"Assange's leaky discharge"
My headline fragment of the week. Have a pretendy pint on me!
The main Wikileaks site hosting US diplomatic cables has been downed, again, by an apparent denial of service attack. Various Wikileak mirror sites are available and the "revelations" continue to dominate the news. According to Wikileaks's Twitter feed the attack peaked at over 10 gigabits a second - about three times greater …
My headline fragment of the week. Have a pretendy pint on me!
Diarrhea of the mouth. Which is a result of having his head up his Assange.
Has anyone yet analyzed how much of this tripe never should have been classified in the first place?
Given that this entire leak was apparently the work of one amateur working on his own, has anyone considered how much information has been stolen by the professional spies working with the support of their various governments?
Has anyone considered the anti-free-speech implications of the highly personalized and vindictive witch hunt against the publisher in this case?
Inquiring minds want to know, but not in America, thank you.
It seems you are saying that only the most damaging secrets should be classified. But what would happen then?
If there is a chance of communications being intercepted, best practice is to encrypt everything, so that an attacker doesn't know what to target. It appears that this has been taken to heart. Office gossip, bad-mouthing and the like might be embarrassing, but there is nothing truly revelatory here. And that might just be the point.
Clearly she's a closet liberal.
I notice the first three tags for this article are: "Arrest Warrant" "Pope" "Sex Crimes". Now that would really be an interesting Revelation.
Probably authored by John the Divine rather that John Oates though.
Very well spotted!
and no Ms Palin, that is not a real place, so dont head there first in your "hunt".
Maybe the person you should find is the person that leaked the documents in the first place. Its not as if you find Assange that Wikileaks will crumble in his absence. People will still leak the documents...
Do the 'powers' believe that arresting this Assange guy and throwing him in prison for their own personal revenge will make the slightest bit of difference to the site ?
I think it will just result in a change of management, maybe the next general manager who comes along won't be so media friendly and will just release everything they have in one simple large and widely distributed torrent file.
If I was Assange I would have distributed an encrypted file already via bittorrent and then issue the password to access it at my leisure, once everyone has already downloaded it. Many thousands of people would download it in advance of getting the key.
I would suggest a simple truecrypt volume for the contents of the torrent.
I've seen many calls from Americans saying Assange should be arrested for 'treason', what a laugh. You can only be treasonous against your own country.
Wikileaks and Assange have released documents that compromise the safety of the various forces working in the Middle East, and Afghanistan. I would think that Assange could be charged for treason by Australia.
No need to charge him. The USA can demand his extradition from the UK if he is here (there seems to be no way to block that, ask McKinnon) and if hat does fail, the USA can just grab him from anywhere they see fit, take him to some island and torture the hell out of him (the USA has form for that too).
I don't see the latest set of leaks putting any lives at risk, nor do I see them being particularly interesting. And whilst I totally agree that some things should be kept secret, I really would appreciate it if politicians would stop spouting bull-crap all the time*; then there would be no need for a sites like WikiLeaks.
Until that happens, roll on the next leak. Just chill the PR assault a big, mm-kay?
*Although it is amusing when one catches the buggers out.
aside from possibly fuelling anti american feeling please provide a link to information that had been made available in the current link that directly endagers the lives of someone.
From what I am aware the newspapers releasing the information have worked with wikileaks to ensure that no specifics identifying names / locations etc. have been released as part of the publicly available material.
Wikileaks appear to have redacted information that could compromise personal security, see:
Don't believe everything that Hilary Clinton & friends say.
"If I was Assange I would have distributed an encrypted file already"
I was under the impression he had already done this*, under the heading 'insurance policy'.
*Citation required, I can't remember where I read this, prolly here somewhere :)
These are classified documents, they are classified because their release could cause harm to the state, and or individuals therein. Whilst the newspapers may have redacted information the documents should not have been made available in a public forum.
That's true for more classifed material as we've seen before you can classify anything instantly in the name of "national security" including the world's government's dirty laundry, embarrassing secrets and war crimes
Regardless of wether or not they should have been released no one has presented any evidence to support the idea that the information released endangers lives.
Yes the information is classified, and the reason it is classified is obvious, because it causes embarrasments to the governments of the states involved. How what has been published could be used to endanger individuals has not been made clear by anyone..
If you could point to a line in the documents that says "xxxx xxxx is an undercover counter terrorist agent of ours" (or similar) without the xxxxs then I would revert to your point of view
They don't really care about Assange. They just want to intimidate publishers while continuing to classify ridiculous amounts of ridiculous information. Based on what I've heard so far, I'd estimate that less that about 1% of the stuff is embarrassing, 1% of that (as in 0.01%) was worth secret classification of more than a year or so, and about 1% of that (as in 0.0001%) really should have been classified for the national interest.
At least in the reports I've heard so far, the strongest case was the bit where a government gave us tacit approval for a raid against Al Qaeda. However, I think even that case might be debatable. Depends on whether or not we were able to make the raid in a way that looked plausible, which I really doubt. The very fact that there was a tacit approval already shows that we were already suspected. I'd even bet that we would have raided without the tacit approval--and it wouldn't have made any difference anyway. The important aspect of the raid was whether or not we nailed the targets, and all of the finger pointing about who actually did what and when is not so important...
Loss of trust in the American government? That horse left the barn a LONG time ago.
...Pal A says to Pal B that think this Pal C is a butt-monkey.
