Plugging the WikiLeak: What can the government do?

Aug 07, 2010 By LOLITA C. BALDOR , Associated Press Writer
In this Sunday Aug. 1, 2010, photo released by CBS, Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discusses the war in Afghanistan on CBS's "Face The Nation" in Washington. Mullen said the Pentagon is trying to protect Afghans who may be at risk from Taliban retaliation following the publication of tens of thousands of secret war documents, posted on the website WikiLeaks a week ago. He said the U.S. is duty-bound to try to shield informants who were named in the documents. (AP Photo/CBS, Chris Usher) NO ARCHIVES. NO SALES.

(AP) -- An online whistle-blower's threat to release more classified Pentagon and State Department documents is raising difficult questions of what the government can or would do, legally, technically or even militarily to stop it.

Constrained by the global reach of the Internet, sophisticated encryption software and the domestic legal system, the answer seems to be: Not much.

But if the U.S. government believes that the release of classified documents WikiLeaks is preparing to disclose will threaten national security or put lives at risk, cyber and legal experts say the options could expand to include cyber strikes to take down the WikiLeaks website and destroy its files or covert operations to steal or disable the files.

It all sounds, at times, like a spy movie, where the possibilities extend as far as the imagination can reach. But most outsiders agree that reality is probably far less dramatic.

At the center of the drama was the posting last week of a massive 1.4 gigabyte mystery file named "Insurance" on the WikiLeaks website.

The "Insurance" file is encrypted, nearly impossible to open until WikiLeaks provides the passwords. But experts suggest that if anyone can crack it - it would be the National Security Agency.

That file, coupled with WikiLeaks' release of more than 77,000 secret military documents last month, prompted the to demand that the website's editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, cancel any new document dumps and pull back the Afghan war data he already posted.

WikiLeaks slammed the demand as an obnoxious threat, and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell declined to detail what, if any, actions the Defense Department may be ready to take.

Few people involved, for the Pentagon and other agencies, would talk openly about what the Pentagon or the clandestine NSA could or would do to stop the expected document dump. It is not even clear if U.S. officials actually know what WikiLeaks has.

"Do we believe that WikiLeaks has additional cables? We do," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. "Do we believe that those cables are classified? We do. And are they State Department cables? Yes."

Officials say the data may also include up to 15,000 military documents related to the Afghanistan war that were not made public in the initial release.

Assuming the documents contain highly sensitive information that threatens national security, the U.S. must weigh a number of options, experts say.

First, from a legal standpoint, there is probably little the U.S. government can do to stop WikiLeaks from posting the files.

It is against federal law to knowingly and willfully disclose or transmit classified information. But Assange, an Australian who has no permanent address and travels frequently, is not a U.S. citizen.

Since Assange is a foreign citizen living in a foreign country, it's not clear that U.S. law would apply, said Marc Zwillinger, a Washington lawyer and former federal cyber crimes prosecutor. He said prosecutors would have to figure out what crime to charge Assange with, and then face the daunting task of trying to indict him or persuade other authorities to extradite him.

It would be equally difficult, Zwillinger said, to effectively use an injunction to prevent access to the data.

"Could the U.S. get an injunction to force U.S. Internet providers to block traffic to and from WikiLeaks such that people couldn't access the website?" Zwillinger said. "It's an irrelevant question. There would be thousands of paths to get to it. So it wouldn't really stop people from getting to the site. They would be pushing the legal envelope without any real benefit."

Legal questions aside, the encrypted file conjures visions of secret codebreakers hunched over their laptops, tearing open secret, protected files in seconds with a few keystrokes.

Reality is not that simple. It appears WikiLeaks used state-of-the-art software requiring a sophisticated electronic sequence of numbers, called a 256-bit key, to open them.

The main way to break such an encrypted file is by what's called a "brute force attack," which means trying every possible key, or password, said Herbert Lin, a senior computer science and cryptology expert at the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

Unlike a regular six- or eight-character password that most people use every day, a 256-bit key would equal a 40 to 50 character password, he said.

If it takes 0.1 nanosecond to test one possible key and you had 100 billion computers to test the possible number variations, "it would take this massive array of computers 10 to the 56th power seconds - the number 1, followed by 56 zeros" to plow through all the possibilities, said Lin.

