wikileaks

[thethingy]

is that what you deem?

i think the docs were stolen.

i think the rape is a legality which is being used immorally to make someone a name.
i'm sure he won't be charged with rape as such.

i really do think the docs were stolen, that said i think sometimes certain docs need to be stolen and shown to the public. these docs for me are not those. it's mainly small talk and has no real bearing on a bucket of crap. (although a few may be of concern)i am based i guess, because for some reason i can't stand assange. i belive some of the war leaks should have been shown.

i just struggle with the fact that julien for some reason puts himself up as the editor and founder of such. (or the media does and he doesn't deny the point)

i struggle that he wants openess yet i'll never get to see his and other correspondence pertaining to wikileaks. are they above what assange deems 'the truth" who guards the guards"?

i don't think assange would know the truth if it dribbled out of the end of a broken condom. he's an ego in need of praise and thats all he is. he's a dishonest as any liar, as any secret keeping gov or person.for me he has an agenda and that agenda is to propagate himself into fame. i find him to be the very anti thesis of wikileaks.

I dislike him, the wikilekrs are just a business, its donation for this and donations for that and "here help me out give me cash for my defence" even though I'm in Europe and I get my defence for free, the stuffs just nonsense so far that to be fair you could off got on a FOI request or disclosed at the time limit with the names redacted, he is a cocky cunt, he went in front of a magistrate and mocked the court by giving a po box address then an alternative address in Australia, it's no surprise he's remanded but I'd rather take my chances on the streets than be in the nick on a sex charge.

[billy]

they must spend a lot of time going through the stuff and it does beg the question" how can they afford to give so much time. do they have other jobs. maybe some wikileaks on their bank accounts would be an interesting read.

still, i say more power to them, donations or or not.
i would love to see him get life and wikileaks stay afloat. while i didn't agree in the showing of the first lot of leaks i think there's a chance they'll come good with something. at the moment all they're showing is gossip. it's like an old washerwoman saying she said that and they said this. i'd love to see it unearth and prove some real corruption that we don't already know about with substantive evidence. if that happened i might even consider a donation. i already knew nigeria and other african countries were fiddling the aid and investment system, it was on panarama years ago. as was the dam that never got built.

[thethingy]

they must spend a lot of time going through the stuff and it does beg the question" how can they afford to give so much time. do they have other jobs. maybe some wikileaks on their bank accounts would be an interesting read.

still, i say more power to them, donations or or not.
i would love to see him get life and wikileaks stay afloat. while i didn't agree in the showing of the first lot of leaks i think there's a chance they'll come good with something. at the moment all they're showing is gossip. it's like an old washerwoman saying she said that and they said this. i'd love to see it unearth and prove some real corruption that we don't already know about with substantive evidence. if that happened i might even consider a donation. i already knew nigeria and other african countries were fiddling the aid and investment system, it was on panarama years ago. as was the dam that never got built.

It's like they are posting it just for revenue, you know if they were true to there cause the whole lot could have been on hotfile and the links emailed to all the press, it would have cost next to nothing and we would all see everything not just what they want to post, I find it insulting to get bit's and pieces as my brain can digest a lot and my hard drive can take it, but anyhow the alleged rapist is no hero it's the people that have really risked all in handing the stuff over that should be praised and have a fund setup for.

[billy]

the rumour is if he's caught he'll hand over who ever it was quicker than it takes to have a dump after taking exlax


i think you have a good point.

most of what's been leaked is now on torrent files in various places around the net. they could have upped the material at very little or no cost to almost all the the torrent sites. without the need for fame. or without putting faces to the fact. being mainly text files it wouldn't take up lots of space. as it is. they say they look over each file. obviously it's members of wiki who do the checking, but how many? 1, a 100, a 1000, a 100000. assange cannot possibly read everything thats checked. for me he's claimed the title editor. he obviously does little editing. more like; someone saying "i've read 1000 files" and assange saying 'okay put them out" though even then i can't see that being the case. the wikileaks don't as you say need a site or a server or a bank of servers. they just need an interface where they can upload and create torrents to their hearts content.
once on the web they'd have spread just as fast. the media would still have been all over it. and no one would have heard of julien ass-ange. they still could have upped under the nic wikileaks.

