The REASON Wikileaks was established in the first place was BECAUSE the various 'journalism' organizations have been infiltrated by intelligence agencies. It is IMPOSSIBLE to publish hyper-sensitive stuff! My first-hand exposure to this information began on 27 Nov. 2003, and continued for several years, so I'm not just making this up. See my previous Slashdot posts.
I've told Slashdot about this before: The Plame/Wilson affair, and the unwillingness of ANY journalism organization ANYWHERE to publish their (true!) evidence indicating that G. W. Bush lied to the US public about the reason for going to war in Iraq, sparked Wikileaks. It had been considered before, but that was the impetus to make it happen.
What is harder to infiltrate, one man or a team of men?
Journalist organizations are better set up for publishing leaks.
Then why not cut out the middleman and leak directly to the journalist organizations. Openleaks is not providing any value by being a useless link in the chain.
Also, you seem to be the only one posting anything in favor of Openleaks. Everyone else realizes it is crap. I'm calling you out on it. I think you are Daniel Domscheit-Berg himself, posting on slashdot to shill for your own organization.
I'm not defending him I'm defending the idea. The fact that he wont release the code, there is no way I can defend the integrity of a man who didn't keep his word on something critical.
A *lot* of people suspect that Domscheit-Berg is an intelligence plant. He spent most of his time at Wikileaks trying to sabotage the operation. He was apparently trying to identify contributors while he was their. And then he participated in an obvious effort to discredit Assange after he left.
What's more OpenLeaks was/is planning to refuse Tor submissions, going instead with their own "secure" software (which they refuse to release the source code for openly). Smells a lot like a honeypot to me. I seriously doubt any submission will ever make it to a newspaper. But I do suspect the police/FBI/CIA will make it to the door of anyone submitting.
You make some good points. Until he releases the code we cannot rule out that it could be a honeypot. I don't think it would be an FBI/CIA thing though because he's a German and they have their own intelligence agencies in Europe. The code absolutely must be released and while I don't necessarily think we should pin all our faith in Tor or Wikileaks, at least we have the code for Tor and at least Wikileaks actually has leaked in the past.
If you understand the Openleaks technology, the idea is you shouldn't have to trust Julian Assange or anyone else with your secrets. The hackers should build the technology not enter the spy war. Julian Assage has brought heat on hackers around the world because he's entering into the spy world and that makes it dangerous for everyone and anyone so Daniel has a point there.
Unfortunately Openleaks is vaporware and no code has been released. Unless he releases the code he deserves the bad reputation hes earning.
You also gotta wonder, what exactly is that technology supposed to be anyway? Tor is readily available, as are file uploading sites and message boards accessible with tor. If you have the technical know-how to use the "Openleaks technology" to publish your leak, you probably already have the know-how to use Tor anyway. Wikileaks also offered "mail-your-leak" dropboxes, a very secure option that has nothing to do with source-code.
The real thing Openleaks could add is vetted technology to remove things like embedded tracking of documents, for instance the metadata in jpegs and word documents, as well as technology to defeat stenographicly hidden per-file tracking codes. I haven't heard of anything from Openleaks even mentioning that stuff, yet defeating can be vital if a leaker wants to remain anonymous. It's a much harder problem than the actual publishing as well. It's also a problem more easily solved by human efforts, such as trusted individuals that re-word and summarize documents and publish the summaries rather than the originals directly.
What Openleaks can't do with technology is vet the leaks to ensure authenticity. For that an organization like Wikileaks makes much more sense, as does traditional journalism.
Tor isn't easy to use and doesn't interface well with the web. For example if someone wanted to post a TorButton on Slashdot to receive Anonymous leaks, is Tor secure enough or set up to do that? The other problem is Tor itself isn't perfect as a technology, it too can be compromised. And of course once again most people who are journalists want access to a Tor setup without having to be security experts. Tor is only accessible by security experts at this point and the problem is most journalists don't have the expertise to safely deal with it.
The idea of Openleaks is good. Leaks should be decentralized and the technology should be an anonymous secure channel or secure pipeline.
If you understand the Openleaks technology, the idea is you shouldn't have to trust Julian Assange or anyone else with your secrets.
Looking at the openleaks website and the video presented there, openleaks "function, as much as possible, as a mere conduit (akin to the telephone exchange and the post) between the whistleblower and an organization".
1. This means openleaks is attempting to perform a Man-in-the-middle attack using a social engineering attack. 2. It means openleaks does not provide the needed services. The conduits (post, telephone, email) are already there. The missing component is the publishing component, and that is what wikileaks provides. 3. Trust. Assange is a walking pillar of trust, and the more the USA is trying to destroy him, the stronger that trust becomes.
The founder of openleaks, DDB, has a track record of stealing information from the previous organisation he worked for. He has proven that he could not be trusted. The best prediction of future behaviour is past behaviour, so only a fool would trust DDB.
No wonder openleaks fails to take off, in a business where trust is EVERYTHING.
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. While I'm skeptical of Openleaks for not releasing the code, what you're saying is that somehow it's a man in the middle attack automatically when you haven't even reviewed the code?
So if the code is released and it works, and it simplifies the leaking process to the push of a button, isn't that great? Isn't it great if technology automates the process as much as possible and removes humans from the process as much as possible? As a technologist I can tell you the biggest security vulnerability in any system if the human being. Removing the human beings from the technology is a good move as you shouldn't have to trust any human being.
