New Wikileaks Dump is Unconscionable

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by countezero, Nov 29, 2010.

Page 2 of 28
  1. countezero

    countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I confess you probably now more about the systems than I do.

    There's a good description of the Army PFC sneaking discs into his workplace on the original link I posted. That's not possible at the SKIFs in the IC. Most computers don't even have functioning external drivers. But I do know DOS cables are on CIPR, and the military reads them.
     
    countezero, Nov 29, 2010
    #21

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Really?

    I guess evidence of war crimes in previous leaks aren't really atrocities, are they? What do some call it? Ah yes, collateral damage..

    And even when Americans were at the center of the action, as in the western city of Falluja in 2004, none of the Iraqis they killed were categorized as civilians.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html
    ​


    Instances of roadside executions and torture apparently aren't deemed atrocities now days.


    It may appear childish, but it shows that Governments are telling their citizens one thing and then double dealing and doing the complete opposite. It shows the darker side of Governance, where requests for war are made by another country's supposed ally and indicates corruption and possibly murder - which needs to be investigated and aired.. Sunshine being the best disinfectant and all..

    Lets put it into perspective, shall we?

    Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be "world policeman" – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global. Nonetheless, the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

    In this light, two backup checks were applied. The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and "representations" were invited in return. These were considered. Details of "redactions" were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard.

    The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of "secrets" might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

    The revelations do not have the startling, coldblooded immediacy of the WikiLeaks war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their astonishing insight into the minds of fighting men seemingly detached from the ethics of war. The's disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do.

    Few will be surprised to know that Vladimir Putin runs the world's most sensational kleptocracy, that the Saudis wanted the Americans to bomb Iran, or that Pakistan's ISI is hopelessly involved with Taliban groups of fiendish complexity. We now know that Washington knows too. The full extent of American dealings with Yemen might upset that country's government, but is hardly surprising. If it is true that the Pentagon targeted refugee camps for bombing, it should be of general concern. American congressmen might also be interested in the sums of money given to certain foreign generals supposedly to pay for military equipment.

    The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport.


    (Source)
    ​
     
    Bells, Nov 29, 2010
    #22

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. phlogistician

    phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    To interpret them, we must first know about them. If you'd seen the Apache helicopter footage, where the assholes knowingly target a vehicle with a child in it, you'd know it didn't require much interpretation anyway. Usual gung-ho fuckheads who don't value human life flying and killing, and generally being a disgrace to mankind.
     
    phlogistician, Nov 29, 2010
    #23

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Certainly. And in light of that, they should ensure only those who need to know have access to such documents.

    These documents were apparently at a level where a very large majority of Government employees in the US had ample access to them. So frankly, the notion of 'secrecy' or 'sensitivity' goes out the window.

    I'll put it this way. The work I do allows me access into people's taxation records, business records, their intimate banking details if I want it, I can even look to see what they spent their shopping money on and where. I can see and look at all their past international travel and if they have applied for visas to any other countries for any future travel. I can access and track people's investments to see how much money they may be making or losing. My level of Government clearance is high enough for that and more. But if I so much as try to download or copy any of it onto a disk, cd or memory stick, I'd be escorted out of the building in handcuffs before I could even hit the 'okay' button. All emails are scanned and monitored, all records saved onto my work computers also scanned and checked. If any contains names or personal details that are not my own, then yeah.. bye bye job. In short, the security where I work ensures I cannot save or download any of it or copy any of it on an external stick or disk or drive. It won't even let me do it and if I try, red flags go up everywhere.

    So how one individual was able to get all of this over a period of months tells me that the Government does not consider such documents or information to be that sensitive that someone who is so lowly ranked, could access all of it and copy it over a period of months without detection.
     
    Bells, Nov 29, 2010
    #24
  8. nietzschefan

    nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Bells people screw up all the time in I.T security. Esp in the U.S, as it has become a rather lowly, often low paid, over worked position.
     
    nietzschefan, Nov 29, 2010
    #25
  9. countezero

    countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Yeah, really.

    You're majoring in the minor, and intentionally so. The leaks "make it clear that most civilians, by far, were killed by other Iraqis." You've got four instances of events that were previously unreported, and you can bet those are being investigated. But war crimes? This is a loaded term being used for political reasons to smear the US war effort.

    It shows the government is doing what governments do: Talking privately and openly about people and issues overseas and trying to influence both to further US aims. I'm sorry, but is that fucking news?

    There are no crimes here, capital or otherwise. And the release of this stuff is either just the reckless act of a shallow publicty whore or its the intentional act of a rabidly anti-American activist who purposefully wants to disrupt American policy.