[srijantje]

yes,you have a very good point there that puts assange to sleep,the money should be spend on that poor soldier that"s in solitary confinemend for getting the documents,he"s truly fucked,they never forgive him

[billy]

the squaddy won't see a dime of assanges fund.

i think i said that he and wikileaks could be the beginning of the end of the net as we know it.
i just heard on bbc that theres already talk of more regulations as a result of the ddos attacks.
once you start fucking about with the bottom lines of big business you're letting loose the dogs of war.
i think the ddos guys may have bitten off more than they can chew with this one. i also think julien will be more infamous than famous in years to come. the man whose ego brought real regulation to the net.

[srijantje]

yes,everybody is always yelling at the chinese about freedom of press etc.[and they're right ofcourse]give them half a chance and the big boys around the world do the same,cutting off funds from assange is def.a form of censorship.

i don't agree with you that it is all unimportant gossip in those cables,yes ofcourse we new it all but now it's on paper they can't deny it anymore

[billy]

yes,everybody is always yelling at the chinese about freedom of press etc.[and they're right ofcourse]give them half a chance and the big boys around the world do the same,cutting off funds from assange is def.a form of censorship.

i don't agree with you that it is all unimportant gossip in those cables,yes ofcourse we new it all but now it's on paper they can't deny it anymore

i thini said 'mainly unimportant gossip if i didn't thats what i meant
and again why should they deny most of it. what is there to actually deny? that they collect info on foreign govs? that they talk about people?

vf said I prefer to live in a world where Google, thepiratebay, Wikipedia, Wikileaks, etc. all can exist.
We are a better world for having such resources than we would be not having them.

i agree but i believe assange and co and especially the ddos boys have taken us a step closer to orwell's 1984 in respect to the internet.
the trouble with pushing the boundaries is that those on the the other of the boundary you're pushing are often much better at it.

don't for a minute think business wouldn't like to see the pc used just for purchasing. they'll agree to any measures that stops things eating into there bottom lines. the selling infrastructure is already up for them.

all the gov has to do is make sure any ip address that isn't attached to a verifiable address is turned off. they have the power to make isp's do all the work. they could turn the net into 1984 and no one would actually do anything about it. sometimes the actions of the few can set in motion consequences no one can envisage. i guarantee you in time most people will turn against assange and possibly wiki. as more info comes out more will turn.

they just told of the possibility n korea helping Myanmar to build nukes.

if they were indeed doing that they've almost certainly moved there operations as we speak, making it harder to be evaluated. while we have a lot of pirates in the world and a lot who support wiki. it will be a drop in the ocean compared to those who will want it and other sites closed down. than those who want more and more regulations to control the net. sometimes the price may be too high a price to pay. for what scant worthwhile info that's been disseminated so far should such regulations come into being the price would definitely be to high.

the ddos attackers who attacked in wiki's name. who are they hurting when they ddos card companies? certainly not the card company. the man in the street maybe but not those who hold the real money.

after reading everything i think wikileaks took the wrong route in doing it publicly as they did. they were def wrong to use assange as their spokeswoman. they could have achieved the same results by going the torrent route. just my opinion of course.

[billy]

yes and so have 500 mirror sites but they didn't publish the originals.
as for assange going down as a hero,. onlt time will tell, i think he'll go down as a dick head.

and i'm not talking about the sex charges.

as for everything else. i wouldn't put anything past the us gov all they have to do is the same things china are and you have the start of a more restrictive net for the man in the street. and to believe those restrictions can't be built on is ridiculous.

[mrmod]

They claim to be 9,000 strong, but I believe that the resent attacks on Mastercard and Visa were successful with around 2,100 machines. But it is still a sizable voluntary bot-net, and the Low Orbit Ion Cannon - Hive Mind version software that they all use is set with 10 parallel streams as the default.

Over 9000. Common internet meme, given as an answer to any "number answer". A joke in this case to the "hard core" who understand it.

[thethingy]

yes and so have 500 mirror sites but they didn't publish the originals.
as for assange going down as a hero,. onlt time will tell, i think he'll go down as a dick head.

and i'm not talking about the sex charges.

as for everything else. i wouldn't put anything past the us gov all they have to do is the same things china are and you have the start of a more restrictive net for the man in the street. and to believe those restrictions can't be built on is ridiculous.

