WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[nismaratwork]

From a democratic perspective, certainly not. He is just one voice. But isn't it good for a balanced discussion to hear all arguments pro as well as con?

I think it's also quite logical, that an ACTIVE officer/politician or so, probably won't say everything he thinks. It's easier for a drop-out, retired, or ex to be more open because people prefer not to loose their job. In this sense, the drop-outs may, in a certain sense, be more relevant after all as it's more likely to be honest.

/Fredrik

I don't know Fra... maybe someone who has something to lose, like a career is a better source? It's also easier for someone to change details of a strange experience over years and decades, and to be adamant about something they once may have been uncertain of.

 

[Fra]

I don't know Fra... maybe someone who has something to lose, like a career is a better source?

I guess there are both pros and cons on that. Someone that has something to loose are less inclined to take actions that put this as risk. Sometimes this can prevent making up risky lies, but sometimes it can also prevent the truth, if the truth is explosive. Then it's safer to be quiet because no one wants to get his head chopped of for claming the emperor is naked, even if its true :)

I think the main point anyway is to hopefully agree that putting all arguments, and views up for reflection is healthy and more more likely to result in a good conclusion.

/Fredirk

 

[Bobbywhy]

I see a clear parallel between J. Assange leaking classified documents to news media and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971. This was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread. The documents were classified "Top Secret", one level higher than the "Secret" documents now from Wikileaks. The document exposed deception, coverups, and lies by our government regarding War in Indochina (mainly Vietnam).

The US Government brought suit to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing them. The Supreme Court, in 1971, found that First Amendment Free Speech guarantees outweighed the Governments contention.

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
—Justice Black

 

[nismaratwork]

I see a clear parallel between J. Assange leaking classified documents to news media and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971. This was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread. The documents were classified "Top Secret", one level higher than the "Secret" documents now from Wikileaks. The document exposed deception, coverups, and lies by our government regarding War in Indochina (mainly Vietnam).

The US Government brought suit to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing them. The Supreme Court, in 1971, found that First Amendment Free Speech guarantees outweighed the Governments contention.

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
—Justice Black

I'm sorry, but no. If these documents had been the means by which the false premise of the war of search for WMDs had been exposed, then MAYBE. From Wikipedia, here is the impact of the Pentagon Papers... which is incomparable next to the minute "revelations" of Wikileaks cables.

The Papers revealed that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which had been reported by media in the US.[7] The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions. For example, the John F. Kennedy administration had planned to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1963 coup. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[3] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.[8]

In another example, a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:

70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.
20% - To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.
10% - To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.
ALSO - To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.
NOT - To 'help a friend'[3][9]

Another controversy was that President Johnson sent combat troops to Vietnam by July 17, 1965, before pretending to consult his advisors on July 21–July 27, per the cable stating that "Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance informs McNamara that President had approved 34 Battalion Plan and will try to push through reserve call-up."[10] In 1988, when that cable was declassified, it revealed "there was a continuing uncertainty as to [Johnson's] final decision, which would have to await Secretary McNamara's recommendation and the views of Congressional leaders, particularly the views of Senator [Richard] Russell."[11]

 

[mheslep]

I see a clear parallel between J. Assange leaking classified documents to news media and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971. ...

The parallel would be between Ellsberg and PFC Manning, both of who removed the information in the first instance illegally, and not Assange.

 

[nismaratwork]

The parallel would be between Ellsberg and PFC Manning, both of who removed the information in the first instance illegally, and not Assange.

Ellsberg also took actions to rectify illegal acts being taken by our government at the highest levels... Manning just stole some stinky socks, diplomatically speaking, and risked the lives of some hapless Afghans.

So... radical revelations about a war... vs. making the USA look like a dick...

You know, I wouldn't dignify Manning's actions with a comparison to Ellsberg.

 

[WhoWee]

Assange strikes me as a guy that really doesn't have a plan. He was apparently capable of obtaining large amounts of information. But it's doubtful, given the volume, that he had any idea as to the content - and apparently either didn't care to or (more likely) didn't know how to evaluate and process the information in his possession. If he'd handled the information more professionally (as a journalist would) perhaps this discussion would not be focused on how he might be prosecuted.