Pal A gets all upset when Pal B tells Pal C that they think they are a butt-monkey.
Basic, infantile, playground politics. And the answer is very simple.
Pal A should either not be pals with C at all, or keep their friggin' trap shut!
I would definitely try to get charged for Treason in Australia.
Think about it, you get what, 2 months in the slammer (Go Australian sentencing standards!), halved because you are a white collar kind of guy, and your lawyer asked nicely, then you get protected from extradition by the government because you had served your time here, and the other country might have a harsher sentence (It has a precedence!).
Bob's your uncle, scott free, living large in Australia, nice one!
Mines the one with the arrest warrant in the pocket!
"...they are classified because their release could cause harm to the state, and or individuals therein."
I've heard it said (although I can't find a cite at the moment) that the menus for the meals served at Number 10 used to be Classified as "Secret"!
The Yanks are more worried because the release of these documents could cause harm to the careers of individuals in their Government.
I applaud the shining of lights in the dark places where govenment lies are revealed.
As an Aussie, I am proud of what he has done. Tehre are no legal grounds for him to be charged in Aus.
that Palin's gettin a little stale in here.
she ought to wade right out of this one.
She means: 'MERICA, FUCK YEAH! (Except without the fuck, as that word belongs squarely to filthy pinko commie socialist terrorist enemies of freedom like Assange.)
It's not just Palin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Peter King, the ranking Republican Congressman on Homeland Security have also stated Assange is a terrorist. For senior US politicians to cry terrorism is hopefully self-defeating as more people will start to question their 'War On Terrorism'. The only sense came from Robert Gates who basically said 'everyone hates us and we don 't care'.
Assange was a bit naive to act as the lightening conductor for the releases +and+ still have a normal social life. If he is just outside London then he'll soon be blamed for the student protests and the snow.
Rob Gates is a Millwall fan?
'You do realise that any time I don't get what I want, the terrorists win?'
About says it all really.
Interpol have NOT issued an arrest warrant for Assange. They have posted a Red Notice which requires information about his whereabouts.
So why has the screenshot got "Arrest Warrant Issued By" clearly printed on it? They either issued one or they didn't.
If you'd bothered to read it fully instead of spouting bilge, you'd know who issued a warrant and who didn't.
Sweden issued a warrant.
Stepping back for a moment, I find myself asking why this fool put himself in the position where someone could make these allegations possible. Did he not consider the possibility that use of his todger could put him in trouble? Did he honestly believe that he would not be public enemy number one after throwing large quantities of merde into the public domain?
This story is not over, and there are many turns in the road ahead. I've ordered a lot of popcorn.
...have you considered the possibility that somebody may have been pressured into making the allegations?
Did you think he would have been safe from the Merkins on a planet without women?
You failed miserably; he has already said that he had *consensual sex* with these women.
So, the question remains, did he honestly think that he could do so without being smeared.
Try reading my original remarks and you will see this was my original question. Sheesh.
It's getting warm now. Very warm. I expect to see results within a month.
"What dumb knee-jerk response is Sarah Palin going to make to it?"
It'd be far more fun and much less harrowing were just an airheaded celebrity rather than a canditate for the presidency!
They'll let just about anyone do that job now!
...Catholic? Inquiring minds and all that...
No-one knows what Sarah Palin means,not even Sarah Palin.
She has the IQ of a suet dumpling.
If you did not insult the intelligence of a suet dumpling, thank you.
Who else could it be?
...I knew where Assange was, would wikileaks leak it?
The answer could well be 'yes', but only after the leak would not compromise his security. This is exactly the approach that they have with army/... operational issues: they hold back on current issues/actions so that personnel security is not compromised.
always a paranoid. Our Julian was always not too tightly wrapped, it would seem: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11893104
So, anyone for bounty hunting in the snow? This could make Hollywood. Closing scene, claret spread across a snowy landscape, Santa stood astride a dead Assange, big grin on his face... ...no wait, what's that you say? Santa's a woman called Palin? A gift of lead for him? ;-)
Sarah Palin is becoming a marketable pundit over here in the US and is starting to weigh in on every topic that comes along. I'm amazed she apparently realizes that Assange is Australian and therefore outside US law. (At least I think he is. Seems like there has been some cases in the Bush admin where they argued that acts on foreign soil were under American jurisdiction, which sounds nutty to me, but then I'm not a lawyer. Thank God.)
You Brits are truly missing a treat with Sarah's show on our TLC channel, "Sarah Palen's Alaska". Beautiful scenery, with every scene showing the multiple reasons why putting this woman in the White House for four years, let alone eight, would be a very bad idea. She needs to be focused on special needs baby and daughters, where she will do an excellent job as a loving hockey mom.
As per current USA legal doctrine acts by American citizens on foreign soil are subject to American jurisdiction. Also, as per same doctrine US law has absolute supremacy over anything and everything.
This has been discussed in great detail around Bush administration reaction to the International Crime court. Just Google it.
Apparently Saddam had a similar view, and tried to burn a Bush: http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html
Invade Sweden and/or Australia, naturally.
Invading Sweden would be too much like addressing the problem. Normal procedure is to invade a country nearby, in the hope that the voters' general ignorance of geography confuses the two adequately.
Those in Finland should be getting nervous.
Linux Penguin, because even the Antarctic is similar enough for some.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017