I think the US will proceed on a criminal basis with extraditions and jail time for the disclosers and the wiki operators, it's theft at the end of the day and systems are in place to deal with it, it's not like file sharing when they have to create new laws and treaties to fix there dilemma's, but assange is a tit

[billy]

They claim to be 9,000 strong, but I believe that the resent attacks on Mastercard and Visa were successful with around 2,100 machines. But it is still a sizable voluntary bot-net, and the Low Orbit Ion Cannon - Hive Mind version software that they all use is set with 10 parallel streams as the default.

Over 9000. Common internet meme, given as an answer to any "number answer". A joke in this case to the "hard core" who understand it.

yep and if they get caught they'll get a 9000 dollar fie and 9000 years in jail hehe

how many the annon group is doesn't matter really they seem to be infective. they're turning the man in the street against themselves and wiki and are putting piracy back 5 or more years.

[mrmod]

They may be shooting themselves in the foot, but they're the only ones with the guns at the moment.

[billy]

listen vf
having something powerful is not the same as knowing how to use something powerful
would you let a hoard of teenagers have the button to the nukes of world.

a bad analogy granted but i would let those kids have control of tap let alone a powerful idea.

powefull ideas are only powerful if executed properly. you said

It is grassroots protest in the Internet age at its most effective.

and i say bollocks. it a grass roots nothing what it is, is a group of kids who are looking for a little excitement.
they've achieved nothing ecept maybe make pirates a bigger target than they already were.

and saying it isn't easy to defend. it's as easy as shutting down the net and reopening it with strict regulations.
and to say they can't do it borders on the insane.

here's another bad analogy.

the jews. the whole world said "they can't do that, they won't do that. to many people will be up in arms" history showed us how wrong we were, showed us that 7 million jews could be killed and would be killed. we acted too late. we acted stupidly. those doing ddos attacks are opening a can of worms the internet and the world has never seen in this period of the internet. they if they carry on will bring about the downfall of the internet as we know it. do you think these kids would go to war if the states and other powers said right the net will be re built from the ground up. will they go to war when new laws with defined sentences are brought into being in order to lock these young up for a long time. in general the man in the street couldn't give a toss about them lock them up will be the mind set of adults who can't pay a bill because of them who lose a bank account because of them, who can't get a flight because of them. it's all well and good living and hoping for some great revelation that will bring down the powers that be but it's a fantasy, the way things are going 1984 will be here sooner than later. and it will be because of the assanges of this world and the kids who play at internet warfare. the real internet war hasn't started yet, when it does the kids best buy a pacifier and tell mommy they've been naughty. i don't believe wiki leaks is to blame. it all could have been done by a silent army (anon is not a silent army) but no. assange wanted fame. because of it wiki has lost its donations, and a lot of it's support and supporters, while assange believes he is the next messiah.

We are in the age of the early Internet cyber warfare skirmishes. This could go on for generations. Denial of service attacks coming from a chorus of machines with wide geographic dispersal is not easy to defend against. It is damn near impossible. There may never be any really effective ways to stop it.

i find the above to be the biggest load of clap trap i've read for a long time. if the govs of the world keep being held to ransom they will really go to war and again, when they do, they won't ask your or my or anyone elses permission. they'll do an irag or an afghanistan on the net and it will be all gone. all that will be left will be a few cells that have no power over a revamped net that has rules and regulations coming out it's wazoo. the likes of the uk will make give references before you get a new ip address. they will be the first thing to be restructured.

you'll end up with a few localised intranets like pirate radio stations of old. the masses will be squeezed in to a shoe box being allowed to only view information they want us to view.

fight by all means but when you go to war make sure your prepared.
it may well be the golden age of the internet as we speak and what did we get,? funny vids, naked tits and watermelons in the testicles. we got piracy and file sharing, we got freedoms like never before. what will we do with this golden age? we'll ditch it, we'll ditch it on the say so of some stupid jumped up australian oik and a group of deranged kids out to play games.

don't sit there and tell me the likes of quizie are at war with the man. they don't fuckin know the man. all they know is they can fuck about and create anarchy for an hour. they know not of the idea you speak of. it's comprehension is beyond the, it's beyong assange. file sharing is the golden age of the internet and we stand on the verge of destroying that dream. we abused it by openly declaring a war that can't be fought, let alone won. we shied away from the real strength we had and progressed to stupidity.
not that essence of our golden age, the very fabric of it is threatened because of an ego and childish pranks.. jmo of course.

[thethingy]

is this botnet tool not just a parasite like the worm that kicked all XP uses off line a few years ago?, surely it has a "command" post where the instructions come from that could be traced just by joining then shut down?, I know most av's are flagging it now so how long can it last?