How long is that?

"The age of the universe is 10 to the 17th power seconds," explained Lin. "We will wait a long time for the U.S. government or anyone else to decrypt that file by brute force."

Could the NSA, which is known for its supercomputing and massive electronic eavesdropping abilities abroad, crack such an impregnable code?

It depends on how much time and effort they want to put into it, said James Bamford, who has written two books on the NSA.

The NSA has the largest collection of supercomputers in the world. And officials have known for some time that has classified files in its possession.

The agency, he speculated, has probably been looking for a vulnerability or gap in the code, or a backdoor into the commercial encryption program protecting the file.

At the more extreme end, the NSA, the Pentagon and other U.S. government agencies - including the newly created Cyber Command - have probably reviewed options for using a cyber attack against the website, which could disrupt networks, files, electricity, and so on.

"This is the kind of thing that they are geared for," said Bamford, "since this is the type of thing a terrorist organization might have - a website that has damaging information on it. They would want to break into it, see what's there and then try to destroy it."

The vast nature of the Internet, however, makes it essentially impossible to stop something, or take it down, once it has gone out over multiple servers.

In the end, U.S. officials will have to weigh whether a more aggressive response is worth the public outrage it would likely bring. Most experts predict that, despite the uproar, the government will probably do little other than bluster, and the documents will come out anyway.

"Once you start messing with the Internet, taking things down, and going to the maximum extent to hide everything from coming out, it doesn't necessarily serve your purpose," said Bamford. "It makes the story bigger than it would have been had the documents been released in the first place."

"If, in the end, the goal is to decrease the damage, you have to wonder whether pouring fuel on the fire is a reasonable solution," he said.

Explore further: Google Trends info is placed on inbox duty for subscribers

More information: Online:www.wikileaks.org/

3.7 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US demands WikiLeaks return military documents

Aug 05, 2010

The Pentagon on Thursday demanded that the whistleblower website WikiLeaks "return immediately" leaked US military documents after the site released tens of thousands of secret files.

WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web

Aug 05, 2010

(AP) -- Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website, sparking speculation that those behind the organization may be prepared to release more classified ...

Recommended for you

LinkedIn membership hits 300 million

Apr 18, 2014

The career-focused social network LinkedIn announced Friday it has 300 million members, with more than half the total outside the United States.

Researchers uncover likely creator of Bitcoin

Apr 18, 2014

The primary author of the celebrated Bitcoin paper, and therefore probable creator of Bitcoin, is most likely Nick Szabo, a blogger and former George Washington University law professor, according to students ...

White House updating online privacy policy

Apr 18, 2014

A new Obama administration privacy policy out Friday explains how the government will gather the user data of online visitors to WhiteHouse.gov, mobile apps and social media sites. It also clarifies that ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2010
Taking a shot at WikiLeaks via "cyber attack" will do nothing. The insurance file is out there and it certainly does not only reside on the WikiLeaks servers.

All that is needed is the key to decrypt it (and that one certainly ALSO does not only reside on the WikiLeaks server)

So by attacking them all the military would achieve is to give the people holding the keys incentive to release them immediately.

It's a smart move by WikiLeaks because governments sure would like to blackmail/threaten/kill the founders into silence. With the "insurance" file that has become non-issue.

Anyone may put out any encrypted file and name it anythin they wish. The "insurance" file may hold nothing at all or it may hold documents with juicy content - but as of now it doesn't matter which it is.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2010
To allow people to get away with spying on someone and then taking the information they stole, and to then use it as blackmail? Absolute rubbish!
It will end up a disaster just like allowing the national debt to continue to grow out of control.
Spying is a disease that needs to be put under wraps!
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2010
To allow people to get away with spying on someone and then taking the information they stole, and to then use it as blackmail? Absolute rubbish!
It will end up a disaster just like allowing the national debt to continue to grow out of control.
Spying is a disease that needs to be put under wraps!


Haven't seen naivete like this for quite some time. If it is, indeed naivete.

@TabulaMentis,
What do yo think the NSA, CIA, DIA, et c -just to name a few AMERICAN agencies- do, day in and day out?

If not, then the sarcasm possessed the bluntness of an 800 ton boulder.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2010
Obviously, you have not thought about where all of this is heading towards in the future.

