Slashdot Mirror


DDoS Attack On Wikileaks Increasing

tetrahedrassface writes "According to the Twitter feed for Wikileaks, the attack on the controversial site is increasing and is now at 10 Gigabits per second. In light of the recent release of highly sensitive documents and calls by many lawmakers around the world to swiftly find, extradite, and try suspected rapist Julius Assange for breaches of national security, one nation, Ecuador, has offered asylum."

121 of 919 comments (clear)

  1. If you didn't do anything wrong, by Ismellpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    then you have nothing to hide.
    At least isn't that what the government tells us?

    1. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least isn't that what the government tells us?

      The government also tells you to hide under your desk in the event of a nuclear attack.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That depends, you also need to not share the name of someone who did something wrong. Otherwise you may end up on a no-fly list, or kidnapped from your country and taken to Afghanistan for torture.

    3. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least isn't that what the government tells us?

      Right, because you don't have any embarrassing secrets. You don't tell friends things in confidence.

      Thanks to this leak (and to the idiotic flubbing of security in the first place), it will be at least a little bit harder for American diplomats to make friends who will tell them things in confidence.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have enough time to get under a desk after you see the flash, you are on the outskirts, so it makes good sense to attempt to do so.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    5. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Gerzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Suspected rapist? I thought they dropped that charge? Jeeze this article seems a little biased.

    6. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And rightfully so!

      Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.

      I might have some sympathy here if it wasn't for the fact that the same people who are bitching about privacy are the ones who would think nothing of the invasion of other peoples privacy for their own ends. Somehow spying is better when its public? Better when its the people who pretend to represent us?

      Turnabout is fair play, and thats all that happened.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That joke is older than anyone posting here.

    8. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And rightfully so!

      Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.

      So you would have no issues with your medical records being made public then?

      There are plenty of reasons for diplomats to commit potentially inflammatory statements to paper and have them passed around - detailed foreign staffing reports on who they met, their personalities, comments made and perceptions drawn all help other diplomats to handle foreign contacts better and most certainly will contain information you would never, ever say to that persons face, despite it being 100% true.

    9. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Informative

      Little talked-about fact: Hiroshima was targeted to maximize civilian casualties. Our government said it was to take out factories, but we intentionally aimed at civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of noncombatants. It was not a new tactic -- before then, we aimed at civilians with firebombs. Terrorism is only terrorism when non-state actors do it, I guess! Yes, I know I'm off-topic.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    10. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.

      You're completely missing the point. When one diplomat tells another something, the expectation all around is that it will get written down and passed to the recipient's superiors. It is NOT expected that it will fall into the hands of someone like Assange who will release it to the world.

    11. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Diplomats, on the other hand, make decisions that effect the lives of thousands, if not millions

      Even with a harem I'd be surprised if any diplomats are effecting the lives of more a hundred or so.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    12. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by imakemusic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indie was a slashdotter?

      Indiana Jones and the Basement of Gloom

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    13. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, good luck with that, its a ridiculous stance to take.

      You have essentially just said that diplomats should not be making any full and frank assessments of foreign diplomats, countries or situations. Assessments that may aid others in their work, but may equally insult the subject, or cause the subject to legitimately show insult or withdraw cooperation if said assessment became public.

      Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely. In turn, China could make trade negotiations that much more difficult for American diplomats, because of the position they have been put in.

      The revelation can be entirely true, but it can still cause severe problems on many sides.

      Your stance of "that shouldn't have been kept secret" would have resulted in one of two scenarios - either the assessment from the front line diplomat doesn't get written because they don't want an international spat on their hands, thus analysts and diplomats further up the chain have less information to go on, and future negotiations are that much more difficult or alternatively the assessment gets written, becomes public knowledge and that diplomat gets expelled from China, or all further meetings are cancelled with that diplomat, and you have the aforementioned spat.

    14. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Funny

      You underestimate my grammatical pedantry.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    15. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the real problem with the "Nuclear Drill" concept isn't that they make you do rather flimsy things that aren't liable to save your life -- even though it might. The problem was that a lot of people in society, in government and out, were content to live with the fact of a future nuclear war, believed in it as a necessary and practical means of offense against aggression, and used "drills" to try to normalize the expectation in young people and convince everyone that a thermonuclear war was just a really bad air raid and was a practical form of warfare, and not what it really was: mass genocide.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    16. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By that point in the war the Japanese government had outsourced most of the small arms, ammunition, explosive and tool production to homes.

      Hiroshima was headquarters of the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army Headquarters which was the command of all of southern Japan, in addition to being a communications center, storage depot and troop assembly area for 2nd General Army Headquarters.

      So how exactly was it not a legitimate military target?

    17. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well... how about this. If I went around breaking into other peoples medical records, reading them, and passing the info around to the friends of mine who I think could benefit from reading them....

      then I wouldn't expect any sympathy for me when mine are stolen and published.

      That is more what I am saying. These people use spies, work with spies, and sometimes simply are spies themselves. They engage in it left and right, I see no reason to have any sympathy for them when the tables get turned.

      Turnabout is fair play.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    18. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by gfreeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However even if it doesn't it shows that Julian is a jackass who uses people for personal gain.

      Even if he was married and cheating on his wife, he' still done no worse than many US politicians of the past decade. As a single guy, not in a relationship, I couldn't give a flying fuck who he sleeps with, and I scoff at any US politico who would make something of it.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    19. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Barrinmw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if Japan was given the choice between falling into Soviet Russia's hands or the United States, which would they have chosen?

    20. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by superdave80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...but we intentionally aimed at civilians,...

      I read through the section you linked to, and I saw nothing to back up your assertion. In fact, I found quite the opposite. Maybe you should read your own link:

      Leaflets were dropped over cities before they were bombed, warning the people and urging them to escape the city.

