wikileaks
- Started
- Last post
- 646 Responses
- autoflavour0
its been said before, but yep, deep down inside of me i get the feeling that wikileaks is just a massive puppet show.. designed to allow the US government to push thru a bunch of internet related laws.. all under the auspicious of national security.
really, at the end of the day, the information which was leaked really didnt mean anything. a few insults here or there, but it could easily be orchestrated.
and then quietly, Julian assange just slips out of the new cycle for the mainstream..
- Common sense! Beautiful. All the cables were labeled 'secret' - there is no insurance file.VikingKingEleven
- its a scam. When wikileaks headlines match the main stream media you know something is wrong.VikingKingEleven
- Yawnabettertomorrow
- you are wrong, sorry.instrmntl
- abettertomorrow0
You really think that many cables (250,000) could be "easily be orchestrated"? Not to mention all the data on Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It just doesn't pass the reality test.
To listen to some of you, its like nothing unplanned ever happens in the world without being planned by the big bad government. But our governments don't actually have things locked down like that, they are just people who make mistakes like the rest of us.
- no the cables are real, the release and selection of them isntautoflavour
- You gotta admit though, you don't know that it isn'tabettertomorrow
- Dodecahedron0
The other side of the coin, if it wasn't some type of orchestrated cyberwar thing, is that there is a nefarious leak site in operation the CIA and NSA and governments of the world are highly wary of ...so what do they do make a huge stink about in public for everyone to see and spin for themselves? Seems like a foolish move...unless of course its what was intended
- Dodecahedron0
If the cables wern't intentionally leaked some how a completely independent and foreign leak site managed to convince many real deal insiders to contribute... with no personal gain and with everything at risk including their careers and lives. How is that possible? Does that pass the reality check?
- Dodecahedron0
@bettertomorrow
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
- << wrong again. i agree for the most part, but i highly doubt manning would be a vegetable if that was the case.instrmntl
- abettertomorrow0
So what? Just a quote.
And there were not "many real deal insiders." It was only one guy. Who according to his lawyer is locked up in a max security prison somewhere.
Another thing worth pointing out is that this info, despite being classified, was available to millions of people. It's a case of the U.S. overclassifying information, and then getting too lax with the security because they wanted better inter-agency cooperation after 9-11. It was probably inevitable that it leaked out in some form, only surprisingly thing was that it all leaked at once.
If it was all some kind of intelligence operation, they would have provided less info and made it more beneficial to U.S. interests.
Where's the value in revealing the U.S. is spying on the U.N., or locations of American nukes in Europe, or Shell's interference with the Nigerian government? In fact there wasn't any clear benefit to the U.S. in any of it, except for possibly embarrassing Iran by revealing none of the other Middle East leaders support them.
- the value is in creating new international cyber/info laws and perpetuating a battle of wordsDodecahedron
- whats more beneficial than controlling the internet?autoflavour
- Yeah but cmon now...they ain't controlling the internet anytime soon:)abettertomorrow
- abettertomorrow0
Also, if the goal was to tighter internet controls, wouldn't it make sense to choose a more evil villian than Julian Assange? I mean, he basically ended up winning most peoples' approval for what he was doing.
- Therefore putting them on the opposite side of any internet control debateabettertomorrow
- Dodecahedron0
"And there were not "many real deal insiders." It was only one guy. Who according to his lawyer is locked up in a max security prison somewhere."
no. Shows how ignorant and uninformed you are about what actually wikileaks does and what all this is about. Wikileaks is a network that ANYONE from all over the world can submit to if they have access to sensitive information. All the leaks are compiled anonymously from thousands of sources.
The person you're talking about was a intel analyst in Iraq who is ACCUSED of submitting video to wikileaks of american soldiers killing at least a dozen innocent people. That case is about one video wikileaks released.
