Slashdot Mirror


Wikileaks Releases A Massive "Insurance" File That No One Can Open

An anonymous reader writes "Anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks just released a treasure trove of files, that at least for now, you can't read. The group, which has been assisting ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden after he leaked top-secret documents to the media, posted links for about 400 gigabytes of files on their Facebook page Saturday, and asked their fans to download and mirror them elsewhere."

394 comments

  1. The drones are coming.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better run!

    1. Re:The drones are coming.... by telchine · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know! There's no way I'm mirroring that, Michael Grunwald might launch an airstrike at me!

    2. Re:The drones are coming.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. :-) And you think someone is running a program that maps IP addresses to Lat/Long/Alt; Oh, wait - Chances are you are in USA and are terrified of the government.

    3. Re:The drones are coming.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      better urn!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:The drones are coming.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if that's a typo or not. :/

    5. Re:The drones are coming.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Shoot Assange
      - See key to the 400Go file released to the public

      They might still do it though! The rage in the air must be palpable in Washington.

    6. Re:The drones are coming.... by lipanitech · · Score: 1

      That is crazy huge with my lowsee cable internet upstream it will take a week for someone to download that from me lol.

    7. Re:The drones are coming.... by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

      Just because you think the world is out to get you, doesn't mean that it isn't.

      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
  2. Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by hsmith · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If their "mission" is openness - and the info is that damning - shouldn't they be publishing it? I mean, isn't that sort of the point of Wikileaks? Or just attention whoring?

    1. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea (I think) is that these files will be released in time, but releasing them all at once, but encrypted, is to discourage governments from arresting or killing the high-ups of WikiLeaks. The info will come out, just like it did last time (wasn't the last insurance file the bulk of cables that was eventually released?), but this is a mechanism for doing that while protecting themselves.

    2. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by jimpop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wikileaks has always stated they desire responsible disclosure.

    3. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Informative

      They publish individual documents, usually with conscious timing, after redacting names and potentially other information. The diplomatic cables were released by accident.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    4. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by morcego · · Score: 1

      If their "mission" is openness - and the info is that damning - shouldn't they be publishing it? I mean, isn't that sort of the point of Wikileaks? Or just attention whoring?

      Or they are worried about responsible disclosure?
      It is one thing to show the USA is spying. It is another thing to provide names e description of the spies themselves.

      --
      morcego
    5. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      First, Wikileaks isn't just about making information open. They are about giving that information the most impact possible. If they release 400GB of damning stuff, do you think news organizations around the world will be able to stay on point, or will the primary story just be an unhelpful "Wikileaks releases 400GB of information"? It will eventually all get out, but in smaller, focused chunks. They also like to scrub information first so they don't end up blowing military or covert ops that could result in lives lost.

      Because they release it in small chunks, they don't want anybody deciding to raid Wikileaks to prevent whatever is coming next. This way, there are copies all over the place. Presumable a number of trusted people have the key and would be able to let it all loose in such a major event.

    6. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If their "mission" is openness - and the info is that damning - shouldn't they be publishing it? I mean, isn't that sort of the point of Wikileaks? Or just attention whoring?

      I suspect they will expend a lot of hours working with outside entities to redact the documents of information that would threaten their sources or private citizens or anyone's life before releasing them, and getting their fans to mirror encrypted files is an "Insurance policy" ---- where powerful forces working against Wikileaks may become aware of the leak; Wikileaks folks have probably designed some elaborate scheme, contingency plan, or something strange of that nature to get the keys released in case of emergency: corporate or government interference, coercion, arrest, or kidnapping of the Wikileaks folks working to release redacted documents.

      Getting 400 gigabytes of data uploaded to the internet in a pinch is no easy task.

      But posting a 100 KB key far and wide to unlock 400 gigabytes of pre-distributed data, is a trivial thing.

    7. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Depends on the nature of the data and the reason for the safeguarding. The implication they are probably trying to make based on recent events is that Wikileaks has ~400GB of data that was obtained by Edward Snowden, all of which is being widely mirrored as we discuss it, and could become public knowledge via the simple means releasing a password or key file. At the very least, that's potentially a pretty big incentive for the US and its allies not to mess with any attempt at relocation that Edward Snowden or Julian Assange might be about to make.

      Of course, the flip side of that is that it's also a pretty big incentive for the enemies of the US to mess with any such relocation attempt in an effort to cause further embarrassment to the US and maybe learn a few interesting things about the US' surveillance programmes into the bargain.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    8. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize the definition of insurance right?
      a means of guaranteeing protection or safety
      Calling wikileaks an attention whore is pretty obvious you are just a plant though :) Way to go NSA! You can spin on slashdot almost as well as you can lie to congress!

    9. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is:
      1) Data not ready to be published, unless..

      or they:
      2) Feel it's more valuable this way if that gives them freedom to release what they think matters in the future

    10. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by shentino · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks is basically holding their closet skeletons hostage.

    11. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by gorehog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's more likely that they've released the key for this file to the people they want insurance from. "See what we've got? All we need to do is release the key and everyone will know." They release these keys to a small set of folks around the world so they can publish the key if they need to. I bet that initial distribution list includes a senator and a head fo the CIA or something like that.

    12. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by shentino · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The last insurance file was spoiled by a news agency that screwed up handling the private key, and so wikileaks mitigated danger by making the leak obvious so that anyone on it could protect themselves.

      It's basically an "oh shit, someone spilled blood in the water and the sharks are on their way, sound the alarm so people can get the hell out of the water."

      And personally, I think it was an inside job from an intelligence agency that wished to ruin wikileaks by painting it as reckless, probably figuring that even leaking it to the news under seal was damaging enough that there was nothing more to be lost smearing wikileaks.

    13. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't call it an accident, it was more incompetence and negligence on part of Guardian journalists.

    14. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But the government has worked hard to make sure it doesn't happen. Because "responsible disclosure" would require the governments involved to work with and support wikileaks, and they don't want to be seen to have done that.

    15. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is "incompetence and negligence" then it would have definitely been an accident, or do you not know what the term "accident" means FFS?

    16. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by shentino · · Score: 1

      I suspect that a spook got it leaked on purpose to ruin wikileaks and stop future leaks.

    17. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's not quite right.

      WikiLeaks Secret Diplomatic Cables Released In Full

      WikiLeaks said it decided to publish the entire collection after about half of the documents, also without redactions, were discovered to be available on a public server earlier in the week.

      WikiLeaks has disavowed responsibility for that release, which consisted of about 100,000 secret cables, but said that as criticism of the group mounted, they were left with no alternative "rational action" but to release the entire collection....

      For months WikiLeaks has found itself increasingly at odds with some of the media companies they had previously partnered with. Their ties with The New York Times strained after an unflattering profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared in the paper.

      But this week's discovery of the 100,000 unredacted cables -- in which the names of government sources and other sensitive details were not obscured -- seemed to offer the final word on any effort to continue filtering the files through the mainstream media.

      Leak at WikiLeaks: A Dispatch Disaster in Six Acts

      Some 250,000 diplomatic dispatches from the US State Department have accidentally been made completely public. The files include the names of informants who now must fear for their lives. It is the result of a series of blunders by WikiLeaks and its supporters.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      It's not that he doesn't know what the term "accident" means, it was more an incorrect understanding of its' meaning.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    19. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have they security vetted everyone who does their redaction for them? If not, then what's the point in doing the redaction other than public relations theatre?

    20. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      O please... not everything is the fault of the CIA / NSA / etc. If there was ANY evidence of that, Wikileaks would happily be spreading the news. I

    21. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Blackmailing the USA is probably not their best move at this point.

    22. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wikileaks is only incapable of keeping their private keys private. I guess being totally incompetent makes them more trustworthy then being reckless?

    23. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its one thing to show elites running criminal enterprises and their crimes against the constitution; it is another thing to expect the system which they run to hold them accountable for their crimes...

      FTFYMF

    24. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The idea (I think) is that these files will be released in time, but releasing them all at once, but encrypted, is to discourage governments from arresting or killing the high-ups of WikiLeaks. The info will come out, just like it did last time (wasn't the last insurance file the bulk of cables that was eventually released?), but this is a mechanism for doing that while protecting themselves.

      In this case I believe Snowden holds the final encryption key, not Wikileaks.
      He has stated he doesn't want to harm the US, and hopes the people or congress steps in and stops the NSA abuse without having to release the most damning evidence. Its not attention whoring, its a pretty good understanding of human nature. The whole discussion would be yesterdays news had he released it all at once. Amazingly, for a young man, he understands that short sharp shocks are easily put to bed by demonizing the source and burying the issue, and a drum beat of news has more effect.

      You can see this going on today.
      After a few political hacks attempting to cast him as a traitor were met with an equal amount of push-back calling him a hero, the administration abruptly changed tactics.

      1) They stopped talking about Snowden.
      2) They have started trying to prove that the spying is actually good for America. (Essentially owning the spying in the hopes the public will go along.)
      3) They rushed to close embassies on the slimmest of evidence and are hoping desperately that there will in fact be some actual attacks.

      So far the terrorists don't seem willing to play along. (In fact I believe the so-called intercepted "conference call" was made up of whole cloth, or was simply the terrorists "playing" the NSA. Since when to terrorists hold conference calls?. The attacks were supposed to happen last week, yet nothing at all is happening that wasn't already in progress in Egypt and Syria).

      So its about time for a couple more of Snowden's Shoes to drop.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    25. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Motard · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a 42 megapixel nude Assange selfie. Please, in the name of all that is blessed and holy, DO NOT LET THE KEY BE RELEASED! It can only bring tears.

    26. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Snowden holds the keys, not Wikeleaks. Your have your story muddled.

      All wikeleaks is doing is making sure the file can't be destroyed at one source.
      We can only hope that Snowden has the keys escrow-ed such that simply killing him prevents disclosure.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    27. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2

      Well, how do you know that's not what's in one of these insurance files?

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    28. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule 35 of the internet - what can be seen cannot be unseen.

    29. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet they fail to behave as if that's their goal.

      Just like Bill Clinton always stated he never had sexual relations with that woman.

      Just like Anthony Weiner always stated that he stopped sending explicit messages to random women.

      Just like George Bush always stated that there were WMD in Iraq.

      At some point, when there is a massive disconnect between "what you say" and "what you do," the general public has to start viewing "what you do" as more important.

    30. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2

      The government shouldn't be illegally spying on its citizens and doing everything in their power that is wrong and bad for this country, but that doesn't stop them.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    31. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by shentino · · Score: 5, Informative

      You seem to forget my point that the news agency is the one that leaked the key, not wikileaks itself. Wikileaks got burned by *someone else's* incompetence.

      And I still suspect it was an inside job from a covert spook looking to ruin wikileaks by spoiling the private key.

    32. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      " If there was ANY evidence of that, Wikileaks would happily be spreading the news."

      That's certainly not true. They have deliberately withheld very damning documents for later times. It's part of what they do.

      And it's smart. "Insurance" is really what it is.

    33. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah they just want to make sure the nsa's keeping a backup copy for them

    34. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can only hope that Snowden has the keys escrow-ed such that simply killing him prevents disclosure.

      Shouldn't he have it set up in the opposite way, so that if he dies, then disclosure is automatic? Otherwise he might as well be painting a drone-missile-sized bulls-eye on his forehead. Either that's what you meant in the first place, or you are advocating killing Snowden and hoping that this action will make the whole thing go away. In the latter case, well, I guess the freedom of the press turned into the freedom of the press to die pretty quickly in your mind once things became inconvenient.

    35. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by icebike · · Score: 1

      We can only hope that Snowden has the keys escrow-ed such that simply killing him prevents disclosure.

      Shouldn't he have it set up in the opposite way, so that if he dies, then disclosure is automatic?