Does that mean we should just trust the code without auditing it? Hell no. But you have to develop the technology because publishing isn't and never was the issue. If something is big news someone will publish it somewhere, it's a matter of getting the anonymous leak to the right people in a secure automated fashion so that the man in the middle cannot read or modify the transmission. If you're worried about man in the middle attacks you do realize that anyone who can physically take control of Julian Assange has already broken Wikileaks.
How do you know Wikileaks isn't a false flag front?
Because they have an actual track record of publishing leaks.
Anybody can claim someone is a spook with no evidence
There is evidence. You may not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean there is none.
how is that any better than the people who claim Julian Assange is a sex offender?
It is completely different. Julian is being accused by people with guns who have the authority to imprison him. Daniel is being accused in the court of public opinion, which has a very different standard of proof.
Evidence? How do you find evidence of someone being a spook? And even if somehow you believe he is, it doesn't mean he knows he's a spook being used by this or that government. It's not like the governments are going to admit to the spook that it's a government front. The spook could be just as much of a victim as everyone else in the process.
Spook is another word for spy or secret agent, which is the most obvious definition from the context. I don't think anyone else but you instead thought of its other use as a racial epithet. It's also a term for a ghost or apparition, but again, from context, everyone seems to have figured that one out.
The problem with the term is that anyone can be labeled a spook and you can have people who are spooks who never know they are spooks. There are unwitting spooks who think they aren't.
Remove Julian Assange and remove the publishing component and focus on making the best possible technology for...
Publishing leaks was the only thing Wikileaks did. If you "remove the publishing component" there are no components left.
Journalist organizations are better set up for publishing leaks. Wikileaks just wasn't well designed as a journalist operation. They never had the critical mass of readership and the way Julian Assange was doing things he had to be in the center of everything and when you put the human in the center of everything it's not hard to corrupt any human and defeat the whole system.
As soon as DDB split, stealing secrets on his way out, he basically said "hey, I've been working with these guys for years but now I'm deliberately stabbing them in the back for my own selfish benefit so from now on you should trust ME with your secrets!" Yeah right. It's like Sammy The Bull Gravano trying to start a big meth op while in the witness protection program. You literally have to be dumber than a 3rd grader in order to think that this is going to work.
If you understand the Openleaks technology, the idea is you shouldn't have to trust Julian Assange or anyone else with your secrets. The hackers should build the technology not enter the spy war. Julian Assage has brought heat on hackers around the world because he's entering into the spy world and that makes it dangerous for everyone and anyone so Daniel has a point there.
Unfortunately Openleaks is vaporware and no code has been released. Unless he releases the code he deserves the bad reputation hes earning.
How do you know Wikileaks isn't a false flag front? Anybody can claim someone is a spook with no evidence and how is that any better than the people who claim Julian Assange is a sex offender? Wrong is wrong. That said I am disappointed that Openleaks never got off the ground. Daniel it's time to release the code if you have any and get Openleaks built or let someone else build it.
The story of too many of the "open" projects : * someone creates something worthwhile * it becomes very popular * some douchebag says: "I'll make something exactly like this, except it will be better because it's OPEN." * nothing of value is produced * Lather, rinse, repeat
Only on paper Openleaks is better than Wikileaks in every way technologically. If you understand the technology behind Wikileaks then you understand that Julian Assange is the weakness in the technology behind Wikileaks. Remove Julian Assange and remove the publishing component and focus on making the best possible technology for actual journalists and on paper that makes sense and is probably the best route to take with regard to hackers, developers, programmers, technologists, but once again apparently Daniel wasn't the guy to do it.
Put the code out there and let the community develop Openleaks. But don't diss Openleaks as a technology or diminish the idea because it's an excellent idea and theoretically superior to Wikileaks. Ask any programmer, hacker, or journalist who actually understands the technology involved.
It's designed better, the idea is better, it doesn't have the central personality cult of Assange weakness. So why didn't it get off the ground? Possibly because of the personality cult of Assange weakness poisoning the well. If it's not Julian Assange and Wikileaks then his cult of personality suspect it has to be a trap, the government, or that somehow it's traitorous.
Openleaks is a good technology on paper, where is the code? Where is the technology in practice? At this point showing is better than telling.
Why to you insist on evading the point every time you comment? The point is that the People need to prevent it. The people of the Republic run the Government, not the other way around. This is how our constitution works. You make it sound like we are helpless victims of a dictatorship. Wake up!
You don't run shit. How can you stop what you don't know is happening?
Have you actually read any laws on the books, studied any laws? Wow dude, please just be quiet regarding law. You are either intentionally speaking untruth, or severely uninformed. Either way, I can only recommend you actually study Laws, Law making, and the theories of the Republic. The laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with civil law, and you are trying to equate them. This is an argument from ignorance, and I'll ignore further comments from you which attempt to do the same.
The law doesn't protect you from a bullet. The Kennedy assassination was illegal, and so was that recent attack in Libya. The law does not protect diplomats. The law doesn't do shit, so you can study the words all you want, at the end of the day it's the technology, the weapons, and the intelligence. Nothing and no law can govern sufficiently advanced technology combined with detailed practical intelligence. Law enforcement does not have technology that even compares to military level. The law of physics are what governs war and military, the laws you are talking about don't apply in war because the police don't have more might than the military.
Yet another straw man fallacy, you seem to be very fluent in fallacy. You insinuate, either through ignorance or intent at spreading propaganda, that all psychopaths are serial killers. Absolute nonsense, and is factually incorrect nearly all of the time. I previously mentioned that 90% of the people working as Stock Brokers are diagnosable as psychopaths. Are all Stock brokers therefor serial killers? To claim such is worse than ignorant, since you have been informed on the subject three times now and each time you ignore the information.