    21. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      P.S.

      Also it's pretty clear the Japanese never cared about limiting killing to just deaths. They killed lots of civilians during the war. It's a bit hypocritical for the Japs to criticize us for killing innocents in fire-bombings, when they killed about ten times that amount during the war. The name "Rape of Nanking" isn't just a colorful expression.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is exactly why the release of these diplomatic cables really isn't that big of a deal, IMHO. Most of them involve loose transcripts of diplomatic meetings that took place; these diplomatic meetings always have minute takers on both sides. The parties fully expect that each respective government apparatus is going to dissect and analyze everything that was said

      Sure, most of them. But on the other hand, Arab countries urging the US to bomb Iran probably are quite upset that Iran now knows they did so.

    23. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're completely missing the point. When one diplomat tells another something, the expectation all around is that it will get written down and passed to the recipient's superiors. It is NOT expected that it will fall into the hands of someone like Assange who will release it to the world.

      If these were Iranian diplomatic cables would you still have a problem with this release by WikiLeaks? If the answer is yes, congratulations, you're not a hypocrite!

    24. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If one is looking at Operation Downfall in the long term, and you can't assume that Little Boy or Fatman will cause the Japanese to surrender, then yes, destroying 2nd General Army Headquarters ahead of the planned invasion on 1 November 1945 is both a viable military target and aimed at getting them to surrender before you lose hundreds of thousands of men and kill millions of civilians invading.

      The lasting effects of Hiroshima were not that devastating, within a decade the city was rebuilt and was an industrial city, hell Mazda's Hiroshima plant survived the attack and was back to truck production by December 1945.

      So Little Boy destroyed alot of in home light industry, the 2nd General Army Headquarters, Fifth Division, but wasn't able to destroy all of the city's heavy industry.

      I recall in Richard Rhodes's Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race, that Hiroshima was calculated as needing 4-5 150 kt devices by US SIOP calculations.

    25. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is NOT expected that it will fall into the hands of someone like Assange who will release it to the world.

      Well, you know, when I wrote my emails, I didn't expect them to be read by the government. But they did it anyway. Since they violated my trust and privacy and the 4th amendment without any legitimate authorization, I'm for pulling their pants down around their ankles in public and laughing at their shrunken little parts. Respect is not given, it is earned. And the USG has not been earning in this regard, it has been spending.

      So three cheers for Julian, and here's hoping for some real embarrassments in the cables. I mean, besides the ones already known, like the idiocy about trading Guantanamo prisoners for an audience with El Presidente.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    26. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My link does not "prove me wrong," you hairbrained twit. It shows that we firebombed that city and killed many innocent people. I agree we sent them leaflets first, how nice of us. Then we dropped bombs on them because they had the audacity to ignore our leaflets. This killed them, which was intentional on our part. We are responsible for that. Your argument is that if I point a gun at you and tell you to move aside and you don't, then you get what's coming to you. Sure, maybe you're an idiot for not movie, but if I pull the trigger, then I murdered you. Now, we now must talk about whether my murder of you was justified, but it certainly was an intentional murder, right?

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    27. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by internewt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a phrase that one should never stoop to the level of an idiot, because they will go on to beat you with experience. So I am going to try and resist saying something about wishing the foreign civilians that you and your family are to most of the world are killed by not your government or military. You wouldn't be concerned of course, because it is moral and justified.

      Or is it that as long as it isn't your tribe being hurt, it is moral and justified?

      Attacking civilians is not justifiable. And once you do justify it to yourself, it is easy to just declare a section of your society some kind of non-citizen and wage a war on them. I wonder if you can think of any events in history that might correspond with the kind of thing you are advocating?

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    28. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Japanese are not criticizing us, I don't think.

      Actually, they are. The problem is that Japanese don't learn their own history, so most don't even realize that their army massacred and raped so many civilians in WWII.

    29. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I spent two years in Korea and the brutality of the Japanese towards the Koreans was appalling.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    30. Re:If you didn't do anything wrong, by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And 90% of stores in America are owned by Americans. 90% of lawyers and doctors in America are American. Americans own a disproportionate amount of property to non-Americans in America, and exploit non-Americans.

      So how exactly is ridding North America of Americans not legitimate and beneficial?

      Brilliant logic, Watson.

      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
  2. Ut Oh! by PORNorART · · Score: 5, Funny

    /. is in trouble now for leaking the US's inability to conduct a succesful DDoS campaign.

    1. Re:Ut Oh! by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are they doing it? Have they announced where the majority of the attacks are coming from or is like a /. effect?

      (They can't lose! Either they're being attacked for revealing the truth and/or they're super popular!)

    2. Re:Ut Oh! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A DDoS is more than a simple /. effect.

      Only when your servers are not designed for massive amounts of traffic at a time will you be harmed by the slashdot effect. Usually it happens on /. because we link to some university Website, who is only used to maybe a couple thousand students and not millions of internet viewers.

      Wikileaks is in the business of being read by as many people as possible - You'll notice Wikileaks is still UP during all this. This suggests they expected this kind of stuff and likely they have a sophisticated firewall capable of blocking DoS attacks and seperating the legit requests from the bad.

      It's not just a popularity thing.

    3. Re:Ut Oh! by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Electronic attacks like this are not what this government does

      Re-read that a few times and give it some thought, then let us know if you'd like to amend that statement.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    4. Re:Ut Oh! by Barryke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Theres a pattern in DDOS traffic.
      http://www10.org/cdrom/papers/409/

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    5. Re:Ut Oh! by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rape?

