Compiling the WikiLeaks Fallout 833
Now that the world has had some time to process the quarter million diplomatic documents published by WikiLeaks on Sunday, the media landscape is rife with reactions, threats, and warnings. Some US lawmakers have complained loudly and at length, saying that "WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the leak "not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community." The Guardian points out that it's not the media's job to protect diplomats from embarrassment, and other US officials seem to agree, focusing their wrath instead on the security practices surrounding sensitive information. The Pentagon and other agencies are looking at ways to tighten security, promising increased internal auditing and banning the ability of systems containing classified information to connect to thumb drives or other removable media. Meanwhile, few officials seem to be commenting publicly on the contents of the leak, which are sure to cause diplomatic problems around the globe.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Informative)
Quartermillion? How about just 243... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Had time? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm all for the "information wants to be free" mantra, but when it can come to a considerable cost to others, the disclosure can't wipe their hands completely of responsibility. Airing a politician's dirty laundry is one thing, but releasing documents that may have names of people that may be endangered unawares should be handled with some discretion.
considerable cost. like the one below ?
Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp [nytimes.com]
excuse me, but any country, anyone, engaging in shit like the above, already pre-deserved any cost they are going to pay. people reap, what they saw. the only thing preventing the people in administration from reaping what they sow was that these were being hidden behind secrecy with 'national security' excuses.
and now, they came out, and they are saying that 'its irresponsible'. actually meaning 'inconvenient' of course, since they are those who are responsible for the filth exposed. they wouldnt like it to come out.
Re:if Wikileaks can get this... (Score:1, Informative)
I thought it was PFC Bradley Manning and that Wikleaks has been sitting on this for awhile.
Redefining terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently disclosing the following counts as an act of terrorism according to a certain republican [nydailynews.com]:
* US diplomats spying on UN [guardian.co.uk]
* Canadian diplomats asking ExxonMobil and BP to help "kill" U.S. global-warming policies to ensure that "the oil keeps a-flowing" into the U.S. [edmontonjournal.com]
* Yemen goverment lying to its people on US bombings [salon.com]
* US pressing Germany to not pursue arrest warrants for 13 agents CIA agents. [bloomberg.com] (arrest warrents that the cables describe as "From a judicial standpoint, the facts are clear, and the Munich prosecutor has acted correctly.")
This is stuff that people need to know.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Informative)
I think you mean "where are the leaks from China, from Germany, from Russia, etc, lately?". Check their previous leaks [wikipedia.org].
Re:Data portability (Score:1, Informative)
Having worked for several businesses that have attempted to ban the use of portable media -- it's a pointless endeavor. Anything that connects to a USB port can emulate anything else that can connect to a USB port. I have seen USB flash drives that emulate rewritable CDROMs, etc. And with just a little bit of work, you can use standard HUD devices like mice and keyboards to stream data out at very high speeds to other devices. And nevermind Firewire and it's built-in ability to directly manipulate system memory -- if the port has power, all your memory are belong to us. -_-
There is only one security measure that works in this situation: Air gap. Everything else is window dressing.
It's HID, not HUD.
Some notes about classified systems:
This leak is a direct result of a breach of trust by a person with a clearance. Air gapping would not have stopped this leak. Routine full-body searches might have stopped this, assuming they searched the person's shoes and other personal effects. Gluing in all data cables to their ports and removing the unused ports might have worked. This leak was not an accident, nor was it an outside job, thus most security measures will not stop it.
Re:Fundamental question (Score:3, Informative)
Over 100k people throughout the federal and state governments had access to these documents. You can't keep things secret when that many people know about them. I agree that any intelligence agency worth there salt had access to all of these documents a long time ago.
if by 100,000, you mean 3+ million, then yes, you're spot on. Here's what the Guardian says [guardian.co.uk] about SIPRNET:
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Informative)
This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files.
This "database" was leaked not by Wikileaks, but, for all we know, by a US government employee. May be Bradley Manning, may be someone else, we don't know for sure. But it was not leaked by Wikileaks, and, chances are, not only to Wikeleaks.
These files were not published just by Wikileaks. In fact, because of the DDOS, they were initially published by papers like NY Times and Guardian. They actually released the info to public first this time. Why are you singling out Wikileaks? And for what? For an activity in which major journalistic outlets share willingly?
Take your head out of your anus.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Informative)
I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.
An opinion is one thing, but you're just copy-pasting a block of text anywhere you can. That sounds more like astroturf propaganda to me.
Re:Hear that bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Wikileaks isn't putting anyone at risk, when the US government put this charge forward to Wikileaks, Assange responded asking for an example name of someone who would be put in trouble so they could negotiate over further redacting the documents to protect such people, the US responded stating they wont negotiate over it and to hand it all back.
If anyone is at risk over this the blame falls entirely on the US government, they had the option to ensure the leaks damaged only reputation but not put people in danger and they refused to accept it.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Informative)
You should read the leaks and then see if they are damaging to American interests. My impression so far is the exact opposite. What are the biggest news here:
Pakistan has a less then adequately secured nuclear material and US is trying to secure it but Pakistan is refusing.
Arabs hate/fear Iran just as much as Israel does and are urging US to attack it but US is being the one who is cautious.
North Korea has supplied long range missiles (capable of reaching Europe) to Iran.
Lots of silly stuff about Gaddafi's mistress, Berlusconi's partying and Putin being an alpha-dog and "Batman" (he will enjoy that).
Find one thing that is seriously damaging to US interests. Even previous leaks about Iraq will only validate that war when the dust settles and historians total up the score and it is realized that if the war was avoided and international sanctions (which killed more Iraqis than the war) were kept up forcing Iraqi's to starve as well as live under a dictator, the civil war would still be likely the moment Saddam was weakened enough to encourage Kurds and Shiites to rise up. In the end far more Iraqis would have died and Iran would end up being in control of Iraq (minus Kurds) which would be a disaster for the whole region. If these documents didn't get leaked anyway, the US should have leaked them on purpose.
Re:Doh (Score:2, Informative)
He was tortured.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7036051.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:2, Informative)
What went on at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are crimes against humanity. Waterboarding qualifies as "inflicting severe pain and suffering" no matter how you cut it.