      Yes, that' is EXACTLY what I meant to say, even though my fingers typed something else. Thanks for catching that.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    36. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Guardian didn't release the information by accident - they did it deliberately. And doing so was what AC is referring to as incompetent or negligent.

    37. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't an insurance file that got decrypted due to David Leighs infosec incompetency. It was a file put up specifically for him. After Wikileaks had to restore from an old backup (due to Domscheit-Berg's sabotage), the file was unfortunately made available again.

    38. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has it ever been determined if any of those informants were attacked or killed? It seems likely, but everyone always says nothing ever happened to any of them.

    39. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      That ...is a good question, actually.

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    40. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't give a fuck how many women Bill Clinton and Anthony Wiener have sex with. As long as it's between two consenting adults, it's not my problem. It would only becomes my problem if they started asking for government benefits because of their sex lives.

    41. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O please... not everything is the fault of the CIA / NSA / etc.

      Are you sure? Because it certainly seems like it.

    42. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Well that's just weird. I read what you wrote and interpreted it as what you meant, without even noticing the difference.

    43. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have the TSA vetted anyone that does their screening for them? Let me answer that: No.

    44. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they would want government agencies to be able to prepare for the released of such information.

    45. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Either the info should be published because it's "whistleblower-worthy", or the information should not have been leaked. The middle-ground of "insurance" is really just attempted blackmail.

    46. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cognitive consonance?

    47. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Error27 · · Score: 1

      It's probably not documents, it's probably SSL keys.

      We know the NSA has been collecting passwords. Probably using the SSL keys, but also we know they are collecting them directly by sending men in dark suits to visit site admins. Maybe it's all the user accounts for every senator. It's not really a wikileaks thing to post what porn senators are into, but it could be there in the insurance file.

    48. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have to balance their limited ability to vet people involved with the leaks against the public interest in knowing the contents of these documents.

      They are doing the best they can in the circumstances, I'm not sure what more you could realistically ask for.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If conference calls can cause America to close embassies, piss away money like there's no tomorrow and spy on its own citizens then I think we have to conclude that the terrorists are winning.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because security vetting has clearly helped the US and other governments keeping things secret!

      That, sir, was a dumb remark. Of course, they are using people they trust. And of course there can be holes in their security.

    51. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If conference calls can cause America to close embassies, piss away money like there's no tomorrow and spy on its own citizens then I think we have to conclude that the terrorists are winning.

      When you add up everything US citizens have lost, its clear the terrorists have already won big time.

      But in all the years of chasing Bin Laden, and all the other terrorists that have been killed or captured when have you ever heard of a conference call? Secret messages, couriers, double blind message drops, and encrypted text messages. Not once conference call.
      If it happened at all, I'm sure it was orchestrated to see what effect it would have and to determine if the NSA was listening.

      But the timing suggests it was totally contrived by the NSA in some sort of childish attempt at self justification with the administration playing along. What is odd, is the press is buying the whole act, they've stopped talking about Snowden. 7th graders could concoct a more believable one act play on a saturday afternoon. The CIA will probably have to pay some useful idiots to toss grenades into the empty embassies when it becomes clear that nothing else was actually planned, and the egg starts running down their collective faces.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    52. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen reports that some were killed, although the reports are hard to find. Not many news outlets seem to be interested in really digging into the question of, "Did Wikileaks release documents that we reported that led to people getting killed?" I doubt that the tribal lands get good journalistic coverage. People love to point to various spokesman saying they don't know of anybody getting killed, but those are old, and literally, they don't know. Not knowing isn't the same as knowing that nobody was killed. The Taliban made it clear that they would be examining the documents and hunting people based on it.

    53. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Unpalatable as ever, I guess.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    54. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      LOL, Murdoc and MacGyver? Shouldn't he be trying to kill you by now?

    55. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Maybe its just me, but someone who displays a lack of integrity in their personal lives (ie, by breaking marriage vows / trust) seems to be a poor candidate for holding a lot of political power.

    56. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were a bunch of attacks on pakistanis and iraqis in the last week, though.

    57. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your standards, among USA's best presidents are Andrew Jackson and Richard Milhous Nixon.

    58. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      http://www.salon.com/2010/10/17/wikileaks_7/
      “did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods”
      "“there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.”"
      Other than that you have a country with a number of local people trying to translate for or help foreign troops.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    59. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      The personality traits that make someone enter a personality contest to be one of less than 600 people who can determine the direction of the mist powerful empire coincide with those which underpin amoral choices.

      I started typing because I really didn't care, but now I realize these are the least desirable candidates.

      Once in office, however, personal choices validate their election, at least according to the current electoral system.
      They immediately lose credence as a candidate, but gain as a duly elected leader. It remains irrelevant.

    60. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Ding - Just goes to show true motivations. It has nothing to do with openness and everything to do with Wikileaks' own personal agendas.

      They have nothing to fear. Assange is in fucking England and we didn't do shit to him. Its hard to argue who's more of our bitch, England or Canada, but the Canada's does it so they can avoid doing all the nasty crap we do for them (like protecting them by proxy). If he really had anything to fear, England would have been just about the dumbest place he could have went short of flying directly to some stupid senators personal police force.

      But he's still there. Still alive, which again, if we wanted to do something to him, he would have just turned up dead mysteriously some morning and our response would have been something like 'yea, thats tragic! (snicker)' but he didn't.

      America doesn't need to discredit wikileaks, they are masters of doing it themselves, the only people to say otherwise are the sheeple that follow them.

      People are not wrong for wanting to believe in wikileaks, the idea is just. People who believe in wikileaks are wrong however, The implementation, like all things by humans, is sorely flawed in every way and is nothing more than a political group who spends its time trying to undermine peoples confidence in their leaders, regardless of reason.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    61. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only partly true that the T are winning but that their winnings are also the gains of the authoritarian Governments like the USA and UK. The people are the real looser here. Spending people's money, closing embassies is not a loss or problem for the government.

    62. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I suspect they will expend a lot of hours working with outside entities to redact the documents of information that would threaten their sources or private citizens or anyone's life before releasing them, and getting their fans to mirror encrypted files is an "Insurance policy"

      The do, more or less EXACTLY what the spy agencies do, except they are random people, from random countries around the world, themselves doing everything in secret and telling us how its for our own good.

      Why is it, you're so eager to believe Wikileaks over the NSA when Wikileaks behaves EXACTLY like the NSA. Wikileaks IS a spy organization for fucks sakes. They just suck at it.

      Why do you magically trust Wikileaks but not someone else?

      I get not trusting the government, but its rather stupid to blindly trust Wikileaks to be anything different than another political party using a different set of tactics ... propaganda tactics that anyone from the cold war has seen for 60 years.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    63. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're wrong on this. The phrase, “sensitive intelligence sources or methods” specifically refers to spy satellites and signals intelligence. The Wikileaks disclosures were still a compromise of intelligence sources, just not the ones being referred to by that phrase. It was still a bad thing.

      As to “there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.”" - The Taliban made it clear that they would hunt down anyone identified in the leaks. What isn't clear is if any of the spokespersons making claims that nobody was harmed were actually in a position to really know anything, or if they can actually personally attest to the safety of everyone on the list. I doubt that they can.

      Afghans are not simply translating, they are turning against the Taliban. That is kind of dangerous. The Taliban have been known to hang 7 year old children suspected of being informants (or simply as revenge), when they aren't beheading people for dancing at weddings.

      I note that you reference Greenwald. He doesn't really seem to be interested in stopping the barbarism of al Qaida and the Taliban.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    64. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand what that word means: blackmail.

      Blackmail is for profit - i.e., ending up with more than you started with. It isn't blackmail when you threaten to release held back information in order to protect your own life. I think that's called something else: insurance, maybe?

    65. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by icebike · · Score: 1

      There have been a bunch of attacks in Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and even India for the last 5 years. Its a daily occurrence, and you would have had to be on a rafting trip down the Amazon for the last several months not to have known this has been going on for years.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    66. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      "I won't release it if you do what I say. I will release it if you don't do what I say."

      Sounds a whole lot like blackmail to me.

    67. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by smash · · Score: 1

      Given that... lends more credence to the assertion that the terrorists were put up to it by the government(s) as a mandate for widespread surveillance of the population, erosion of civil liberties, etc.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    68. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by smash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wikileaks are non-profit, and risking personal safety to get this stuff out. The US Government and cronies are very much FOR profit.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    69. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by smash · · Score: 1

      What can they do to "prepare"?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    70. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      You seem think the terrorists are winning regardless of what happens. It is simple to see that they haven't won since the US hasn't converted to Islam and implemented Sharia as Bin Laden demanded. The terrorists are still losing.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    71. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      "It was still a bad thing." - yes the clearance level on diplomatic gossip was low and now the press worked that aspect out.
      As for you spying link vs "personal vendetta" some more info on the use of http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/world/asia/drone-war-in-pakistan-spurs-militants-to-deadly-reprisals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 use of tracking chips (electronic tracking devices) for later drone strikes.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    72. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so true, The Guardian's articles about these leaks and the actual info has been more like reading tabloid journalism than any real news.

      "OMG! here's are the next set of Snowden leaked files. Now check out these ugly slides, they are soooo lame. What Snowden to do next?"

    73. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks are non-profit, and risking personal safety to get this stuff out. The US Government and cronies are very much FOR profit.

      You really think there is noone to profit from Wikileaks' work, and that Wikileaks isn't about profit? The foundation itself may be non-profit, but there are entities outside Wikileaks who will stand to profit from whatever they reveal - or profit from notoriety or from writing books and casting various media about the subject --- there will be winners and losers, AND the people who have some notion about what Wikileaks will reveal may be positioning themselves to be financial winners, and people who think they will be the winners may be helping Wikileaks.

      It's not as simple as Government = supporting profit, and Wikileaks = supporting no profit.

      Of course destroying profit or having no profit is anti-capitalist, anti-urban, and pro-agrarian and substinence farming society.

      To that I say... if you don't like profits: then run out to the wilderness, and build yourself a farming commune, in which nobody owns anything.

      As for the rest of us... we live in a world where economic gain influences every activity in life -- including political activism, and including organizations such as Wikileaks.

      Hint: If you know Wikileaks is about to release something damaging to some enterprise... then foreign investors can enter into various options, futures positions, and other trades, that will net them billions if Wikileaks discloses the right thing on the right day.

    74. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Since when to terrorists hold conference calls?

      The conference calls are very real. NSA has since released the following intelligence:

      Intel

    75. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Just hide it under a rock in Yosemite, microSDHC cards are waterproof.

    76. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness they are accountable to voters in the event they do something that results in a massive loss of life or is damaging to the country. You wouldn't want them to be both unaccountable and above the law now, would you? Isn't pretty much everyone here supposed to hate lack of accountability and being above the law? I seem to remember it being the theme of some posts. I suppose there will always be the "Wikileaks exception" - it's bad if anyone else but Wikileaks is like that.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    77. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They rushed to close embassies on the slimmest of evidence and are hoping desperately that there will in fact be some actual attacks.

      This. They thought they could draw media attention away from Snowden and turn public sentiment back to uninterestedly issuing blank checks for the executive when it comes to terrorism. Recall that just earlier that week (or perhaps it was earlier the same day), some poll results found that more Americans were concerned with the domestic surveillance program than with terrorism.

      There's something to be said about the timing. But there's even more to be said about the reaction. That it was so over-the-top pretty much made it clear that the right people were getting worried.

      I wouldn't be surprised if some 9/11 consipracy-style event was to occur real soon, that it's in the works even now. After all, the FBI could have a president assassinated, and then have congress cover it up afterwards. What's a few hundred or thousand civilians, killed by a religious radical whose source for the raw materials could never be found? And then there'd be no debate about domestic surveillance anymore.