  3. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by grub · · Score: 3, Insightful


    His plane will have "engine trouble" on the way to Ecuador and crash. Just watch.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  4. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by spazmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikileaks doesn't out anything anymore, unless its US intelligence. Haven't you noticed they pulled all private corporate leaks and European and other countries leaks? It's not a generic leaks site anymore or I would still support it. They are solely an anti-US espionage org now. They lost any credibility, and any respect, at that point. I say hang him.

  5. Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...suspected rapist..."

    way to give subtle bias in favor of the world's superpower against one person...

  6. I confirm the asylum offer. by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Funny

    He will be quite comfortable and safe in my mother's basement.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  7. Personal Attacks & Defamation by MBHkewl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "suspected rapist Julius Assange"

    Their attempt at discrediting the accuracy of the info by repeating the word "suspected rapist" is a bit of an old cliche, don't you think?

    Also, does this still work, even with so much data available?

    --
    Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
    1. Re:Personal Attacks & Defamation by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come on, we all know its poisoning the well - example

      "Man steals car"

      "African American aslyum-seeker steals car"

      "Black illegal immigrant steals car"

      All three of those can describe the same story. Do you notice the bias towards the end?

      Sure they're all true, but are they linked to the story? Does him being a rape suspect, in any way contributes to this story? Of course it could be "Mothers Against Rape Suspects" DDOSing him, but that's unlikely.

    2. Re:Personal Attacks & Defamation by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think possible dog molester MBHkewl is right. Much as I disagree with MBHkewl's alleged disgusting lifestyle, I think it's possible, just possible, that we're seeing an obvious case of character assassination here. And I urge readers to overlook the fact that MBHkewl purportedly rapes innocent puppies long enough to consider that he may have a point.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Personal Attacks & Defamation by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He offered them the opportunity to question him before he left Sweden, and inquired as to whether or not he was free to leave the country. They allowed him to leave the country and avoid being questioned.

      They have apparently subsequently changed their minds, and I can't blame him for fighting it. He made a good faith offer to come in for questioning, now they're wanting him to fly back on his own dime to do it. Something about this appears to be very, very wrong, beyond the initial charges looking like complete bunk. There is no ex post facto rape, either it was rape at the time or it isn't rape, you can't change your mind after the fact. Or at least you can't in civilized countries.

    4. Re:Personal Attacks & Defamation by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, it's still an ad hominem attack and shitty journalism.

  8. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ecuador ranks a whooping 101 on the press freedom index, with an annually deteriorating index value. I'm not quite convinced it's the best country to exile to for people publishing inconveniant documents.

  9. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assange is out of control. Wikileaks needs to oust him and go back to their original mission, of actually being a whistleblower, rather than just leaking things and hurting national and global security.

    Julian Assange should go to jail for a very long time.

  10. Wikileaks isn't a leaks aleaks site anymore by spazmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They pulled all corporate and other countries leaks. Now they are simply an anti-US organization. They lost all claim to moral superiority or credibility at that point. Its simply a politically motivated espionage group now with an axe to grind against one country. Treat them like it. When he disappears, or accidentally falls down an elevator shaft on to a pile of bullets, no one will cry.

    1. Re:Wikileaks isn't a leaks aleaks site anymore by spazmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where did all the other leaks, private and government go then? Why did they pull even the old ones from their archives? Justify that.

    2. Re:Wikileaks isn't a leaks aleaks site anymore by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Are you serious?

      ...

      The US is the "juiciest target" in the entire world?

      Or are you one of those people who erroneously believes that the free and democratic nations of the world are actually the world's most egregious oppressors and abusers, and the US sits at the pinnacle of the abusers?

      If you think the US is the "juiciest target", I wonder what you'd think if we saw the same level of leaks of communications from, say, Chinese corporations, the Chinese government, and Chinese "diplomatic" efforts...

      At its launch, WikiLeaks said it was "founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa", and that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East". Instead, WikiLeaks publishes mostly classified information from democracies.

      So now, nations like China and Russia have an advantage over the US in the conduct of their international affairs, intelligence, and defense. I can only imagine China's delight with each new release from WikiLeaks.

      Steven Aftergood, a veteran crusader against excessive government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, notes, "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals." WikiLeaks doesn't care whether information it obtains is legitimately classified, nor whether it may cause grave harm if released. Indeed, the only thing exempt from this reckless behavior is WikiLeaks itself.

      What is interesting to me is that many observers of this phenomenon in free and democratic societies seem to believe it is their own governments that are hiding the most egregious information, which deserves to be exposed via channels like WikiLeaks.

      I would submit that individuals who live in the US and other Western nations who believe their governments are "oppressing" them have no idea what "oppression" is.

    3. Re:Wikileaks isn't a leaks aleaks site anymore by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, to hear you tell it, letting the US citizens know what kind of underhanded behavior their government is engaging in is anti-US? I hate to break it to you bud, but you aren't one of US, you are one of them.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:Wikileaks isn't a leaks aleaks site anymore by davev2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The U.S. is the juiciest target?
      What about Russia and its corruption and political oppression?
      Mexico and its corruption and drug cartels?
      What about Ireland and its corporate tax giveaways? Why aren't they looking at how that continued?
      How about the collapse of Ireland's banking system? Or, the collapse of Iceland economy?
      What about human trafficking in China, mostly female North Korean sex workers.
      Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries covering up physical and sexual abuse of foreign workers, including murder?
      Sexual abuse of female workers in Chinese factories?
      Tacit government approval of child sex workers and tourism in Thailand, Viet Nam, and Cambodia?

      Yeah, you are right. The U.S. has all the juiciest stories. In fact, there are no other stories worth pursuing any where else.

