Evidently, anyone getting them becomes a highly visible target and once the content of these torrents is known, you could become involved in the distribution of classified data.
Even if the content is not known, it could be viewed as an 'unfriendly' act and could make you become a "target of interest" to some zealous 3-letter agency...
Maybe I'm too paranoid. On the other hand, maybe not enough. Hard to know these days.
Wait, wait. You're saying there's a way to get paid to read HN all day? Where do I sign?
Follow the path to the dark side . They have cookies.
Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.
It means literally what it says: everyone is entitled to "due" (i.e. warranted) process, not judicial process. What process is "due" in any given case? It is, on its face, a context-sensitve inquiry.
If you trace the due process clause back to its origins in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta, you'll see that it is not a guarantee of a trial in every case, but rather a protection against arbitrary action: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." The AUMF is, for better or worse, the law of the land.
People gave Eric Holder a lot of flak when he stated that the Constitution guarantees due process and not judicial process, but his comment was a totally uncontroversial statement of the law. I'm pretty sure Greenwald knows that too, since last time I checked NYU (where he got his JD) doesn't teach some bizarro version of Constitutional Law where down is up and due process always requires a trial.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
The exclusion for "cases arising in the land or naval forces" apparently applies to members of the U.S. military, who can be tried under military law (like Bradley Manning was). 
Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment says:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
So I don't understand how the Constitution allows the federal government the right to execute a citizen without judicial process. Any references would be sincerely appreciated.
I think you'll be waiting a long time for rayiner to give you one.
Of course it's a tragedy if a citizen is killed in time of war if it turns out they were not actually engaged in combat alongside the enemy, but war is tragic in general.
Read the Patriot Act. Read the rules of engagement for taking out U.S. citizens. It would not take a stretch of Eric Holder's imagination to think that downloading the Wikileaks file constitutes an act of aggression against the U.S.
However, I think you miss the point of my response in context of the comment I was responding to. The point of my comment was that our government has taken a very fluid approach to the law to fit its needs versus American citizens/non-citizens. If one feels a certain comfort that the law will protect him/her in the course of some action that seems fully protected by the law today, you might be in for a rude awakening tomorrow.
IANAL, but I believe the espionage act contains a mens rea requirement.
Suppose, for example, that you discovered a locked storage box with 'property of Big Bank' on the outside. You're supposed to report found items to the police; instead you take it home. Someone sees you and the police turn up; it emerges the box contains a lot of money, and you are charged with theft. You argue at trial that no mens rea existed because you didn't know about the money; true, but the possibility that a locked box belonging to Big Bank would be full of cash was what motivated you to take it home. If, on the other hand, the both contained a brick, you could still be charged with attempt because your intent in picking up the box was impure, even if the contents were valueless.
In this case, Wikileaks 'insurance' documents have in the past contained classified information; they are meant to function as insurance because the contents would embarrass or injure someone if revealed; revelation would be contingent on Wikileaks' dissolution or disablement; and it's reasonable to suppose that only a government could bring that about. Thus, your decision to host the files, even without knowledge of their content, involves an awareness of the strong possibility that they do contain classified information. So whatever the contents actually turn out to be, you would be judged on your intent given the information available at the time.
Now you might also argue that there was some higher interest motivating your actions, eg the belief that all secrecy is evil and that nothing should be classified, ever. But such moral beliefs are normative, ie expressions of what you think the law should be; they have no bearing on what the law actually is, and it is the latter which is supposed to govern your actions. For comparison, I might hold a sincere belief that any insult to a person's honor justifies violent retaliation; but if I kill someone in defense of my honor, that won't spare my from charges of murder, because my private belief is not the law of the land, no matter how sincerely it is held.
In short, don't take deliberately engineered ignorance as equivalent to innocence.
You may find this law review article of interest: http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/... This discusses a narrower reading of mens rea than I have outlined above, but bear in mind the elevated likelihood of a public welfare argument in a case where national security turns out to be at stake. So I would be reluctant to rely on Flores-Figueroa as an escape hatch because that was a case in which the harm largely befell a single individual (the lawful possessor of the identifying information that F-F appropriated), as opposed to the general public whose collective security could be compromised by the release of classified information, personified in the form of the Untied States.
I hope some creative writer is out there doing some exploration out there in a novel. Lots of interesting questions to think about with regard to the mechanics of this whole story.
It would be safer to just send the decryption key directly to the NSA on a CD. ;)
Depending on how an adversary times that, it could be damaging for Wikileaks.
So what would the carbon footprint be of WikiLeaks releasing 50 gigabytes of encrypted random data?
I'm a little curious why they aren't using magnet links though.
This is not always the case because as far as I know you can see some pages without having to login first, but they seem to be a minority and so I learned simply to ignore such links.
It has nothing to do with dis-/liking fb or not, it's just a matter of practicality.
Interestingly, in the same thread that hnha started, there is also a posting by brokenparser about NOT being able to access the linked content - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6228750 So, not only is your position a non-sequitur, it is also based on inconsistent evidence.
Also, all the text you type on your smartphone goes to the fbi. You can probably be id'd by what you mosspell. It.s a question of whether they give a fuck.
Resistance is poodle!
I'm kinda curious though. At $87/hour, she worked about 250 hours, which works out to be about 57 hours a week. If she only works a few hours at her laptop, the fuck is she doing the rest of the time?
Or maybe, to paraphrase a sibling comment, she's working on the blacktop?
The real problem is that the target demographic is hard to monetize. Can't sign 'em up with a trackable CC, they're not a good target for advertisers, and your service is likely to attract a made-in-NSA parallel construction from FBI and friends.
Edit: I think I accidentally hit the down arrow instead of the up arrow! Apologies!
Most depressingly,.after the justice shut the thing down, they asked it to allow it to.continue, because they were still.profitable... ( it was a ponzi )
Also, they already got in trouble for reusing a password (http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/wikileaks-guardian-journali...), so I'm pretty sure they won't do that again...
Not really. He gave a moron the password to a publicly distributed insurance file instead of making a new encrypted file just for him.
Also, most likely it doesn't use a passphrase, but a big generated gpg key (with a passphrase protecting it, of course)
This isn't the worst thing ever, but using GPG for passphrase-protected encryption is not as strong as you might expect - just use a slightly longer/better one.
(Obviously, don't switch to another tool if you can't evaluate it in depth - GPG isn't perfect, but picking a random other tool won't be an improvement.)
The threat that makes the insurance files work is that the public/press and/or foreign governments may get the keys.
I had the last one for a bit, and deleted it just now because I'm seriously doubtful these things are anything more then /dev/urandom piped into a file.
His point is based more on softer considerations like "they never used the previous insurance file yet, have they?" and "Wikileaks pulls a lot of stunts" and "this is just the sort of thing that would appeal to a cryptogeek like Assange whose avowed purpose is to throw sand into the gears of secretive organizations" and "so how did they get 300GB+ of leaked stuff since the site has been half-inactive for years and Assange completely distracted by his legal issues? Who would trust them with it? eg. Snowden didn't go to Wikileaks".
Aware of this, I wonder if new insurance files will have any influence on the actions of their enemies.
Even without that, no effect. Blackmailing a bureaucracy... it's not like dealing with a single rational actor. That's the Hollywood version of Washington.
It's like coming upon a traffic jam and deciding you should bribe those responsible so you can go on your way.
This is officially my new favoritest analogy.