      Eisenhower warned us. We did not listen.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    78. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by shentino · · Score: 1

      There would only be evidence if they had gotten caught by someone in the chain from spy to leaker.

    79. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention.

      "Do what I say", in this case means "let me live."

      There is no profit. There is no payment. The only positive outcome is staus quo.

      It is NOT blackmail.

    80. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A publicly available 400GB encrypted file make for a way to derive one time pads or to distribute encryption keys.
      Since the file is large enough that there should be able to make a subset of bit stream for encoding messages with simple algorithms.

      - A OTP could be take the bits at prime # offset of the 400GB file in reverse order
      - or take odd bits starting at a certain offset as OTP
      - or xor the odd bit with the even bits at certain offset as OTP.
      etc

      That should keep the super computers busy.

    81. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by icebike · · Score: 1

      Except they probably won't stoop to murder, at least not of random citizens because they couldn't be sure of how those families might react, and how far they would push demands for investigation.

      But with all those embassies sitting empty, don't be surprised if one or two get ransacked. That supplies all the "See, we told you so" moments they would ever need.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    82. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a "paycheck."

    83. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by tibit · · Score: 1

      That's a very naive point of view. People are perfectly and demonstrably capable of leading multiple lives, and acting in diametrally opposite ways in each of those lives. About the only problem with Mr. sleepin' around is that it's an exploitable weakness. You don't want someone high up the pooping pole who is so damn easy to be completely pwned.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    84. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by smash · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: there are groups who will profit from anything. The guys running wikileaks and risking their lives to get this info out aren't making any money out of it.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    85. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I read a good article saying that while a dead-man's-switch helps protect Snowden from the USA, it actually makes him a target for anyone who wants the information released. So, terrorists, some foreign government probably would be happy to kill him and get the documents released.

    86. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by icebike · · Score: 1

      Great. Plausible Deniabilaty.

      It wasn't us, it was those damn terrorists.
      Who do you suppose dreamed up that gem?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    87. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Actually, it might be a good test of whether NSA has the ability to beat AES encryption. In that case, the decrypted files have information that will lead to some obvious action from NSA or Government at large, which will prove they beat encryption without the key.

      I think NSA can't beat AES, but how can I be sure?

      Confirming that will be a great service to mankind.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    88. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or was simply the terrorists "playing" the NSA.

      "The terrorists." That ain't good. That just ain't good. You present the idea of a single group of terrorists, working together. It's not necessarily the same thing.

    89. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, it never occured to me that you could not consider someone incompetent that gives a private key away, especially to someone that cannot handle it.

    90. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the whole story. They handed over the data dump to a guy from the Guardian in encrypted form and told him the passphrase. He was on his honour to only release in partnership with Wikileaks what they had agreed on and decided was safe.

      The journalist revealed the passphrase he had been given for the file that he had in a book about the affair. He had no idea that the so-called 'insurance file' was the same file with the same key. Someone happened to guess that it might be (quite a while after the book was published IIRC) and tried it out.

      Not using different passphrases, let alone giving the Guardian something slightly different to the insurance file, was massively incompetent of Wikileaks. The spooks were probably as surprised as anyone else to find out that the file which was supposed to be protecting Wikileak's higher-ups' lives from assasination was so poorly protected.

    91. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The guys running wikileaks and risking their lives to get this info out aren't making any money out of it.

      How do you know this? Perhaps they are, but have not told you about it.

      Surely they must believe they are getting some benefit out of it, or advancing some agenda that they believe benefits them; otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

    92. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I've been on some conference calls that make me want to do some damn distasteful things too.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    93. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      There have been far more Presidents than not that were faithful to the vows they took before their wives that didn't have huge scandals while President. But I guess that doesn't serve your weak argument, so we'll let that slide on by...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    94. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      They say that a good man is hard to find. I'd wager that finding 537 of them and sending them all to Washington DC is impossible.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    95. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really odd that the press is going along. If the mainstream media outlets don't go along, they'll lose their White House access, which would be a major blow to their political reporting division. This has been a common threat hanging over the press corps for the past several presidents.

    96. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by karlitoX · · Score: 1

      icebike,
      This article puts a recent spate of drone strikes in the same story as the closings. Don't know what that means - draw your own conclusions. http://m.theday.com/article/20130809/NWS14

    97. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surprised if some 9/11 consipracy-style event was to occur real soon, that it's in the works even now. After all, the FBI could have a president assassinated, and then have congress cover it up afterwards. What's a few hundred or thousand civilians, killed by a religious radical whose source for the raw materials could never be found? And then there'd be no debate about domestic surveillance anymore.

      Problem is, then there'd be no justification for it either. A conspiracy nut could argue that the Boston bombing was an event like you describe, but all it left people thinking is that widespread surveillance is ineffective.

    98. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by bloggerhater · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between maintaining your vows and not getting caught.

    99. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by dacaldar · · Score: 1

      Just a random thought (not exactly OT for this subthread, but I had to find somewhere interesting to tack this on)

      The cracking time today is irrelevant. How many years until a reasonable sized quantum computer comes out that can decode it in seconds? 10? 20 at the most?

    100. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that also put his life in danger though?

      Surely there are parties that want to get these information and a simple murder would be an easy way to gain access (along with everyoen else).

    101. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      All depends on how you look at it. Their goal and what we SAY their goal is are two different things.

      They want to convert us to Sharia- which has less freedoms, which is basically the summed up version the American people were given, that they want to restrict/remove our freedoms. It's not wrong, it's just not specific enough.

      Their stated goal has not been achieved- but our freedoms HAVE been impacted, so while they're not winning, the American people are still losing. Still... thought of them ever achieving their TRUE goal would be terrifying. Thank god it's never gotten that bad.

    102. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true- I was listed as a reference for a friend of the family who was applying for work with the TSA, and they did call us to double check and hear said reference...

      After they'd already hired him, mind you, but still.

    103. Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those making claims should provide evidence of their claims.

      So far no evidence has surfaced. Hint: the hearsay rumours of the mudslinging campaign is not evidence.

    104. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Come now, are you really saying that you've no powers of inductive reasoning and/or imagination?

      Simply put, foreknowledge of what the archives contain allows the bad actors to put out pre-emptive FUD.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    105. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The cracking time today is irrelevant. How many years until a reasonable sized quantum computer comes out that can decode it in seconds? 10? 20 at the most?

      A quantum computer of sufficient size would be a disaster for RSA, but not AES -- the quantum crypto attacks against AES essentially halve the key length, so AES256 becomes like AES128.

      I expect it will be 50 years or longer, before AES256 today is reduced to a little less than what the strength of what AES128 is today.

      Unless you are a nation state, it will be 100 years before you could crack it; without stealing or being given the key.

    106. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contents of the original Wikileaks insurance file, insurance.aes256 , are not publicly known. The encrypted file containing the State Department Cables was a different file. Presumably, the condition required to trigger release of that key has not occurred.

    107. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by wordsnyc · · Score: 1

      The "conference call" story was bullshit. http://harpers.org/blog/2013/08/anatomy-of-an-al-qaeda-conference-call/

      Quelle surprise.

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
    108. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by Optali · · Score: 1

      Sorry not to have moderation points, but you hit the nail in the head.
      I bet the 400GB are nothing but the result of:

                                    (cat $HOME/docs_and_pron/super_duper_secret_document.txt

      Either that or the usual WL stuff that seems to come straight from the Secret ARtic Base of Captain Obvious.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    109. Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! by oztiks · · Score: 1

      I think doing it this way is purely strategic. Not only can they play the "plausible deniability" game as the Govt does. "Oh, it was an accidental public key release" but you also ensure the data is successfully transmitted to the masses.

      The alternative being what happened last time with the cables release and that is the Govt aggressively shutting down servers and replacing them with nasty place holders and installing honeypots, etc.

  3. Hail Julian Assange! by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: 0

    Only workers revolution will uncover the true extent of the imperialists' bloody crimes.

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
  4. 349GB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    WikiLeaks insurance 20130815
    A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent
    B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent
    C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent

    ~ $ df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/sda1 292G 53G 225G 19% /

    Hm... :|

    1. Re:349GB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      rm -fr /porn
      df -h
      Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
      /dev/sda1 292G 0G 291G 1% /

      Hm. :|

    2. Re:349GB? by Phreakiture · · Score: 2

      That would still leave him, at most, 292 GiB, which will not fit 400 GiB of files. Interesting idea, though!

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    3. Re: 349GB? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      [jonathan@naoto] ~% df
      Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
      tank1/media 20079143924 17658235578 2420908346 88% /tank1/media

      Think I can cope

    4. Re:349GB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot sir

    5. Re:349GB? by swillden · · Score: 1

      ~ $ df -h
      Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
      /dev/sda1 292G 53G 225G 19% /

      Hm... :|

      Bah.

      # vgdisplay 5g
      [...]
      Free PE / Size 419390 / 1.60 TiB
      # lvcreate -n wiki -L 1T 5g
      Logical volume "wiki" created
      # mkfs -t xfs /dev/5g/wiki
      [...]
      # mount /dev/5g/wiki /mnt

      I started the torrents, but so far I'm only getting about 3 MBps. My connection should be able to manage close to 10 MBps, so hopefully that will pick up.

      Yes, this is my home file server :)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:349GB? by smash · · Score: 1

      2TB drives are well under a hundred bucks.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    7. Re:349GB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be nice if people built servers to do more than just hold their mountains of pirated material. We have so much technology available and the vast majority goes towards entertainment I've noticed, often illegally procured. Geeks seem to lack imagination about what to do with their knowledge sometimes.

    8. Re:349GB? by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      No, that guy has a keylogger in my system.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    9. Re:349GB? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I don't have any pirated material.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:349GB? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Really need to get a pair of 4TBs for my home server...I have just enough space free, but not on any one disk.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:349GB? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The sheer size is a moderate problem, but the disparity between the insurance files' sizes is a problem. As presented, lots of people (myself included ; though why I'm getting only 3 peers in total, I don't know) will be able to swallow the first 2, but #3 would require me to bring forward my "must build a file server" plans by several months.

      Really, they need to have made a more equitable split if the files - even if the keys are still in Snowden's hands. As it stands, the big chunk of data is going to receive relatively little insurance by multiple copying.

      Not good.

      Also not good is that I am still getting no connectivity. I suspect blocking in the UK.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    12. Re: 349GB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says everyone is hoarding pirated stuff?

  5. Oh delicious irony by Laxori666 · · Score: 1, Funny

    An "anti-secrecy" organization using secrecy to promote its agenda.

    1. Re:Oh delicious irony by jovius · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are wrong in your irony. Wikileaks is not an anti-secrecy organization. They are a media organization (by their own account). They are against secrecy when it's being used to conceal dishonesty and unjust practices by governments (often to mislead the population). Wikileaks' own leak submit system relies heavily on secrecy to protect the sources from persecution, so you are pretty late with your remark.

    2. Re:Oh delicious irony by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Astounding isn't it? The world is such a complicated place.

      I miss Walter Cronkite.

      Sniff.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Oh delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't see any irony in there. Wikileaks has no power over the public, therefore it does not have to live up to the public's scrutiny. The information published by wikileaks pertains to governments which have tremendous power over the public and therefore must be scrutinised; and to companies which may also have some power over the public and therefore in some circumstances should answer to the public as well. That's the fundamental difference.

    4. Re:Oh delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when was Wikileaks ever an anti-secrecy organisation? It's always been a "allow whistleblowers to expose crimes while remaining anonymous" organisation - secrecy is an inherent part of that.

    5. Re:Oh delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you not get about this?

      It is an insurance file against them being attacked because, I'd assume, it most likely contains documents that don't have redacted names and shit like that in it.
      So if it were to get out, it would actually cause serious damage to people. That is if said information was in there.