    5. Re:Wikileaks isn't a leaks aleaks site anymore by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 4, Informative
  11. Pied Piper by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What we've learnt about the US is that they privately criticise and occasionally seek intelligence on important figures, and they don't like their citizens being arrested. Moreover, several million people have US "secret" clearance, which means anyone foreign and relevant also had the information: the release was therefore benign.

    In other shocking news, I sometimes mumble "idiot!" under my breath after leaving a meeting and double-check a CV. Don't get me wrong, it's a great laugh to see a few fragile egos insulted, but the most interesting thing to come from this in the West will be whatever law stops it happening again.

    This leak was damaging to those who the US are currently LARTing, from the UK to Saudi Arabia; from a diplomatic PoV, the US government has come out pretty well while playing the perfect victim. It's almost like we're approaching a significant anniversary of another time it did that: now the fires need stoking from an information warfare angle.

    If wikileaks is being DDoS'd, it certainly isn't the US government trying to put some genie back in a bottle.

    1. Re:Pied Piper by magus_melchior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If anything, my reaction is akin to that of the "Bull in a China Shop" experiment on MythBusters. You hear that Wikileaks announces a big leak, they hype it up, you get all this anticipation, and when the actual results come out, they're... amusing, fascinating, but not "OMG national security crisis!!1!" (the smashing ceramics) material. The worst we've seen in the cables is that the US spies on the UN and other countries via diplomats, but that's hardly surprising given that they had no compunction against spying against its own citizens for about a decade now-- heck, I'm sure the CIA spied on everyone ever since they were created.

      If the intended aim of the leak was to shame governments into greater transparency and openness, I have to say that this leak is doomed to failure. Nearly all diplomats are part negotiator, part politician-- and all politicians never liked to be embarrassed in public. What it will very likely do instead is really mess with relations that have been slowly rebuilt in recent years-- China and Russia come to mind, and don't get me started on how much this sets back the 6-party talks now that the DPRK is warming up their artillery. Now that the Arabs' desire to end Iran's nuclear ambitions is out in the open, I doubt they'll be as forthcoming as they were when the toner cartridge bomb plot was brought to our attention. The great irony of these is that it is not that the content of the leaks themselves were a national security risk if kept secret, but that in leaking the material and messing up trust relationships with countries we'd rather not turn into radioactive glass (MAD), the leaking can easily make endeavors toward peace an order of magnitude more difficult. Now North Korea and Iran can say, "How can we trust you, when you're going to let confidential deals out into the open?"

      What's more, this leak tells governments not that they should open up and avoid criticism and ridicule, but that they should keep even more from the public in order to avoid pissing off allies and potential allies.

      Assange should never have targeted the State Department-- if he wanted real dirt, he should have kept the focus on the CIA, and Justice and Defense Departments.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  12. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by icebraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jail for what? Guess what: US law doesn't apply worldwide! Incredible, I know!

  13. simple solution by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Put everything on bittorrent.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:simple solution by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its been done already. The files were placed on pirate bay and encrypted. Its a clever backup.

  14. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Julian Assange should go to jail for a very long time.

    For what exactly? Has he broken any laws you can name *and* been convicted? And no, just because Palin called him a terruhrist doesn't count, that's actually an endorsement in my book.

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  15. Re:Gov't Sponsored DDoS by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US government has overthrown democratic governments, it's FBI has assassinated American civilians, the CIA is currently torturing someone to death in a secret prison somewhere in the world, and right now it has the right to extra-judiciously assassinate any person, even US citizens, that it believes to be involved in terrorism.

    With these facts, I hardly think an orchestrated DDoS attack seems unlikely.

  16. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by mark72005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Worldwide intelligence services have more than enough information about him to move whenever they wanted.

    If this was something they were considering, having him whacked, why wouldn't they have done it before this past leak which was the largest ever?

    The reason he's still living is that he hasn't exposed anything embarrassing enough to Russia, or another country that doesn't have any problem getting their hands dirty.

  17. Re:Gov't Sponsored DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, of course. People would be foolish to think otherwise.

    There is zero possibility that it could be:
    1). Wikileaks creating their own publicity by staging a "DDoS Attack" on their own. They *NEVER* play the victim card, *EVER*.
    2). Every single person on the planet trying to "see what the fuss is about".
    3). Some indignant hacker with access to a botnet delivering his/her own form of "justice".
    4). Some other government (China, Iran, etc...) not wanting their dirty laundry aired.
    5). Slashdot.

    Only the pure, raw, satanic evil of the US Government - through one of it's "shadowy connections", of course - could ever deliver the sheer bandwidth of *TEN WHOLE GIGABITS* against a website. Why, that's almost one server with a CNA or ten average desktop computer's worth of bandwidth there - or 666 Internet connections at 15mbps... yeah... /sarc

  18. He is rocking the boat that people are sitting in by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People don't like people who rock the boat they are sitting in, especially if its edge is already close to the waterline. They tend to kick people overboard, even if they are the person trying to signal a rescuer.

    Wikileaks is exposing not just the obvious criminal corruption, the stuff you claim on others, but the widespread moral apathy that is the US of A. You can see it from the murder video. 12 civilians clearly unarmed shot with the murderers expressing clear joy at their slaughter. The US reaction? Absolutely nothing. If any of these soldiers were ever to be brought before a war crimes tribunal, the US of A has invasion plans for The Netherlands to stop any international justice by whatever force required.

    This is America, and it doesn't sit well to have this truth shoved in their face. They want to believe the US of A is the land of the free, defender of democracy, hero of the oppressed.

    You have to remember that most countries have the same thing. The Netherlands and its war crimes in Indonesia. Recently the state refused to meet a survivor of a masacre the germans would have been proud off, because it was going to upset the murderers. Don't ask the british about their colonial behavior or say the treatment of Jews after WW2.

