There's Been a Leak At WikiLeaks 167
adeelarshad82 writes "German paper Der Freitag claims it has uncovered a batch of online unredacted diplomatic cables that came from WikiLeaks. Editor Steffen Kraft said he found a 'password protected csv file' that contained a 1.73GB cache of diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks. Its pages contained 'named or otherwise identifiable "informers" and "suspected intelligence agents" from Israel, Jordan, Iran, and Afghanistan.'"
Password protected CSV? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But this document does raise the question... can WikiLeaks or other leak sites be "selective" in their leaks?
If someone is anonymously exposing secrets that can hurt others, can that anonymous person also be "leaked" and take the same risk?
It is a gray area, for I want to know when people are doing bad things in the name of the country I live in and thus support through taxes, voting, and taking part in the very thing
Re: (Score:2)
But this document does raise the question... can WikiLeaks or other leak sites be "selective" in their leaks?
Hilariously, the biggest complaint about them a few months back when the US was doing everything in it's power (and more than a few illegal things, see also: Julian Assange, "kangaroo court") to silence them was that they weren't being selective in their leaks.
Or worse still, they weren't letting the US government do the selecting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting claim. I take it since this is on video, the resultant clip is on Youtube or something? Can you point it out to me, or is this just another "I heard he fucks goats" style Political FUD attack?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point it out to me, or is this just another "I heard he fucks goats" style Political FUD attack?
Suspiciously, Assange has never gone on record to deny allegations of goat fucking.
Re: (Score:2)
Which may explain why the canteen's beef stew has been tough, hairy and smelly for the last few weeks.
Sky/Fox News will be picking this story up any minute now.
Re: (Score:2)
... ....
But this document does raise the question... can WikiLeaks or other leak sites be "selective" in their leaks?
That is one seriously stupid ass question.
yes, they can be selective in their leaks. In fact, they could decide to never leak anything again, or they could decide to sell their website, or they could decide to all get sex changes and show documents on how it was done.
They could also throw me a birthday party with clowns & lots of hookers.
Any other really stupid questions you want to ask?
Re: (Score:1)
"Pedo mellon a minno"
Re: (Score:1)
Is that based on the honor system?
No, it is just somebody that it stupid enough to rely on Google Translate. I understand German really, really, really, really badly, but still slightly better then a Google translation As far as I can tell, there was a need for a password to download the CSV-file.
I always recommend that people read an article like this one in the original language, even if they understand it poorly, and only use Google Translate to help with some words and common expressions. Google Translate is dangerous, because the trans
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. How do you password protect a CSV file?
Re: (Score:3)
For the first line of the file, enter:
This,file,is,protected,DO,NOT,read,next,line
Re: (Score:2)
That's not password protected. This is:
If,you,don''t,know,the,password,is,D0m$hit,do,not,read,on
Important bit not in summary (Score:5, Funny)
In light of the sensitive nature of the information, Der Frietag has not published these documents, nor provided proof of their existence, but Der Spiegel, another German paper, has chimed in to confirm that they're real.
Re: (Score:2)
donations (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but wow, this guy's such a douche idiot fucking twat. And as somebody else here pointed out, now he's endangered all of those peoples' lives with no apparent rhyme or reason to his actions except
1. he hates wikileaks
2. he's a complete and utter moron
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Interesting)
There's another option:
3. He's an intelligence agent for either a government or business assigned to spy on Wikileaks, and then given the order to discredit them and take them out of commission without creating any martyrs. As a side effect, he might be setting up Openleaks to be a honeypot making it nice and easy to catch those trying to leak to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
There's another option:
3. He's an intelligence agent for either a government or business assigned to spy on Wikileaks, and then given the order to discredit them and take them out of commission without creating any martyrs. As a side effect, he might be setting up Openleaks to be a honeypot making it nice and easy to catch those trying to leak to the public.