- abettertomorrow0
Actually you're wrong. Bradley Manning the one they think leaked all the American intel, including the Iraq and Afghanistan files and the State Dept cables. The video is just one tiny part of the Iraq War logs.
- no, there are MANY US embassys the documents came from. and that is only the american stuff. You are completely misinformedDodecahedron
- ...completely misinformedDodecahedron
- Dodecahedron0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/…
so Brad alone is responsible for leaking everything?
- That's the theory. He mass downloaded the files from SIFRnet which is the government internets.abettertomorrow
- abettertomorrow0
lol - do you not realize that even though they are from embassies all over the world, they store them all in one central location?
I agree that if we were talking about leaks from every American embassy separately it would be hard to believe.
But anyway, you're totally wrong on this.
- He is ACCUSSED of leaking SOME of the documents. You realize there is tonnes more right?Dodecahedron
- He's accused of leaking all the cables though. Not just some of them.abettertomorrow
- a central location for secret info is none existentDodecahedron
- no to your statement about ALL of them. so wrong.Dodecahedron
- *facepalmDodecahedron
- Can we at least agree the cables were all leaked from one source?abettertomorrow
- Because I never heard anything other than that in the context of this story.abettertomorrow
- I disagree big time because there is NOT one source there are many, that is the purpose of wikileaks.Dodecahedron
- They did not arrange the leaks from guy nor did they only release one sources info.Dodecahedron
- They receive thousands of documents from all over the world and they are subsequently released is authenticatedDodecahedron
- ...if authenticated.Dodecahedron
- I think you are confusing the overall actions of Wikileaks, which does collect docs from all over the world, with the embassy cables, which are all from one source.abettertomorrow
- embassy cables, which are all from one source.abettertomorrow
- But the stuff in the Guardian article you linked above is all from a single source, or at least no one has ever suggested otherwise.abettertomorrow
- otherwise.abettertomorrow
- I think it shows how different our sources of info are honestly. I've never heard him accused of alllll the cables.Dodecahedron
- I've never seen a specific suggestion it was only him acting alone. Show me otherwise.Dodecahedron
- Even just with the cables. Specifically with the cables, I assumed it was various people with various access.Dodecahedron
- Seems like basic logic to me, 250k cables that are all received around the same time.abettertomorrow
- You're really suggesting it was 20k here, another 20k there, and THAT is what makes it suspicious?abettertomorrow
- I've never heard anyone characterize it that way, and even though obviously Wikileaks is not going to reveal any details, Assange himself has referred to it was a single source.abettertomorrow
- all the details, Assange himself has referred to it as a single source.abettertomorrow
- http://www.businessi…abettertomorrow
- I thought they were compiled. I don't understand how a video that was being buried from the freedom of information act in a prosecution over civilian murders was being held in a central serverDodecahedron
- "Assange reiterates that he has never had any contact with Pfc Bradley Manning and therefore doesn't know that he is the leaker..."abettertomorrow
- a prosecution against soldiers murdering civilians could be hosted on a central serverDodecahedron
- leaker"abettertomorrow
- Note THE LEAKER, singularabettertomorrow
- it does not account for the totality of the situation either way. We're talking about multiple leakers in the full context because it is beyond the US cablesDodecahedron
- context. It is beyond the US cables.Dodecahedron
- abettertomorrow0
The thing is, like I said, this info was classified but not hard to get at. The U.S. gov wanted it easily available because they figured it would help analysts like Manning fight terrorism.
I read somewhere the number of people who had clearance for the same info Manning did is larger than the population of Washington DC.
- That would only account theoretically for a portion of the US embassy cables not everythingDodecahedron
- abettertomorrow0
The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, today hailed the person responsible for leaking the diplomatic cables as "an unparalleled hero"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/…
Person, not persons.
- seems odd, why even refer to one person if you wish to further bury the source?Dodecahedron
- Dodecahedron0
My honest assumption was that the cables were from multiple sources... I am still unconvinced it was singular just because he said 'leaker' in a sentence. We are nevertheless talking about an anonymous system of leakage and many types of documents in many contexts. How can you make a case against him as acting alone?