    Beleive me, I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and I want governments to be as open and as accoutable as possible. But there has to be purpose in publication and revelation. It can't just be for the sake of publishing -- and damn the consequences. Assange had something of an intellectual argument for the Afghan and Iraq releases. But this? This is reckless destruction -- a child with a hammer, let loose in glassware store. The rubble in the end is just rubble.
     
    countezero, Nov 29, 2010
    #26
  10. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Yes. Lowly, low paid and over worked inviduals who apparently have access to hundreds of thousands of files and documents that are apparently overly sensitive and secret.

    Just doesn't sound right, does it?

    The individual who did this has taken months to do it.

    It was childishly easy, according to the published chatlog of a conversation Manning had with a fellow-hacker. "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga' … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing ... listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history." He said that he "had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months".


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/how-us-embassy-cables-leaked
    ​



    Hmm.. 8 months..

    I don't think 'screwup' goes far enough.. This guy did it over more than 8 months..

    If it was so secret and sensitive, then a bit more security and checks would have been in order.
     
    Bells, Nov 29, 2010
    #27
  11. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I disagree.

    Ah, but there are little nuggets that show cause for concern. Primarily the requests to bomb Iran and the US dealings with Yemen, don't you think?

    I think US citizens may want to know just how many millions of dollars are given as bribes and incentives or 'aid' to Governments that were previously spurned or how much the US Government has supported and upheld corruption in other States over the last 10 years and how much it cost the US to do so. Or to see if the US did knowingly and willingly target and bomb refugee camps..

    I also think US citizens would want to know just how low their Government will go and what they are willing to stoop to and its contempt for their allies. What those documents reveal is a crap load of hypocrisy and a few gems that should require further investigation.

    Unfortunately people are too busy decrying the release of the information, instead of looking at the information itself, and some of it is very very troubling, or, more to the point, should be troubling.

    I mean look at this thread. We aren't discussing the content, but the release. And that, I think, is indicative and is what is affecting the US and her allies at present. Instead of reading the message, some just want to shoot the messenger and then try and sweep the body and his message under the carpet.
     
    Bells, Nov 29, 2010
    #28
  12. The Esotericist

    The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    That's b/c the official story of how the data was obtained? It's probably hogwash.
     
    The Esotericist, Nov 29, 2010
    #29
  13. matthew809

    matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Has anyone here considered that Wiki-leaks is secretly controlled by the government itself(as well as Wikipedia and Alex Jone's websites), and that these "leaks" were intentionally created by the government? To me, it's completely obvious. Simply the fact that the wiki "leaks" are reported on the government-controlled mainstream news shows should be the first and biggest clue. The molestation charges against the founder of Wiki-leaks is so obviously a ploy to make him appear to be on our side, fighting against a tyrannical government willing to fake such charges to discredit him.

    All this talk of rebellion amongst us peasants has been orchestrated by the powers that be. The question is.... why do they want us to rebel?
     
    matthew809, Nov 29, 2010
    #30
  14. countezero

    countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    US policy in Yemen has been pretty well covered in the NYT. We're going after terrorists there. So what? I'm fine with that. So are the Yemeni people, I bet. The revelation that Sunni nations with lots of oil don't want a Shia nation with lots of oil to get a nuke seems a nonstarter, too. I mean, we've know that, right? If it's useful for anything, it's useful to show that some Jewish/Israeli cabal -- an accusation you hear on this very site -- isn't the only one pushing the US to act.

    Foreign aid is declared in every budget. It's the circumstances and details that matter. But if you think governments giving governments moneu to do things is novel, well...

    Oh, please.

    Your government speaks and behaves the same way. All governments do. And thus far, I've seen nothing that warrants investigation.

    I've commented on the content, but I began this thread because of the general view of Assange and wikileaks on this site. I think that view was shattered today, if a person is fairminded. Of course, fairmindedness and this site never go hand in hand.
     
    countezero, Nov 29, 2010
    #31
  15. Echo3Romeo

    Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    You guys are referring to SIPRNET. Its highest classification is SECRET (hence the S in SIPR). Traffic classified higher up (TS, SCI, RD, etc.) all goes through JWICS.

    Manning leaked stuff from JWICS, too.
    It seems like your estimation of those events was shaped solely by your interpretation of what happened in the leaked video.

    The question about secrecy vs. privacy is: why stop at foreign affairs? If you support full on transparency, then you're also against secret voting by representatives, and it's fairly easy to see that either position in this case has its drawbacks.

    I'm sure there are things that are cloaked in diplomatic secrecy which would benefit the world if they were revealed. However, in general, diplomacy is a good thing. It ends wars, stops them before they begin, and even when you're dealing with a bad nation that wants to do bad things, it is always a good thing to be able to work diplomatically with them. That's why a blanket dump of diplomatic documents is a bad thing. It impedes diplomacy, which is not a good thing. You can argue that blanket dumps of things like the Iraq and Afghanistan war, by hurting the war effort, are a good thing because the war effort is not a good thing. However, that argument fails when it comes to diplomacy. Simply pointing to things and saying "this, releasing this is good" doesn't justify the notion of a general document dump.