      It is a pretty smart move. Basically an e-nuke, if they have the right information. Maybe an e-FOAB if not.

    6. Re:Oh delicious irony by Laxori666 · · Score: 1

      You're right, they aren't. It was more a jab at the submitter who wrote "Anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks[...]".

    7. Re:Oh delicious irony by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Then again be a hero or be a zero. What Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have done for the people of the world will be remember for a very, very long time to come and remembered positively, long after pseudo celebrities, corrupt politicians and the rich and greedy have disappeared into by-lines remembered only for the worst things they did.

      A reminder that secrets always have a way of coming out and being the hero that released them is far better than being another minion zero accessory skulking in the background waiting to take the fall for the benefit and profits of the lead conspirators.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the NSA suspects that certain of their internal documents occur in the insurance files, can't they use these as cribs to break the encryption?

    How does one determine the viability of cribs for data of a certain size? E.g. if one is cracking 400GB of data encrypted with a 4096 bit RSA key, how helpful is a 4GB crib?

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
    1. Re:NSA has cribs? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You mean 'crabs', right?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re: NSA has cribs? by Sean · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to use an asymmetric algorithm.

    3. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't know where the files are. And they don't know if the files are compressed (even, with a password), ROT13, etc.

      It's not even a long shot. It's a waste of time trying to use anything they have as leverage to break the encryption.

    4. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think AES-256 has any known known-plaintext attacks.

    5. Re:NSA has cribs? by aevan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, but to what end? Leak it themselves?

      I might have missed the point, but as I see it, the blackmail part of this is 'leaking to the world'. If the NSA verifies that the files they suspect stolen are in this, then sure they could try to go after wikileaks people - but with the archive widely disseminated, they'd have forfeited the game as the mirrors releases it in its entirety. The encryption just seems more to prevent premature release, as opposed to pretending the NSA has no idea what they have.

      This just feels like it's moving into 'end game'.

    6. Re:NSA has cribs? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would assume the files are encrypted with a symmetric cipher like AES. Known plaintext attacks are not very effective against symmetric ciphers. Indeed they're designed to be resilient to chosen plaintext attacks.

    7. Re:NSA has cribs? by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's a pretty good assumption since all of the files end in .aes256.torrent.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    8. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or like PGP, they could encrypt the symmetric key with an RSA public key.

      It's a good combo AES-256 + RSA 4096 bits for securing the AES key.

    9. Re:NSA has cribs? by kylemonger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snowden's asylum in Russia in conditioned on him not spilling more U.S. secrets. Until that condition changes or Snowden finds refuge elsewhere, then I suspect Wikileaks will hang onto those keys. If Snowden disappears into a hole, then the insurance files scattered around the globe ensure that the secrets can be released not matter what else happens to him.

    10. Re:NSA has cribs? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the NSA suspects that certain of their internal documents occur in the insurance files, can't they use these as cribs to break the encryption?

      These files were almost certainly from the NSA in the first place - they already have the unencrypted versions.

      I imagine they also have a pretty good idea which specific files Snowden had access to.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    11. Re:NSA has cribs? by JavaBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether NSA breaks it or not is actually irrelevant, wikileaks could even send the key to them without trouble.
      The question is, do they (NSA) dare risk that the rest of us get access to it.

    12. Re:NSA has cribs? by JavaBear · · Score: 1

      If the file contains anything of interest, it might even be in wikileaks interest to let the NSA know what is in it.

    13. Re:NSA has cribs? by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      That makes sense in an email context, where the objective is to reduce the computational overhead by using a fast algorithm (symmetric key) to encrypt the message, and then you only have to worry about encrypting the key with the much slower asymmetric algorithm. As a side-effect, it also lets you encrypt a message to multiple specific recipients by adding a copy of the symmetric key encrypted with different public keys for each intended recipient, also a nice touch for email.

      In this case, hoever, where the idea is to be able to disclose the whole shooting match to everyone, there is no benefit in using asymmetric encryption, in any capacity that I can see.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    14. Re:NSA has cribs? by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Known-plaintext is helpful in cracking certain weak ciphers. One of the criteria for a cipher being strong, is that it *not* be vulnerable to a known-plaintext attack. As far as we know, aes-256 is strong.

      Furthermore, cracking the files won't help the NSA. The info in them is likely already well-known to the NSA. It's however unknown to the public. Thus the NSA isn't as much concerned with cracking the encryption, as it is with -avoiding- that anyone else cracks it. (or learns of the key)

    15. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think AES-256 has any publicly known known-plaintext attacks.

      FTFY

    16. Re:NSA has cribs? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      But one *isn't* cracking 400GB of data with a 4096-bit RSA key.

      Are you talking about a known plaintext attack? Rijndael was accepted as AES because it's immune to such attacks. Of course, protocols using AES can have weaknesses, such as to padding oracle attacks, but that's not really a known plaintext attack, and we don't even know they're using CBC, for example.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    17. Re:NSA has cribs? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Why would the NSA *care* about cracking the encryption if they believe it's their own documents that Snowden took? Sort of silly to spend all that computing power to break the encryption when you got the originals already.

    18. Re:NSA has cribs? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet that those who are interested in these files have been notified.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    19. Re: NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol no, AES is very, very resistant to cribs. In practice they're no help at all.

    20. Re:NSA has cribs? by sshir · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it incentivize Russians to disappear Snowden just to get to those juicy NSA files?

    21. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that if it's a bunch of PDFs with images for pages.

      Without knowing exactly *which* PDFs or how they were prepped or scanned, it would be next to impossible to use any of them as cribs.

    22. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but how funny would it be if they used ROT13, and put a file suffix of aes256? "Aw, shucks, we can't break that, the suffix says so!"

    23. Re:NSA has cribs? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      "Traffic accident" would be more likely, but yes.

    24. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, fooled you. It is actually the uber-secure rot13 scheme they have used.

    25. Re:NSA has cribs? by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      That actually dis-incentivizes the Russians from doing that, since that would give everyone access to the files.

      That is, of course, assuming that granting him asylum didn't include the precondition of having access in the first place. They want the information, they just don't want everyone to have the information.

    26. Re:NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I would guess that NSA documents are only a fraction of the corpus and that they might be interested in the rest. They may also desire proof that Wikileaks possesses certain documents in order to aid criminal prosecution.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    27. Re: NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Sure, but aren't all ciphers are vulnerable to cribs except for one-time pads?

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    28. Re:NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I think that only some of the files originate with the NSA. The rest may be interesting to them. Furthermore, they may desire proof that Wikileaks possesses certain files to further their grand-jury investigations or future prosecution.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    29. Re:NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      All the files? I'm sure Wikileaks wants insurance from multiple governments. The NSA / US government might also want proof that Wikileaks has certain files in order to further their criminal prosecution efforts.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    30. Re:NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      NSA might want leaks from other governments contained in the insurance files, and they might want proof that of possession of certain files for criminal prosecution efforts.

      I agree it might actually make sense to send the keys to the targets of the various insurance files, so they know you mean business.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    31. Re:NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      My guess though is that there is insurance against multiple governments in the files, some of which may be interesting to the NSA. They might also want to proof of certain documents having been leaking to Wikileaks in order to further criminal prosecution.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    32. Re:NSA has cribs? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Is AES immune to such attacks for any message/crib size ratio?

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    33. Re:NSA has cribs? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      If they crack the files, they gain the encryption key. Now they can search the traffic and see who recieved the key, after that SEAL team 6 gets lots of excercise.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    34. Re: NSA has cribs? by Prune · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. An algorithm like AES in CFB mode, or CBC with an unpredictable IV, is mostly resistant to even very high percentage of plaintext known.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    35. Re:NSA has cribs? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      That information is presumably already spoiled and the Russians don't really care about him causing any more trouble. The only reason for that particular requirement is so they can pretend to be sympathetic. Truth be told, I'm pretty sure that the Kremlin is tickled pink about all the information that's been released as it makes them look better by comparison.
      I'm also positive that they're very much aware of how much danger Snowden is in from assassination attempts. The only way the insurance file is going to be spread around and decrypted is if the US does something to trigger it.

    36. Re:NSA has cribs? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Jokes on you, the encrypted it using ROT13.

    37. Re: NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      known-plaintext attacks have been used since WWII. Modern algorithms are designed to be secure against them.

    38. Re:NSA has cribs? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      No. Proper encryption, say AES in some chaining/feedback mode means you've got pretty much 0 chance of using known data to shortcut the decryption process.

      EVERY single bit affects the next. Encrypt the exact same document twice, different output both times due to the salt/IV. Use the same salt, encrypt any file before the document using a chaining/feedback mode, and the document will be different than if it was done alone or with any other document. You do randomized padded at the end of the data to block size so you can't tell the file size either.

      The whole system is designed so that you can know the EXACT contents of the encrypted data and it does you absolutely no good in shortcutting the process to determining the key.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    39. Re:NSA has cribs? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I would assume the files are encrypted with a symmetric cipher like AES. Known plaintext attacks are not very effective against symmetric ciphers. Indeed they're designed to be resilient to chosen plaintext attacks.

      Nitpick: Nearly all ciphers are symmetric ciphers (except for the asymmetric ones :-)), and many of them are very vulnerable to known plaintext attacks. But there are plenty of symmetric ciphers which are, as far as we know, resistant to known plaintext, chosen plaintext and even more sophisticated attacks. Such as AES-256, which seems to be the cipher used here.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    40. Re:NSA has cribs? by smash · · Score: 1

      As per one of the above posters, it would not surprise me if wikileaks sent the NSA, US Government, etc. they encryption key to take a look at the content themselves. It isn't the NSA they want to prevent access to this from.

      The NSA likely already knows all this stuff. Giving them access to it would "prove" to them that wikileaks has dirt that they might not want to be released.

      Otherwise, they could just upload 350GB of /dev/random and bluff. Giving those mentioned the keys will prove they are serious.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    41. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I imagine they also have a pretty good idea which specific files Snowden had access to.

      No, they do not know what he took. That's why they are shitting themselves. I think admins had root access, *real root* access to all systems, including data, unencrypted. Just a database dump away from getting everything.

      They probably have database and user level ACLs, but not protections from root.

      Furthermore, I don't think they can track what he even copied.

      Why do you think they are firing 90% of all admins? Because they ALL have that unrestricted access.

      If the system was restricted, where there is no access for admins (except perhaps *few* special machines that hold the keys, not data, which would be "easy" to secure), then Snowden would not have had access to any secrets. They would have been locked. Oh well.

    42. Re:NSA has cribs? by russotto · · Score: 2

      Nitpick: Nearly all ciphers are symmetric ciphers (except for the asymmetric ones :-)), and many of them are very vulnerable to known plaintext attacks. But there are plenty of symmetric ciphers which are, as far as we know, resistant to known plaintext, chosen plaintext and even more sophisticated attacks. Such as AES-256, which seems to be the cipher used here.

      Turns out the NSA has worked out a practical known plaintext break for AES (including -256), it's at offset 459139182 of the insurance file.

    43. Re:NSA has cribs? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Nitpick: Nearly all ciphers are symmetric ciphers (except for the asymmetric ones :-)), and many of them are very vulnerable to known plaintext attacks. But there are plenty of symmetric ciphers which are, as far as we know, resistant to known plaintext, chosen plaintext and even more sophisticated attacks. Such as AES-256, which seems to be the cipher used here.

      Turns out the NSA has worked out a practical known plaintext break for AES (including -256), it's at offset 459139182 of the insurance file.

      :-)

      Seriously, it's very, very unlikely that the NSA can break AES, because if they could they'd have to be concerned that someone else might be able to do it as well. The NSA's job is national security, which means protecting important national resources, including the economy, not just spying. So the only way they'd let us keep using AES all over the place after breaking it themselves is if they could be absolutely certain that no one else could do what they did, which would require an unimaginable level of arrogance -- and a very unspook-like way of thinking.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    44. Re:NSA has cribs? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You've never lost something, have you?

