CIA Launches WTF To Investigate Wikileaks 402
krou writes "In an effort to investigate the impact of the leaked diplomatic cables, the CIA have launched the Wikileaks Task Force, commonly referred to at CIA headquarters as 'WTF.' 'The Washington Post said the panel was being led by the CIA's counter-intelligence centre, although it has drawn in two dozen members from departments across the agency.' Although the agency has not seen much of its own information leaked in the cables, some revelations (such as spying at the UN) originated from direct requests by the CIA. The Guardian notes that, 'WTF is more commonly associated with the Facebook and Twitter profiles of teenagers than secret agency committees. Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.'"
This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, this NWO stands for No Wikileaks Online.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you can change your name to WTF1138 :)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm waiting for the inappropriate jokes at the kick-off dinner to toast the future success of the unit: the WTFFTWNSFWBBQ.
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Funny)
The will probably do that under the Langley Meeting of Affiliated Organizations (LMAO).
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Informative)
Or how about powerful american politicians forming an organisation calling for US global dominion? And call it something like "project for the new american century"? That would really wind up those conspiracy jerks. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, wait, wait. (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Informative)
Powerful american politicians? It was a group of pundits, none of whom have ever held public office.
Some of their more famous writings had input from and were signed by genuine powerful US politicians who ended up serving in the G. W. Bush administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.
Re: (Score:3)
As it has been replaced by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative#Persons_associated_with_FPI [wikipedia.org]
Check this out:
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/node/17236 [foreignpolicyi.org]
"...He has served in senior positions at the Departments of State and Defense as well as the White Hous..."
Federal Acronym Research Team (Score:4, Funny)
Brought to you by the Federal Acronym Research Team ;)
Re:Federal Acronym Research Team (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Funny)
This will complement some of their other programs:
Operation Masked Government
Locate Open Leaks
Reduce Our Federal Loopholes
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Insightful)
Before it was really just whining about lack of sales tax on internet sales, and spam, but now that the dirty laundry is embarrassing powers that be, they are flexing their muscles and lashing out at "the internet".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Humor, u don't haz it.
I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
"CIA's counter-intelligence centre"
I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
"CIA's counter-intelligence centre"
I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.
You know, intelligence about marble top counters, hardwood counters, laminate counters, etc.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Funny)
There actually is a company in the Langley area called Counter Intelligence that does this. You occasionally see their van driving around.
That's what they WANT you to believe!
Re: (Score:3)
There actually is a company in the Langley area called Counter Intelligence that does this. You occasionally see their van driving around.
Along with the Pizza Delivery van, and Flowers By Irene...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's practically a palindrome. Let's call it "anti-intelligence" and refer to it as CIAAIC.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yo dawg, I hurd you like intelligence, so I put an intelligence in your intelligence so you can spy when you spy.
Re: (Score:2)
"CIA's counter-intelligence centre"
I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.
Nah, this is more in the same vain as "Intelligent Design". It is about CIA being against intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, this is more in the same vain as "Intelligent Design". It is about CIA being against intelligence.
I took the lord's name in vein today and now I can't come down off of this cloud.
WTF stands for... (Score:4, Funny)
Welcome To Facebook, of course!
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.
Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the leaks from Wikileaks proves there WERE wmd's in iraq.
Oh yeah? Cite the relevant passages, and give the name of the document and the page number. But before you post it here, give Fox News a call. The "b-b-but they were really there, we promise!" crowd has been groping after some kind of hard evidence for their claims and coming up empty for years now; if you've found the bombshell (so to speak) that will prove them right, you'll earn yourself their eternal gratitude and probably a shitload of Rupert Murdoch's money. So go for it.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
That isn't the same thing as assisting someone in stealing classified information.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone mails classified documents to a newspaper, and the newspaper wasn't expecting them, the newspaper isn't guilty of anything. If someone calls the newspaper and and paper provides their address to send them classified documents, is the newspaper breaking a law? I don't know the laws involved, but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't appear matter at the moment, so unless the law changes..