    Take the Iran situation. It doesn't really even matter what you think the best result is: Iran with nukes, Iran without nukes: a diplomatic solution is better than not having one. It's not a question of who is Right and who is Good: it's a question of taking the states vitriolically opposed to a nuclear Iran, Iran, and Iranian allies, getting them to the table, and emerging with a solution that doesn't involve war. Making all aspects of those negotiations public empowers the pro-war crowd in the US, for example: you hear the unabashed vitriol some parts of the US have for the negotiations with North Korea to bribe them into giving up nukes. Doing these sort of negotiations publicly would not promote a peaceful solution: it promotes Iranian chestbeating about their inalienable rights to nukes, Israeli posturing that they will never allow Iran to go nuclear, and the various factions within the US government that are aligned with one party or the other to take a hard-line stance. None of that helps a peaceful solution. Any good solution requires a number of nations to assist, who just got quite embarrassed by their private fears being leaked and who will be less likely to assist in the process as a result.
     
    Echo3Romeo, Nov 29, 2010
    #32
  16. countezero

    countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    This is exactly my point. Assange, intellectually speaking, had moral footing on the war leaks. He has none here.
     
    countezero, Nov 29, 2010
    #33
  17. NetJaded

    NetJaded Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    yeah, the US is a republic, not a democracy, idiot.
     
    NetJaded, Nov 29, 2010
    #34
  18. The Esotericist

    The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    CIA, Mossad and Soros Behind Wikileaks

    Here is a "leak" site from John Young, the guy that left Wikileaks with his leaks, stuff that the press aren't going to publicize: http://cryptome.org/
    If Cryptome is shut by the second Citigroup DMCA attack bookmark this back-up site: http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net
    and then these two. . .
    http://cryptome.quintessenz.org
    http://cryptome.sabotage.org
    I've just taken a cursory look at these. A LOT of these have photo copied documents and the like. Especially the leaks concerning connections between Wikileaks and the establishment. For those of you that have questions about HOW Wikileaks has been able to get so much classified information on seemingly low level classified info. . . there you go.

    So, given this info, how much credence should we give to all of the cables? Should be accept them ALL to be the truth? Does Iran have missiles? hmmmm. . . . .

    This sure would be a good way to spread a disinformation campaign, or to get the public to demand stricter controls on our information technology freedom, wouldn't it?
     
    The Esotericist, Nov 29, 2010
    #35
  19. The Esotericist

    The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    Frankly, I can't believe how these leaks were obtained. No, seriously, I literally can't believe how they were obtained. It's probably almost as believable as two, one hundred and ten story sky scrappers crumbling into their own footprint due to a fire started by some jet fuel. It's pretty incredible.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Let me get this straight, some grunt out of basic, fooled them with his rock and roll CD-RW? Wow, what a spy. The CIA ought to look into hiring him, since they seem pretty incompetent. You want a conspiracy theory? THAT'S a conspiracy theory. :roflmao:

    I don't know what ever happened to people's incredulity? If it is a story told in the MSM, people will believe it, is that it? No reason to question, to use some logic, to ponder the credibility. If an official source tells it to us, we believe?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    The Esotericist, Nov 29, 2010
    #36
  20. Asguard

    Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Or maybe its something like one diplomat telling a government there is no yellow cake
    I find it sickerning that leaking Infomation is now being concidered terrorism, 1984 anyone?
     
    Asguard, Nov 29, 2010
    #37
  21. Echo3Romeo

    Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    It seems like a large number of posters in this thread have missed this, and are mistakenly conflating the latest dump with the earlier, more selective releases of a different nature.

    I can get behind what Wikileaks stands for; transparency specifically. However, Assange has proven again and again that he really isn't in it for the "public good", he is in it for his own personal notoriety and ego. As a result (with my assumption that Assange pretty much runs the show), I've learned not to expect much out of their redacting practices, since he has a timeline to meet to remain current in the public eye. Perhaps if it was under a different individual, one less committed to his own popularity and one more committed to actually pursuing the ends Wikileaks claims to stand for, we would see greater steps taken to protect innocent people.

    Yeah, that's exactly how it happened. Computers used for SIPRNET and JWICS workstations are the same PCs used in any office building (Dell Optiplex, usually). The only thing different between an unclassified workstation and a TS/SCI JWICS workstation is the color of the sticker stuck to the front.
     
    Echo3Romeo, Nov 29, 2010
    #38
  22. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Very well said Echo3Romeo.
     
    joepistole, Nov 29, 2010
    #39
  23. The Esotericist

    The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    Considered terrorism by whom?
     
    The Esotericist, Nov 29, 2010
    #40
Page 2 of 28

Share This Page