      Look, 400 GB can not contain ALL of NSA's secrets. It is important for NSA to know which of the secrets are in the leaked 400 GB. Is it even true? Or just /dev/random ? Accordingly they may or may not agree to wikileaks' demands for not releasing the key to public.

      Depending on their security system, it can also narrow down the list of potential leakers if they find out what was leaked. This is even more important than getting at the leaked data itself because it has to do with future leaks too.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    45. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, so informative to paste TFA here!

    46. Re:NSA has cribs? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They had better hope not, otherwise you would have to assume that other government agencies can break it too. It wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese had spent several billion $ equivalent building an AES cracking supercomputer that will now be processing these files.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could send the hash of each document.

    48. Re:NSA has cribs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they want to? NSA is spying domestically, something Russia has been doing since Stalin. There may be a few bits of interesting techniques but overall its old hat stuff to them.

    49. Re:NSA has cribs? by S1ngularity · · Score: 1

      Once NSA cracks the keys, they can make better assumptions of the set of leaked files. And can make more informed decisions on what lies won't be contradicted through future leaks.

    50. Re:NSA has cribs? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Sure. My point was that the NSA would probably prefer that *nobody* can crack this, rather than that *everyone* can crack this. But certainly, if they could have their dream-situation where *they* can crack it, but nobody else on the planet can, then that'd be just swell.

    51. Re:NSA has cribs? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Yes, but (attempt to) making sure that *nobody* can crack this can be done together with trying to crack it themselves.

      Even in an organization of 20 people, if some are trying to prevent public "crackage", others would try to crack it themselves. Skillsets of the two attempts are quite different - one needs diplomacy, physical coercion, dialoge with the Executive; the other needs pure cryptographical skills. NSA being so humongous, they'd be fools if they don't give their best at cracking it themselves.

      So I was replying to your statement that since they know what is inside, cracking it won't help them. Which is not true. First thing any victim of burglary asks is - what the burglars took. Even if they know whatever they took was from their home.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  7. Need to change the combo on my luggage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The password to decrypt the files is "1234"

    1. Re:Need to change the combo on my luggage by aliquis · · Score: 1

      dd if=Gladiator\ -\ Now\ we\ are\ free.mp3 of=key bs=1 count=4096

    2. Re:Need to change the combo on my luggage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      512 came to think about it, but it was off-topic and trash in the first place. /aliquis

    3. Re:Need to change the combo on my luggage by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Crazily enough, I was in Poland the other week, and needed to buy some new luggage. I bought one of those wheeled things that everyone has. One of its *features* was that it had a lock that could be easily opened by the TSA without them needing to know the combination.

      As a non-American in non-America - fuck you America if you think this is a good thing!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  8. Clearly... by luckymutt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wikileaks is now just a government pawn, setting up to record the ip addresses of anyone downloading this honeypot.

    1. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh .. isnt there a threshold of "public" where the noise outweighs the signal ? It seems that effective techniques in the future must use this threshold effect.. IANASE (I am not a security expert) but thats my first response..

      Weighing the other side, inaction because of "being watched" will definitely be a losing strategy.. Taken to an extreme, you would lose your ability to participate in public life with anything controversial.. a win for dark-side established forces..

    2. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep, I'll be downloading it with my annoying co-worker's computer after he goes home for the night. Come to think of it, I'll do it again from my boss' machine.

    3. Re:Clearly... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks is now just a government pawn, setting up to record the ip addresses of anyone downloading this honeypot.

      Better load up on the tin foil. Just cover your router in it and you'll be safe.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Clearly... by aliquis · · Score: 2

      I always untwist my TP cables and shrink new plastic around each strand to make sure no funny business is going on.

    5. Re:Clearly... by luckymutt · · Score: 1

      OK, I posted a bit in jest, but do you think the NSA is not jumping on this as well? with the intent to see who is getting it? Not that they're going to "go after" anyone downloading it, but I image they would at least cross reference against their databases. Whatever.
      I suppose I should have said "inadvertent gov pawn."

    6. Re:Clearly... by luckymutt · · Score: 1

      uhhh .. isnt there a threshold of "public" where the noise outweighs the signal ?

      There's noise in bittorrent? Weird. I always thought that anyone who was on a torrent was...well...contributing to the signal. The only noise would be those using TOR or something like it, which would be trivial to filter.

    7. Re:Clearly... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Tbey already record all internet connections, so to find out who downloads it, just query their databases.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re: Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh... You're probably all on same IP anyway... Although you will be the only one clocked in during the downloads...busted

    9. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always untwist my TP cables and shrink new plastic around each strand to make sure no funny business is going on.

      By untwisting Toilet Paper you make it easier for spooks to read all ur shit.

    10. Re: Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll use the password that's on the post-it under his keyboard.

    11. Re: Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the cell phone location that gives you away.

    12. Re:Clearly... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      True it would be trivial for any decent hacker to log the IPs of who's downloading this torrent without any special equipment, for the NSA it's child's play.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re: Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use GMail. Given that the NSA already has read and stored my mail correspondence, it is only fair that I store their material.

      But rest assured, "we take your privacy very seriously". So the files are encrypted for now.

      FWIW I believe there are three files due to different levels of exposure. The last big one is the thermonuclear option. The first one is a minor punishment for bad behavior. Which, I have no idea. Wikileaks is surely expecting something (big).

  9. They need help? by Lohrno · · Score: 1

    Maybe they want some of us to use a distributed computing approach to broach the key?

  10. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Heh, COINTELPRO

  11. A field marshal’s baton? by auric_dude · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Napoleon declared to his troops that a field marshal’s baton was tucked into every soldier’s knapsack, a powerful signal to people conditioned to accept personal limits on their careers as dictated by the class system. So, is this the modern equivalent with a thousand fingers resting upon the decode button in an attempt to deflect the wrath of the NSA onto others?

    1. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never heard that before, so I googled "field marshall baton napoleon" and found your first sentence, word for word, on the second link. Quote your sources dude. Don't take credit for someone else's words.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that hahahah. I seriously think the majority of slashdot posters are now NSA plants and script bots.

    3. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      Are you sure he isn't the original author?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Are you sure I'm not?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't take credit for someone else's words.

      You may have skipped over part of his sentence: "Napoleon declared to his troops ..."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I never heard that before, so I googled "field marshall baton napoleon" and found your first sentence, word for word, on the second link. Quote your sources dude. Don't take credit for someone else's words.

      No slashdot tenure for auric_dude! Whatever will he do?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      And you may have missed the very next word, "that". It wasn't a direct quote from Napoleon. It was the same word for word paraphrasing and description from the site I linked.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    8. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes I am. In fact I am 100% certain. You see, the original author would have complained that he or she wrote it, rather than offering a detailed accounting of how they found it on some website using their "Google-Fu". I really wish Slashdot would get a filtering mechanism that allowed the setting of a SlashID threshold. I've noticed lately that most of the ridiculously brainless posts seem to come from those above about 600,000.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      My apologies, I misinterpreted what you had written. It indeed is the entire sentence that was lifted. You are correct.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by JustNiz · · Score: 0

      He did quote the source. It was Napoleon.

    11. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ridiculously brainless posts seem to come from those above about 600,000.

      Not to worry, AC is here!

    12. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look who's talking, you source lacked "quotes" as well.

    13. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      I was just being funny. Chill out.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    14. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "I was just being funny."

      Are you sure? :-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    15. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Lakitu · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thanks for posting this. When I first read his comment, I assumed I was reading a post by an authoritative source who had actually witnessed Napoleon's speech.

    16. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      I would have said 60,000. ;-)

      --
      -- Alastair
    17. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You are clearly the exception that proves the rule! ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    18. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually mindless shit can come from anyone but ANONYMOUS! :D

    19. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    20. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      How about a more reputable source linking to the actual quote (48).

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    21. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No tenure? I'd have thought that made him more than qualified.

    22. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how exactly you expect "Zero_kelvin" to "chill out" any more that zero kelvin already is!

    23. Re:A field marshal’s baton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote your sources dude. Don't take credit for someone else's words.

      And where in his post did he ever claim to have invented that particular combination of words? This isn't a school exam, stop judging people by the standards of children.

      Do you have some conflict of interest here that is forcing you to get upset about this particular exercise of fair use rights and free speech? Perhaps you make some income from charging people for the right to copy parts of your works?

      Would you prefer that we include citations tracing the development of every word and combination of words in our posts, to make sure we don't fail to give "credit"?

      Naturally we'll need to cite our sources, and their sources, and the sources twice removed, and so forth, just to make sure that "credit" is properly applied to anyone that might have had any say in the development of the words we're using, or the usage of those words, or the manner in which they are combined. Should we have a 10,000 line list of citations for every sentence we create?

  12. This fundamentally a political act by sandbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is fundamentally a political act. The trouble is, there's no scaling back. Unless something happened behind the scenes that is not generally know, this'll be perceived as an escalation.

    Gotta wonder why now, that idiot at Time Magazine aside.

    The thing is, Western democracies have to get used to the Memory Hole, Cryptome, Wikileakeaks and the rest. You can play whack a mole with them or deal with the fact that people from now on will treat digital information in a way that nation states may not wish they would. This'll have positive and negative consequences but it needs to treated as fact.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:This fundamentally a political act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but it'll be treated as terrorism/espionage/etc.

    2. Re:This fundamentally a political act by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True enough, but it's simply publicizing something that likely happened a long time ago. How many people think that Wikileaks kept the file on a laptop in somebody's house? It's always been distributed (at least Wikileaks would be dumber than a politician not to do that).

      They've just made it a public spectacle. That's all.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:This fundamentally a political act by sshir · · Score: 2

      Apparently that Guardian journalist's partner was detained for 9 hours at Heathrow airport. That's a reason enough.

    4. Re:This fundamentally a political act by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that is exactly what they are doing.

    5. Re:This fundamentally a political act by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1
      Why now? Probably because they just got some new files and want to keep them safe to prevent a repeat of the Bank of America failure, where a rogue employee destroyed all the backups they had.

      Now the worst that a rogue employee could do is to release the key publicly.

      The thing is, Western democracies have to get used to the Memory Hole, Cryptome, Wikileakeaks and the rest.

      I'd rather have them get used to transparency, but I guess this is a first step, yes.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  13. You want me to hold your stash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I did that once, and I know how it plays out.

  14. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm as real of an American as can be done. What I want is a more focused government. I do not want the militarization of local police. I do not want decisions that affect the lives of me and others made behind closed doors. If the NSA programs were more transparent and if they did no lie about what they are doing, it would not be as much of an issue. I do not want a government that itself finds too complex to manage and uses that as an excuse to not do anything. If they can not do the job, they should give the job to states or counties or towns.

    As a real American, I want to be able to trust my government. Any faith in the government is only faith that it will not collapse in on itself. There is no faith in supporting those that pay into it, us tax payers. Those that do not pay tax are paid for the security of the tax payers, so they are also included.

  15. Re:Assange is a loser. by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gay rights is not a good litmus test of human rights. I find womens rights to be a better gauge. And if he isn't gay, why should he use that as a metric for human rights? In the US, if we are better to our gays, and worse to our (something else), does that make us any better?

  16. when is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone going to take out Snowden and Assange? i mean, really?

    1. Re:when is by aliquis · · Score: 2

      That will solve anything?

      NSA has already decided to cut 90% of their sysadmins. That will limit their exposure. Though one having access is enough. But at least then they will know who that one was =P

    2. Re:when is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That will solve anything? NSA has already decided to cut 90% of their sysadmins.