    Wikileaks is kicking up the dirt in peoples eyes and the people don't like it one bit.

    Easier to kill the messenger then deal with the message. Always has been true, always will be. Cue this message running a high change of instantly disappearing because a teabagger is upset and mods it down to never be seen again.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  19. USCYBERCOM by AhabTheArab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe that if the US Government wanted to stop Wikileaks, they'd simply bomb the data centers. Electronic attacks like this are not what this government does; It's what its citizens do.

    I beg to differ:

    "USCYBERCOM plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks; and prepare to, when directed, conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries."

    Looks like they're "denying the same to their adversaries" (maybe).

    1. Re:USCYBERCOM by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no strategic value in attacking wikileaks that I can see. The damage is done.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:USCYBERCOM by JTsyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until the next set of documents are leaked.

    3. Re:USCYBERCOM by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wikileaks isn't done for sure. There will be more leaks in the future.

      And above all, they have been building up profile. You and I may have known about this site since the beginning, Joe Sixpack didn't until recently. Everyone knows it now.

      I believe these leaks will only increase. Not because there is more to leak, but because the potential leakers now have a platform to leak to. Five years ago there wasn't such a well known and accessible platform to leak stuff onto.

      There are always lots of people that have access to classified information. Some need it for their jobs, others inadvertedly are given access, yet others gain access on their own. Especially the second group I can imagine is going to leak more: many people must have toyed with the idea of leaking stuff they found, stuff they shouldn't know, stuff that can be interesting/ embarrassing/ whatever. But they didn't have an easy platform - now they have. Wikileaks is in everybody's mind, giving people ideas, giving them a reason, and giving them the opportunity to have their leaks noticed.

      All the more reasons for a.o. the US government to want them shut down.

  20. Re:Can't be The Jester then. by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have you watched Saturday Night Live in the last ten years?

    It is very rare for multiple jesters to be as effective in a group setting than a talented hack working alone.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  21. Re:I think by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean that Assange *didn't* suddenly become a child molester and rapist exactly two weeks after releasing a cache of classified documents that embarrassed the most powerful country in the world? Are you implying those charges might be TRUMPED-UP as part of an attempt at character assassination?!?!? The hell you say!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  22. Slashdotting by Barryke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The main site seems to work fine after
    A) Worldwide mass interest
    B) DDOS
    C) slashdotting and other causes of sudden increase in traffic.

    This should be featured on Discovery's "How do they do it." for sure. I'm peaked.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
    1. Re:Slashdotting by barcarolle · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you mean, "[your interest is] piqued."

  23. ©ontrol by sean_nestor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fight the power and the power will fight back!
    You're only as good as the system you hack;
    If you become a problem you will be replaced--
    banned, shut down, erased!

    The world has capsized, gone erratic
    Constitutional rights have dissolved into static
    The truth is based on misinformation--
    reality is only a hallucination!

    -MDFMK, ©ontrol

  24. Julian Assanges cables leak put lives at risk. by elucido · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the Proof

    3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
    prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
    large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
    champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
    Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
    association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
    years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
    Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
    company includes an insulation division that may be in
    competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
    information on many other Iranian issues (including
    comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
    construction) that does not relate to his private interests
    in any way.

    4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
    with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
    affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
    (currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
    possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
    Note.
     

    http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

    You can thank Julian Assange for this.

  25. Let's change "suspectted" to "alleged" by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even in a normal case, that really is presuming guilt. In this case, where it looks like it isn't even a rape by classic measures, it's more dubious.

    As far as I can tell, both ladies had voluntary sex and then later, based on additional facts, decided they were raped. As far as I can tell, no one has alleged Assange forcibly had sex with them while they were saying "no".

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Let's change "suspectted" to "alleged" by Renraku · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's because of the way the whole 'rape' thing works. You see, a lot of rapes don't start out as rape. Instead it's something like making out, maybe cuddling, etc. Then someone takes things too far and is just used to the other person sharing their passions or going along with it. Except this time, they aren't going along with it. They've decided that they don't want to go to third base, but things keep evolving. Either they're too weak/scared to say no, or they were forced to do it.

      It's still rape.

      Therein lies the problem. Anyone, at any time, can decide that a sexual encounter in the past was rape. All they have to do is say that sex happened and that they didn't want to do it at some point. Even if that point lies after the fact, it's still rape.

      Get drunk at a party and sleep with someone nasty? Rape, of course. Want to have a better standing in the divorce? They raped you, and you're afraid for your children/pets/belongings. Get in a fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend and want to be a vindictive ass? They raped you.

      Of course, it generally only applies to women, since most men would be laughed out of the court room for saying they were raped by a woman. And if they woman conceived during that rape, the guy would still be responsible for paying child support payments, regardless of the circumstances of the rape. There is NO gender equality going on here.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    2. Re:Let's change "suspectted" to "alleged" by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2

      Not just any ladies, either -

      'Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed. Note that Ardin was deported from Cuba for subversive activities. In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Wikipedia quotes Hebe de Bonafini, president of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo as saying that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”'

      So Anna Ardin with close ties to the CIA, and her close friend, supposedly had sex with Assange, and it was rape? While I'm not one to dismiss a claim of rape lightly at all, this accusation stinks of a CIA smear job.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    3. Re:Let's change "suspectted" to "alleged" by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're attempting to define swedish law in un-swedish terms. They told him they didn't want to have unprotected sex, and later he did it anyway. Swedish authorities want to arrest him for that. Whether they call it "rape" or "sexual oppression" is merely a semantic issue, though in the media would be quite a bit more significant than the false distinction you're trying to make between calling someone with an arrest warrant open against him "suspected" or "alleged".

