Assange had a financial inerest in how and when it was released. No surprises here! I'd respect Assange if he lived up to his hype about "open access." Now we know why there are alternatives to WikiLeaks. (and yes, I did read the WLCentral.org item before posting. Shamir himself is not without controversy: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309818.html
MacOS X, which is Unix underneath the Apple GUI, doesn't have these problems, and It is a "viable desktop platform" (unless you're a Sold-your-soul-to-Microsoft CIO/IT guy...)
Valid point, but I think we're conflating a couple of issues:
1. vulnerability to these kinds of attacks
2. existence of management controls to turn off some classes of access
You can't have "a random program from the net read classified documents" unless there's a cross-domain guard of some sort to bridge the classified and unclassified networks.
Blame Windows. These vulnerabilities don't exist, or at least are not exploitable/exploited to the same degree on other platforms.
I'm still waiting for a -successful attack- like this on the Mac. Given the growing Apple market share, particularly concentrated at the high end (i.e. more wealthy) of the market, I'm still not buying the argument that 'all computers are equally vulnerable.' But then, I don't support purely random searches to prevent terrorism, either.
But is it your perspective/position that there is no 'controlling law' that would prohibit the general release of classified material to an unauthorized person (someone not in one of the categories you cite above)?
In particular, why does 42 USC 2277 require the recipient to be a US Citizen?
Why doesn't this particular provision apply?... but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data...
We're talking about an investigation on the release of classified material to unauthorized recipients, focusing on "who", "what" and "how". IANAL, but this seems to be pretty clear to me.
'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen."
The press wants to be the SOLE "Decider" of what the people get to see. Does anyone doubt that a crime was committed by providing classified material to an unauthorized individual or organization?
The government needs to go get a warrant and execute this warrant, if it has probable cause. Without the warrant, any individual/organization doesn't have to reveal what it knows. With the warrant, Hansen and Poulsen have two choices: Cooperate or go to jail. And that's at the heart, by the way, of civil disobedience. It's that you're willing to -pay the normal punishment- for that disobedience (and not just get a slap on the wrist because you were "doing it for the right reasons".)
You know, the one about the Data General ad in response to the press release how IBM "legitimizes the minicomputer", that said "The bastards say welcome..."
I give Perens & Raymond a lot of credit for 'legitimizing' the term, but certainly the concepts and the execution had been going on MUCH longer than "the last 12 years."
A lot of government contracts in the '70s and early '80s (and probably before that) came with source code and you could grab lots of it over Arpanet/early Internet if you had access. What I think Richard Stallman did was promote the -economic philosophy- that you should (a) always get source code ("free beer"); (b) have the right to modify that source code and redistribute the results ("free speech").
So we need to keep a couple of things straight:
1. 'access to source'
2. 'free (as in beer) software'
3. 'free (as in speech) modification and redistribution of software'
4. 'community development/maintenance' These are usually combined into the term "open source", but they are 4 distinct aspects of that term.
ROTC mid '70s, active duty '78-'82, in the National Guard to about '94. Field Artillery Officer Basic was one of the few Officer courses you could flunk out of at that time with 2 segments you had to pass, Map Reading and Observed Fires.
The military (US) maps I'm familiar with also indicate the rate of drift for magnetic north, so if you really need that accuracy (something we did in some cases for laying artillery firing batteries in the Olden Days without GPS and intertial nav systems...) you'd check the date of the map, calculate the current drift, and apply that corrected correction.
So if rate of change is accelerating (2nd derivative), that makes the calculation a lot more interesting.
No, I'm asserting that Assange decides what he'll post and what he'll talk about. That makes him part of the "action", and not just a passive repository.
And I believe that Assange's decisions are motivated by his politics and beliefs, whether or not that is his intent. That's part of the slippery slope of "deciding".
The comments from Assange make it clear that WikiLeaks is not just acting as a repository, but rather clearly targeting organizations (governmental, commercial, etc.) That, to me, invalidates their claims of neutrality. These leaks are -targeted-, and by so doing WikiLeaks is by no means just a neutral party, but an active participant in the dialog. Under those terms, I think the site loses its moral position and possibly its legal defense, too.
A big part of the problem is "who decides who's worthy of embarrassment?"
why is this on slashdot? Because it's a great jumping off point for stupid one-liners like "How could Steve use any service where he is confined to only throwing around 140 chars?"
A quick look at the documentation shows that objects/classes are strongly typed, but scalars (i.e. integers) apparently are not. In my experience, you're much less likely to add Apples to Oranges, than you are to add Count of Apples to Count of Oranges. And that also holds true for scalar values used for array indexing, etc.
So it seems to me that no language should be called 'strongly typed' if it doesn't include a complete type system for scalar types.
And if the information returned Internet Explorer, could they offer a lower rate, believing that the car being purchased will be in the shop more often?
Must have been a slow news day (until the Yemeni package scare). But maybe Ozzie's onto something; perhaps Neanderthals do have greater drug survivability...
Slashdot Mirror
Assange had a financial inerest in how and when it was released.
No surprises here! I'd respect Assange if he lived up to his hype about "open access." Now we know why there are alternatives to WikiLeaks.
(and yes, I did read the WLCentral.org item before posting. Shamir himself is not without controversy: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309818.html
MacOS X, which is Unix underneath the Apple GUI, doesn't have these problems, and It is a "viable desktop platform" (unless you're a Sold-your-soul-to-Microsoft CIO/IT guy...)