Re: (Score:2)
If someone mails classified documents to a newspaper, and the newspaper wasn't expecting them, the newspaper isn't guilty of anything. If someone calls the newspaper and and paper provides their address to send them classified documents, is the newspaper breaking a law? I don't know the laws involved, but I doubt it.
The question would be, does the newspaper know that it's getting classified documents?
Without seeing them, how would Wikileaks have known? This is the INTERNET after all. Not everything you see in an online chat is reality.
Wait ,did you send money to Nigeria? Did you give 'sexylady1954' your home address? Please for the love of GOD tell me you didn't agree to reship packages for that Prince in Malaysia?!?!
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Should a drug mule go unpunished because he didn't KNOW he was carrying drugs?
Yep.
Should an accomplice in a murder go unpunished because he didn't KNOW that his partner would kill someone.
Yep.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Sure I do. You're getting at 'vengeance' - same as the CIA.
Wikileaks doesn't have to KNOW what they were receiving to be guilty of collusion. Does it really matter though?
Ergo the 'vengeance'. It doesn't really matter if any crimes were committed, they must be made to pay. I get it, I really do.
It's likely that there wont be any direct evidence linking Assange and Wikileaks to Manning, just circumstantial evidence and testimony. It's very unlikely he'll even face extradition to the US.
I suppose time will tell. They put that Canadian kid in Gitmo for, what, seven years because they thought someone threw a grenade from his general direction.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a very twisted idea of justice. Thankfully, our legal system disagrees with you in all particulars.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I meant knowingly. The NY Times knew it was getting classified documents from Wikileaks, and yet we all know that the Times hasn't broken any laws. Wikileaks getting the documents from the source is no different.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Informative)
In what universe is that 'the question'?
The law doesn't say anything close to what you seem to think it says.
People not only have a first amendment right to speak, they have a first amendment right to be spoken to, and they have the right to aid others in speaking to them. (Yes, the courts have actually upheld this, when the government attempted to get sneaky and assert people have the right to say whatever they want, but the government could arrest people for listening.)
Manning waived his rights when he got clearance, and he has, rightly, been arrested. (And then, wrongly, illegally held in solitary confinement for no reason whatsoever, probably to get him to make up something about Assange that they can arrest him on.)
Assange did not waive any of his rights, he has a first amendment right to be told things, and cannot be punished for helping people tell him things, even if that person was breaking the law at the time.
Any speech between two people is constitutionally protected. Just because one person has waived that protection does not mean the other person is somehow committing a crime if he 'helps' the conversation somehow. That is flatly absurd...he has a constitutional right to have that conversation, period, even if the other person does not. (Moreover, the idea of speech that becomes criminal based on the legal status of another person is absurdity ascendant. How is anyone else supposed to know they waived their speech rights?)
There is, of course, a distinction between helping the conversation, and inciting the original crime, but Assange did not do the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
"...and helped Manning submit them."
Yes, he even gave him military grade encryption and lots of tips on how to protect himself.
Like they give to EVERYBODY!
http://www.wikileaks.lu/submissions.html [wikileaks.lu]
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
If you mean this [nytimes.com], then what they have are chat logs of Manning telling Lamo that Assange helped him with the upload to WL. Read the article. This is very different to Assange helping Manning to *obtain* the documents, and while IANAL it appears that helping to publish secret documents as such is not a crime. And Assange claims not to have any contact with Manning.
A trial may bring some light into it, but as far as the Manning case shows it appears that the US military prefers to torture its soldiers instead of shedding light by a speedy trial. And Assange is neither a US citizen nor is he located in the US, so I still fail to see why he should be subject to US laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Brad you want my email address? Ok it's ... oh no! Twenty years hard labour for material support of terrorism!
Any lawyer that pushes such an angle to get him extradited is just going to get laughed at publicly, have their reputation diminished and be the butt of jokes for years. You can push it because you are a clueless fool looking for a straw to clutch at for revenge agai
Re: (Score:2)
First they give 3 million people access to this information and then they complain at a guy that has nothing to do with it. Given the way the US threats people I am sure that the poor soldier who has been in isolation for months has gotten 'an offer he can't refuse' to sign a fake testimony against Assange.
Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
Incorrect, they only have chat logs between Manning and Lamo (the person who reported Manning). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/ [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
The mods who modded you troll should be ashamed of themselves. That was nothing but suppressing a differing opinion.
I fully agree. There was nothing objectionable or inflammatory in the GP, just a different opinion, and a claim of facts that may or may not be accurate.
Remember, there is no "disagree" mod option. If you disagree, step up and say so, and support your arguments!
Try not to mod with your dicks, boys...
Daily updates? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The daily WTF hasn't had daily updates for years... Or am I taking your joke too serious now? ;)
TRWTF is the forum! (Score:3)
"The Real WTF is the Forum Software."
Classic
Re: (Score:2)
Not just a fun time, not even just a fun day, but a Mandatory Fun Day.
Re:Daily updates? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The appropriate answer is "Woosh!". You must be new here.
Re:Daily updates? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting for Operation OMGWTFBBQ myself... Oh My, Government Wikileaks Task Force Better Be Quick!
Some suggestions (Score:5, Funny)
GBT - Google Background Task-force (to look into the background data from wifi snooping)
WANK - Wide Area Network Keeper (protect infrastructure from DDOS)
SHIT - Secure Homeland IT (initiative against cyber warfare)
um... (Score:3)
"Ok 4chan, we were going to use 256-bit AES to transmit our instructions but it has recently come to our attention that if we simply use an encrytion schema called "Leetspeak" the CIA will be completely mystified and far less likely to crack the code."
***3 months later***
President Obama: "Our Military leaders and Intelligence officials have asked that I request help from the American people in our time of need. We are in desperate need of translators. Specifically in the Swedish ethic language of "LeetSpeak." The also asked me to say 'U will pwn n00b haxors" and said you'd know what that means."
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, just for 38 special seconds, assume they're not dense. This is that "security through crowd-cover" on the search engines. So what do they gain by co-opting one of the top-five acronyms?
Re: (Score:2)
WTF may be intended to express... (Score:4, Funny)
...the CIA's opinion of the rest of the government's computer security procedures.
How it really happened (Score:5, Funny)
We fade in on a low lit smoky government war room.
Many high ranking CIA operatives are seated around a circular table.
Task force chairman: Gentlemen, we have our network completely set. Operatives are in place and the funding is acquired. .a name.
All we need now is . .
[CIA Director walks in]
Director: Well Hey Howdy boys! What are we all up against this time?!
Task force chairman: Director, we just learned about the release of numerous secret diplomat cables from a website called Wikileaks.
Director: WHAT THE F@$K?!! NEOTHEONENSFWBBQ?!!
Task for chairman: Hmmmm. . . WTF. W. . .T . . .F . . .That's it! Gentlemen, we have our name! Congratulations, Director!
[Cheers go out. Scotch is poured and toasts are made.
Screen fades to black.]
[Fade in on Julian Assange sitting in a British pub. A CIA operative, a couple MI5 operatives with some British Bobbies come
walking in the door.]
MI5 Operative: Julian Assange?
Julian: Yes?
MI5: You are being held for extradition to Sweden under allegations of rape. Please come with us.
Julian: WTF?!
CIA Operative: [Takes off sunglasses] Exactly.
[Fade to black. Cue Credits. Roll End Theme]
How much more ridiculous does this have to get (Score:5, Insightful)
before the American people hit the reset button on the country? The government is obviously completely out of control. We have the TSA fondling children and strip-searching innocent citizens who simply want to travel from point A to point B. We have a Congress and Whitehouse who simply can't be bothered to do anything to help the Middle Class, preferring instead to concentrate even more wealth and power in the hands of the ultra-rich, ultra-connected, unaccountable, and demonstrably incompetent (eg. tax breaks for the wealthy and net neutrality). And thanks to Wikileaks the illusion that the government knows what it's doing has been shattered.
It's almost like those in power are betting each other they can screw the American people indefinitely, unapologetically, right in front of them and no one will do anything. And amazingly, the most heavily armed populace in the world is letting them get away with it.
Is there no steel left in the American soul?
Re: (Score:2)
People don't do that when they're only mildly annoyed - which right now, no matter how much you complain, is the case for most.