You do realize that you can kill people indirectly? You don't think the messed up economy and a lot of the decisions made by psychopath stock brokers results in loss of peoples lives? I suppose you can be a serial killer if you're smart enough to figure out how to do it legally.
Do you understand the Government of the US? Assuming this is where you live anyway, it is a Republic. Instead of being a defeatist and living under a dictatorship as you are pretending the US is, why not become a member of the Republic and perform your civic duties to keep the Government working for the best interests of Society?
Your attitude is not uncommon, but in all cases it's extremely unhealthy and undermining the Republic. I won't state that you are completely at fault, you are misinformed because you failed to keep the Republic from manipulating media. You failed to keep the Republic honest, and you failed to keep the Republic from protecting members of the Republic. You can continue to be a failure, or you can wake up to your civic duties and demand that the Republic change. Of course this means that you have to wake up others, and have them also demand that the Republic change.
I can tell you it's an extremely difficult task. I debate with people like you ever day at least, and in most cases months go by before people finally begin to see the truth. I get frustrated debating with people that are either liars or completely brainwashed in to believing a false reality. Eventually people do awaken, so I don't give up.
I recommend that people study "The Allegory of the Cave" In that short work, you will find all of the symptoms you will experience as well as the truth that people have known how to manipulate your reality for well over three thousand years. When you find out you have been duped, you will be first angry and deny it.
I don't think it's necessary to believe in evil anymore just like I don't think it's necessary to believe in race.
Just because you choose to not believe in race or evil doesn't mean it does not exist. If I choose to not believe in the dark, that doesn't mean I can read with the lights off.
Neither objectively exist. They are subjective measures.
"Researchers say they've found a way to store artificial short-term memories in isolated brain tissue. 'This is the first time anyone has found a way to store information over seconds about both temporal sequences andstimulus patterns directly in brain tissue,' says the study's lead. 'This paves the way for government to do all sorts of cool things, like tamper with judicial witnesses, implant false memories of political opponents in voters' minds, and directly program children with State-friendly thought patterns."
You are twisting the argument, or using very illogical methods to draw a conclusion. You stated that we should use mind manipulation because the technology exists, then stated "look at nukes" for your example. I, very correctly, pointed out that while we have nukes, we don't use them. Do you really fail to see how your argument is very confused? Because we have, or are working on technology does not imply that they should ever be used. We see, especially in things that are detrimental to humanity, the opposite with harmful technology. Your argument is completely illogical, and trying to obscure the argument with additional statements that are not connected does not help the argument, in fact it makes you appear irrational.
I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be. I'm saying it's going to be used because the people in charge wont be able to resist using it. It's just too powerful not to use. Nukes have been used, and nuclear weapons still are being used just not in the form of a nuclear bomb. They are tactical and precise now, but believe me its still a problem. The technology to nuke people got maintained but not stopped and it's only maintained because enough different countries have nukes to balance the powers.
This is yet another blatant untruth. We are regulated, which is what the whole of Law is. We have Laws correct? Are you trying to claim that there are no Laws? We have in fact numerous types of Law. We have Criminal Law, Civil Law, and Laws regulating our Government. Those laws are based on morality in all cases, there are no exceptions.
The only regulation is technology. Might makes law, not the other way around. Natural law and the law of physics are the only laws that regulate humanity. That means the group with the most control over nature and the most control over physics controls the world. Einstein proved that. Anyone who can kill all of us at the push of a button doesn't have to listen to our concerns about what we like and don't like or what should or shouldn't be done. If they decide to do it, they can because their military is unstoppable. In the USA if our government decides to pursue a technology there is nothing that can stop them and no international law applies, and domestic law doesn't necessary apply either if it's done in secret or done in such a way that it cannot be enforced.
I'm starting to wonder if you have any truth in you at all. There is both treatment and cure, and you are being very brazen with lies now. I even gave examples of how it's best cured according to Scientific Data. Instead of believing what someone tells you, or just making things up, why not go find some facts? There are people that are presenting a case where psychopathic people are a detriment to society, and I even gave a statement (supportable by evidence) that this was not true. You ignore that, and present false information.
Show me a cured psychopathic serial killer and I'll believe you. Find just one cured psychopath and show.
Absolute balderdash, you are attempting to change the subject to protect your claim instead of addressing my point. While a mathematical circle is possible, go ahead and draw one. You will _never_ be able to draw a perfect circle, even with a compass. If we can not perform such a simple thing and replicate perfection, how do you propose that we write software that is perfect? We can not, and you are simply avoiding the truth.
It's possible to draw a perfect circuit, it's just very very difficult and no one can do that by hand without special instruments. But it's possible or we wouldn't be able to build stuff such as the LHC which relies on perfect measurements.
As I mentioned before, this concept is horrifying and will end society. There is no reason for this other than Eugenics, and you are failing in your civic duties if you fail to fight it. It may sound good on paper, but look
When I saw you had replied I took a deep breath and prepared to accept defeat gracefully if you pointed out significant flaws in my ideas or let internet flames be unmet. I was happily surprised to see you take a thoughtful approach in replying. Even now of course, I don't agree with everything you had to say, but you did say it well and tactfully.
You do make a good argument that I might feel more compassion or have a different perspective if I understood the thief better. Indeed I might feel differently. On the other hand, as I have disgust at my own past choices from time to time, I might be less inclined toward forgiving in others what I wouldn't forgive in myself. To quote a great writer, "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
I do not always act in my own best interest, nor in the manner best to suit those ideals I prize, but perhaps with better understanding of each other and knowledge that we were potentially under omnicient scrutiny, we would behave better. Perhaps.