No, I am not naive. You are the naive person.

Do you not think a confidential global court of some kind would be a better place to expose leaked documents instead of posting them unanimously on a Web site for all to see? Privacy is an issue that should be taken more seriously!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2010
Also, you are off subject. Try to discuss what the article is talking about and not what you want it to be!
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
No, I disagree with both of your posts.
And, it is precisely the lack of transparency that is the root of the problem here.
Confidentiality and secrecy allow the prosecution of this "war" by the corrupt, greedy, manipulative, and inept to continue.
According to the Pentagon, the DoD, the State Department, the Administration, and the Media, the war on terror in both Iraq and Afghanistan are going just peachy.
If people are so blind as to believe this fiction, then these leaked documents make it crystal, and undeniably clear that it isn't so -in fact, just the opposite.
By extension, this also indicates that corruption in the halls of power is rampant, no?

How is a "Confidential Court" going to address this problem?
By not addressing it. There is no wrongdoing -much less crime- if there is no publicly available proof.

If you believe that justice would be better served by a Confidential Global Court, then you are so naive as to need to re-womb and finish developing.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2010
You must have not read the article about the informants whose lives are now in danger.

Yes, a confidential court system organized by the United Nations would be the best way to address this problem.

You can disagree with me as much as you want and throw all the insults you have, and it will not change my mind.

Furthermore, you appear to not have any ideas in how to improve the situation.

All you seem to be able to do is throw insults. That is not the sign of an intelligent person.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
You must have not read the article about the informants whose lives are now in danger.
These "informants" have been endangering the lives of many others. They are paid for endangering the lives of others. Their misinformations have led to the killing of many innocents. They even may have spread misinformations willingly in order to get rid of some personal adversary.
It's called war.

Being called naive is not an insult. Bad people are not naive.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
We might take a lesson from history to see what happens when secrecy is rampant (WWI, anyone?)

Go WikiLeaks!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
They could just end the doctrine of pre-emptive aggression and stop starting wars.

This isn't the America I want, it shouldn't be the America that anyone wants.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
Yeah...like that is going to be the course of a country whose only real export is weapons.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
Yeah...like that is going to be the course of a country whose only real export is weapons.

Our top export is food. We ship that everywhere. Guns only go to our friends or our enemies' enemies. Consider it part of the European Heritage.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
People should never be allowed to take the law into their own hands.
An honest organized government structure that respects the rights of its people is the best policy.
Once a United Nations court is setup to handle these kinds of issues, then WikiLeaks should be shut down forever, unless the governments are not doing their job in the best interest of their people.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
unless the governments are not doing their job in the best interest of their people
Who defines "the best interest of the people"?
And who determines who defines "the best interest"?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
That is a good question.
That is why setting up a United Nations court will be extremely difficult.
Maybe reading peoples minds and figuring out what they really want will provide those answers.
But in the meantime, it will have to be done the old fashioned way.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
That is a good question.
That is why setting up a United Nations court will be extremely difficult.
Maybe reading peoples minds and figuring out what they really want will provide those answers.
But in the meantime, it will have to be done the old fashioned way.


Yeah, TM-
I don't know about you, but I don't want anyone making those decisions without first making all the information available, discussed, and then voted on.
This is a democracy(more or less), that hasn't yet drifted completely into totalitarianism -which is where your kind of thinking will take us.

And, again , this takes us right back to square one, and the idea of decisions taken, and policy formulated and pursued -in secret. It is, at the very least, a condescending approach, and at it's(all-too-frequently) worst, it is corrupt, and engenders, sustains, and enlarges further corruption.

Lastly, as Coalition Citizens, we have a right to know what our TRILLION+ USD is actually buying for us, yes?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
I guess you want governments to disclose all secrets to you?
Maybe your neighbors should tell you all of their secrets too?
Maybe corporations should reveal all of their secrets to you?
But all along you want to keep your secrets to yourself and your cohorts?
Is that how you want it to be?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2010
I guess you want governments to disclose all secrets to you?


For the most part, yes. The only justification for secrecy is to prevent an ACTUAL, ACTIVELY INIMICAL enemy from gaining a strategic or tactical advantage.

Maybe your neighbors should tell you all of their secrets too?


If they have any that pose or conceal a threat to me or mine, yes.