Since Openleaks does not work like Wikileaks, this is not possible. The Openleaks software is a standalone server that can be deployed by anyone. Currently, there is a review by security experts on the code. This is no different to Wordpress, tailored for secure leaking (bad example, I admit).
The point of Openleaks is to not have the trust problem you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying DDB was a CIA plant since his defection. Everyone just laughs when I say it, but every story that comes out about him seems to point to this more and more. He's a snake in the grass who began sabotaging and attempting to discredit Wikileaks from day one. And, you're right, his "OpenLeaks" site has honeypot written all over it.
Re: (Score:2)
his "OpenLeaks" site has honeypot written all over it.
Maybe that's what THE GOVERNMENT wants you to think, so you'll send your leaks to the Wikileaks honepot.
Maybe YOU'RE a CIA agent trying to protect your honeypot and dissuade people from using Openleaks
Maybe I'M your CIA coworker drumming up opposing FUD to direct the paranoid to where ever our bosses want.
And I just blew your mind :D
Re: (Score:2)
his "OpenLeaks" site has honeypot written all over it.
Maybe that's what THE GOVERNMENT wants you to think, so you'll send your leaks to the Wikileaks honepot. Maybe YOU'RE a CIA agent trying to protect your honeypot and dissuade people from using Openleaks Maybe I'M your CIA coworker drumming up opposing FUD to direct the paranoid to where ever our bosses want.
And I just blew your mind :D
Dude, that wasn't his mind!
Re: (Score:2)
There are different types of plants. Some are just spies, some are provocateurs, some are saboteurs, etc. There are probably other plants within Wikileaks (and other hacking groups) who are just spies, quietly doing their jobs while relaying information back to their real masters. DDB was clearly there to sabotage and discredit. Recent information seems to indicate that he was stealing leaked documents from day one (and destroying all other copies of them). Then he attempted to sabotage the Wikileaks submis
Re: (Score:2)
4. [plot twist] Wikileaks is the real honeypot after all, and DDB/Openleaks was contrived by the same shadow government to function as an OPFOR, whose public feud is meant to further legitimize Wikileaks in the eyes of those who hold the greatest suspicion, e.g. individuals and nations (Iran, China, Russia) who claim WL is an elaborate CIA/Mossad operation.
Of course, my point is that there's no end to the path of "there's a conspiracy beneath this!", and further levels of paranoia are just as rational (or i
Re: (Score:2)
"As a side effect, he might be setting up Openleaks to be a honeypot making it nice and easy to catch those trying to leak to the public."
Seeing as to date, OpenLeaks appears to not have leaked anything, but has actually deleted plenty of validly leakable material, I'd argue that's a pretty reasonable guess.
If it's not a honeypot, then it's the most incompetent leaking organisation on earth and not worth giving the time of day anyway.
I've always said the proof is in the pudding, many people looked to OpenLe
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law against being either. That is the problem with assholes, is that the law tends to overly protect them from everyone except other assholes. The law doesn't protect people from Assholes because it can't. It can only protect assholes from everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
The law doesn't protect people from Assholes because it can't.
That doesn't stop the asshole lawmakers from making more asshole laws. Ironic isn't it?
I prefer to replace 'asshole' with 'stupid', it fits better. The results are the same, however...protecting stupid assholes from themselves/others at the expense of everybody else's liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
Any sufficient level of stupidity is indistinguishable from malice (asshole).
Re: (Score:1)
"Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2403338&cid=37246376 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (Score:2)
I think it's wonderful that WikiLeaks lampoons people of wealth and power, but most intelligence sources are likely poor fuckers like you and me who are just trying to rid their countries of tyranny or terrorists. Posting their real names on the web subjects them and their loved ones to gruesomely violent reprisals.
That's Not Right.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, wealthy people should have no expectation of privacy by virtue of being wealthy, but the poor should receive extra protection? You suck.
I smell tea....
Re: (Score:2)
So, wealthy people should have no expectation of privacy by virtue of being wealthy, but the poor should receive extra protection?
Yes, exactly that. It's better than the other way round. The wealthy can afford to protect themselves; the poor cannot.