The world is always broken up into adults and children based on the quality of an individuals decision making they are the adult of the situation or the child. I don't think any of us are always going to be the adult of every situation and for that reason it's not fair to judge anyone else for making immature decisions because we all had to make a lot of immature decisions and it's just some of us for whatever reason had a better set of options to choose from or were in a better environment.
At this point technology can either encourage compassion or discourage it.
intentional aquisition that should be illegal, but intentional possession is the point I think is revelant.
I don't believe any information out to be illegal to receive but I do believe transmission could be made illegal meaning if you're talking about a Cablegate leak situation I don't think Julian Assange or whomever received it can be called a criminal because they don't have any responsibility for that information. I think Bradley Manning had responsibility for that information.I don't think the press or the consumer should be required to care about military strategic implications. I do think that sort of information ought to be kept secret but I don't think it's a civilians role to keep it secret because it's military information which ought not ever be in unauthorized civilian possession. But once it's out there it's out there.
Laws and punishments are not only about defining and preventing crime, they are also about providing justice. Certainly the concept of justice gets ignored in the pursuit of better and more effective prevention of crime but it is not an unreasonable pursuit. If I could have been the judge and juror of the person who stole my daughter's bicyle, I certainly would have desired to understand how to change the behavior, but having her compensated for her loss by the person who caused it is justice. Perhaps they felt they needed it to deal with their desperate situation and didn't empathise with her and I'd certainly want that to be corrected, but I also would have wanted her to feel like it was reasonable to expect the thief to pay a fair compensation for their act, regardless of the motivations and thought processes of the thief.
What if the thief owed a drug debt which if not paid right then and there the thief would lose their life right then and there? Under those circumstances the thief did the right thing and if you could read the thoughts of the thief you would understand how desperate and scared the thief was and could empathize or even intervene to save the life of the thief so the thief can do something else for a living. Once again people assume criminals choose the lifestyle when in reality there are circumstances and conditions which choose them and which they have to respond to using criminal means. Criminal behavior sometimes is the solution for an individual in a specific set of situations and yes sometimes it is the only solution they could find.
These are two very big if's. In order to know the motivations we'd have to understand and record a lot more information about every person's every stimulus and thought than I think humans will ever accept.
Why do you assume humans will be given the option to accept or deny? It can be forced on them by higher authorities. The point here is that if the technology can be built it probably will be built and if it's built it will be used and there are no human rights, no Constitution, no laws which supersede technology in our society. Technology is the guiding force of western society and has been since the invention of the gun. It's the single reason why the USA became a superpower and it's the only thing keeping the US economy strong. Technology of this sort when it's ready probably will be implemented so it's worth thinking about right now. Yes there are technical difficulties which I am not qualified to solve, but I do think storage space and computing power will not be the concern, the concern would be implementing it and in what form takes. As of today it's in the form of some device you put over your head and your computer can read the words out of your head and perhaps see a bit of what you visualize or see. That much can be done in 2012, in 2021 I would it would be accurate enough to do what I'm talking about but probably not on the global scale. I do think it will be advanced enough that our justice system will have to change significantly because we will know by then what peoples thoughts look like i
he most radical idea I'm going to propose is that we get rid of the idea of criminal responsibility. This probably wont happen until far into the future but if we make it into the future with powerful AI and technology, and we understand human thinking and feeling, at least theoretically we will eventually know the true motivations behind all actions. If the universe is predetermined and a lot of actions are based on genes, consequences, what brain type you have, environment, and situations, none of which an individual has full control over, just what is responsible for crime?
Dotn mix a physical idea with philosophy. From the complexity viewpoint the universe is complex enough that it is selforganizing on many scales. One of them are societies. There is as much wrong with that as ther would be wrong with a complex self-copying turing machine found by an evolutionary process.
With what we have the main point: There should be criminal responsibility. Yes, there are people who a) can not recognize a crime (psychoipaths) b) have no control over what they are doing or c) have episodes during which their perceived reality differs significantly from the commonly accepted one.
But: Most crimes are perceived by people who commit them willingly, planned and having the option not to do them. They should bear the responsibility for their crime.
But that isn't true. A lot of crimes are a result of drug addicted persons who have to fill the need and needs require money. A lot of crimes are a result of conditions that the actors are placed in which reduce their options to those which all require a great deal of risk and sometimes the least risky option happens to be a criminal option. Making them responsible for more risk doesn't change their behavior anymore than putting more risk on starting corporations can create jobs.
You're assuming there are child porn sites selling child porn for a profit.
How much do you get paid to slashdot? People do things just for the attention, or just for the sake of having an audience. Some people will do some things "just because", you can't prevent them by taking away the audience, but you can prevent anyone else. On the other hand, it seems like an endless game of whack-a-perv to go after the audience, and it's the producers that are the true problem. Most can agree, though, that anyone paying for child porn is definitely part of the problem, and prosecuting them is a useful step towards identifying the people creating the images.
I get paid in knowledge which can help me get paid in my profession.Yes some people like attention and how exactly is it wrong to exploit that to catch them? If they brag about it they become vulnerable to detection. Ever heard of a honeypot?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's true that he was raided by the FBI they don't just do that. They are likely going to make him an offer he cannot refuse.
Brown isn't going to remain active in Anonymous for much longer if he ever was to begin with.