[billy]

i don't think so.

it just lets you send request to a site and if enough queries are sent the site can't handle it.
if eventually the gov works out this sort of attack can't be beaten, it will come under pressure to restructure the internet from the ground up. a bit like makeing people pay for an ip adderss on a yearly basis. like a tv license in the uk. of course some won't pay but they'll be asy enough to spot, again like the tv license dodger in the uk.

all the tech stuff is well and good but once big business (and i don't mean media) start crying you'll see real restriction coming into play.
the excuse will be the security of the economic usa at stake. or whatever country you reside in. and they kill the biggest part of piracy
in the process. again jmo

[thethingy]

When the Low Orbit Ion Cannon is being used, the "command post" you refer to is the URL the Hive Mind mode gets its targeting instructions from. That will change with each event.

Looking at that it seems that you can pick your own site and spamm it yourself, dangerous if it is.

[billy]

thing is if an individual does it it will have no effect,
what has to happen is everyone gets a specific time to send to a specific address.

any group of people can with the software attack who ever they wish. warlord and quizzie did it to this site.

too long and drawn out and a little preposterous i know but it does raise a question.;

(CNN) -- U.S. agencies have warned some employees that reading the classified State Department documents released by WikiLeaks puts them at risk of losing their jobs. But what about students considering jobs with the federal government? Do they jeopardize their chances by reading WikiLeaks?

It's a gray area, said law professors and national security experts who spoke with CNN. The topic has been debated intensely in the past week in legal and academic circles, ever since several U.S. universities sent e-mails to students with warnings about reading leaked documents.

They say students ought to be mindful of their future careers when commenting on or distributing the documents online -- especially those planning to seek jobs in national security or the intelligence community, which require a security clearance.

"The security clearance asks whether or not you're a risk when it comes to sensitive material. This could be one indicator that, when taken together with others, creates a broader pattern that might suggest you're not a person to be hired," said Pepperdine University law professor Gregory McNeal, who specializes in national security law.

"They may very well take into account your opinion, as a job candidate, whether or not you think WikiLeaks is a good thing or bad thing for the country," he said. "It's a small issue, but one to approach with caution if I were a student seeking a job in the national security field."

E-mails went out last week to students at several schools, including Boston University's School of Law, Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, cautioning students against commenting on or posting links to the documents on social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.

Each message came from the schools' offices of career services, claiming to be sent at the recommendation of an alumnus.

In the eyes of the federal government, the documents remain classified, "thus, reading them, passing them on, commenting on them may be seen as a violation of Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information," said Maura Kelly, Boston University law assistant dean for career development and public services, in an e-mail to students.

"Two big factors in hiring for many federal government positions are determining if the applicants have good judgment and if they know how to deal with confidential/classified information," Kelly said in the memo, which was posted on the law blog "Above The Law" last week.

A Boston University spokeswoman confirmed that the e-mail had been sent, adding that students are "free to make their own choices."

"Our Dean of Career Development and Public Service thought it prudent to alert our students to the possible ramifications of dealing with classified information, especially in light of the fact that law graduates often apply for jobs that require security clearances," Mary K. Gallagher said in an e-mail.

So, can just reading about the leaked documents in the media jeopardize your chances of getting a job with the federal government?

Probably not, said McNeal. But commenting on them online or distributing them might create a pattern of behavior that raises red flags during screening for the highest levels of security clearance, which often require polygraph tests.

"I don't think looking at them alone could hurt anyone. The problem is when you're looking and then supporting and endorsing, then you start running into trouble. That's where you run the risk of jeopardizing the security clearance on character grounds," he said.

It also serves as a reminder to be mindful of your "online and personal profile," your virtual footprint of statements, comments and shared materials stored in the web's collective consciousness, the professor said.

"When you're up against so many others for the same competitive job, you don't want to stand out for this. Prudence would dictate, don't add another possible reason for them to ding you."

Nor should the school's warnings necessarily be construed as policy endorsement, said Harvard Law School professor Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the school's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

"I imagine the distribution of these warnings is less to endorse the policy and more just to say, 'Hey this is what we're hearing.' This is not like advising students to not smoke pot. It's not weighing in on a matter of policy. It's just telling them that it might affect them down the road," he said.

But to the government agency hiring you, there could be a big difference between just reading about the documents in the news and actively disseminating them or seeking them out in their full form on WikiLeaks' site.

