WikiLeaks

[Bailey Guns]

Really good article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...s-train-wreck/

[ERNO]

"WASH- The Justice Department, in considering whether and how it might indict Julian Assange, is looking beyond the Espionage Act of 1917 to other possible offenses, including conspiracy or trafficking in stolen property, according to officials familiar with the investigation."
I call for Joe Liberman[I, Conn.], to also go jump in the lake!
"The prosecutors seeking Mr. Assange's extration suspect that he may have engaged in the last "rape" category, which is punishable by as much as four years in prison."

[StagLefty]

extration

He's safe-The U.S. has no extration laws

[2ndChildhood]

Ron Paul has an interesting opinion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ywoInPNXZJk

Paul's nine questions:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed'

[Hoosier]

Here's a "documentary" that is quite up to date, and at parts will make you RRRAAAGGEEE but it's important to see the side of the story that isn't being told, right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_HBE

four parts.

H.

[2ndChildhood]

Wow - impressive.
The closing quote from that;

Democracy without transparency is no democracy, it's just an empty word.

Clearly Assange is not perfect, but the concept of publicizing wrongdoing by those in power is one I wholeheartedly support.

Here's a "documentary" that is quite up to date, and at parts will make you RRRAAAGGEEE but it's important to see the side of the story that isn't being told, right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_HBE

four parts.

H.

[Hoosier]

Clearly Assange is not perfect

I think the discussion would have been better served without someone like Assange in the picture. Clearly he's someone that's easy for those in power to hate, and to target, but he's really not germane to the issue at hand -- government transparency and accountability.

There is a difference between keeping a temporary secret (e.g. the troops are moving from A to B at 1500 hours) and keeping a permanent secret (e.g. the oil facilities at Abqaiq are crucial to US supply). One of them you can keep secret, because it has a finite duration. After the troops have moved, that information is no longer important. The idea that many people have that keeping secret information forever provides security, is not only wrong it's hurtful. If you think a piece of information is secret, you can thing that what the secret covers is secure. The truth is you can't know if it's a secret anymore. When people think someone is secret they think it's secure. Security derives from actually having a hardened target, not from keeping it secret.

Security through obscurity is no security at all.

H.

[Hoosier]

By your logic, we should publish instructions on every aspect of nuclear weapon production right now, including the most detailed aspects of our refining technologies, etc. Just because all of that would be discovered "someday" by "every country". Then we just harden our nuclear installations, and everyone that's in them will assuredly live, cause we hardened our important installations to provide "security".

PS: If you can't tell, I'm being (and have been) highly sarcastic. I don't get along with chuckleheads that hold such a high opinion of themselves that they can't respect other viewpoints and rage over everything. I'm REALLY unappreciative of people that try to inject assumed statements in order to attempt to create arguments.

It's also quite obvious that you <3 wikileaks. Hell, I bet you want 4chan as your government. (doesn't it piss you off when people put words in your mouth?)

On a serious note, one of the best (and cheapest) methods of pseudo security is obscurity. Note that I'm not saying ONLY method, so I highly recommend you don't try to inject arguments again. It doesn't last forever, but the problem is, no country, person, or place has the ability to harden everything against every threat possible.

As a guy familiar with the internet, I'd think you would know this. If your making sitemaps or robot.txt generators, do you include EVERY script link that exists on your sites? Or do you leave off any non-public scripts (even when they have their own security measures in place) because there is no REASON for the public or public scripts to be attempting access?

I'm also curious to know if you accept ALL internet traffic on your home connection, just because you're so awesome that you can protect against every known vulnerability from every conceivable source that you don't need any measure of obscurity.

Secrecy or Obscurity can be thought of as the outer most thin layer on an the security onion. The paper-like peel. Or course you leave it there, it provides some measure of protection from rank incompetence. Maybe your enemey is too stupid to run nmap. But when it's breached isn't cause for retribution. Your security isn't harmed. You don't go retaliating against everyone who scans your network.

Bradley Manning = broke the law. Wikileaks (and those that come after them) = protected by the 1st amendment and previous supreme court rulings.

It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, I was just reacting to what I thought you were saying. There's a wide gulf between misinterpreting your position as implying something and using guile to coerce an argument.

As for nuclear material, the knowledge of how to refine it is no secret. The information has been widely available for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan The secrecy of manufacturing nuclear warheads isn't what keeps us secure. The regulation of nuclear material is what keeps us secure.

There's a difference between publishing it, and the threat of violence against those who expose it. I'm not particularly fond of Wikileaks, I think they're far too "flamboyant" and that Assange is essentially a media-whore. I do think that the organizations that come along afterwards, or the changes influenced in Journalism, will be positive. I have high hopes for Open Leaks, as they're plan is to take the lessons learned from Wikileaks and go forward from there.

If the US Government goes after Wikileaks, will they also move against the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, The Economist, Der Spiegel, and all the other new agencies that are covering the facts in the released cables?

H.

[ERNO]

"Ana Arden, one of WikiLeaks Assaage 'rape' accuser's linked to notorious CIA Operative now in latest development. One of the women appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the U.S. C.I.A."
"Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called 'sex by suprise' or 'unexpected sex'."

[ChunkyMonkey]

"Ana Arden, one of WikiLeaks Assaage 'rape' accuser's linked to notorious CIA Operative now in latest development. One of the women appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the U.S. C.I.A."
"Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called 'sex by suprise' or 'unexpected sex'."

Please include source whenever you quote!

http://robertbartholomew.newsvine.co...-cia-operative

In this case, it is not news. It's from a blog/opinion column. I thought you only read NYT and nothing else, Erno? :P