      He's a confirmed douchebag and a vaulting hypocrite. No equivocation about that.

  26. Hackers bad but so cool when you need them by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this just goes to show the dual morality of entities such as the government when even they wont frown on hiring hackers to protect their interest despite all the government laws, motions and acts layed by said government to stop those said hackers when they're not working for them.

    Go wikileaks! not that we had any doubts that shit is taking place just about everyday, but its nice to have some proof and poor some clear water into that mud pool.

    --
    If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
  27. Assanges leaks put intelligence sources at risk by elucido · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do you separate one from another? Really, how do you? And who should judge which is which?

    And that is against the rules regardless of what side you are on. The rule is do not harm civilians.

    He has lost all credibility with me. Wikileaks needs to remove Julian Assange or fork the project.

    1. Re:Assanges leaks put intelligence sources at risk by geegel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's just shifting the ambivalence towards another term, in this case "civilian"

      Are informants civilians? Are diplomats?

      --
      right...
    2. Re:Assanges leaks put intelligence sources at risk by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The rule is do not harm civilians.

      Why is Wikileaks held to this rule and not the US Government?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  28. It's not a claim anymore it's a fact. by elucido · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just read this:

    http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

    Intelligence sources are being put at risk by these leaks. Julian Assange claims to care about civilians but he leaks documents that can get people killed? Why? To solve what?

    The world is not made safer. Nothing in these cables are worth the loss of civilian life. These cables don't prevent a war with Iran or North Korea, they make war much more likely.

  29. Forget Assange by Raven_Stark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If any heads should roll over the leaks, it should be those of the guy who stole the data and whatever dunce(s) allowed peons access to the data. Although, overall so far, I'm generally pleased with the leaks because they show that most of the world's leaders are fallible but basically rational human beings. For instance, it is good to see that most of the middle eastern leaders understand that Iranian leaders are nutjobs who cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Same goes for China's recognition that Kim Jong Ill is off his rocker. I feel much better about the world in general now because so far the leaked info confirms my suspicion that the world's messes aren't as insurmountable as it sometimes seems.

    That said, I am deeply embarrassed that the Pentagon is incompetent enough to have allowed the leak of things said in confidence. They are idiots who shouldn't be trusted with so much power.

    Even more, I am embarrassed over the USA's strong-arming of Germany over the arrest of one of its citizens. World ***please*** don't take that kind of shit from us (the USA).

    I really think it is high time for the USA to turn over the job of policing the world to a democratically elected world government. It is unfair for the US taxpayers to pay so much for world security and to get all of the blame when our leaders fuck up and holy fuck do they ever fuck up. More importantly, it is unfair to the world for the US to have so much say in how the world is run.

    --
    http://www.marxist.com/
    1. Re:Forget Assange by crow_t_robot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If any heads should roll over the leaks, it should be those of the guy who stole the data and whatever dunce(s) allowed peons access to the data.

      The US allowed it. This is a side-effect to the booming defense/security industry that developed after 9/11. Companies providing these services blossomed which resulted in millions more people requiring security clearances. More people + rushed investigations = more potential for leaks.

  30. Re:Can't be The Jester then. by dropadrop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does it have to be an uber-dos tool? My employers services have been hit by 10gbit/s dos attacks for no obvious reason, and later studies have shown somebody initiated them for fun (and it was cheap).

  31. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It does if we label it "terrorism"!

    It's a magical word that will NEVER EVER EVER backfire on US!

  32. Re:its the truth - you just don't like it. by Gerzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Censor...

    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  33. Of course by elucido · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean even his next leak will be against Bank of America. I'm not a fan of Bank of America at all, but why is he only going after US interests? He even leaked cables which exposed intelligence sources around the globe. Assange is not a force for good, he does not realize that his leaks hurt the very civilians he claims to be fighting for.

    The political elites are rich, powerful, and wont be harmed if there is a world war. They wont be harmed if thousands of intelligence sources are tracked down.

    Robert Hansen did something similar. The only difference is Hansen did it on purpose while Assange does not seem to have a clue what the consequences of his actions are. Or he's just trying to protect his own ass and is throwing intelligence sources under the bus. His behavior exposing intelligence sources like this and his inability to properly defend his own intelligence sources, lead me to believe hes completely rogue.

  34. Re:Nobel Prize by CraftyJack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep, nothing spreads peace like discrediting diplomacy.

  35. Re:Gov't Sponsored DDoS by airfoobar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those things are widely-known facts. Ever heard of Guantanamo bay? Check the previous Wikileaks releases for torture accounts, which are now being investigated by the UN.

    Post as AC? Are you really THAT afraid of your government?

  36. Re:I'm sure I'm not alone when I say... by jdizzle636 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go Equador.

    I'm pretty sure you are alone. Most people would spell it Ecuador.

  37. The USA does not put intelligence sources at risk. by elucido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An intelligence source is 100% civilian and innocent. An enemy combatant such as a member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda gang member is not a civilian and not innocent. The US soldiers are at war with the foreign soldiers. It's expected that soldiers on both sides of a war are going to die.

    Intelligence sources are not soldiers. They are people who have surrendered to the US government. They had the option to surrender to the Taliban, to Iran, but chose to surrender to the US Government. Whether it was because the US Government had the bigger better military or whether it's because they just hate Al Qaeda and the Taliban, they sided with the USA and the USA has a sacred trust to protect their identity at any cost.

    Assange thinks he is more important than he is. Exposing intelligence sources is never acceptable. It's as bad as torture which we agree is not acceptable, or killing women and children. So if Assange gets an entire family killed off because of this leak, or several families are ruined, this is okay to you?

