
Wikileaks: Something is up - bensummers
http://morgue.isprettyawesome.com/?p=1361
======
jxcole
I recall reading a report that was published on wiki-leaks that was by the US
government about wiki leaks itself. There were some worrying things in there,
the foremost of which was the summary at the top of the document, written not
by the US government, but by wikileaks.

In the summary they claimed that the US was recommending trying to fire/expose
anyone who posted on wiki-leaks. However, all the article really said was "If
people are fired or exposed for publishing on wiki leaks, this will probably
serve as a deterrant." Two very different things. The summary was full of
exaggerated claims like this one that really, in my opinion, made wiki-leaks
look stupid.

The point is that wikileaks has a really awesome ideal, which is to expose bad
things that are secrets. However, I worry that they are trying too hard to
make everything into a conspiracy theory.

We need to step back and say, "Ok, so in some movies there are conspiracy
theories like the ones we're presenting. And those movies are highly
entertaining because they are so ridiculous. So, do we believe this because it
is true or because we want it to be true?"

In the end, I would really like to know if the US government, or any
government, is shooting journalists. But only if it really is true. Otherwise
we're no better than schizophrenic conspiracy theorists and it really won't
make a difference.

So to tie it in, is something really up with wiki-leaks? If it is that would
be good information. But I would not be surprised to find out tomorrow that
these claims were highly exaggerated.

------
dsplittgerber
"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists,
among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs."
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034> This may have to do with it.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I would like to hear more about this encryption cracking, which would seem to
be an impressive feat. Anyone have any background?

~~~
ErrantX
Depends on the exact encryption but from the sounds of the tweet ("$/CPU") it
sounds like it could have been just brute forced.

~~~
eli
Sure, but the obvious question: where did they find a secret military video
protected by encryption that is weak enough to be bruteforced?

~~~
danielharan
With enough $/CPUs, it's all weak.

~~~
JeremyBanks
No, it's not. The amount of computing power that would be needed to break the
kind of encryption we should expect them to be using would be immense. It
would likely be impossible, or at least impractically expensive. This is a
very interesting part of the story.

~~~
Frazzydee
And, if it was distributed computing, presumably we'd have heard about it and
wouldn't be having this conversation.

------
akikuchi
New Update: "To those worrying about us--we're fine, and will issue a suitable
riposte shortly."

<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10993931099>

~~~
imajes
i have a second source who validates that they're ok, just busy looking for
bandwidth in a politically neutral state/jurisdiction. If anyone knows anyone
who has that, pls let me know & i'll pass it on....

~~~
jonknee
Isn't this a great use case for torrents?

~~~
dhotson
Would you be willing to host the torrent file?

It sounds like there'd be some risk involved..

~~~
jonknee
Trackerless torrent files combined with hosts like Rapidshare, Zshare,
Megaupload, etc should do the trick. Once it starts to spread it's
unstoppable.

Or host it in a country that likes to irritate the US government. Iran comes
to mind. Venezuela would surely be open to it as well.

If Osama Bin Laden can find hosting there is no reason why a group of clever
engineers can't as well.

~~~
fnid2
Panama and Hong Kong have several ISPs that are outside U.S. influence. You
never know really. Use Tor to upload it to Youtube. See if Google helps out.

~~~
olefoo
Panama outside of US influence? We invaded them not that long ago, the current
political leadership there were participants in the events leading up to and
following Operation Just Cause. I rather doubt that much of import happens in
Panama without tacit approval of US authorities.

------
andr
If they really have something that important, why would they drum up attention
and wait like sitting ducks, instead of publishing it ASAP?

~~~
SlyShy
Wikileaks publishes memos, reports, that sort of concrete evidence. I don't
think they would officially publish their first hand reports without first
trying to get some kind of confirmation through a leaked government file on
them, for example.

~~~
swombat
The attention they claim they're getting seems proof enough.

------
Indyan
WikiLeaks getting in trouble is nothing new. The US Army has admitted to
planning attacks on WikiLeaks in the past (
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/army_wikileaks/> ), So far they have
always managed to survice - even against damning odds.

If some major press picks up this news, then it will certainly help WikiLeaks.
I pushed it through at [http://techie-buzz.com/latest-news/wikileaks-pentagon-
murder...](http://techie-buzz.com/latest-news/wikileaks-pentagon-murder-cover-
up.html)

I just hope that the information they are sitting on is indeed
significant.Though, to be honest it probably is, since WikiLeaks is already
popular (too popular for their own good).

~~~
GHFigs
_The US Army has admitted to planning attacks on WikiLeaks in the past_

Not true. The article you link to only contains quotes from the document
Wikileaks published. That is not an admission of anything. Nor does the
document actually describe planning attacks on Wikileaks: only Wikileaks'
description (and subsequent mis-reporting based on that) characterizes it that
way. The actual content of the document does not support that conclusion. I
encourage you to read it for yourself.

------
ErrantX
Call me a cynic but this is based on just the Twitter feed. Let's not get too
excited till something more concrete appears.

(unless of course your suggesting we should believe everything posted on
Twitter as gospel without verification.........)

~~~
dsplittgerber
Which is essentially their most important form of communication, with the
website only being used to host documents these days.

~~~
ErrantX
It won't take much to turn this into a headline like "Wikileaks detained by
US" (this is the first step...[1]). When _all_ it is so far is unverified
postings on the Wikileaks Twitter feed. Is it a publicity stunt? Paranoia? Or
the real thing?

We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity -
but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons.

I might be slightly more cynical this week because of their last piece of
paranoia the other week ;)

1\. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1216034>

~~~
dsplittgerber
Sure, their PR methods are edgy.

But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes
Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security,
due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It
then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger",
and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of
whisteblowers etc. What makes you think Wikileaks is being paranoid instead of
realistic?

~~~
ErrantX
They said that the US Army had attacked them and were planning to shut them
down.

Which, if you read the document, was not actually the case.

~~~
dsplittgerber
Please point to any news article that actually says that.

Quote from the NYT: "Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the
concerns the report raised were hypothetical.

“It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the
release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how
the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any
real harm being done.” "

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&sq=wikileaks&st=cse)

If I may say, you do seem to be quick with your assumptions, in this case.

~~~
ErrantX
Im not sure why a news article is needed... Wikileaks themselves said:

 _U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks_

I admit where I said attacked in the parent that was never explicitly stated;
but the emphasis was heavily on the breathy kind of "OMG we were under attack"
type.

Honestly I didnt see anything particularly revelatory in the document
deserving of such breathless excitement :D

------
dsplittgerber
Wikileaks has gained over 5000 new followers on twitter in the last 24 hours,
that's close to +25%. There is an interesting moral question to be argued,
whether it would be morally right to withhold information in order to gain
funding and/or publicity and/or exposure to more followers, if they were
creating drama deliberately (which there is not any indication of, I think,
but theoretically possible).

------
pinstriped_dude
WikiLeaks update: "We are fine" -
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/10993931099>

------
grandalf
The US practices censorship just like China does. Let's all applaud Google
when it agrees to host a WikiLeaks server! Yeah right.