- abettertomorrow0
Well, there's no way to say for sure. It just seems strange to assume multiple sources when the info was all available in one place and Wikileaks themselves has repeatedly referred to it as a single source.
The total number of people who had access to this stuff BTW, was 3 million, so multiple sources wouldn't be all that crazy of a scenario - it just makes sense that if you were going to leak this stuff, why stop at 10,000? I would have done the same as Manning is accused and just downloaded all 250k, why the hell not?:)
- abettertomorrow0
But the fact that this stuff was available all in one centralized place - thats kind of what makes the Wikileaks phenomenon possible. Back in the day I'm sure it would have been buried in boxes at State Dept headquarters somewhere.
Now that its all digitized, and you have people whose jobs it is to make the "links" between different data out there, of course it has to be made available in some centralized way. But the easier to access it is, the greater the threat of it leaking out.
- why is video that proves US commits war crimes is allowed to be accessed on a central server by anyone?Dodecahedron
- Dodecahedron0
"Wikileaks themselves has repeatedly referred to it as a single source."
I still havn't seen that though, I'd like to so I can be sure.
For that second part this is a big part of the senario. I simply figured it was compiled, all being from US embassy's, so they were released together. My big question is how do you prove it was one source? Why on earth would wikileaks state anything in the singular or plural considering the source? It really doesn't prove anything, it is giving too much away and is highly suspicious in and of itself.
- I just gave you two examples of them referring to it that way dude... I give up :)abettertomorrow
- no they NEVER explicitly say one source sryDodecahedron
- Like... "We got the cables from ONE individual source"Dodecahedron
- instrmntl0
No offense, but this is the stupidest theorist shit I've ever heard. Do you really think Paypal and VISA are going to tar their name for the sake of federal law? You have the player backwards. Don't waste ur energy abettertomorrow. If you think so, then obviously you've never worked for a corporation, and highly overestimate the power of the government.
- in that, abt, don't waste ur time arguing, because they're clueless.instrmntl
- stfuDodecahedron
- Huh?instrmntl
- I've worked for Nike, Sprite, Coke and VISA for the Olympics. Go fuck yourself.instrmntl
- kDodecahedron
- I'm sure you're peaking from experience and have high clientele as well. I shouldnt talk.
http://jasontighe.co…instrmntl - I can't say I am a very corporate individual noDodecahedron
- high clientel? definitelyDodecahedron
- VISA, Coke, McDonalds, Nike etc have a huge stake in globalization. Thats high clientele.instrmntl
- I'm just a developer, so I just do whatever. But I know the goings on about said projects.instrmntl
- kDodecahedron
- Is you're response "k", or do you actually have something substantial to counteract my statement that has intelligence?instrmntl
- Your statement seems to be "I am a corporate employee so therefore I have a point" ... I don't understandDodecahedron
- My statement was what happened at a meeting. You replied shut the fuck up. I merely backed what I said because you didn't believe me.instrmntl
- didn't believe me. I put up work so you would hopefully realize I wasn't full of shit. You're gettinginstrmntl
- caught up and forgetting about why you told me to shut the fuck up. No?instrmntl
- well i was just saying that mostly in jest . i think i understand what you're syaingDodecahedron
- Oh, haha, shit. I totally missed that. I wouldn't have gone thru all that but I thought you guys..instrmntl
- thought I was blowing smoke up ur ass. I should never write in political threads! I'm a huge faninstrmntl
- of wiki tho so i couldn't resist.instrmntl
- lol kDodecahedron
- instrmntl0
I've had bosses go to meetings for Sprite in Atlanta where Nation Security and CIA were present because it was a global campaign. You realize then who works for who.
- Dodecahedron0
Does it not seem suspicious wikileak would admit that there was only one source?