 

[mheslep]

Ellsberg also took actions to rectify illegal acts being taken by our government at the highest levels... Manning just stole some stinky socks, diplomatically speaking, and risked the lives of some hapless Afghans.

That can only be true if you consider diplomacy a parlor game with no consequences, and dismiss US allies as hapless, that is, their lives are also without consequence.

 

[Evo]

Assange strikes me as a guy that really doesn't have a plan. He was apparently capable of obtaining large amounts of information. But it's doubtful, given the volume, that he had any idea as to the content - and apparently either didn't care to or (more likely) didn't know how to evaluate and process the information in his possession. If he'd handled the information more professionally (as a journalist would) perhaps this discussion would not be focused on how he might be prosecuted.

Here is an official US press conference from August, before this event.

You know, they claimed initially to have, you know, reviewed these documents. Then we learn afterwards, they’ve only looked at 2,000 of them, so they don’t really know what’s in all of them. They claim to have reached out to -- you know, to the United States government to assist in -- you know, for assistance in harm minimization. Then we find out, no, it was through their partner, The New York Times. I don’t know The New York Times would describe themselves as their partner.

There is -- there have been a lot of contradictory and conflicting statements along the way, which certainly cause us to question their motivation, their intent, their credibility.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001

 

[jobyts]

I don't know if this question is already answered.

As many mentioned here that the document are still classified even if it is leaked to the public. Why CNN or BBC is able to copy the content and display in their website? Is it ok to show the content (as excerpts), as long as you are not the second one to make it public?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11914040

 

[nismaratwork]

That can only be true if you consider diplomacy a parlor game with no consequences, and dismiss US allies as hapless, that is, their lives are also without consequence.

Intelligence assets aren't allies, and are always subject to being burned when the information they provide is used. As for diplomacy, I consider it a parlor game WITH consequences.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for diplomacy, I consider it a parlor game WITH consequences.

And for now, a necessary one, don't you think?

I see a lot of idealism out there suggesting that everything would be okay if everyone just told the truth and fully disclosed all matters of global and national politics. I would like to think that day may come eventually, but it cannot happen overnight. Those who push forward too quickly with this naive and idealistic view are playing with fire and putting us all at risk. The average person doesn't have the time or the knowledge to understand all of the complexities, and often, the highly sensitive nature of global politics. Instead of a global democracy, if you will, more likely the response would be mob-like, emotional, ill-considered, uninformed, completely unpredictable, and global. Given the highly inflammatory nature of the media today and the serious and legitimate problems that we face, I shudder to think of the range of possibilities for this all to spin out of control. It is fallacious to assume that all secrets are designed to protect those in power. There are plenty of good people who keep big secrets, who do so in good faith and as a matter of dedicated public service.

I am reminded of the movie, Contact: Small steps, Ellie, small steps

 

[Galteeth]

Assange strikes me as a guy that really doesn't have a plan. He was apparently capable of obtaining large amounts of information. But it's doubtful, given the volume, that he had any idea as to the content - and apparently either didn't care to or (more likely) didn't know how to evaluate and process the information in his possession. If he'd handled the information more professionally (as a journalist would) perhaps this discussion would not be focused on how he might be prosecuted.

I disagree. He could have just dumped all the cablegate info at once. Wikileaks choose to release it in pieces to make it more digestible and made arrangements to release directly to three media outlets. Also, keep in mind Assange has been doing this for years. He has grown wikileaks into the most successful leaks organization in existence.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here is an official US press conference from August, before this event.



http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001

i find it credible that they've not been able to read most of what they've acquired. and they've claimed to have acquired quite a bit ( i remember reading somewhere they'd stopped storing it when they hit a terabyte of data ).

as for motivation:

To: funtimesahead[at]lists.riseup.net
From: Hanna De Jong <snow[at]xs4all.nl>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:42:37 +1100
Subject: [WL] Copy of WL letter to Ellsberg.

This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.


Dear Mr. Ellsberg.

We have followed with interest and delight your recent statements on
document leaking.