      The NSA has voluntarily reduced their own system administration capacity by 90%. Their hiring will become much more difficult, both because of their now piss poor reputation and because they will be 9x as suspicious as before. Keeping secrets has now become more difficult for them, so they will either not be able to keep as many secrets anymore or they will not be able to do as much with their secrets as they otherwise would. That's not a solution, but it's a giant leap in the right direction and the beautiful thing is that they are doing it to themselves.

    3. Re:when is by lxs · · Score: 1

      For now they stick to harassing the people involved. Still holding up a front of respectability.

    4. Re:when is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the sysadmins slowly start creating/using legitimate looking accounts....

    5. Re:when is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent.
      Now a password reset will go from 6 hours to 3 days. Oh, to twiddle your thumbs and get paid for 3 days of doing nothing.
      Projects and real time important stuff will be lost.
      Your call is important to us. You are number 2167 in the queue ..

    6. Re:when is by kermidge · · Score: 1

      "Their hiring will become much more difficult"

      Hmm, don't think so. Letting go those they did will reduce risk they harbored badthink. New hires will be particularly screened for goodthink. For every one who doesn't apply - or qualify, there will be plenty wanting in - it's a decent GS-grade job in a bad market, comes with good government benefits, and amongst a significant portion of the populace, it's a position with a certain prestige, even cachet, even for a lowly sysadmin - even if, according to some, they're not allowed to say specifically what they do or for which "government department." Security measures notwithstanding I don't guess it's an onerous work environment either.

      Policies regarding procedure, tasking, compartmentation, auditing, and managerial oversight, OTOH, is where I imagine most effort is directed.

      I suspect it's more an "Excedrin headache #[classified]" than a setback.

  17. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, as this person types on a website for "dorks", using a computer designed by a bunch of dorks, using a global telecommunication network made by a bunch of dorks, with the freedom to do so because some dorks pushed for a free and open Internet... Yeah, unimportant.... Moron.

  18. "Attentionwhoreleaks" doesn't roll off the tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the last batch of "insurance" files just contain unredacted versions of all those diplomatic cables? Boring. Confirmation of alien life would be news. The fact that the nations of the world don't get along and actually despise each other as much as we think they do is not.

    If Wikileaks really did have so-called "nuclear" material, they would have almost certainly disclosed it back when Assange was globe-hopping and seeking asylum from those sexual assault charges, to say nothing of what happened to Manning and Snowden; they've already come under attack both financially and personally, so it's not as if there's any benefit to just sitting on the really juicy stuff. If--and it's a big if--they really have something, then what are they waiting on, for Assange to be killed outright?

  19. Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easier by waterbear · · Score: 1

    They probably need to divide that gargantuan thing, 400GB, down into smaller, more manageable, chunks before encrypting it. Then they might get more people cooperating with them. How many people can download and store 400GB in one chunk?

    Also, the bigger the chunk, the more easily corrupted, and the corruption takes out the possibility of decrypting the whole thing?

  20. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure if trolling or stupid, either way your comment made me laugh. Stupid is as stupid does.

  21. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you recon that the US is better to gays than to $something, the US must be worse than hell for $something.

    Hint : the US is NOT good to gays. Not at all. Striking down H8 and a part of Doma is hardly enough/sufficient. It's just a beginning. Maybe not even that.

    The US is far from being gay friendly.

  22. Re:Assange is a loser. by Macchendra · · Score: 1

    Real Americans want a bigger, stronger government, not a weaker one. A bigger, stronger government provides more services...

    Hey, the American government is the one being the little bitch baby about crying over its spilt secrets. Waaaa... Waaaa... How very tough.

  23. I'm a little leery of this file... by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    Mainly because it's labeled "skynet.exe".

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  24. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's as three torrents, 3.6 GB, 49 GB, and 349 GB. So you could download the first two and let others pick up the third one. Also, BitTorrent has error correction... if you somehow get a few flipped bits, you will redownload the pieces.

  25. Re:"Attentionwhoreleaks" doesn't roll off the tong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. Most likely the 400GB pack will contain the same boring junk as before.

  26. How to mirror small pieces? by az1324 · · Score: 1

    Is there a client that can be instructed to download randomly selected non-sequential pieces up to a user-determined size limit? Then store those pieces along with the torrent file and wait until there is a call for them to be reassembled to seed?

    1. Re:How to mirror small pieces? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? It's not like 400gb is unmanageable these days. I have old .5 TB dives laying around that I don't use because they are too small.

  27. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The best gauge would be unique to each country. Gauge by whichever group a country treats the worst. Human rights includes all humans.

  28. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by Pieroxy · · Score: 5, Informative

    They probably need to divide that gargantuan thing, 400GB, down into smaller, more manageable, chunks before encrypting it. Then they might get more people cooperating with them. How many people can download and store 400GB in one chunk?

    As it turns out, plenty of people. I got 20Mbps down and terabytes of free space. It just takes about 55 hours to get all in and plenty of storage. And I have a pretty slow connection by today's standards. Most of my friends have 100Mbps down, meaning the file will be in in about 5.5 hours. It's really affordable by most in Europe.

  29. Re: Assange is a loser. by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You act like they are treated as slaves. I attended the wedding of my brother-in-law to his now-husband just 4 weeks ago, right here in the good ol' United States. I don't recall either of them being tied up with chains (although, he did wear a rainbow feather boa at one point...).

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  30. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hate to argue with you on a technicality but in all likelihood dick cheney's cock tastes like any other cock.

  31. seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.lmgtfy.com

    you lazy piece of shit

  32. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right, because gays aren't humans.

    Change the word gay for "Jewish", "minority" or any number of things and see how much of a pathetic little bigot you are.

    The rights of any group are a litmus test of the rights of all. We're just as human as you, thanks.

  33. Re:Assange is a loser. by Stumbles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want a "focused government" then you are no real American. Hell, you don't even comprehend the founding principles of the Constitution and certainly have no grasp of the Declaration of Independence. If you had you would realize the error of your desires.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  34. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They probably need to divide that gargantuan thing, 400GB, down into smaller, more manageable, chunks before encrypting it. Then they might get more people cooperating with them. How many people can download and store 400GB in one chunk?

    Also, the bigger the chunk, the more easily corrupted, and the corruption takes out the possibility of decrypting the whole thing?

    If only there was some kind of error-correcting software that divided files into chunks for transfer; a way to download torrents of bits, if you will.

  35. Re:Assange is a loser. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fuck I'm glad there's always a partisan idiot like you around to frame every situation in terms of Republican or Democrat.

    From the perspective of the rest of the civilised world, both are utterly fucking barking mad.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  36. Re:Assange is a loser. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Gays and women are humans, so therefor human rights apply and their is no need for any special rights. To label human rights based on gender or sexual orientation is a clear sign that things are not as they should be for all.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  37. Is it illegal to distribute that? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    How can I know if there is anything illegal in there if I can't read it? Or would I be guilty of potentially distributing confidential papers or exporting munitions if it's just a bunch of random bits?

    1. Re:Is it illegal to distribute that? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Right now it is just a collection of random bits.

    2. Re:Is it illegal to distribute that? by tibit · · Score: 1

      You can always randomize it some more, you know :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:Is it illegal to distribute that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I distributed the last insurance file and made a flight where my info was disclosed to the DHS and into a country with an extradition treaty with the US, and I had no problems, so they don't seem to be too concerned about it.

  38. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What makes you think real americans are after said principles or have a grasp of declaration of independence?

  39. Re:Assange is a loser. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    Right, because gays aren't humans.

    Change the word gay for "Jewish", "minority" or any number of things and see how much of a pathetic little bigot you are.

    The rights of any group are a litmus test of the rights of all. We're just as human as you, thanks.

    Well done - you were so eager to empty your spleen on someone that you completely missed the point. AK Marc is simply pointing out that suffrage from women is a fundamental issue as well. Not instead of.

    I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems he may have been suggesting that universal suffrage is probably 101 for societies looking to grow up. For nations without universal suffrage, this may be a more appropriate gauge of their progress than gay rights. Like most things, AK Marc's comment was merely a mirror for your own prejudices.

    Gay rights, freedom of religious choice, freedom of speech .. these are all 102 challenges for a society as backwards as, say, Saudi Arabia.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  40. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the desire for a government "focused" on the principles of the constitution is a bad thing? Who's in error again?

  41. shooting the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shortly after Snowden escaped the U.S., one of the NSA's agents specifically stated that he got out with detailed architectural designs of their entire operation. This might be the payload he was talking about. That agent stated that the U.S. should handle Snowden with kid gloves and offer to forgive and forget in exchange for destroying that data. However, congress did not listen and instead had a knee jerk reaction by going on a witch hunt for him instead.

    1. Re:shooting the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?! 400 Gigs of architectural design? What design is that, of the death star? Didn't you doc tell you that crack is unhealthy? Sheesh...

    2. Re:shooting the messenger by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Nice reminder, thank you. That little bit tends to get lost.

      Funny thing, on an entirely different aspect: I usually start the day with a quick look at general news using the Google News tab, and there was not one single story in all of it on any of the ongoing surveillance stuff at all, apart from one grouped heading on Miranda's detention. And on that, few of the linked articles make any stink at all about his confiscated electronics, but rather paid most attention to the M.P. noises.

  42. There are limits by grimJester · · Score: 4, Funny

    to what people are willing to give up for a good cause.

  43. What's the point? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

    I seriously doubt that any government would be swayed from taking action against Wikileaks due to the existence of an insurance file. Even if it has damning information, and the government knows it has damning information, the government is too big and proud to care. The only way the insurance file could affect decisions is if it revealed misconduct by specific high-ranking politicians, and these politicians know that their personal ass is on the line. It's human nature. In this case, Wikileaks should drop some hints such that these politicians know that Wikileaks knows, but without spilling too many details.

    1. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, at this point the government could probably state that they rape babies in NSA centre and just shrug. "What are you gonna do about it?"

    2. Re:What's the point? by he-sk · · Score: 1

      If Wikileaks has evidence of serious misconduct by high-ranking politicians it should stop being subtle about it and leak the info ASAP. I am under the impression that this is what Wikileaks is about.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    3. Re:What's the point? by smash · · Score: 1

      The only way the insurance file could affect decisions is if it revealed misconduct by specific high-ranking politicians, and these politicians know that their personal ass is on the line.

      Which is probably why the people involved have already been sent the decryption key.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    4. Re:What's the point? by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      Every person is first of all about self-preservation. Then anything else. Stay alive to fight another day.

      Your statement is that a soldier should never take cover from enemy gunfire, but just expose his chest and fire on. Because that is all a soldier is about. It almost never happens in real life - soldiers have to take cover to protect themselves temporarily to ATTACK LATER. Few exceptions to this, prove the rule.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    5. Re:What's the point? by he-sk · · Score: 1

      That's great but Wikileaks is not a person but an organisation. Or do you mean to imply Wikileaks = Assange?

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    6. Re:What's the point? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      An organization run by persons who want to survive to fight another day. That wasn't hard, was it?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  44. I didn't see this reading at +2.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but one downside (to Snowden/Wikileaks) of them giving interested government parties the key is then they will know exactly what can be used against them, and can then mitigate against the damage. Right now, the government is just being caught in a snare of lies; each subsequent release of information exposes the prior release's damage control efforts.

    1. Re:I didn't see this reading at +2.... by smash · · Score: 1

      And just how can you mitigate the damage from 400 GB of seriously incriminatiing disclosure?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:I didn't see this reading at +2.... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It depends all on weighing the risk of incriminating information against the value of scaring future potential leakers to not leak. If Snowden, Assange and some other leakers are killed in strikes then it means that other leakers may fear to release information that's incriminating.

      In which case the quote "Don't underestimate the power of the dark side." will become true and we will know how bad the situation really is.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  45. Re:Assange is a loser. by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about "hadicapped". Many places don'e have ADA-like laws. They have handicapped spaces in front of the bank with 2 flights of stairs to get up, but a "blacks-only" separate but equal entrance in the alley out back.