    But if the USA bombs the wrong house by accident then it's not okay?

  38. Re:Wrong analogy. by Talderas · · Score: 2, Funny

    We're all bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  39. Re:Gov't Sponsored DDoS by copponex · · Score: 5, Informative

    FBI assassinating American citizens
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

    Deaths due to torture
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/30/accountability

    Extra-judicial assassinations (not including daily drone bombings)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

    Of course, no one really knows what The Agency is doing right now. What is known is that the secret prisons still exist, and that the legal process of "extraordinary rendition", known to the rest of the world as kidnapping, still occurs. Our terrorism suspects are regularly flown to dictatorships like Egypt and tortured with our approval.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States

  40. What this succeeds in doing... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...is making the USA's government look desperate and pathetic. If they don't understand how unstoppable this is now, they look technically impaired. If they don't understand what "out of your jurisdiction" means, they look disingenuous, dangerous and as hamfisted as the Russians. All it does is to confirm every negative impression that came out of Wikileaks, which by the way, would be immediately replaced by several other similar organizations if the original is somehow made to stop and it's founder killed or imprisoned. Apparently the US government hasn't learned the lesson of Napster.

    Bottom line: The American empire no longer commands the respect of its subjects and incidents like this will continue. Thank you very much, conservative republican financial community and all the recent presidential figureheads starting with Reagan, none of whom actually give a rat's patoot about the USA other than as a money generating device.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  41. Only After Upgrading to the Cloud by medv4380 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first attack took down the servers and kept them down until wikileaks upgraded to Amazons Cloud hosting. I'm not sure if any hacker has ever taken down one of the behemoth cloud hosting networks so this should be a good test.

  42. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Has he broken any laws you can name...

    Most likely the Espionage Act of 1917. Not judging the merits of the case, but that's what immediately comes to mind.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  43. He's white. by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If he were an Arab Muslim, he would already be dead if they had his location. This is because the largest enemy a government like the US has is it's own population, and the assassination of a white well-to-do activist would be far more alarming than another dead Arab.

    They are using their diplomatic contacts to try to force him into hiding. If that doesn't work, you can bet they have plans to take him out with rendition or staging an accident. You can step on toes to a certain extent, but once you start getting in the way of business getting done, you can start counting you life down in hours.

  44. The true reason for this release by davev2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wikileaks just wants to embarrass the U.S. and damage the ties the U.S. has with other nations. There was nothing criminal or even shocking other than the candid opinions of lower level personal in the state department about other countries and said countries leaders. The worst thing is that this damages the relationship between the U.S. and various other countries, especially those in the Middle East as well as many Middle East countries relationship with Iran.

    This is just Assange using wikileaks to attack a country he hates.

    1. Re:The true reason for this release by Brannoncyll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just Assange using wikileaks to attack a country he hates.

      Clearly this is why the headline story on BBC news today is about China's thinking on North Korea, and the headline story in The Independent is about missiles in Iran, both of which are sourced from the Wikileaks cables and neither of which is remotely 'anti-US'. I'm sure there are numerous other examples. It seems that you are being deceived by the US government propaganda machine, which attempts to bias (US) public opinion against things it doesn't like by claiming that they are attacking the democratic beacon of justice and humanity, the great and powerful USA, land of the free etc etc.

    2. Re:The true reason for this release by Brannoncyll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps he released the US govt cables because they are the only ones that he had? Your opinion will only be justified if Assange gets hold of similar material from another government and refuses to release it.

  45. Re:I'm sure I'm not alone when I say... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not Portuguese, just a bit thick.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  46. Re:I think by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, that's why every famous person becomes a rapist immediately upon achieving fame. No matter how many decades they spend as an innocent person, never hurting anyone; every guy just needs a slight dash of fame to become a sexual predator.

    Besides, if the CIA had just trumped this up, surely someone would have seen it coming beforehand.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  47. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One might argue that doing anything overt to him would only reinforce the belief that the government(s) in question are actually scared of Wikileaks rather than just angry with them; the last thing they want to risk doing is martyring him.

  48. the press freedom index is from the US Gov by Voline · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ecuador ranks a whooping 101 on the press freedom index, with an annually deteriorating index value. I'm not quite convinced it's the best country to exile to for people publishing inconveniant documents.

    The compilers of that "press freedom index" is Reporters Without Borders. RWB are primarily funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy which was founded during the Reagan administration to channel funds to organizations abroad that would support US foreign policy. Sometimes this funding is direct, sometimes it is conducted through the international arms of the US Democratic Party or Republican Party.

    I would consider that the "US State Dept Press Freedom Index".

  49. Wikileaks too slow to release the cables by cpghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, this probably isn't a DDoS at all, but simply people repeatedly checking the site for new cables. If they had released a lot more cables in a batch (say a couple of thousands or more), people would look less frequently while digesting what they've got. So, this increase in traffic may very well be self-inflicted by their painfully slow release policy.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  50. Re:Nobel Prize by dskoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If two nations can't trust each other, then how on earth do you expect them to be at peace with each other?

    This is a solved problem. You set up systems of checks and balances that don't require the nations to trust one another. They can verify what the other one is doing. In fact, if the only way nations could be at peace was for them to trust one another, there'd be war all around.

  51. "calls by many lawmakers around the world" by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i see that they didnt like their filth coming out into the open eh ?

    that means there is probably even stronger sh@t to come up yet. since those bastards have started calling for his arrest calling him 'rapist'. despite the girls who are involved in that case openly state that there is no rape involved and that was voluntary. i guess, that conveniently slips by their ears.

    the rock bottom level of corruption that politics has hit, is nauseating.