We have come to the conclusion that fomenting a world wide movement of
mass leaking is the most cost effective political intervention
available to us* We believe that injustice is answered by good
governance and for there to be good governance there must be open
governance. Governance by stealth is governance by conspiracy and
fear. Fear, because without it, secrecy does not last for long.
Retired generals and diplomats are vociferous, but those in active
service hold their tune.

Lord Action said, "Everything secret degenerates, even the
administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it
can bear discussion and publicity".

This degeneration comes about because when injustice is concealed,
including plans for future injustice, it cannot be addressed. When
governance is closed, man's eyes become cataracts. When governance is
open, man can see and so act to move the world towards a more just
state; for instance see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders which shows a
striking correlation between press freedom and countries known for
their quality of life.

us*: some attributes may have been swapped to protect selected
identities,
no particular order.

1) Retired new york architect and notorious intelligence leak
facilitator
2) Euro cryptographer/programmer
3) Pacific physicist and illustrator
4) A pacific author and economic policy lecturer
5) Euro, Ex-Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer
6) Euro businessman and security specialist/activist
7) Author of software than runs 40% of the world's websites.
8) US pure mathematician with criminal law background
9) An infamous US ex-hacker
10) Pacific cryptographer/physicist and activist
11) US/euro cryptographer and activist/programmer
12) Pacific programmer
13) Pacific architect / foreign policy wonk

New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us to not only encourage
document leaking, but to facilitate it directly on a mass scale. We
intend to place a new star in the political firmament of man.

We are building an uncensorizable branch of Wikipedia for leaked
documents and the civic institutions & social perceptions necessary to
defend and promote it. We have received over 1 million documents from
13 countries, despite not having publicly launched yet!

We have approached you now for two reasons.

Firstly, we have crossed over from `prospective' to `projective'. The
basic technology has been prototyped and we have a view as how we must
proceed politically and legally. We need to move and inspire people,
gain volunteers, funding, further set up the necessary political-legal
defenses and deploy. Since you have thought about leaking more than
anyone we know, we would like you on board. We'd like your advice and
we'd like you to form part of our political armor. The more armor we
have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age,
history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get
away with it.

Secondly, we would like to award "The Ellsburg Prize for Courageous
Action" and "The Ellsburg Prize for Courageous Action (USA)", for the
two leaks submitted in the past year which most assist humanity. The
regionalization of the second prize is to encourage patrons of similar
awards in other countries. Although it is premature to go into detail,
we have designed a scheme were this can be meaningfully awarded to
anonymous leakers. We have been pledged substantial initial funding.

Please tell us your thoughts. If you are happy, we will add you to our

internal mailinglist, contacts, etc.

Solidarity!

WL.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Isn't that 1 ex-military guy that does the UFO shows considered a kook? Ummm...there wasn't any alien information leaked - was there?

Well the US is busy trying to extradite a UK computer hacker (well he just typed random urls into a DoD web server) who was trying to prove the US was covering up UFOs.

By making it an anti-terrorism matter they don't have to provide any evidence - so it's not clear if the aliens are terrorists.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well the US is busy trying to extradite a UK computer hacker (well he just typed random urls into a DoD web server) who was trying to prove the US was covering up UFOs.

By making it an anti-terrorism matter they don't have to provide any evidence - so it's not clear if the aliens are terrorists.

wait, are you saying that he simply guessed a URL? i don't find anything criminal in that, but i suppose a tech-illiterate jury might.

 

[jobyts]

I don't know if this question is already answered.

As many mentioned here that the documents are still classified even if it is leaked to the public. Why CNN or BBC is able to copy the content and display in their website? Is it ok to show the content (as excerpts), as long as you are not the second one to make it public?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11914040

For a judge who handles the espionage case for Assange, what's the bigger crime that wikileaks.org have done compared to bbc.co.uk? Both are non US companies, doing journalism, and made public some of the leaked US classified information. The espionage case looks much weaker than many Americans would hope for.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

"Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it,"

Espionage is seen as a political crime, and political offences are not subject to extradition under the US-UK, US-Sweden and UK-Sweden treaties.