    And Russia doesn't seem "so bad". Homosexuality is legal and has been for 20 years. The Russian people seem more hostile towards it, but the law makes it legal. Picking one "fringe" cause and using that as a litmus test misses the greater issue. The main problem with Russia at the moment is that nobody has free speech. A straight person supporting gay rights with speech only is breaking the law in some areas (depending on how they support it). That's not a gay rights issue, that's a human rights issue. Making it about gay rights misses the point. But, based on the rest of your post, you were deliberately missing the point.

  46. Please Russians, kill me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Snowden has successfully incentivized the Russians to kill him.

    By murdering Snowden the FSB gets:
    * access to these remaining encrypted documents and any juicy details they may hold
    * ability to blame the assassination on the USA. A major propaganda win across the board. Sours relations between USA and EU. Increases US citizens distrust of intelligence agencies, further hobbling their collection capabilities. Angers Russian public against USA.
    * sets an example for any Russians planning similar leaks: talk and end up brutally dead.
    * neatly ends any simmering diplomatic disputes in Russia's favor.

    1. Re:Please Russians, kill me! by smash · · Score: 2

      I know you crazy americans think the Russians are just bloodthirsty psychopaths looking for an excuse to murder people, but seriously, that post takes the cake.

      Russia stands to gain FAR more from this politically by keeping him safe.

      Most of the civilized world outside the US is sick to death of the bullshit.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:Please Russians, kill me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four benefits were listed for killing Snowden.

      You countered with a list of zero benefits for keeping him alive.

      As for "the bullshit"... perhaps you should read about what happens to Putin's political opponents. Russians are just people, with all the good and the bad that entails. But you're a retard if you believe the Russian government is run by fluffy, innocent sheep.

    3. Re:Please Russians, kill me! by smash · · Score: 2

      No, 4 crazy reasons were listed fro killing Snowden. Given that this "insurance" is to protect people like him, there's no reason to believe that killing him will give any of the puported benefits.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    4. Re:Please Russians, kill me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain how his insurance protects him against conflicting Russian interests.

      So far you've supplied zero counter arguments. The limits of your rhetoric have been "crazy" and "bullshit".

  47. Re:Assange is a loser. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    Not true. The Mafia's code of conduct does not provide for attacks on family members or other unrelated parties.

  48. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    . Really? Link or it didn't happen...

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  49. Check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...NSA, your move.

    1. Re:Check... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Thats cute. If they actually wanted to stop it, they'd have executed a few key people long ago. Hard to argue Checkmate with an extra couple of holes suddenly appearing in your head

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  50. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the few truly insightful and accurate posts I've seen in a long time on this worthless site. Of course it's mod-bombed to hell.

  51. Free... by niftymitch · · Score: 1
    Free one time pads

    If you want to communicate securely you now have very large one time pads for secure key exchange.

    It seems obvious to me... so do not try and patent it.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  52. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You act like they are treated as slaves.

    Well, you get -1 internet points for attempting to argue using the logical fallacy of relative privation. Just because one group of human beings aren't treated quite as badly in America than in many other countries doesn't mean that things are perfect. Personally, I'd like to live in a world where any kind of difference was such a non-issue as to not even warrant singling out.

    However, it does sound like you've personally witnessed a crime against fashion.

  53. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a torrent distribution, so the transmission problem is moot.

    Bittorrent breaks large files down into small chunks automatically, and builds error detection into each chunk. The only problem is the allocation of disk space; if they divided it into logical component files when setting up the torrent, then people can choose to download, for example, one of the 4GB chunks but not the rest. Other clients would still be able to request that chunk from that client, and the client would only allocate disk space for the selected chunks.

    If they forgot to divide it when setting up the torrent, then BT will try to allocate 400GB of disk space even if you're only holding onto 4GB of the file. That's where it becomes problematic, but you could still choose to download only xGB of the data (just 'pause' the torrent download once you've got all you want). Again, other clients can still request the chunks you've got.

  54. Re:Assange is a loser. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

    What makes you think real americans are after said principles or have a grasp of declaration of independence?

    What makes you think Real Scotsmen don't exist in a superposition of both true and untrue?!

  55. The Internet is for Porn by mendax · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting if all this data is finally unlocked and accessible and we find out that this is the NSA's collective porn collection, something gathered in addition to all of the world's e-mails and phone calls and text messages.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  56. Part A complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just finished downloading part A: 3.6Gb. It was an aXXo rip of Iron Man 3. Spoiler alert, it sucks.

    1. Re:Part A complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot if you didn't see the file list minutes after you started the torrent download.

  57. Re:Assange is a loser. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    In all the history of recorded history, there have always been groups that were looked down upon by the general public of the time. People will be labeled until there are no people.left to label. Acknowledging that isn't a bad thing. Ignoring it is.

  58. Effective blackmail? by mendax · · Score: 1

    If this is an attempt by WikiLeaks to blackmail the U.S. government into backing off it would only be effective if the decryption key was quietly given to the government so they could verify that these files are legitimate and not a compilation of their favorite MP3s. However, I suspect this will be counterproductive. The government is going to strike back and strike hard. I wonder what they're going to do. I have some ideas.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  59. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ruining another political conversation with a mute point. let the sexual preference mean nothing stop focusing on it and stop caring , people do is the do and why should you care?

      what people do in their bedrooms , is no business of ours , move on....

  60. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they asking to get married in their bedrooms or in public forums?

  61. A totally different kind of honeypot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd not be surprised if it was a massive cache of steganography-embedded or metadata-embedded child-porn. Most abettors would be unwitting and even those who purged the data would still have forensic residue on their boxes. Hopefully not case, but not implausible.

    For the Children

  62. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But English is your second language, clearly. Not an attack just an observation. I smell trollflesh...

  63. are you sure that _NO_ONE_ can open them? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    i'm just saying, if i'm a country that is unfond of the USA and had near limitless funding, plenty of ASIC designers, access to the latest IC manufacturing technology and all the warehouse and power needed, how long would it really take to crack open one of these files? i mean, how many would it take, a trillion ASICs, a quadrillion? these numbers are not out of the reach of the chinese government.

    but considering it's china, with all their _successful_ hacking, they probably have most of the information already.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:are you sure that _NO_ONE_ can open them? by smash · · Score: 1

      State sponsored hacking isn't who these documents are intended to be protected from. And yes, chances are china has much of it already :)

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:are you sure that _NO_ONE_ can open them? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      AES-256? Somebody cracking it by brute force would need to be incredibly lucky to succeed before the Sun turns cold. Even with weaknesses in the cipher, there's still way over a hundred bits of entropy in the key.

      It is of course possible that there's a completely unexpected weakness in the cipher, but I don't think that's the right way to bet. I think the insurance file is quite secure.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  64. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you fantasize about Dick Cheney's cock?

  65. Re:Assange is a loser. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So consider how the US treats mentally ill? Then we are one of the worst. Or how the EU treats mobility impaired people, where I've seen many modern buildings that want a old look that are handicapped inaccessible (or, at best, have a "separate but equal" back-alley entrance). Everyone's horrible when you gauge them based of the worst treatment anyone receives. Then you have to gauge based on government treatment or private citizen treatment. Being gay is legal in Russia, but as frowned upon as being Gay in Texas in the 1990s (where someone I had met was kidnapped from a gay bar and killed, no prosecutions in the case, they had better things to do than hunt down people doing us a favor). And, sometimes the treatment is sporadic. It wasn't that long ago where gay-based killings were common in Texas, so does that count? Or are we changing the rules to get the answer you like?

  66. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BT is the best protocol to use this whole chunk thing. First, it uses smaller blocks (say 4MB/16MB and rexmits only these blocks if it sees checksum mismatches etc.); Next, the statistical dispersion of these blocks lets you quickly recover data from multiple sources using multiple pipes, assuming people are online till they seed;

    They've tried to solve it at the distribution layer.

  67. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said Assange wants to save the America? He wants to save the world from America!

  68. Why FB ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

    I do have an FB account, but I choose to NOT using it since 2004

    I can dl the 400GB file, but not via FB

    Can someone please transfer that file elsewhere, maybe on the "MEGA" site, so folks like me who do not want to have anything to do with FB can dl that 400GB insurance file for safekeep ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Why FB ? by smash · · Score: 2

      They're torrents.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  69. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the few truly insightful and accurate posts I've seen in a long time on this worthless site. Of course it's mod-bombed to hell.

    You and idiots like you are the enemy.

    When the time comes, there will be no mercy.

  70. Obvious: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    The passphrase is "James Clapper is a weenie!"

  71. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go read a few of his prior posts. He must be a troll, since nobody could possibly be that stupid.

  72. Re: Assange is a loser. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    We're demanding equal treatment under the law.

  73. Re: Assange is a loser. by bondsbw · · Score: 1

    Well, I'd like to live in a world where we focus on real crimes against humanity instead of what are, relatively speaking, inconveniences.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  74. Magnet links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're torrents.

    Great !

    I'll power up my torrent machines !

    But where can I find the magnet links to the files ?

  75. Not found !! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    This is what I got when I searched the Pirate Bay

    http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/5728614/

    Not Found (aka 404)

    You're looking for something that does not, has not, will not, might not or must not exist ... ... but you're always welcome to search for it.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Not found !! by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      And you can find it, easily.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  76. Re: Assange is a loser. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    That's fucking retarded.

  77. Insurance needs a deadman switch by redelm · · Score: 2

    Nice to get 400 GB of encrypts. It makes the keys easier to drop. But to work as "insurance", Mr Snowden either must trust other individuals with the keys. Or machines. Somebody/thing must act when he may not be able.

    Under certain circumstances (nologin for a week, too many hits on "Snowden arrested|dead") then the individuals or machines spam out the keys. Potentially in waves if the big block has sub-blocks with different encryption keys.

    1. Re:Insurance needs a deadman switch by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It's also a gamble.

      The gamble is the expectation that the authorities are afraid to do something because they are afraid of the contents in the files. But if they don't fear the contents and are willing to accept a shitstorm just to get at the leakers then this publication is useless. It's the question of accepting one punch in the face just to be able to make a kill and scare all other potential leakers to silence.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Insurance needs a deadman switch by redelm · · Score: 1
      If the Assange treatment didn't silence Snowden, then Snowden's fate is unlikely to silence similarly stout leakers.

      Furthermore, there is a twisted logic necessary for [elected] tyrannies -- the tyrants may do whatever they like, but they are burning capital all the way and will fall when it is gone. Much less is needed to justify extreme measures to preserve "state secrets" than merely to send a message. The "justice" system is for grinding out messages.

      Incredible how subservient the UK has become.

    3. Re:Insurance needs a deadman switch by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Snowden knows what he's doing:

      https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/snowdens_dead_m.html

      I do hope he has a duress system as well as a "defuse" system that can be activated by trusted friends.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  78. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the person you are responding to is more worried about silent corruption of a file that's bit-rotting on a hard drive.

  79. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd hope they'd have sense enough to order some more flour before they run out of bread.

  80. Re: Assange is a loser. by Andtalath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or we could just bloody stop discriminating people in our own countries before preaching to others to stop.

    A societies worth is determined by how they treat it's least powerful members.

  81. That's Amazing. by Alsee · · Score: 1

    I downloaded it and tried the password 12345.
    The file didn't open, but oddly my luggage did.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  82. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Russia there is such a thing now as punishable "homosexuality propaganda amongst minors." What counts as "propaganda" is whatever government thinks it is.

  83. Re:Assange is a loser. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    That's a freedom of speech thing, not a homosexual thing. You can't say stuff without getting thrown in jail. That's speech. They look at what you said (presumably) so that's not strictly a gay thing.