"It's a new situation, and the documents are so ubiquitous right now that it seems weird to worry who on the margin has ever posted a link to them. But at the same time, the initial release was against the law, so I can't begrudge the government, when figuring out who to employ or trust with secrets, to ask if you helped to further spread documents that belonged to the government."

After the issue went viral last week on "Above The Law" and "the Arabist," which posted an e-mail to students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, the blogosphere lit up with comments from readers calling the practice unconstitutional and a violation of free speech rights.

Many suggested the warning was over the top and added another layer of anxiety for job-seekers in a weak job market. An unscientific survey on "Above The Law" asked readers what they thought: 55% said the warnings were needlessly scaring law students, 38% said a little over the top but a prudent thing to consider in a difficult job market and 9% said spot on, even reading the stuff could get you in trouble.

But would it be illegal for the State Department to deny anyone a job based on statements about WikiLeaks? The answer is unclear, but in the private sector, inquiries from prospective employers about your ability to handle confidential material would be considered "legitimate business concerns," labor lawyer Camille Olson said.

"The framework of the issue goes back to whether the employer has a legitimate concern about your fitness for the position," said Olson, a Chicago-based attorney who has represented large employers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The Society for Human Resource Management.

"I can understand how an employer in the federal government would believe that someone who once engaged in that kind of conduct, with the understanding that the information was confidential, how that reflects upon their potential for handling confidential info in the future."

The e-mail from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs told students that posting links or making comments about the documents online would "call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government."

On Monday, the school issued a follow-up, saying that said it supported students' right to "discuss and debate any information in the public arena that they deem relevant to their studies or to their roles as global citizens" without fear of consequences.

"OCS e-mailed this cautionary suggestion to students, as it has done many times with other information that could be helpful in seeking employment after graduation. We know that many students share a great deal about their lives online and that employers may use that information when evaluating their candidacy," Dean John H. Coatsworth said in a statement.

"Should the U.S. Department of State issue any guidelines relating to the WikiLeaks documents for prospective employees, SIPA will make them available immediately."

The U.S. government's position on WikiLeaks has been clear since November 28, when the site began posting anonymously leaked U.S. State Department documents. The Obama administration has condemned the disclosures, arguing that they harm U.S. diplomacy by exposing confidential communications. The site has been kicked off servers in the United States and France and lost a major revenue source on Friday when the U.S.-based PayPal cut off its account.

The White House Office of Management and Budget also sent a memo forbidding unauthorized federal government employees and contractors from accessing the classified documents on the WikiLeaks site or other websites on government or personal computers.

The memo, sent to federal workers and contractors without official federal government authorization to read the documents, said that just because the documents have been published on the internet does not change their "classified status" or "automatically result in declassification."

"Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority," the memo said.

What's less clear is the government's official position on whether potential recruits should avoid WikiLeaks. A spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget would not comment on the issue. But a look at the Standard Form 86 -- the questionnaire all applicants for national security positions must fill out -- sheds light on the risks the government wants to avoid.

Questions related to past associations, such as have you ever "knowingly engaged in activities designed to overthrow the U.S. Government by force" or "engaged in acts of terrorism" are intended to evaluate whether you could pose a security risk, said McNeal, the Pepperdine law professor.

The big concern for universities, which are supposed to be incubators for lively debate and the exchange of ideas, is the chilling effect the warnings may have, said Zittrain, the Harvard professor.

"I would hate to see the policy extended so broadly that you have students scared to read newspapers," Zittrain said. "What I hope no one would want to do is ask if you read an article about the documents and hold that against you. They're out there so it might be quite natural to read something about them."

[srijantje]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec...-wikileaks

[mrmod]

you'll end up with a few localised intranets like pirate radio stations of old. the masses will be squeezed in to a shoe box being allowed to only view information they want us to view.

A few localized intranets would probably eventually join to become another large internet. The world wide web is the most common web of computers but that doesn't mean it needs to be the only one.

You can't censor the internet 100%. And if you could, a lot of people wouldn't bother with it then. You can't create a 1984 state, no matter how you try. You can't see into people minds, you can't censor what they are thinking. The same way that if I connect to another computer outside the internet, you can't even know that I'm doing so. All I'm saying is that there's always a way out.


And back on topic. If Assange's charges are for "rape" in Sweden, why would he be extradited to the US?