You suck.
Retard. Has it never occurred to you that wealth, like fame, high office, talent, and insight bring with them obligations? Obviously not. You want power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
Re: (Score:2)
And with our new Libertarian/Tea Party/Republican overlords in congress, that's even more true. Protect the tax breaks for the rich, who limit the number of jobs available, driving down wages, and increasing profits for themselves.
Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is just it. Wikileaks is not in any way unbiased or frankly professional. Wikileaks was never a good thing. It is like a guy that goes around punching people in the face. When he punches a bully you don't like it is great. When he punches you or your buddy it sucks.
There is a good reason why diplomatic cables are usually kept secret.
Arab Spring (Score:3)
There is a good reason why diplomatic cables are usually kept secret.
One must weigh the cost of keeping secrets against the cost of exposing corruption.
Would you prefer a world where wikileaks never existed, and the Arab Spring never happened?
Re: (Score:2)
I thinking that you are giving Wikileaks too much credit and the people of those nations not enough. Also we do not know if this will be a good thing in the end. It may be good but it may just bring even more brutal dictators to power. That is the problem with revolution, you don't really know how it will work out for a good while.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who had enrolled in CIA, participated in setting up of torture facilities in client countries, tortured or assisted in torture or kidnapped people to be tortured or provided information for those people to be kidnapped and .... i cant continue typing this shit. you get my idea. anyone who willingly enrolled and kept perpetuating that kind of shit, cannot be named as 'poor fuckers like you and me'.
In the intelligence world, "agents" are the locals of a country that work for a foreign intelligence service. As in, "poor fuckers like you and me" who for some reason or another have decided that working with a foreign government is the right thing to do. Those people in the CIA that set up the rendition programs are not "agents". Unless, of course, they were working for another government at the time. These terms actually have a legal connotation.
Re: (Score:1)
Congrats. You have no idea about intelligence gathering or the intelligence cycle. But you sure can spell torture and shit. Kudos, now stare upon your college dipolma with pride.
Re:oh fuck off. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that's mostly not what happens. Sure, there's a few assholes out there who take advantage, there always are. Most of these people are simply reporting things like "I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure Ali down the street is planting all those bombs that are killing your soldiers and my neighbors indiscriminately." You see, mostly US soldiers aren't out to randomly and indiscriminately arrest and torture people. Yes, yes, bad shit happened, people abused their positions, it was all over the news and I'm not defending it. There's no excuse for the scum bags that use a war as an excuse for thrill murders, or treat prisoners like dogs. Unhappily they exist, happily they aren't nearly as common as you seem to think.
I spent a year in Iraq. We dealt with these informers regularly. We verified and double checked everything they told us, because that's our responsibility. We caught some people trying to to settle scores or cause trouble. We also caught people with the information we were given. People that did some truly horrifying things. Not just to our guys, to their neighbors and countrymen. At the time I was over there, the bombs killed civilians as often or even more often than they killed soldiers. These days the balance has shifted even farther. The majority of casualties for these types of attacks are civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you say James Bond? Or maybe George Smiley? You'd be wrong. They were both officers in the intelligence service. Intelligence sources, "agents", are "poor fuckers like you and me".
Re:WikiLeaks is great and all, but naming names? (Score:4, Interesting)
WikiLeaks came under fire for refusing to redact names of civilian volunteers in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to the volunteers getting death threats. Assange told a reporter that if people want names redacted, they'd have to pay for it.
You don't see Amnesty International leak civilian names while exposing tyranny and human rights violations around the globe.
Stop this shit.
Only flat-out fucking retards will believe you. Wikileaks has said again and again that they filter everything through a "no-harm" policy by removing any identifying features prior to release. They explicitly do everything they can to prevent harm.
Loads of people bring up the claim that they name names with regards to informants or undercover folks, but I've yet to see legitimate shit on the Wikileaks site that is exactly like that.