  52. Re:Gov't Sponsored DDoS by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Id be especially interested in the "currently torturing someone to death"... is that rhetoric, or should you be posting AC?

    You really don't know about any of the examples?

    Wow, our media has utterly failed us.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  53. It is nauseating .... by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the amount of filth continually being exposed about their government and its BETRAYAL to their country's values is increasing, yet, also the numbers of americans who are supporting their government is increasing, at least in slashdot.

    i find it nauseating. how can someone support some party that has DECEIVED them, by betraying the founding ideals of their country in regard to freedom, liberty and basic human rights, and perpetrated innumerable filth behind the cover of secrecy with the 'national secrets' excuse ....

    YET, some people can still stomach being deceived, lied, and bottomless filth committed in their name, AND come up supporting that !!!

    HOW. WHY ?

    1. Re:It is nauseating .... by Brannoncyll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Studies suggest that giving people facts that contradict their beliefs only serves to make them hold more tightly to that belief.

  54. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by peragrin · · Score: 2, Informative

    The CIA does do assassinations but they realized logn ago it isn't as effective as they want it to be.

    Russia, Isreal, do assassinations but they have both been bitten back by them when they got messy.

    The CIA uses more dicrediting techniques, over the long term. In 5 years people will go Julian who? Wiki What?

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  55. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by milkasing · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was going to mod you down, but I am giving you the benefit that you are misinformed, rather than a troll.
    So here, this should make you happy
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334432/WikiLeaks-boss-Julian-Assange-goes-US-bank-explosive-new-dossier.html

    Agree or disagree with his process, but Assange makes some very reasonable points in the full interview. Judge for yourself here:
    http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

    Sure, if the US govt's actions were not important more private information would have come out, but right now the US, is by far the most dominant world power, and it is fairly assertive in using its power, so documents revealing its workings carry a corresponding importance. So it seems that Assange has his priorities right.
    Also, one thing that I have noticed is that Wikileaks does seem to be listening to criticism, and every release seems to incorporate lessons learned from the previous ones. Wikileaks is certainly worth supporting.

  56. Its on I2P by Burz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why does not Wikileaks post all their leaks on Freenet which is somewhat robust to DDoS _and_ provides great encryption and anonymity?

    Someone is mirroring the data on I2P which is much faster and better than Freenet, IMO.

  57. Espionage Act of 1917 by melstav · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since you didn't include a link to the text of the act in question, here is the text of the Espionage Act of 1917.

    Section 1, paragraph (e) pretty clearly applies to the person who leaked all of the documents in question.

    Section 1, paragraph (d) MIGHT have applied to Wikileaks... EXCEPT for the fact that they provided the State Department with copies of all of the documents that had been leaked, prior to publication.

    What's more, not only are they redacting the documents prior to publication, they're redacting the documents EVEN MORE HEAVILY than the declassified versions being published by the Department of Defense.

    So, yeah. Granted, IANAL, but I'd say that doesn't apply.

  58. Godaddy domains down by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Godaddy registered Wikileaks domains (wikileaks.com wikileaks.net wikileaks.biz, wikileaks.mobi, wikileaks.us) are no longer pointing at anything meaninful - just Godaddy blurb pages. It seems that Godaddy has decided to stop serving DNS for Wikileaks

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
  59. the true lessons to be learned by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Informative

    This batch of leaks is about as likely to wind up helping the United States more than hurting it, as it has exposed, for example, the deep hypocrisy of the Arab governments in the middle east. It does the United States very little good, so far as anyone can tell, from letting these governments publicly berate our every action in the region, while privately begging us to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. A little sunshine on that single issue might do enough good to entirely negate any other random embarrassments which occur.

    I don't have a sense for whether or not Mr. Assange "hates" the United States. It is quite clear that he thinks governments keep too many secrets, and that he thinks operational transparency might lead to governments whose actions are more closely aligned with the interests of their populations. He seems pretty focused on western democratic nations, and this looks like an indication that perhaps he doesn't hate them. More like "tough love".

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  60. Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) by chrb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    International treaties say otherwise.

    Which treaty, exactly, says that U.S. law applies worldwide?

    And US law was violated by people in the United States, who were aided and abeted by Assage.

    Even assuming that this is true, then it says nothing about Assange's guilt under international law, or the law of any other nation. If it was illegal under international law for a non-U.S. resident to communicate with U.S. resident dissidents who then went on to break U.S. law, then, under a reciprocal treaty, it would also be illegal for the reverse to happen - for U.S. residents to communicate with dissidents in other nations such as China and Iran. Do you really think that there are international treaties in place to deport U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil, for breaking no laws in the U.S., but who do talk to dissidents in other nations who are breaking laws by protesting against the government of those foreign nations? If not, then why do you think any other nation would be crazy enough to enact such laws?

  61. Thomas Jefferson by chrb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He seems to be a revolutionary against the government of the USA (non-partisan). Although, I'm not in favor of some of the things the government of the USA does, we have a ballot box to fix most things and I don't think the revolution that Thomas Jefferson had in mind had much to do about the dribble coming out of wikileaks these days...

    Being against the foreign policy of the USA does not mean that a person is against the government of the USA. Thomas Jefferson would be absolutely appalled at what U.S. foreign policy has become:

    "We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object."

    "I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people."

    Replace "Europe" with "the Middle East" and the sentiment is the complete opposite of current U.S. foreign policy.

  62. Re:The USA does not put intelligence sources at ri by eulernet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are very biased and have a lot of free time, since you posted at least 15 messages in this thread.

    An easy example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame#.22Plamegate.22

    Intelligence sources have been exposed by US government, and most probably a few people have been killed following this 'leak'.
    Would you condemn Bush, or only Assange, since he's not american ?