    You can go to jail in the US for drawing a cartoon about homosexuals minors.

  84. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've been watching too many movies. Family members are very much valid targets for the mafia.

  85. Helped vs. Supported / unwanted help by burni2 · · Score: 1

    Hi,

    the poster "spins" untrue details

    1.) Edward Snowden did not work with wikileaks togethers, he worked with a journalist (G. Greenwald)
    2.) Assange glued himself in a very slimy way to Ed Snowdens purpose, to stay within the media

  86. Pretty funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know the government is highly corrupt and needs to be booted and yet nothing is happening.

    The very best scenario to pretty much portray the situation is this:
    Imagine you get home and your loved one is having sex with your best friend and you simply ignore it and move on.

  87. Re:Assange is a loser. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    I see. Guess they're as bad as the government, then. Another childhood illusion lies in pieces...

  88. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by bankman · · Score: 1

    If only there was some kind of error-correcting software that divided files into chunks for transfer; a way to download torrents of bits, if you will.

    You mean like something RAR? ;-)

    --
    I feel so sig.
  89. Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie by bankman · · Score: 1

    You mean like something RAR? ;-)

    Grammar not strong the morning in...

    --
    I feel so sig.
  90. Just a thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the NSA "accidentally" broke the law a few thousand times in the process of conducting widespread and in some cases misdirected surveillance. Assuming pure motives and a total commitment to adhering to the letter and spirit of the law... I have to ask - Why isn't anyone being prosecuted for BREAKING THE LAW A FEW THOUSAND TIMES?!? Snowden apparently broke the law 6 times (iirc that's the number of counts against him) and the Government is going after him hammer and tongs. You could argue that he willfully broke the law and whoever was responsible for each of those thousand felonies didn't do it on purpose... but the last time I checked breaking the law doesn't take intentions into account when assessing guilt or innocence.

    Selective enforcement is a poisonous thing to a free country. So is the capacity for universal surveillance of its citizens. Why are more people upset about the fact that there are clearly two different sets of rules for citizens and for government? Why are people terrified about the fact that once universal surveillance is in place, the motivation to use it against them will eventually over ride the intention to use it on our enemies?

    Come on, if you really don't think these are problems - do me a favor and think about how you would react if George Bush had done these things instead of Obama....

  91. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should have mentioned 'Muslim' to expose the real bigots.

  92. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You lost credibility in your first sentence: "I'm as real of an American as can be done." Anything that you wrote after that was white noise at best.

  93. download in uk and go to prison by sal_park · · Score: 3, Interesting

    so if I down loaded this in the uk, I could be sent to prison for not giving the authorities the password that I don't have... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_lawt

    1. Re:download in uk and go to prison by sal_park · · Score: 1
    2. Re:download in uk and go to prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if I down loaded this in the uk, I could be sent to prison for not giving the authorities the password that I don't have...

      In theory, no, you should not be convicted in this case. A defence under RIPA* is that you did not know or forgot the key. If your forgot/did not have key defence was disbelieved because you were effectively required to prove this defence, you might have to take your case all the way to the ECHR** if you were then convicted (on the grounds that it is impossible to prove you forgot or did not have the key, so if you were required to do so it would violate your right to a fair trial - proving the impossible should fit that bill).
      Interestingly I believe the only convictions so far have been of people who *admitted* they knew the key but *refused* to provide it. AFAIK the 'forgot/never had' defence has not been used yet. The authorities probably don't want bring a case where this defence may be used if at all possible, since it is the weakest point of this law.

      *RIPA=Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
      **ECHR=European Court of Human Rights

  94. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one in Russia has free speech?

    You mean they don't even have Free Speech Zones (TM)?

  95. Re: Assange is a loser. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

    You know, if I tried to become perfect in a subject before trying to teach my children about it, I'd be guilty of letting them grow up ignorant of everything rather than giving them a jumping off point with merely my own faults.

  96. Re:Assange is a loser. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

    Quite. Especially as a relative fraction of society. Looking at minority rights can provide one with interesting case studies, but looking at majority rights will tell you about the big picture.

  97. Russia and Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Putin make it a condition of Snowden being allowed to stay that no more releases would be made?

  98. Red Herring? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    There is probably nothing in those files if they were ever decrypted....I Love Lucy re-runs or some such garbage or maybe just random bits to bedevil the NSA's decoders.

  99. Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More than likely that the NSA has already considered this information lost. No one is going to negotiate with Wikileaks, and no one is going to send James Bond type assassins to kill everyone. (If the US did that kind of thing, Assange and company would have been killed long ago) Ironically, Snowden's new sugar daddy Russia does do that kind of thing on occasion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko) But nevermind that, back to internet underdog porn where we pretend that all Western Democracies with intelligence agencies are run by Dr. Evil and all Assange/Snowden types are selfless heroes trying to destroy the Stazi death star.

  100. Re:"Attentionwhoreleaks" doesn't roll off the tong by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It may be boring junk in terms of not telling us things we don't already strongly suspect, but getting real confirmation is a big deal, hard evidence is important.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  101. Re:"Attentionwhoreleaks" doesn't roll off the tong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most likely the 400GB pack will contain the same boring junk as before.

    Yes, right, it's all 'boring junk' citizen. Nothing to see. Go back to watching Honey Boo-boo.

  102. Privacy is a sickening social stigma that is holdi by bloggerhater · · Score: 1

    Snowden exposed the glaring issues in domestic security. He was a contractor who not only had access to data he shouldn't have, but he handed vindication to all the super paranoid people around the world, and that made him a media icon.

    The real question is... if they aren't using the information against you, why exactly does it matter? Have they silenced your freedom of speech? Or exposed your search results to an employer? THEY HAVEN'T?!

    I'm a geek, but I also consider myself a logical, red blooded American. Here are the facts. Uncle same has been monitoring our communications for decades. Look up carnivore and omnivore. So now they are getting Internet meta data. Surprised!?
    WHY does it matter if they have your information? The only reason you have for " privacy" is if you are a criminal. Period. Or are you afraid that your coworkers will find out that you are taping up rodents and inserting them anally?

    The need for privacy is an age old social stigma that grew out of the church decrying things like sexuality, freedom of speech, freedom of thought. A taboo that does nothing but protect those who are easily offended while stigmatizing people because they like to be different. There is nothing positive and nothing to gain by living like this. If anything it is stunting our social evolution.

    All you privacy nuts live in a more and more open world every day. If you want to live your life behind closed doors scared of what other people think of you... Go ahead. I enjoy my life.

  103. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't that long ago where gay-based killings were common in Texas, so does that count? Or are we changing the rules to get the answer you like?

    Common? Really?

  104. Re: Assange is a loser. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    You act like they are treated as slaves. I attended the wedding of my brother-in-law to his now-husband just 4 weeks ago, right here in the good ol' United States. I don't recall either of them being tied up with chains (although, he did wear a rainbow feather boa at one point...).

    No, the "tied up with chains" part was after the wedding.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  105. And this happens... by whitroth · · Score: 1

    ... right after Area 51 is admitted to exist. And there were lots of redactions....

    Or, who knows, maybe it includes things like Cheney leaked Plame to the papers....

                          mark "swing low, sweet UFO, comin' for to carry me home!"

  106. NSA by Dabido · · Score: 1

    Can't help but think that the NSA is tracking everyone who downloads or mirrors wikileak files in order to do a massive round up one night when everyone least expects it and the files (where ever they are found) disappear forever with everyone who ever copied it.

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  107. Re:Assange is a loser. by smustafa · · Score: 1

    The only way we can do that is to break the system. Fat chance really. The beginning of the downwall (in this respect) started with the advent of the lobbies. We really need to curb that if not even eliminate it, but _some_ good does come out of lobbying so some one with greater political acumen than I should tackle that.

  108. encryption by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Of course no one can read it, if there are insurance info on how they scammed their people as per the cliche hollywood movies dictate we are, they would have encrypted it. My assumption is that this is a move by an individual that might be holding this file hostage and be asking for money or else they will release the decryption info and voila, end of story.

    Why put an encrypted file on the leaks without being able to open it, unless it just a show of how far you would go to get what you want. I am going to follow this one for sure though as I would be greatly interested in knowing how bad insurance companies have been scamming us.

  109. Just release it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why all this 'insurance' and blackmail, stuff?
    Why not just release everything at once.. what exactly are you going to get by keeping it secret? Except being killed to prevent it's release. If it's all released then any killing would just be retaliation which is pointless because of all the press anyway. If he's really some kind of patriot wanting to uncover the whole truth, just release everything, surrender, lawyer up, and have a *huge trial. He's not military like manning, so no 1 judge court martial, a big public jury trial... and go to jail if convicted.. isn't that what someone would do when they selflessly risk their freedom for ours?

    Assange, Snowden, seriously, man up and release all the embarrassing government stuff and have a show trial and go to jail... you can still rake in the publicity and money as 'political prisoners'. We don't know what crazy details that you have that the government is doing, so why are you keeping it secret, isn't that what they were doing and you wanted to uncover?

  110. Re:Assange is a loser. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    When you are in a group of 20 people and someone says "someone in Houston tied a gay to the back of his truck and dragged him to death" and the first response from someone is "again?" I'd classify that as "common" even if it wasn't daily, weekly, or even monthly.

  111. Re:Assange is a loser. by kermidge · · Score: 1

    bingo

  112. Re: Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From one coward to another,I think his name is suggestive

  113. Bzzt! Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dumb fuck.

    I hereby conclude that you are one or both of the following:

    1) A paid sockpuppet.
    2) Really Really Stupid.

    When your political leanings can result in penalty from the IRS, you have plenty of reason to be worried about government surveillance.

    Hell, I just read this article two minutes ago:

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/01/innocent-couple-gets-visited-by-feds-aft

    You want to live in a world where you have to put up with the police tramping through your house because you searched for "Pressure Cooker" on Google? That team said they pulled that kind of crap 100 times a week. TSA searches in your own living room. Wonderful.

    How long until somebody gets tazed in their own house over a Google search? (And don't pooh-pooh the slippery slope argument. Idiots have been doing that since this shit first locked into high gear twelve years ago, and gee whiz, they were wrong. That slope is greased!)

    Paid. Or Stupid. (If "Paid" then also Stupid by default).

    "Geek" doesn't mean smart or wise. Half the damned time it means just the opposite.

  114. The NSA will find a way... by JorgenEscher · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it takes before the NSA or CIA raids the guys who make the PROVOST CYPHR encryption software they have used...

  115. Is This Cheese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That insurance file is for Mr. Snowden. It was likely delivered by Greenwalds partner to Wikileaks this week. The NSA likely took his hardware in an attempt to gain access to private keys so that they can decrypt their communications.

  116. Why is this file so huge ? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    There is enough data in these files to hold like 1000h of average quality 480p video plus the full text of the english wikipedia.
    If this file is made of sensitive information, why not get a bit more selective and only keep the good bits. It would have made the sharing and usage easier.

  117. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shove a giant Costco up your ass.

  118. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gay rights is not a good litmus test of human rights. I find womens rights to be a better gauge.

    Women currently have MORE rights than males in America. Does that mean that American has awesome human rights?

    No. No it does not.

    Equal Rights. Period. Not women rights, not gay rights, not black rights. Equal fucking rights. That is what makes a good litmus test: Equal Rights.

  119. Re:Assange is a loser. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Women currently have MORE rights than males in America.

    What right does a woman have that a man does not?

    Equal Rights. Period. Not women rights, not gay rights, not black rights. Equal fucking rights. That is what makes a good litmus test: Equal Rights.

    And the US fails quite poorly on that. Fewer riots than some other places, but worse disparity of rights.

  120. Re:Assange is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it's not only about speech. You don't need to say anything for that to count as propaganda. Yep. // Slow reply.