Maybe corporations should reveal all of their secrets to you as well?


If they have any that pose or conceal a threat to me or mine, you bet your ass!

But all along you want to keep your secrets to yourself and your cohorts?


Only that information, the possession of which would allow another to pose or conceal a threat to me or mine.

Is that how you want it to be?


I want the principles I've outlined above extended to my fellow citizens, and indeed, every human being on Earth, and most other life.

It's pretty dad-blamed simple, if you use your brains to figure it out.

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2010
Overview:
1: Have an emergency session to create a special United Nations court to handle confidential matters.
2: Notify the media of the United Nations intentions.
3: If media outlets like WikiLeaks decide to take the law into their own hands, then have United Nations security forces arrest the founder of WikiLeaks and closedown WikiLeaks servers.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2010
Overview:
1: Have an emergency session to create a special United Nations court to handle confidential matters.
2: Notify the media of the United Nations intentions.
3: If media outlets like WikiLeaks decide to take the law into their own hands, then have United Nations security forces arrest the founder of WikiLeaks and closedown WikiLeaks servers.


In other words, if any one dares to make the truth available, shut them down? Is that what you are saying?
zeropointreference
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
Overview:
1: Have an emergency session to create a special United Nations court to handle confidential matters.
2: Notify the media of the United Nations intentions.
3: If media outlets like WikiLeaks decide to take the law into their own hands, then have United Nations security forces arrest the founder of WikiLeaks and closedown WikiLeaks servers.


The problem I have with that is the war between the rich and the poor has yet to be resolved and if you give such absolute control to one point of control, then it will be much easier for the very small group to control the much larger group then it alread is.

Not only that, I don't want those with authority over my life to keep secrets. Especially the kinds that they've been keeping which have been mostly embarrassing and hinting at criminal behavior.

I prefer the government fear the people, they tend to stay a tool instead of becoming some Luciferian monstrosity that thinks it is the nation.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
Those are excellent questions and statements that need to be addressed in a forum acceptable to most people.
WikiLeaks cannot be allowed to continue to do what they are doing. They are a lawless operation in a world with laws.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
A -- it's a good thing that a controversy like this can happen. A world where it is not possible would resemble the dystopian world of 1984.

B -- there is nothing that US government or Military can legally do to prevent the release of the documents.

C -- a cyber attack on Australia would be catastrophically bad for America's image and almost certainly be worse then the release of the documents.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
Those are excellent questions and statements that need to be addressed in a forum acceptable to most people.


How about this forum right here? You didn't balk at making your opinion known previously, so why hold back now?

WikiLeaks cannot be allowed to continue to do what they are doing. They are a lawless operation in a world with laws.


I disagree. Wikileaks, and other individuals and organizations like them are the only things, in general, that stand between us and the contemptuous and assured intransigence and tyranny of government and industry. They are as necessary to Democracy as clean air is necessary for us to breathe.
Bonkers
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
I like the posts here, the consensus seems to be that wikileaks is a good thing, it keeps our public "servants" honest.
There will be some risk to active personnel, wikileaks have tried hard to minimise this, their residual risk is acceptable IMO compared to the number of deaths already counted and likely in the future. They have disclosed a significant number of additional deaths in the civilian population that the war-mongers would prefer unrecorded. We need to know the cost of these operations, it might improve our judgement in the future.
We are talking about two very different wars here though, the Iraq War was a thinly disguised raid, by oilmen, on a big fat $30 trillion worth of oil. There were no WMD's and the whole thing was illegal. Prosecutions are required.
fmfbrestel
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
While you may be right Bonkers, your Iraq comment just invalidated any points you may have made earlier to the crowd opposed to wikileaks.
I think a major section of blame for Iraq falls on Suddam. He chose to play chicken with us and lost. If he had admitted that he didnt have WMD's and let in the inspectors, he would probably still be in power. But instead he believed that he had to bluff the WMD's for deterrence, we were arrogant enough to go in anyway, and the rest is history.
Bonkers
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
the Afghan war is more tricky, they want to keep a population, especially of women, in the dark ages. Should we permit this? I think not, we have a duty to impose our most basic concept of human rights to all humans, by force if necessary. I'm talking of the right of study, the right of consenting adults to have sex, to walk around freely etc. etc - without being bludgeoned to death, nor horse-whipped, nor anything else, for it.
In this regard the Afghan campaign is an honourable war, deserving our support.
Perhaps it would resolve sooner if only female politicians were allowed to be put in place, but i'm dreaming now.
Bonkers
4.5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
@fmfbrestel,
not sure i entirely agree, Saddam's position was a difficult one, his only guaranteed defence against invasion was to be part of the Nuclear club, it is THE only defence. Against this he wanted to show he posed no threat to well, Israel mainly. He therefore needed to stall the inspectors but to keep the process going. I guess he was waiting for a second UN resolution at least before threat of a legal war. At that point he would have ramped-up access. That said, it is impossible to prove a negative, it is vanishingly possible that even now we could stumble upon a Bond-villain type WMD facility. The other thing is that his nuclear plants held legitimate commercial secrets that he didn't want Westinghouse crawling all over, never mind the military working out which bits to best hit to put them out of action. Everyone needs electricity.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
a cyber attack on Australia would be catastrophically bad for America's image and almost certainly be worse then the release of the documents.