 

[WhoWee]

I disagree. He could have just dumped all the cablegate info at once. Wikileaks choose to release it in pieces to make it more digestible and made arrangements to release directly to three media outlets. Also, keep in mind Assange has been doing this for years. He has grown wikileaks into the most successful leaks organization in existence.

Do you think Assange knows the content of the information released - that he took precautions to protect innocent lives?

 

[nismaratwork]

Do you think Assange knows the content of the information released - that he took precautions to protect innocent lives?

It seems pretty clear that he didn't, would you agree?

 

[WhoWee]

It seems pretty clear that he didn't, would you agree?

I believe - when all is said and done - not knowing the specific content will be his downfall. This is very irresponsible behaviour.

 

[nismaratwork]

I believe - when all is said and done - not knowing the specific content will be his downfall. This is very irresponsible behaviour.

Yeah, vetting your content less than rags they sell at the checkout queue is no way to establish yourself as a serious journalist. Taking that same approach when you could be putting lives or international relations at risk just adds to the outrage. They could have changed names of FOBs and some other elements without in any way compromising the release. They didn't... and as Ivan points out we NEED diplomacy now... and I don't see how publishing tonnes of what amounts to water-cooler talk (referring to diplomatic cables now) at Foggy Bottom does anything except throw grit into the gears.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yeah, vetting your content less than rags they sell at the checkout queue is no way to establish yourself as a serious journalist. Taking that same approach when you could be putting lives or international relations at risk just adds to the outrage. They could have changed names of FOBs and some other elements without in any way compromising the release. They didn't... and as Ivan points out we NEED diplomacy now... and I don't see how publishing tonnes of what amounts to water-cooler talk (referring to diplomatic cables now) at Foggy Bottom does anything except throw grit into the gears.

why exactly? apparently all the gov't elites know these things, but for some reason it is considered bad if the common man knows them.

 

[nismaratwork]

why exactly? apparently all the gov't elites know these things, but for some reason it is considered bad if the common man knows them.

So do you tell everyone you notice is ugly, or smells bad, or has a disability, "Hey, you're ugly!", or, "Everybody thinks you stink,"? Of course not, because while it's important to note differences and similarities we have on an individual, national, any level in between... it's not important that we post a list of those issues online.

I would add that giving up sources and methods, actively BURNING sources, and the risk to unstable governments which are now on record expressing private concerns is a bit more than fodder for everyday discussions. This isn't about being elite, but need to know something which in no way changes how we view a single situation I can think of in the world.

What have we learned from Wikileaks that changes the major issues with these wars? NOTHING! The "common man" already figured out the big stuff such as W's administration's lies to the UN, the people of the USA, and each other. This whole thing makes me think of outing Watergate, then leaking nude photos of Nixon a year later... sensational and upsetting for some, but not really consequential.

Oh, and Proton... I think we both know that if a Pfc. in the army had access to this, it's not for the "elite"... that's just fallacious. The issue here is better control over the information and reducing potential outlets, not spreading it around. You may not understand why other world leaders are sensitive to the tone and nature of diplomacy, but they are, and we are too.

 

[Proton Soup]

Oh, and Proton... I think we both know that if a Pfc. in the army had access to this, it's not for the "elite"... that's just fallacious. The issue here is better control over the information and reducing potential outlets, not spreading it around. You may not understand why other world leaders are sensitive to the tone and nature of diplomacy, but they are, and we are too.

wikileaks was given a lot more than simply what manning gave them. but i would answer you by saying that if a Pfc. had access to it, then it can't be terribly important.

 

[nismaratwork]

wikileaks was given a lot more than simply what manning gave them. but i would answer you by saying that if a Pfc. had access to it, then it can't be terribly important.

What you say at the end SHOULD be true, but it isn't. That's obviously one of the major flaws in the network (SIPRnet?), that there is a single access level with no download controls. It seems that he did in fact have access to somewhat important information, albeit not the nuclear codes.

As to what Wikileaks does or doesn't have that remains unreleased, I don't know much about that.