No evidence in the base article this was loaded on a machine in a -classified- network.
"lower market share" does NOT make attacks more difficult, it just reduces the number of potentially vulnerable machines.
Valid point, but I think we're conflating a couple of issues:
1. vulnerability to these kinds of attacks
2. existence of management controls to turn off some classes of access
You can't have "a random program from the net read classified documents" unless there's a cross-domain guard of some sort to bridge the classified and unclassified networks.
Blame Windows. These vulnerabilities don't exist, or at least are not exploitable/exploited to the same degree on other platforms.
I'm still waiting for a -successful attack- like this on the Mac. Given the growing Apple market share, particularly concentrated at the high end (i.e. more wealthy) of the market, I'm still not buying the argument that 'all computers are equally vulnerable.' But then, I don't support purely random searches to prevent terrorism, either.
Thanks, I really do appreciate the citations.
But is it your perspective/position that there is no 'controlling law' that would prohibit the general release of classified material to an unauthorized person (someone not in one of the categories you cite above)?
In particular, why does 42 USC 2277 require the recipient to be a US Citizen?
in the Democratic primaries? Hillary Clinton? Jerry Brown?
Could get interesting...
Thank you for the relevant citation.
Why doesn't this particular provision apply? ... but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data ...
We're talking about an investigation on the release of classified material to unauthorized recipients, focusing on "who", "what" and "how". IANAL, but this seems to be pretty clear to me.
What's more important, the law or individual journalist's opinions of their own self-worth?
There is 200 years of law & court decisions on this topic in the US.
'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen."
The press wants to be the SOLE "Decider" of what the people get to see. Does anyone doubt that a crime was committed by providing classified material to an unauthorized individual or organization?
The government needs to go get a warrant and execute this warrant, if it has probable cause. Without the warrant, any individual/organization doesn't have to reveal what it knows. With the warrant, Hansen and Poulsen have two choices: Cooperate or go to jail. And that's at the heart, by the way, of civil disobedience. It's that you're willing to -pay the normal punishment- for that disobedience (and not just get a slap on the wrist because you were "doing it for the right reasons".)
You know, the one about the Data General ad in response to the press release how IBM "legitimizes the minicomputer", that said "The bastards say welcome..."
I give Perens & Raymond a lot of credit for 'legitimizing' the term, but certainly the concepts and the execution had been going on MUCH longer than "the last 12 years."
A lot of government contracts in the '70s and early '80s (and probably before that) came with source code and you could grab lots of it over Arpanet/early Internet if you had access. What I think Richard Stallman did was promote the -economic philosophy- that you should (a) always get source code ("free beer"); (b) have the right to modify that source code and redistribute the results ("free speech").
So we need to keep a couple of things straight:
1. 'access to source'
2. 'free (as in beer) software'
3. 'free (as in speech) modification and redistribution of software'
4. 'community development/maintenance'
These are usually combined into the term "open source", but they are 4 distinct aspects of that term.
ROTC mid '70s, active duty '78-'82, in the National Guard to about '94. Field Artillery Officer Basic was one of the few Officer courses you could flunk out of at that time with 2 segments you had to pass, Map Reading and Observed Fires.
The military (US) maps I'm familiar with also indicate the rate of drift for magnetic north, so if you really need that accuracy (something we did in some cases for laying artillery firing batteries in the Olden Days without GPS and intertial nav systems...) you'd check the date of the map, calculate the current drift, and apply that corrected correction.
So if rate of change is accelerating (2nd derivative), that makes the calculation a lot more interesting.
What he said! (I don't have mod points otherwise I'd have used them on the parent post.)
Cold Fusion??? ;-)
No, I'm asserting that Assange decides what he'll post and what he'll talk about. That makes him part of the "action", and not just a passive repository.
And I believe that Assange's decisions are motivated by his politics and beliefs, whether or not that is his intent. That's part of the slippery slope of "deciding".
The comments from Assange make it clear that WikiLeaks is not just acting as a repository, but rather clearly targeting organizations (governmental, commercial, etc.) That, to me, invalidates their claims of neutrality. These leaks are -targeted-, and by so doing WikiLeaks is by no means just a neutral party, but an active participant in the dialog. Under those terms, I think the site loses its moral position and possibly its legal defense, too.
A big part of the problem is "who decides who's worthy of embarrassment?"
That might explain a lot of things, particularly its exploitation by Russian malware...
I glanced at my RSS feeds and thought the story title was "Pluto might be bigger than Elvis". Now that would be really big!
why is this on slashdot? Because it's a great jumping off point for stupid one-liners like "How could Steve use any service where he is confined to only throwing around 140 chars?"
in this case: s/stupid/clever/
A quick look at the documentation shows that objects/classes are strongly typed, but scalars (i.e. integers) apparently are not. In my experience, you're much less likely to add Apples to Oranges, than you are to add Count of Apples to Count of Oranges. And that also holds true for scalar values used for array indexing, etc.
So it seems to me that no language should be called 'strongly typed' if it doesn't include a complete type system for scalar types.
http://www.youtube.com/theroyalchannel
I particularly enjoyed watching some of the historical footage.
And if the information returned Internet Explorer, could they offer a lower rate, believing that the car being purchased will be in the shop more often?
The source... (/. got it from CNN.com)
Must have been a slow news day (until the Yemeni package scare). But maybe Ozzie's onto something; perhaps Neanderthals do have greater drug survivability...