While it may be bad for the american image there are certain people who will have very _personal_ interests in not having any of the remaining documents leaked (and judging from what has been released they surely can guess whether anything personally incriminating might be in the 'insurance' batch)

That said: the 'american image' means nothing to those who govern the US. You just need to look at the events of the past few years to have that made abundantly clear to you. All they care about is their jobs. _Only_ when a loss of face would directly threaten their own, personal positions of power do they react.

This is something few people get. Those who govern are _never_ interested in the good of the country or the people. Do-gooders aren't allowed to get that far.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2010
I think not, we have a duty to impose our most basic concept of human rights to all humans, by force if necessary.
Why?
Ever contemplated over the Strugatsky brothers' "Hard to be a God"? (Book and movie.) It's a masterly written piece which shows that even a god-like cultural supremacy will wreck havoc if imposed forcefully.
History has to develop. Your happiness need not be the happiness of others. Especially not if it is forced upon your victims.
Cultural exchange cannot be replaced by physical violence.

Another serious flaw in your postulate: What if another power, mightier than you, is determined to apply your postulate upon you?

Don't do upon others what you don't want to be done upon you.

Your approach reminds one of the Christian "duty to save the pagans' souls" and of "the white man's burden". History shows that it's all about exploitation and economy.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
So we are to set back and do nothing because someone has an encrypted insurance file?

Only cowards heed to such threats!

Furthermore, the United States needs to stop acting alone and start getting permission before retaliating.
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
@ antialias: for the most part, I agree. However, claiming that legislators and/or executives "_never_" have good intentions for the nation and/or people is a bit strong.

That said, i have heard rumors that the diplomatic cables would be extremely embarrassing to Hillary if released. Which, if true, is certainly reason enough for this administration to be very nervous about their release.

@Bonkers: all true and lets not forget all the cargo planes that made one way trips to Syria right before the war. However the point remains that Suddam was playing a very dangerous game, miscalculated our desire to avert a second ground war at the same time, and overplayed his hand. In addition to oil, the Iraq war sent a message to other nations like North Korea: Do not ever assume we are too over-deployed.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
Overview:
1: Have an emergency session to create a special United Nations court to handle confidential matters.
2: Notify the media of the United Nations intentions.
3: If media outlets like WikiLeaks decide to take the law into their own hands, then have United Nations security forces arrest the founder of WikiLeaks and closedown WikiLeaks servers.

And then they slowly expand their influence to include incarcerating people who they "think" might be a threat.

There's a reason why governments do not have the right to control information on the world stage.
Bonkers
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
Thanks Frajo - will look it up.
Of course i would far rather not use force, really not - its hard to point a gun at someone and say "have FUN .. NOW!!"
I guess its a slippery slope, I would like for there to be some universally agreed fundamental rights, lets start with freedom of thought, should Muslim women be allowed to read (at all?) what they like?
Should they have freedom of association?
I'm not sure that promoting these freedoms is the same as missionary zeal, which is normally restrictive not permissive, but until i've read the book I have to concede the point that there are risks in applying even the best intentioned norms of one culture to another.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2010
Hillary Clinton has said: If the kitchen's too hot, get out!
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2010
Hillary Clinton has said: If the kitchen's too hot, get out!