Disinformation aside, if there are any such examples of an informant being outed in such a manner (and subsequently receiving threats), I'd like to see them. I don't mind being proven wrong (in fact, it's rather refreshing - that's how we meatbags learn), but every time Wikileaks come up on Slashdot or anywhere else we have half-assed attempts to discredit them without putting out any actual evidence from reputable sources.
I'm on it! (Score:2)
Awesome job! I knew it!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
After reading the story below... (Score:1)
Kevin?????
Tried reading TFA (Score:1)
Now it gets interesting (Score:1)
To see whether or not Mr. Assange and others will feel the least bit remorseful for the deaths of these informers or their families... Or perhaps some poor bloke that just has the same name.
From Wikileaks @twitter (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Source Links:
https://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/108261633859649536 [twitter.com]
https://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/108251897961517056 [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they took their PR training from the best [welovethei...nister.com].
For years I have tried to say... (Score:2)
That Wikileaks is far too important to keep as it is and as it has been run. It needs to be fully decentralized and immediate, no delays, no central control, no waiting for slow news days, etc. A truly decentralized and secure system with checks and balances and that is it.
Now there is so much confusion and doubt. Is this an agent, is there an agenda, is this a real breach or manufactured, etc? Wikileaks is simply doing the same thing that news organizations and governments do at this point and it serves no
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, except for one thing...it's very tricky to have an impact that way. Newspapers like to break stories, so if the interesting material is just put online, it's surprisingly hard to get the "mainstream" press to take an interest in republishing it!
Re: (Score:2)
I get that, but when you are putting out important shit it will have an impact regardless and playing the same games is just silly. Also if there were a more steady stream it already has been shown that people will take the info and distill it down and post the relevant info or key highlights for those that want to be more passive. The information itself is powerful and important.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what it became because everyone has been so short-sighted. Information like this is about all we have left and unfortunately too many people are with you and just don't see or care about how truly important the concept itself is. Everyone has become so numb to handing over freedom after freedom that no one cares. A damn shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Information is the most powerful aspect of modern life. Look through history and you will see time after time where knowledge and information (or lack thereof) is used to lord over people, keep them in servitude, keep the populace under control, propaganda, lies, misinformation, etc. North Korea, China, the US... those are right now and only a few instances.
What you think is meaningless or insignificant matters fuck all, some may find it extremely relevant or important... same for what I find important or u
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Fully. But if the information wasn't important or critical then it would be open and free and it isn't, it is very critical even if you may think not and even if the average person right now doesn't get it or is too blind to see or apathetic to act. Eventually it will happen, and the more information is out there, the sooner it will happen instead of later.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't true though, people will still give information even in the face of real and certain danger. Look at the people the willingly do so in the face of some of the deadliest regimes. We have made this whole system up and its importance. There will always be whistleblowers and those that will stand up and if the information surrounding it is out there they are much more likely to get support than to be in danger.
Leak inside a leak (Score:1)
Its a leakception!
Some links to further info (in German) (Score:3)
According to what i understand: The leak is confirmed (1) independently and also by one of the WL partners (4), which claimes it was in relation to Daniel Domscheids Bergs (DDB) return of this data and a human error on the side of wikileaks which resulted in a password and the data being published. It has been known to insiders for some time, claims a known german tech Journalist who wrote (3) in a comment to (1), direct link to his commen (6). Several of these suggest that the handling of the data which was returned by DDB to Wikileaks and the uncontrolled release of the data an password were the reasons for DDB to destroy the remaining WL data instead of returning it. Other sources claim he is wrong.
(1) http://netzpolitik.org/2011/leck-bei-wikileaks-bestatigt/ [netzpolitik.org]
(2) https://netzpolitik.org/2011/leck-bei-wikileaks/ [netzpolitik.org]
(3) http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/34/34398/1.html [heise.de]
(4) http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,782923,00.html [spiegel.de]
(5) http://www.golem.de/1108/85993.html [golem.de]
(6) http://netzpolitik.org/2011/leck-bei-wikileaks-bestatigt/#comment-434548 [netzpolitik.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they did not. Thanks for pointing it out.