The REASON Wikileaks was established in the first place was BECAUSE the various 'journalism' organizations have been infiltrated by intelligence agencies. It is IMPOSSIBLE to publish hyper-sensitive stuff! My first-hand exposure to this information began on 27 Nov. 2003, and continued for several years, so I'm not just making this up. See my previous Slashdot posts.
I've told Slashdot about this before: The Plame/Wilson affair, and the unwillingness of ANY journalism organization ANYWHERE to publish their (true!) evidence indicating that G. W. Bush lied to the US public about the reason for going to war in Iraq, sparked Wikileaks. It had been considered before, but that was the impetus to make it happen.
What is harder to infiltrate, one man or a team of men?
Journalist organizations are better set up for publishing leaks.
Then why not cut out the middleman and leak directly to the journalist organizations. Openleaks is not providing any value by being a useless link in the chain.
Also, you seem to be the only one posting anything in favor of Openleaks. Everyone else realizes it is crap. I'm calling you out on it. I think you are Daniel Domscheit-Berg himself, posting on slashdot to shill for your own organization.
I'm not defending him I'm defending the idea. The fact that he wont release the code, there is no way I can defend the integrity of a man who didn't keep his word on something critical.
A *lot* of people suspect that Domscheit-Berg is an intelligence plant. He spent most of his time at Wikileaks trying to sabotage the operation. He was apparently trying to identify contributors while he was their. And then he participated in an obvious effort to discredit Assange after he left.
What's more OpenLeaks was/is planning to refuse Tor submissions, going instead with their own "secure" software (which they refuse to release the source code for openly). Smells a lot like a honeypot to me. I seriously doubt any submission will ever make it to a newspaper. But I do suspect the police/FBI/CIA will make it to the door of anyone submitting.
You make some good points. Until he releases the code we cannot rule out that it could be a honeypot. I don't think it would be an FBI/CIA thing though because he's a German and they have their own intelligence agencies in Europe. The code absolutely must be released and while I don't necessarily think we should pin all our faith in Tor or Wikileaks, at least we have the code for Tor and at least Wikileaks actually has leaked in the past.
If you understand the Openleaks technology, the idea is you shouldn't have to trust Julian Assange or anyone else with your secrets. The hackers should build the technology not enter the spy war. Julian Assage has brought heat on hackers around the world because he's entering into the spy world and that makes it dangerous for everyone and anyone so Daniel has a point there.
Unfortunately Openleaks is vaporware and no code has been released. Unless he releases the code he deserves the bad reputation hes earning.
You also gotta wonder, what exactly is that technology supposed to be anyway? Tor is readily available, as are file uploading sites and message boards accessible with tor. If you have the technical know-how to use the "Openleaks technology" to publish your leak, you probably already have the know-how to use Tor anyway. Wikileaks also offered "mail-your-leak" dropboxes, a very secure option that has nothing to do with source-code.
The real thing Openleaks could add is vetted technology to remove things like embedded tracking of documents, for instance the metadata in jpegs and word documents, as well as technology to defeat stenographicly hidden per-file tracking codes. I haven't heard of anything from Openleaks even mentioning that stuff, yet defeating can be vital if a leaker wants to remain anonymous. It's a much harder problem than the actual publishing as well. It's also a problem more easily solved by human efforts, such as trusted individuals that re-word and summarize documents and publish the summaries rather than the originals directly.
What Openleaks can't do with technology is vet the leaks to ensure authenticity. For that an organization like Wikileaks makes much more sense, as does traditional journalism.
Tor isn't easy to use and doesn't interface well with the web. For example if someone wanted to post a TorButton on Slashdot to receive Anonymous leaks, is Tor secure enough or set up to do that? The other problem is Tor itself isn't perfect as a technology, it too can be compromised. And of course once again most people who are journalists want access to a Tor setup without having to be security experts. Tor is only accessible by security experts at this point and the problem is most journalists don't have the expertise to safely deal with it.
The idea of Openleaks is good. Leaks should be decentralized and the technology should be an anonymous secure channel or secure pipeline.
If you understand the Openleaks technology, the idea is you shouldn't have to trust Julian Assange or anyone else with your secrets.
Looking at the openleaks website and the video presented there, openleaks "function, as much as possible, as a mere conduit (akin to the telephone exchange and the post) between the whistleblower and an organization".
1. This means openleaks is attempting to perform a Man-in-the-middle attack using a social engineering attack.
2. It means openleaks does not provide the needed services. The conduits (post, telephone, email) are already there. The missing component is the publishing component, and that is what wikileaks provides.
3. Trust. Assange is a walking pillar of trust, and the more the USA is trying to destroy him, the stronger that trust becomes.
The founder of openleaks, DDB, has a track record of stealing information from the previous organisation he worked for. He has proven that he could not be trusted. The best prediction of future behaviour is past behaviour, so only a fool would trust DDB.
No wonder openleaks fails to take off, in a business where trust is EVERYTHING.
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. While I'm skeptical of Openleaks for not releasing the code, what you're saying is that somehow it's a man in the middle attack automatically when you haven't even reviewed the code?
So if the code is released and it works, and it simplifies the leaking process to the push of a button, isn't that great? Isn't it great if technology automates the process as much as possible and removes humans from the process as much as possible? As a technologist I can tell you the biggest security vulnerability in any system if the human being. Removing the human beings from the technology is a good move as you shouldn't have to trust any human being.
Does that mean we should just trust the code without auditing it? Hell no. But you have to develop the technology because publishing isn't and never was the issue. If something is big news someone will publish it somewhere, it's a matter of getting the anonymous leak to the right people in a secure automated fashion so that the man in the middle cannot read or modify the transmission. If you're worried about man in the middle attacks you do realize that anyone who can physically take control of Julian Assange has already broken Wikileaks.