Ok, then what planet would you go to if we erected a global governance that could silence free speech?

Oh wait, we already have. The UN with their ridiculous anti-blasphemy regulation that no one in the western world will ever adhere to because it's utterly disgusting to suggest let alone implement.

TabMental, you must realize that organizations like wikileaks are a vital and necessary part of journalism. The issue here is "faith based" activism that will lead to the death of native afghanis.

Journalists must be accountable for willfully publishing untruths. The only people who can hold them accountable are the readers. Assange has engaged in self-inflating tabloid journalism and put many people before the sword in doing so. So for each afghani on those lists who are killed in retaliation, put Assange before the world court for murder.
fmfbrestel
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2010
willfully publishing untruths


where are the untruths again? Also, how can you go from saying
organizations like wikileaks are a vital and necessary part of journalism.

to saying
put Assange before the world court for murder
one paragraph later??
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2010
Yesterday I heard several American volunteers were ambushed and killed in Afghanistan. I imagine their deaths were directly related to WikiLeaks. If that is true, then does not WikiWeaks have blood on their hands?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2010
Also, someone theorized that Hillary Clinton had something to do with the encrypted insurance file.
With Hillary, it most likely involved sex.
Where does sex, a private affair, belong in fair reporting if that turns out to be the case?
frajo
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
The UN with their ridiculous anti-blasphemy regulation that no one in the western world will ever adhere to because it's utterly disgusting to suggest let alone implement.
I haven't heard yet of that anti-blasphemy regulation of the UN.
And you seem not to have heard of France's (and other Western states) regulations concerning e.g. "insults to their flag". They face fines upto 1500 euros. What happens in the US when somebody wipes his bottom with the flag?
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic:
Below is a quote by the United Nations:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
United Nations, Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
Below is a quote by the United Nations:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
United Nations, Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948


And the mere fact of Coalition Forces on the ground in Afghanistan is a violation of that declaration.

Too, as has already been pointed out, these "informants" whose blood appears to be more valuable, in your mind, than that of women, children, and the innocent in general, are as often as not double- or even triple-agents, who are just as happy to finger an actual person of interest, as finger a childhood enemy, business rival, or tribal enemy.
Tribalism is the central element of their culture- not nationalism, not democracy -they are not a homogenous society, and this is a big part of why our efforts are failing >more
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
The people in one part of the country don't give two hoots in hell about those in another- their primary concern is to their tribal group, and their allegiance is to the tribal elders, by way of Allah.

No, current policy is ineffective, and the administration of this war is corrupt on all ten sides of the fence. And Wikileaks has proven it.

It should be a wakeup call for a withdrawal from the aptly named "Graveyard of Empires", since the only reason for being there is to engage in an open-ended conflict designed to transfer the wealth of this nation into the pockets of the Elite Greedy, who have absolutely no regard for the inevitable consequences.

And TabMentos is worried about the lives of a few greedy thugs...
ormondotvos
5 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2010
World of Laws? ROTFL
Our major export? ROTFL
Go Julian!
The only innocents being killed are the collateral civilians. When the elephants fight, the grass is trampled.

Julian is a mouse...
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
willfully publishing untruths


where are the untruths again? Also, how can you go from saying
organizations like wikileaks are a vital and necessary part of journalism.

to saying
put Assange before the world court for murder
one paragraph later??

Because with journalism comes a requirement for truth. Assange took what could have been a good journalistic endeavor and corrupted it by playing the media popularity game that has poisoned the mainstream news outlets.
I haven't heard yet of that anti-blasphemy regulation of the UN.
The anti-blasphemy regulations make it illegal for any country to allow the publication of or derision of religion, primarily aimed at satisfying the 57 state Islamic coalition in the UN. As for France, I don't support burning anything, especially books, as a statement of free expression, like that loon burning the Koran or anyone burning any flag.

www.milkandcookie.../detail/
frajo
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
As for France, I don't support burning anything, especially books, as a statement of free expression, like that loon burning the Koran or anyone burning any flag.
I didn't talk of burning books or flags.
(Btw: for burning books, see the Wiki page on Wilhelm Reich.)
I was talking of the _new_ French rule to "protect the national flag from insult" (like bottom wiping).
I don't believe the common western perception that Westerners are tolerating insults as opposed to inhabitants of (primarily) Islamic countries holds truth. It's a mere prejudice.

http://news.bbc.c...2387.stm (US);
http://www.bbc.co...10744040 (france);
http://news.bbc.c...7993.stm (italy);
http://news.bbc.c...9213.stm (UK).
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2010
Because with journalism comes a requirement for truth. Assange took what could have been a good journalistic endeavor and corrupted it by playing the media popularity game that has poisoned the mainstream news outlets.


