastern counties (Saudi, Jordan and Egypt etc) urging US to bomb Iran

    Not surprising, really. Relations between the majority Sunni Arab countries and Iran have always been tense and they would loathe the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran.

  19. governments by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Well, western governments wouldn't reveal any DDoS capability they might happen to have with so trivial a project. Sure, these document leaks are somewhat embarrassing for the U.S. and potentially other governments, but they don't elevate the importance of wikileaks to that level. Western governments, at least, will pursue a variety of legal and other pressures, perhaps some unjustified, unjust, and even economically brutal. However, a DDoS capability would be considered a secret and important asset at this stage of the game, one worth protecting beyond the mid level bureaucratic machinations which are revealed in the State Department cables and emails.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:governments by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      How is that capability secret? All a DDoS is a lot of computers, and the US government certainly has a lot of computers. Even if they didn't want to use their own, all it really takes is paying cash money to the operator of a bot net, again the US government is certainly capable of paying cash money to a bot net operator.

  20. credible? by novar21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Diplomats are sometimes pawns or go pieces. Depends upon the game. Also what is at risk. It is better for diplomats to not be told something, or to be told a half truth or lie than factual information. Less security problems if the diplomat turns double agent, or is retained for questioning or the eventual human slip up. Reports from diplomats to their home country, may contain some factual information, but is usually spun and twisted. Again it would depend on the assignment. Negotiations usually contain good information. Reports on political activities and observations of others negotiations usually contain sparse data or outright misinformation from the other parties. So... I am really hesitant to accept these documents as credible. Diplomats are like politicians. I don't trust what politicians say.

  21. Troll mods by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect I might disagree with a more detailed explanation of your viewpoint, but I vehemently disagree with the anonymous use of mod points to beat you down with a Troll mod, simply because the moderator disagrees with you.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  22. the leaker by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    The Leaker might not be a U.S. government employee, or even citizen. It might be a fifteen year old kid with a botnet that happened to get a few lucky strikes and upload stuff from a bunch of Pentagon and State Department hard drives.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:the leaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, reread that. Where Assange gets his information is irrelevant to this, he's the point where it leaks to the rest of the world, and is pretty much the best possible way it could if it's going to.

    2. Re:the leaker by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      No, the leaker is this guy.

      What the OP was saying is that Assange is a useful tool, in that what he publishes isn't that harmful, yet. Plus he gives them months to work on damage control before publishing.

  23. Top Secret America by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Oh, it's unlikely that these leaks will much damage the U.S. Leaks of these types of mid level bureaucratic decision making processes were inevitable as soon as the federal government (and foreign governments) standardized on Microsoft Windows, and the accompanying plague of Windows-only viruses, trojans, botnets and worms. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened earlier.

    The more interesting question is how the obsession with secrecy damages the national interests of the U.S. It's not at all clear that our current national obsession with secrecy is helping us. Notice that it has a certain "run amok" quality to it: Top Secret America

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  24. diplomatic discussion and world views by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Informative

    Obviously you're not reading the discussion in which you've elected to participate, let alone source materials and fine articles. If you had, you would know that the surprises are the support for the "U.S. world view" coming from surprising sources, like other countries in the middle east, who agree that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a very serious threat to world security.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:diplomatic discussion and world views by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly not that surprised that the Saudis are freaked out about Iran. Any way you look at it from the Saudi point of view, Iran is a scary place. If it carves out a chunk of southern Iraq, it represents a serious threat to Saudi territorial integrity. If Iran gets into a nuclear exchange with Israel, well, that represents a pretty huge threat to the Saudis too. Hell, maybe the Saudis are freaked that the military junta that is actually running Iran right now may represent a very direct threat to the Arabian Peninsula.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  25. tirade by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1
    You appear to have directed a tirade against the wrong parent post, which appears to read (in full) as follows:

    For such an embarrassment these leaks do go some way to promoting the US world view, or is that just editing from the media outlets. Examples such as many middle eastern counties (Saudi, Jordan and Egypt etc) urging US to bomb Iran, as well as the links below.

    Iraq document leaks show US forces found WMD after invasion
    Wikileaked documents normalise Iraq civilian death toll at 'massive' 66,000

    Your rant doesn't map (assuming the Slashdot system is showing me the parent post you actually replied to.)

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  26. Civ Game by InfiniteZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is it me or does the world look more and more like some kid's Civ game from another dimension? A word of wisdom to the Chinese: hack Google all you want, just don't get too ambitious and start building a spaceship to Alpha Centauri, and doom us all to the endgame.

    1. Re:Civ Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if they do so, we'll just have to invade and capture Beijing. Iraq and Iran are just red herrings...

  27. Back in the real world by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If Wikileaks was not an intelligence front then I am sure the US could easily claim copyright/IP ownership of material being distributed by them and block/destroy their presence online. Seriously anyone that believes Wikileaks is the real McCoy is a twit of the lowest order.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  28. What? by Benfea · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't anyone tell you that you're only supposed to use that "blame America first" language when a Republican is in the White House? If you don't rescind your statement, I'm gonna tell all your freeper friends that you're an Obama supporter. :P

  29. OMG it's a conspiracy! by Benfea · · Score: 1

    I can't believe this! George Bush was right all along and the media suppressed the story! Only a massive, international socialist conspiracy could explain this!!!!!!!11!!1!oneone

    Yeah, the blister agents were discovered and reported by the media. The chemicals had so degraded in potency that Saddam would have had to get American troops to agree to have it rubbed on them, and even then in most cases they would have had a nasty rash. If that's your justification for starting a war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, you have a very low bar for justifying that sort of thing.

  30. Perhaps by jandersen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Was "China" (ie somebody in China) behind the attack on Google? Perhaps; all governments at some level do this kind of things.

    But I don't think this is anything like the main story to extract from this leak; which is much more about what American government and diplomats think, privately, about everybody else. Very revealing stuff, I think, which confirms what we all have had our suspicions about.

    In their defence I'll say that what you think in private is often much less refined than what you end up saying or doing, so perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harshly.