Domscheit-Berg is a spook, that's why.
How do you know Wikileaks isn't a false flag front?
Because they have an actual track record of publishing leaks.
Anybody can claim someone is a spook with no evidence
There is evidence. You may not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean there is none.
how is that any better than the people who claim Julian Assange is a sex offender?
It is completely different. Julian is being accused by people with guns who have the authority to imprison him. Daniel is being accused in the court of public opinion, which has a very different standard of proof.
Evidence? How do you find evidence of someone being a spook? And even if somehow you believe he is, it doesn't mean he knows he's a spook being used by this or that government. It's not like the governments are going to admit to the spook that it's a government front. The spook could be just as much of a victim as everyone else in the process.
Spook is another word for spy or secret agent, which is the most obvious definition from the context. I don't think anyone else but you instead thought of its other use as a racial epithet. It's also a term for a ghost or apparition, but again, from context, everyone seems to have figured that one out.
The problem with the term is that anyone can be labeled a spook and you can have people who are spooks who never know they are spooks. There are unwitting spooks who think they aren't.
Is there any public comment made by Daniel showing he admitted their existence?
Remove Julian Assange and remove the publishing component and focus on making the best possible technology for ...
Publishing leaks was the only thing Wikileaks did. If you "remove the publishing component" there are no components left.
Journalist organizations are better set up for publishing leaks. Wikileaks just wasn't well designed as a journalist operation. They never had the critical mass of readership and the way Julian Assange was doing things he had to be in the center of everything and when you put the human in the center of everything it's not hard to corrupt any human and defeat the whole system.
As soon as DDB split, stealing secrets on his way out, he basically said "hey, I've been working with these guys for years but now I'm deliberately stabbing them in the back for my own selfish benefit so from now on you should trust ME with your secrets!" Yeah right. It's like Sammy The Bull Gravano trying to start a big meth op while in the witness protection program. You literally have to be dumber than a 3rd grader in order to think that this is going to work.
If you understand the Openleaks technology, the idea is you shouldn't have to trust Julian Assange or anyone else with your secrets. The hackers should build the technology not enter the spy war. Julian Assage has brought heat on hackers around the world because he's entering into the spy world and that makes it dangerous for everyone and anyone so Daniel has a point there.
Unfortunately Openleaks is vaporware and no code has been released. Unless he releases the code he deserves the bad reputation hes earning.
Domscheit-Berg is a spook, that's why.
How do you know Wikileaks isn't a false flag front? Anybody can claim someone is a spook with no evidence and how is that any better than the people who claim Julian Assange is a sex offender? Wrong is wrong. That said I am disappointed that Openleaks never got off the ground. Daniel it's time to release the code if you have any and get Openleaks built or let someone else build it.
The story of too many of the "open" projects :
* someone creates something worthwhile
* it becomes very popular
* some douchebag says: "I'll make something exactly like this, except it will be better because it's OPEN."
* nothing of value is produced
* Lather, rinse, repeat
Only on paper Openleaks is better than Wikileaks in every way technologically. If you understand the technology behind Wikileaks then you understand that Julian Assange is the weakness in the technology behind Wikileaks. Remove Julian Assange and remove the publishing component and focus on making the best possible technology for actual journalists and on paper that makes sense and is probably the best route to take with regard to hackers, developers, programmers, technologists, but once again apparently Daniel wasn't the guy to do it.
Put the code out there and let the community develop Openleaks. But don't diss Openleaks as a technology or diminish the idea because it's an excellent idea and theoretically superior to Wikileaks. Ask any programmer, hacker, or journalist who actually understands the technology involved.
It's designed better, the idea is better, it doesn't have the central personality cult of Assange weakness. So why didn't it get off the ground? Possibly because of the personality cult of Assange weakness poisoning the well. If it's not Julian Assange and Wikileaks then his cult of personality suspect it has to be a trap, the government, or that somehow it's traitorous.
Openleaks is a good technology on paper, where is the code? Where is the technology in practice? At this point showing is better than telling.
Sure you can. Use a black light.
Why to you insist on evading the point every time you comment? The point is that the People need to prevent it. The people of the Republic run the Government, not the other way around. This is how our constitution works. You make it sound like we are helpless victims of a dictatorship. Wake up!
You don't run shit. How can you stop what you don't know is happening?
Have you actually read any laws on the books, studied any laws? Wow dude, please just be quiet regarding law. You are either intentionally speaking untruth, or severely uninformed. Either way, I can only recommend you actually study Laws, Law making, and the theories of the Republic. The laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with civil law, and you are trying to equate them. This is an argument from ignorance, and I'll ignore further comments from you which attempt to do the same.
The law doesn't protect you from a bullet. The Kennedy assassination was illegal, and so was that recent attack in Libya. The law does not protect diplomats. The law doesn't do shit, so you can study the words all you want, at the end of the day it's the technology, the weapons, and the intelligence. Nothing and no law can govern sufficiently advanced technology combined with detailed practical intelligence. Law enforcement does not have technology that even compares to military level. The law of physics are what governs war and military, the laws you are talking about don't apply in war because the police don't have more might than the military.
Yet another straw man fallacy, you seem to be very fluent in fallacy. You insinuate, either through ignorance or intent at spreading propaganda, that all psychopaths are serial killers. Absolute nonsense, and is factually incorrect nearly all of the time. I previously mentioned that 90% of the people working as Stock Brokers are diagnosable as psychopaths. Are all Stock brokers therefor serial killers? To claim such is worse than ignorant, since you have been informed on the subject three times now and each time you ignore the information.