People do that when they are absolutely, desperately hacked off and there really is precisely nothing more they can do short of revolution.
Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there no steel left in the American soul?
No.
Re: (Score:3)
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Oh, those beautiful ideallists [newsbusters.org].
Either... (Score:3)
..some old fogey is working at the CIA who is 100% out of touch with modern slang came up with this name. ..or.. ..someone at the CIA has a great sense of humor. ..or... ..some 4channer is an insider at the CIA and thought they would do this for the ultimate lulz. It's not unlike Fight Club where you find out members of Tyler's gang work everyday jobs and can secretly add things to your meal.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh... So THAT'S why the sign says "Warning: Food may have come into contact with nuts".
WTF? (Score:2)
The fine line.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The fine line.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes I understand that our government has to be transparent. There are however, methods to get information in the properway. Using the law, one can subpena the governemet, private industry, and individuals. Using legal ways information can be forced to be released.
Except that this isn't actually true because there's no one to enforce these rules and laws. There's zero oversight. Consider the cases of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. In the former case they attempted to make a young woman a war hero against her will. They fabricated a 'Rambo from West Virginia' story out of whole cloth, and tried to force her to go along with it. In the latter case they assassinated a dissenter before his scheduled visit with Noam Chomsky, falsified the coroner's report, burned his uniform and his diary, then lied to the family. In these two cases we had people on the inside telling us the truth and STILL the military lied about it. What of the myriad other situations where there's nobody brave enough to tell the truth?
Maybe Wikileaks is not the answer, but someone needs to do something, so at least in this way I support them. Stop the lies, end the secrets. Let's move together into a new era of being decent human beings.
Re: (Score:3)
The government, private industry, and even individuals. Have private things that they want to keep private.
The government is answerable to the people. Private industry is answerable to government. The people are supposed to (for the most part) be free and able to live their lives without interference or constant investigation. This is supposed to be the cornerstone of American ideas of liberty.
By law, everyone's privacy is protected. When documents that are supposed to be private are "stolen" that is espionage and theft. How would you guys like it if the content of your hard drives was stolen and then posted on the internet? How would you like it if they did it under the guise of keeping you honest? I am sure all would agree that even under this "explanation" you would still feel like and have the rights under the law that information was stolen.
We do not need to justify ourselves to the government. The government needs to justify itself to us.
Yes I understand that our government has to be transparent. There are however, methods to get information in the properway. Using the law, one can subpena the governemet, private industry, and individuals. Using legal ways information can be forced to be released.
The government then claims "state secrets" and you get no information. Meanwhile, the NSA and CIA are this very second hav
Law Or Laughter? (Score:2)
Did They Take the Docs? (Score:2)
Am I missing something? I thought it was some other guy, not related to Wikileaks who stole the documents? Shouldn't that guy/security hole be the target of an investigation? What's there to investigate with Wikileaks? They publish leaked documents. There, end of mystery. *sigh*
Lesser of two evils (Score:2)
Source of leaks (Score:2)
Maybe the CIA used OpenBSD. Damn those FBI agents. Damn them, I say.
not too bad (Score:2)
I actually like this reaction a lot more than the others.
Seems someone in the agency has had the guts to realize that the horse has left the barn, and instead of yet another attempt at closing the door, is trying to figure out what the damage is and how to react to it.
That's a lot more sense than most politicians make these days.
CIA seriously? (Score:2)
So now, the CIA is inspecting Barn Doors after the horses have left and are running down mainstreet?
Well, apparently we now know the gov's more concerned about their image then about actually treating people decently.
Wikileaks is made to keep government's honest. No threat in that.
But the American Government? They don't want to be honest, shit, they don't even want to do anything for the people of the USA.
They rather the sheeple, i mean, people of the USA kept their heads in the sand, while they (the go
WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
They should have called it the Secrecy Task Force Unit.
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not surprised, but did they aid in obtaining them? I got the impression they aided in publishing, but that Manning obtained them all on his own.