That's so meta (Score:2)
Sad (Score:1)
Re:Brad Manning == George W. Bush. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scooter Libby got away with treason, why shouldn't Manning?
y u haet Merikuh?!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Logic Fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This explains why the US is all over this. Manning outed spies, which is considered treason and is punishable by death. Personally, I think that we should put manning and W Bush on the firing platform.
You mean because Bush('s administration) committed the same act of treason [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally? Is there some other way of thinking? Impersonally, I think you are insane.
I think similar thoughts when I hear sentences that start with "Honestly". I want to cut off the speaker and tell them, no no, I was looking for a good lie.
Re: (Score:2)
I love statements including "honestly" -- it almost always marks a lie. This is tremendously more informative than the truth, provided you already know it. Lies can run in so many different directions and reveal the liars mind. So, yes, yes, I was looking for a good lie.
Re: (Score:2)
-GiH
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it time for someone to simply leak every bit of every document they can get their hands on?
That guy is in jail already.
Identity fraud (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them wants to be free but some of them are better jailed, that is the tao of the datum.
Re:Identity fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
but information that can probably get a person and their family killed should be passed around for all the world to see?
When has that happened?
Glad you have your priorities straight.
Or perhaps someone just has different priorities than you.
Re: (Score:1)
So some people have priorities that say that they should have innocent people killed. Fair enough, I'm sure there is at least one person out there who feels that way.
But I don't understand where you are coming from when you classify such priorities as "merely different" rather than "absolutely evil according to almost everybody on earth."
Would you care to enlighten me by explaining your way of thinking?
Re: (Score:3)
So some people have priorities that say that they should have innocent people killed.
Possibly. But his statement was rather vague. He didn't list any reasons why someone would want to leak critical information about random people (or why someone was leaking the information that could get someone killed, for that matter). Someone could, for instance, believe that even though they could endanger the lives of the few by leaking the information in question, they could improve the lives of many other people (or at least expose corruption). For the "greater good" or something such as that.
You may
Re: (Score:1)
> Yes. I don't believe in absolute morals (nor do I believe that many people believing something makes the belief
> true). I suppose absolute morals could exist, but I have thus far seen no convincing evidence to prove it.
I won't try to change your mind, but I will try to state my opinions on these matters.
I believe that absolute morals exist, although I do not believe in them myself, but what I mean by that is that some people believe in absolute morals, so those morals are real and true and a
Re: (Score:2)
Science does not have a concept of absolute truth
Which isn't what I asked for. I basically just asked for evidence that would convince me that absolute morals exist. I don't believe you can prove many things with 100% accuracy (which isn't what it takes for me to believe in something). Just the usual evidence that "almost certainly" proves it.
When someone has faith in something, they don't need proof.
They'll need some degree of proof if they want to convince me, though.
This is imprecise and probably repugnant to your ultra-logical mindset, but it is the way the world works.
I see. Well, if anyone tries using the appeal to popularity fallacy on me, I will definitely mention that it is a logical fallacy and why I don't
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, there is no such thing as absolute truth, there is just observations and opinions
Actually, no, there is absolute truth. The problem is we absolutely do not have the ability to know it. Even when we do.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the exact same thing could be said about anything (including the notion of god), right? That exact same argument could be used to "prove" anything. However, I don't see how that proved anything. I still see no convincing evidence of absolute morals (note that I did not ask for 100% proof of anything).
Arguments similar to yours are some of the only arguments that I've seen when I've asked for proof of absolute morals. They're essentially, "We don't have absolute knowledge of everything. T
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your bank of america card number isn't valid.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't remember ever seeing Tom Waits referenced on Slashdot before, well done sir!
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently, someone with reading comprehension issues and all the poetry of soul that a thermal label printer might possess disagrees with you...
Re: (Score:2)
Leak^2
Re: (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia Wiki Leaks you!