You do realize that you can kill people indirectly? You don't think the messed up economy and a lot of the decisions made by psychopath stock brokers results in loss of peoples lives? I suppose you can be a serial killer if you're smart enough to figure out how to do it legally.
Do you understand the Government of the US? Assuming this is where you live anyway, it is a Republic. Instead of being a defeatist and living under a dictatorship as you are pretending the US is, why not become a member of the Republic and perform your civic duties to keep the Government working for the best interests of Society?
Your attitude is not uncommon, but in all cases it's extremely unhealthy and undermining the Republic. I won't state that you are completely at fault, you are misinformed because you failed to keep the Republic from manipulating media. You failed to keep the Republic honest, and you failed to keep the Republic from protecting members of the Republic. You can continue to be a failure, or you can wake up to your civic duties and demand that the Republic change. Of course this means that you have to wake up others, and have them also demand that the Republic change.
I can tell you it's an extremely difficult task. I debate with people like you ever day at least, and in most cases months go by before people finally begin to see the truth. I get frustrated debating with people that are either liars or completely brainwashed in to believing a false reality. Eventually people do awaken, so I don't give up.
I recommend that people study "The Allegory of the Cave" In that short work, you will find all of the symptoms you will experience as well as the truth that people have known how to manipulate your reality for well over three thousand years. When you find out you have been duped, you will be first angry and deny it.
I don't think it's necessary to believe in evil anymore just like I don't think it's necessary to believe in race.
Just because you choose to not believe in race or evil doesn't mean it does not exist. If I choose to not believe in the dark, that doesn't mean I can read with the lights off.
Neither objectively exist. They are subjective measures.
Here is what LVX is offering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58f-XkhOjo
I don't know why Intel is getting this attention. Why not give it to LVX? Also this technology is not all that sophisticated.
"Researchers say they've found a way to store artificial short-term memories in isolated brain tissue. 'This is the first time anyone has found a way to store information over seconds about both temporal sequences andstimulus patterns directly in brain tissue,' says the study's lead. 'This paves the way for government to do all sorts of cool things, like tamper with judicial witnesses, implant false memories of political opponents in voters' minds, and directly program children with State-friendly thought patterns."
There, fixed it.
They are coming directly for your children.
Of course what happens to rats after these experiments? Are they sacrificed? Ethnically cleansed?
You are twisting the argument, or using very illogical methods to draw a conclusion. You stated that we should use mind manipulation because the technology exists, then stated "look at nukes" for your example. I, very correctly, pointed out that while we have nukes, we don't use them. Do you really fail to see how your argument is very confused? Because we have, or are working on technology does not imply that they should ever be used. We see, especially in things that are detrimental to humanity, the opposite with harmful technology. Your argument is completely illogical, and trying to obscure the argument with additional statements that are not connected does not help the argument, in fact it makes you appear irrational.
I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be. I'm saying it's going to be used because the people in charge wont be able to resist using it. It's just too powerful not to use. Nukes have been used, and nuclear weapons still are being used just not in the form of a nuclear bomb. They are tactical and precise now, but believe me its still a problem. The technology to nuke people got maintained but not stopped and it's only maintained because enough different countries have nukes to balance the powers.
This is yet another blatant untruth. We are regulated, which is what the whole of Law is. We have Laws correct? Are you trying to claim that there are no Laws? We have in fact numerous types of Law. We have Criminal Law, Civil Law, and Laws regulating our Government. Those laws are based on morality in all cases, there are no exceptions.
The only regulation is technology. Might makes law, not the other way around. Natural law and the law of physics are the only laws that regulate humanity. That means the group with the most control over nature and the most control over physics controls the world. Einstein proved that. Anyone who can kill all of us at the push of a button doesn't have to listen to our concerns about what we like and don't like or what should or shouldn't be done. If they decide to do it, they can because their military is unstoppable. In the USA if our government decides to pursue a technology there is nothing that can stop them and no international law applies, and domestic law doesn't necessary apply either if it's done in secret or done in such a way that it cannot be enforced.
I'm starting to wonder if you have any truth in you at all. There is both treatment and cure, and you are being very brazen with lies now. I even gave examples of how it's best cured according to Scientific Data. Instead of believing what someone tells you, or just making things up, why not go find some facts? There are people that are presenting a case where psychopathic people are a detriment to society, and I even gave a statement (supportable by evidence) that this was not true. You ignore that, and present false information.
Show me a cured psychopathic serial killer and I'll believe you. Find just one cured psychopath and show.
Absolute balderdash, you are attempting to change the subject to protect your claim instead of addressing my point. While a mathematical circle is possible, go ahead and draw one. You will _never_ be able to draw a perfect circle, even with a compass. If we can not perform such a simple thing and replicate perfection, how do you propose that we write software that is perfect? We can not, and you are simply avoiding the truth.
It's possible to draw a perfect circuit, it's just very very difficult and no one can do that by hand without special instruments. But it's possible or we wouldn't be able to build stuff such as the LHC which relies on perfect measurements.
As I mentioned before, this concept is horrifying and will end society. There is no reason for this other than Eugenics, and you are failing in your civic duties if you fail to fight it. It may sound good on paper, but look
When I saw you had replied I took a deep breath and prepared to accept defeat gracefully if you pointed out significant flaws in my ideas or let internet flames be unmet. I was happily surprised to see you take a thoughtful approach in replying. Even now of course, I don't agree with everything you had to say, but you did say it well and tactfully.