He still hasn't lied to anyone. So... Hu?

Media popularity game -- he didn't set up all those interviews, he accepted a few interviews. Maybe in retrospect he should have just ducked the rest of the media, but taking a few interviews does not invalidate the story he broke.

And his publicity allowed the files he released to be read by more people -- which is the whole point anyway. Getting the truth out there doesn't matter if no one reads it.

Poisoned the mainstream media?? How? by breaking the most important story of the past 5 years? So talking to the media about the controversy created by excellent journalism somehow poisons the media?? They couldn't break a story like his, so the best they could do is leach from it. Not Assange's fault.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2010
The Anti-Blasphemy thing is a RESOLUTION (= statement of support = no enforcement = meaningless) and even if it became more then a resolution, the UN is powerless. We routinely spit in the UN's face when it suits us, and then turn around and use it to sanction others when it suits us. It is nothing but a convenient gathering of diplomats which we occasionally take advantage of.
ODesign
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2010
There's not much the government can do easily. As any cryptographer will tell you, the advantage lies with the code maker, not the codebreaker.

The current practice of getting someone close to slip up and type their password into a computer that has a hardware tap on the keyboard, or turning a trusted friend, etc. would work. Human surveillance works successfully with drug dealers and other criminals who employ techniques that make automatic intercepting of their communications cost prohibitive.

The reason human intelligence isn't considered a solution and digital interception is seen as a solution is the cost. Money and power leverage poorly in buying human actions against neighbors, friends, and personal values. Some people will sell their loyalty quickly, but not most. Usually people trusted with sensitive or secret information are pre-selected for resistance to being turned.
frajo
not rated yet Aug 13, 2010
Usually people trusted with sensitive or secret information are pre-selected for resistance to being turned.
The worse for the seniors when the seniors turn.
zslewis91
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2010
They could just end the doctrine of pre-emptive aggression and stop starting wars.

This isn't the America I want, it shouldn't be the America that anyone wants.


@Skeptic_Heretic, ive been bashin your post for awhile now...let me say sorry and so on...these are some of the smartest things ive ever heard you post....very true, so true. sorry and thanks

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2010
zslewis91:

You need to explain yourself.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2010
zslewis91:

It appears your go from one article to another insulting people, but you do not contribute anything of substance, except hatred.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
In the future someone is going to have to be the keeper of secrets, one main governmental body.
Christians believe that governmental body will be Jesus.
I guess that means humans are too stupid or too greedy to protect themselves?
All of the above statements do not address this future problem.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2010
They could just end the doctrine of pre-emptive aggression and stop starting wars.

This isn't the America I want, it shouldn't be the America that anyone wants.


@Skeptic_Heretic, ive been bashin your post for awhile now...let me say sorry and so on...these are some of the smartest things ive ever heard you post....very true, so true. sorry and thanks



Hackers must be changing posts?
zslewis91 post mysteriously changed from a negative post to a positive one mysteriously overnight?
Hackers may be distorting free speech in this case and changing the truth?
I guess this is what the future has in store for all of us?
Arkaleus
5 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2010
Top qualifications needed for the office of InfoCzar:

* Must have at least lvl 50 status in World of Warcraft;
* Must be able to type 30 WPM or greater;
* Must understand the need to keep powerful people's information private, and little people's information public;
* Must work closely with Intelligence agencies to insure American's don't know too much or have too many routes around the authorities's detection grids;
* Must know the difference between lolz and genuine communist aggression, but be willing to ignore the genuine communist aggression in favor of prosecuting lolz.

More news stories

Growing app industry has developers racing to keep up

Smartphone application developers say they are challenged by the glut of apps as well as the need to update their software to keep up with evolving phone technology, making creative pricing strategies essential to finding ...

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.