 

[Proton Soup]

As to what Wikileaks does or doesn't have that remains unreleased, I don't know much about that.

well, i only know what I've read that wikileaks has claimed. and i posted the gist of that earlier, which is simply to say that they collected "a lot". and whatever is in "insurance" is only 1.5GB, which is only a 1/1000-th of the total volume they claimed to have collected a few years ago before they even went public.

there is apparently a lot more over at Cryptome that John Young is releasing (is he trying to cover his own *** so he isn't next?) from the internal private wikileaks mailing list, but I'm not sure how much time i'd want to invest in that.

 

[JaredJames]

Can they not run a brute force attack on the insurance file to open it?

I find it hard to believe that with all the computing power held around the world, they haven't run it with some form of attack to discover the pass key.

 

[NeoDevin]

Can they not run a brute force attack on the insurance file to open it?

I find it hard to believe that with all the computing power held around the world, they haven't run it with some form of attack to discover the pass key.

Cracking well encrypted data is virtually impossible.

 

[JaredJames]

Cracking well encrypted data is virtually impossible.

If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?

I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.

 

[mugaliens]

But isn't it good for a balanced discussion to hear all arguments pro as well as con?

Not if they're given equal voice, but the representation is like 100 to 1 (i.e., 100 pro, 1 con, yet the pro arguements get equal time as the con artists).

I think it's also quite logical, that an ACTIVE officer/politician or so, probably won't say everything he thinks. It's easier for a drop-out, retired, or ex to be more open because people prefer not to loose their job. In this sense, the drop-outs may, in a certain sense, be more relevant after all as it's more likely to be honest.

Then why aren't the tens of thousands of other retired CIA officers speaking out in support of this guy? Or for that matter, against him? The point is, they're not speaking out at all, because the issue's only credence was that lent to it by the media. It has no palpable relevence of its own, much less importance. "What? You want me to comment on grasshoppers? Excuse me, I'm late for a haircut..."

If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?

I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.

Not necessarily. In fact, not at all, if the number of possible solutions equals or exceeds the keyspace. One-time ciphers, for example, are absolutely uncrackable provided the cipher pad is truly random (or sufficiently pseudorandom) and its length is equal to or greater than the message. Other means of recursive encryption require such large numbers of iterations it would take all the world's computational power (including the NSA's top computers) a million years to crank through half the possible solutions.

Possible? Yes. Practical? No.

 

[nismaratwork]

If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?

I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.

When it comes to sound encryption you run into problems of factoring large prime numbers... so brute force would take more time than the universe has been in existence. Barring a breakthrough in the factoring of prime numbers or computer hardware, that's a locked file.

 

[rhody]

whatever is in "insurance" is only 1.5GB, which is only a 1/1000-th of the total volume they claimed to have collected a few years ago before they even went public.

there is apparently a lot more over at Cryptome that John Young is releasing (is he trying to cover his own *** so he isn't next?) from the internal private wikileaks mailing list, but I'm not sure how much time i'd want to invest in that.

Proton,

Got a link for this ?

Rhody...

 

[NeoDevin]

If it has a passkey, why can't they just run each one in sequence until they get it? We have the power. Is there a reason you couldn't set up a piece of software to run such an attack?

I know it's less complicated, but if I need a password to something I just run a brute force attack to run all possible combinations until it breaks it.

The keyspace is too large, and each attempt takes some finite amount of time. If you have a 256bit key, then that's $2^{256} = 1.158\times 10^{77}$ possible keys. If each attempt takes 1 microsecond, then that's $1.158\times 10^{71}\mathrm{s} = 3.672\times 10^{63}\mathrm{years}$ to try every key. This means on average, to guess a 256bit key by brute force will take $1.836\times 10^{63}\mathrm{years}/\mbox{No. of CPUs}$. There simply aren't enough CPUs in the world to make this a manageable number.

 

[CAC1001]

What have we learned from Wikileaks that changes the major issues with these wars? NOTHING! The "common man" already figured out the big stuff such as W's administration's lies to the UN, the people of the USA, and each other.

They weren't "lies."

 

[NeoDevin]

They weren't "lies."

Which ones weren't "lies"?