You do make a good argument that I might feel more compassion or have a different perspective if I understood the thief better. Indeed I might feel differently. On the other hand, as I have disgust at my own past choices from time to time, I might be less inclined toward forgiving in others what I wouldn't forgive in myself. To quote a great writer, "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
I do not always act in my own best interest, nor in the manner best to suit those ideals I prize, but perhaps with better understanding of each other and knowledge that we were potentially under omnicient scrutiny, we would behave better. Perhaps.
The world is always broken up into adults and children based on the quality of an individuals decision making they are the adult of the situation or the child. I don't think any of us are always going to be the adult of every situation and for that reason it's not fair to judge anyone else for making immature decisions because we all had to make a lot of immature decisions and it's just some of us for whatever reason had a better set of options to choose from or were in a better environment.
At this point technology can either encourage compassion or discourage it.
intentional aquisition that should be illegal, but intentional possession is the point I think is revelant.
I don't believe any information out to be illegal to receive but I do believe transmission could be made illegal meaning if you're talking about a Cablegate leak situation I don't think Julian Assange or whomever received it can be called a criminal because they don't have any responsibility for that information. I think Bradley Manning had responsibility for that information.I don't think the press or the consumer should be required to care about military strategic implications. I do think that sort of information ought to be kept secret but I don't think it's a civilians role to keep it secret because it's military information which ought not ever be in unauthorized civilian possession. But once it's out there it's out there.
Laws and punishments are not only about defining and preventing crime, they are also about providing justice. Certainly the concept of justice gets ignored in the pursuit of better and more effective prevention of crime but it is not an unreasonable pursuit. If I could have been the judge and juror of the person who stole my daughter's bicyle, I certainly would have desired to understand how to change the behavior, but having her compensated for her loss by the person who caused it is justice. Perhaps they felt they needed it to deal with their desperate situation and didn't empathise with her and I'd certainly want that to be corrected, but I also would have wanted her to feel like it was reasonable to expect the thief to pay a fair compensation for their act, regardless of the motivations and thought processes of the thief.
What if the thief owed a drug debt which if not paid right then and there the thief would lose their life right then and there? Under those circumstances the thief did the right thing and if you could read the thoughts of the thief you would understand how desperate and scared the thief was and could empathize or even intervene to save the life of the thief so the thief can do something else for a living. Once again people assume criminals choose the lifestyle when in reality there are circumstances and conditions which choose them and which they have to respond to using criminal means. Criminal behavior sometimes is the solution for an individual in a specific set of situations and yes sometimes it is the only solution they could find.
These are two very big if's. In order to know the motivations we'd have to understand and record a lot more information about every person's every stimulus and thought than I think humans will ever accept.
Why do you assume humans will be given the option to accept or deny? It can be forced on them by higher authorities. The point here is that if the technology can be built it probably will be built and if it's built it will be used and there are no human rights, no Constitution, no laws which supersede technology in our society. Technology is the guiding force of western society and has been since the invention of the gun. It's the single reason why the USA became a superpower and it's the only thing keeping the US economy strong. Technology of this sort when it's ready probably will be implemented so it's worth thinking about right now. Yes there are technical difficulties which I am not qualified to solve, but I do think storage space and computing power will not be the concern, the concern would be implementing it and in what form takes. As of today it's in the form of some device you put over your head and your computer can read the words out of your head and perhaps see a bit of what you visualize or see. That much can be done in 2012, in 2021 I would it would be accurate enough to do what I'm talking about but probably not on the global scale. I do think it will be advanced enough that our justice system will have to change significantly because we will know by then what peoples thoughts look like i
he most radical idea I'm going to propose is that we get rid of the idea of criminal responsibility. This probably wont happen until far into the future but if we make it into the future with powerful AI and technology, and we understand human thinking and feeling, at least theoretically we will eventually know the true motivations behind all actions. If the universe is predetermined and a lot of actions are based on genes, consequences, what brain type you have, environment, and situations, none of which an individual has full control over, just what is responsible for crime?
Dotn mix a physical idea with philosophy. From the complexity viewpoint the universe is complex enough that it is selforganizing on many scales. One of them are societies. There is as much wrong with that as ther would be wrong with a complex self-copying turing machine found by an evolutionary process.
With what we have the main point: There should be criminal responsibility. Yes, there are people who a) can not recognize a crime (psychoipaths) b) have no control over what they are doing or c) have episodes during which their perceived reality differs significantly from the commonly accepted one.
But: Most crimes are perceived by people who commit them willingly, planned and having the option not to do them. They should bear the responsibility for their crime.
But that isn't true. A lot of crimes are a result of drug addicted persons who have to fill the need and needs require money. A lot of crimes are a result of conditions that the actors are placed in which reduce their options to those which all require a great deal of risk and sometimes the least risky option happens to be a criminal option. Making them responsible for more risk doesn't change their behavior anymore than putting more risk on starting corporations can create jobs.
You're assuming there are child porn sites selling child porn for a profit.
How much do you get paid to slashdot? People do things just for the attention, or just for the sake of having an audience. Some people will do some things "just because", you can't prevent them by taking away the audience, but you can prevent anyone else. On the other hand, it seems like an endless game of whack-a-perv to go after the audience, and it's the producers that are the true problem. Most can agree, though, that anyone paying for child porn is definitely part of the problem, and prosecuting them is a useful step towards identifying the people creating the images.
I get paid in knowledge which can help me get paid in my profession.Yes some people like attention and how exactly is it wrong to exploit that to catch them? If they brag about it they become vulnerable to detection. Ever heard of a honeypot?