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
then you say
Which are contradictory. You also said
which clearly isn't true. The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
When I said "aids a person in obtaining classified documents" I really mean "aids Wikileaks in obtaining documents FROM Manning." Nobody thinks Assange had a hand in actually obtaining the documents from the government. But there's reason to believe he helped Manning submit the documents based on chats Manning had with the hacker who exposed him. Based on these, Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.
I don't want people to think I don't support Wikileaks or agree wholeheartedly with the government. I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective based on details of the investigation released thus far and based on the law. But once again, slashtards see something they disagree with and mark it -1 Troll.
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is so much that we 'slashtards', as you so lovingly refer to such a wide group of people whom you'll probably never even meet, simply disagree. Rather, I think it is that you're without a point. You say:
Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents...
This is only a crime if using Wikileaks is a crime. As far as I know, it is not. Until they had the documents, there was no legal reason to believe that they were in fact classified. Manning could have been deceiving them, etc. Wikileaks is designed to receive files, so aiding someone in that task is within the scope of helping someone use their website. This is a thought crime, at best.
...to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.
And giving him special treatment is what sort of crime, exactly?
Maybe, maybe, maybe if Assange and Wikileaks were under the jurisdiction of American law then MAYBE you'd have a nitpicky point. As they're not, you don't. There's no international consensus that helping someone use a website and giving someone priority status are crimes. These points alone are no more or less significant than the entire overall process of receiving the documents and publishing them.
Molehill, meet mirror. Mountain is over there.
Re: (Score:3)
How the fuck is what you described illegal?
Receiving classified information is not illegal, even knowingly. Neither is informing someone where they can leave classified information where you'd see it better.
And anything Manning's says is suspect. He's being tortured [salon.com] until he makes up some bogus way for them to arrest Assange.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He is trying to restate, the official excuse for why wikileaks is considered to have engaged in criminal activities, as his own opinion.
What you think of people who for some reason needs to pretend to think for themselves when they verbatime restate official statements, I will let you decide.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is reason to believe that Assange provided Manning with instructions and a means to submit the documents"
It's true. It's called the 'submissions' webpage.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a substantial deference between, hey wikileaks how do I submit these documents and hey wikileaks how do i obtain these documents. In point of fact in the first case the documents are unsubstantiated documents until they are submitted and of course once published they can not be defined as factual by anyone else the 'oops' US government.
So CIA will no play the propaganda game, denial, obfuscation and, misinformation. Pretty much the same stuff that was already indicated in a lot of the documents
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.
This really shouldn't surprise anybody. An organization aids a person in obtaining classified documents and the CIA investigates? Preposterous!
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
I thought that the leak was in the US army, not outside hackers... Anyway, they might as well broaden the investigation to all media?
CIA launches MTF, Media Task Force, to investigate the impact of a well-informed population.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that be the primary question? It would seem to me that would be a tangential concern at best to the CIA.
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter what is 'considered' the leak.
The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.
Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.
No one else did, certainly no one at Wikileaks, and hence the government cannot do anything^W^W^W will instead torture [salon.com] Manning until he claims Assange 'incited' Manning to or something so they can extradite Assange from the country where they've got him held on a bogus rape charge now. (Whereupon the charge will magically go away.)
The game is really obvious, people. Really REALLY fucking obvious.
I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime. (Since when does the CIA investigate crime? When they need to invent a crime, that's when. The FBI and whatnot have moral objections to framing people, the CIA does it all the time.)
Re: (Score:3)
He committed a crime against the laws of the United States and against the United States. If the US requests his extradition from a foreign country, (one of the reasons he went to Sweden is that it doesn't extradite to the US) the foreign country may agree to extradite him to the US for trial and punishment.
It wouldn't be unreasonable for foreign governments to take a dim view of the kind of thing Assange did and expedite his extradition. He's currently pissing off Sweden by not cooperating in what should
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bradley Manning:
“I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will.” “I listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history,” he added later. ”Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis … a perfect storm.”
The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation. Now they are trying to pretend like this worldwide network of thieves dropped in like ninjas and snatched it from their 3ft thick titanium safe.
Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was... informing the public. Now think of how easily it would be for a foreign security agency or even a terrorist sympathizer to achieve the same level of clearance. Their goals would be far less noble, and far less public. They'd most likely never get caught. Bradley Manning has probably done more to help secure the US Militarys network than any idiot at the CIA that doesn't even know what the acronym WTF stands for.
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
It beggars belief that any intel officer could do the equivalent to "select * from reports" and nobody batted an eyelid. If he had to search a database, he should be required to enter search criteria. Results should be limited. His search should be logged. Unusual or suspicious searches should flagged for immediate attention. Even the text of the reports could even tagged in obvious and less obvious ways so if they did leak that the culprit could be forensically identified.
So while we can debate about the ethics of what wikileaks is doing, the reality is that the fault for all the leaks lays fairly and squarely at the feet of the US governments sloppy security. If Bradly Manning was doing it then who else was? I wonder if China, Russia, Iran etc. have had to feign surprise at these leaks. Perhaps they've long owned their own copies.
Re: (Score:2)
The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation. Now they are trying to pretend like this worldwide network of thieves dropped in like ninjas and snatched it from their 3ft thick titanium safe.
Well, not any PFC would have done this, because thousands of "lowly" enlisted personnel before and during Manning's service managed to have access to this information without burning it to CD-RW's while lip syncing to Lady Gaga songs. At the same time I don't remember seeing the Army ever claim that they were remotely attacked, only that PFC Manning broke several laws and even agreements he made personally (all servicemembers who use government networks are required to sign a form stating quite explicitly t
Re: (Score:2)
You're incorrectly assuming that if they did this they'd
A. Get caught.
B. Get publicly arrested.
Given the almost keystone kops level of security reveled here, it is quite likely that there are quite a few people with less noble goals... You could make quite a bit of coin selli
Re: (Score:2)
The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some disillusioned, disgruntled, and recently demoted lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation.
fixed that for you.
His motivations are much more complex than "oh look what I found laying around"
Re: (Score:2)
Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was... informing the public. Now think of how easily it would be for a foreign security agency or even a terrorist sympathizer to achieve the same level of clearance. Their goals would be far less noble, and far less public. They'd most likely never get caught. Bradley Manning has probably done more to help secure the US Militarys network than any idiot at the CIA that doesn't even know what the acronym WTF stands for.
Understand, though, that with a minimum of the Apache attack, someone on the inside clearly WANTED those documents to be leaked. They were in a folder marked 'please leak me', or something functionally similar, when Manning went snooping for them. We probably have a case of individuals alarmed by what they're seeing, motivated enough to make things easy to steal, but not yet motivated enough to face prison time over it.
The military and to a larger extent the government are suffering from systemic corrupti
Re: (Score:3)
and did what anyone would have
No, if you walk up to a bar and see a C-note sitting there, you leave it there. It's not yours, it's the bar's, or it's the property of the person who will be coming back from the bathroom. /. seems to be full of people who would get their asses beat if they ever went out in public anywhere other than the comic-book store or McDonald's. And probably there, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Being a patriot doesn't absolve someone of criminal activities. Recall that our greatest patriots (the founding fathers) were committing treason, and signed their names to it. Civil (and uncivil) disobedience is done with the knowledge that there are potential consequences for one's actions. To act and think that there won't be is pure foolishness.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be incredibly difficult to prove that Wikileaks resulted in a death, since in practice it's just going to be one contributing factor among others--you'll always have plausible deniability and be able to claim the death was caused by one of those other factors. It'll raise the probability of death and so some people will die who wouldn't die without it--but it's going to be hard to tell which ones.
Imagine that, for instance, some terrorist uses the leaked list of targets as targets for terrori
Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what they want you to think. WTF is a term that you cannot get a google about. If someone of the WTF team blogs about WTF, the term "WTF" will be hidden in the masses of real curse words.
Re: (Score:2)
The story is that the City University of Newcastle on Tyne got as far as printing the letterhead before they decided that they needed a name change.
I think that this is an urban myth as there is a similar story about the Southampton Higher Institute of Technology who allegedly had to change names after seeing the stationary... and I'm sure I've heard it elsewhere about other institutions as well. Who knows where it really happened now, if at all.