Obama hacks Wikileaks?

Obama hacks Wikileaks?

by Liv | Published on Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:05 pm | News

Apparently, somebody is...

Whistle-blowing website Wikileaks says it has come under attack from a computer-hacking operation, ahead of a release of secret US documents.

The US state department has said the release will put many lives at risk.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said the US authorities are afraid of being held to account.

Wikileaks has said the release of classified messages sent by US embassies will be bigger than past releases on Afghanistan and Iraq. cite

Of course they're saying it's a DOS attack, which isn't quite hacking though no one can be too sure exactly whats going on here. I can't see why someone would DOS them, even Obama knowing that they'll release it through traditional means. If they're really hacking, to obtain, and remove the data.... that's a whole other level.

Liv wrote:knowing that they'll release it through traditional means

Traditional means i.e. 'lame stream media' as Palin puts it, is way easier for governments to control and censor. Newspapers that publish classified information can be charged and shut down. So their editors and legal departments will censor the material.

A Person wrote:
Liv wrote:knowing that they'll release it through traditional means

Traditional means i.e. 'lame stream media' as Palin puts it, is way easier for governments to control and censor. Newspapers that publish classified information can be charged and shut down. So their editors and legal departments will censor the material.

Its hard to get hits on his website if the info is leaked by "traditionaly means".

a) Wikileaks carries no advertising so hits are irrelevant

b) Wikileaks routinely distributes to the traditional media

A Person wrote:a) Wikileaks carries no advertising so hits are irrelevant

b) Wikileaks routinely distributes to the traditional media

a) Neither do many other websites that are worth millions of dollars. So it IS certainly relevant.
b) It leaks information to the media. Big difference.

This man is just trying to make money and is a scumbag. He's not trying to make this a better world so wake up Alice.

Of course, I wonder how all of those donations are being spent that are sent in by the bleeding liberals that could care less what happens to this country (probably several of you people here have donated).

Wikileaks isn't worth millions. So if Assange was really just trying to make money, he's not being very successful. He's never claimed to be making the world a better place, just a more open one.

Wikileaks has exposed the Chinese government , Somalian Islamic militant assassination plans, emails from climate scientists 'climategate', Swiss Banks, Iranian nuclear accidents, toxic waste dumping in Africa, Scientology and the neoNazi British National Party. It's equal opportunity.

It's strange you assume that this is unpatriotic and that governments, terrorists and companies should be able to hide their wrong doing - and that it must be liberals seeking to expose conservative dishonesty and not the other way round. The Chinese government have banned and blocked it as have all totalitarian states, I guess you think the US should too.

As for the rest go take an antacid.

I've often wondered whether our government would be more moral, if the nation would be a better place to live, if everything were more open and accessible to the public. Would Bush have dared to go to war if all that the CIA knew and had surmised in 2002 been broadcast to the world? Would he have had any support from other countries?

Going back further, would Reagan have had the nerve to try financing the Contras via his shady dealings if he knew it was more likely to be discovered and shown to the world? Would Nixon have gotten re-elected? Would Vietnam have lasted anywhere near as long, or would we have even ENTERED that war?

Hard to say, of course, but I think that a democracy can only truly work well if the people making the decisions have an accurate view of what is going on. Otherwise, you end up with the classic GIGO scenario, on a national and world scale.

If you haven't read "Shockwave Rider" by John Brunner - you should. Written in 1975 it anticipates the Internet and Wikileaks

It's one of his best.

Oh - and one further comment about Wikileaks. If they can obtain this material so easily what makes anyone think that foreign governments can't

There's quite a good article in the Guardian

Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be "world policeman" – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global. Nonetheless, the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

In this light, two backup checks were applied. The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and "representations" were invited in return. These were considered. Details of "redactions" were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard.

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of "secrets" might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

More ...

BecauseHeLives wrote:
A Person wrote:a) Wikileaks carries no advertising so hits are irrelevant

b) Wikileaks routinely distributes to the traditional media

a) Neither do many other websites that are worth millions of dollars. So it IS certainly relevant.
b) It leaks information to the media. Big difference.

This man is just trying to make money and is a scumbag. He's not trying to make this a better world so wake up Alice.

Of course, I wonder how all of those donations are being spent that are sent in by the bleeding liberals that could care less what happens to this country (probably several of you people here have donated).

What?? I understand there seems to be a push to vilify this guy for doing the job the mainstream media doesn't have the balls to, but your accusation of him doing it for money is completely unfounded.

Excellent article here- Forbes: WikiLeaks Next Target? Big Business

Sanjuro wrote:What?? I understand there seems to be a push to vilify this guy for doing the job the mainstream media doesn't have the balls to, but your accusation of him doing it for money is completely unfounded.

Republicans are calling for him to be beheaded.... or at least arrested. This along with the Pirates Bay thing this week and the speculation they're going to start blocking websites from ISPs... is starting to make me wonder about team O.