Author Topic: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard  (Read 14763 times)

Regolith

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,171
WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« on: August 09, 2010, 10:58:49 PM »
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop#articleTabs%3Darticle

Basically, five human rights organizations called out WikiLeaks for failing to redact names of Afghans who had cooperated with the United States.  WikiLeak's response was basically, they didn't have the man power (I guess sitting on the docs until all the names COULD be redacted wasn't an option  ;/ ) and that the other organizations could have helped out.  One of the organizations offers to meet with WikiLeaks in order to discuss doing exactly that, and WikiLeak's founder Julian Assange basically says "I'm too busy, #$*! off."

Meanwhile, the Taliban has publically announced that it will be combing the documents in order to punish people who helped the US.

Apparently, Assange is too damn busy to make sure people don't die because of his actions.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 11:04:14 PM by Regolith »
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger

Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,405
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2010, 11:08:01 PM »
I, for one, am shocked that Wikileaks either has no concern for human lives, or doesn't understand that real-world problems come with real-world consequences. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2010, 12:05:09 AM »
This is leagues beyond the pale. Conscience is well and truly dead.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:28:54 AM by kgbsquirrel »

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2010, 12:27:28 AM »
If there are victims from this, Assange had better hope the victims' families don't find him

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2010, 12:29:46 AM »
If there are victims from this, Assange had better hope the victims' families don't find him


yea a couple of afghans i worked with held a grudge better than the irish. one was a very very scary man
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2010, 01:34:04 AM »
What country is Wikileaks based in?
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Regolith

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,171
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2010, 01:57:57 AM »
What country is Wikileaks based in?

Assange, the founder, is Australian.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger

Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

CNYCacher

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,438
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2010, 08:35:44 AM »
Why no wrath aimed at whoever submitted the information to wikileaks?  Just because they are faceless?  Why should you not expect them to redact and filter information?
On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Charles Babbage

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,867
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2010, 08:47:35 AM »
Why no wrath aimed at whoever submitted the information to wikileaks?  Just because they are faceless?  Why should you not expect them to redact and filter information?



Not faceless at all, and as a .mil member I hope they hang the traitor.  Although that's too much to hope for these days.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:16:02 PM by JamisJockey »

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2010, 08:49:28 AM »
Why no wrath aimed at whoever submitted the information to wikileaks?  Just because they are faceless?  Why should you not expect them to redact and filter information?

Don't worry, I'm quite sure most of us want to see him hanged. (I know I do.) Edit: I see dogmush beat me to that.

The difference is we may have him in custody already. Assange is still free to destroy innocent lives (so long as those lives do anything to help the United States.)
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

SADShooter

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,242
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2010, 09:21:26 AM »
This is one of those moments where I empathize with all the near-suicidal idiots who wished Avatar's Pandora was real. In my fantasy, our invincible black ops types make WikiLeaks papers and servers go poof, then treat Assange to a life-changing blanket party before he's tried, convicted and executed by the World Court.
"Ah, is there any wine so sweet and intoxicating as the tears of a hippie?"-Tamara, View From the Porch

RaspberrySurprise

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,020
  • Yub yub Commander
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2010, 10:42:05 AM »
Hotlinked image redacted.
Not faceless at all, and as a .mil member I hope they hang the traitor.  Although that's too much to hope for these days.

I don't think someone liked your hotlink.

Both Assange and the leaker are scum.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:16:48 PM by JamisJockey »
Look, tiny text!

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2010, 10:56:15 AM »
Why no wrath aimed at whoever submitted the information to wikileaks?  Just because they are faceless?  Why should you not expect them to redact and filter information?

Because they're already being dealt with.


What country is Wikileaks based in?

"Most of them".

Decentralization is a beautiful thing.  To take out wikileaks, we'd need to hit a lot of countries.  And they'd be back up and running within days from off-site backups.  


This is one of those moments where I empathize with all the near-suicidal idiots who wished Avatar's Pandora was real. In my fantasy, our invincible black ops types make WikiLeaks papers and servers go poof, then treat Assange to a life-changing blanket party before he's tried, convicted and executed by the World Court.

Yea, unfortunately, they're not stupid.  Their servers are decentralized to the point where bombing is impractical.  They also back up their files to offsite locations, which means you can roll out more servers in a few hours.

Also, the US now has a vested interest in keeping Mr. Assange alive.  He thought he was being clever and published an encrypted file allegedly containing a very large number of highly classified and dangerous documents.  "Substantial harm" would be an understatement.  The theory is that if he dies, the key gets released.  Everyone already has the files, just no one (hopefully) can read them yet.

Problem is, plenty of countries want to harm the US and would happily take out Mr. Assange to do so.  Other problem is, if he releases the documents, he is a dead man walking.

"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

RaspberrySurprise

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,020
  • Yub yub Commander
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2010, 11:00:10 AM »
How long would it take for the CIA or NSA to break the file and see whats inside? Might just be a collection of recipes for chicken soup for all we know.
Look, tiny text!

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2010, 11:02:51 AM »
How long would it take for the CIA or NSA to break the file and see whats inside? Might just be a collection of recipes for chicken soup for all we know.

That's not how game theory works.  I have few doubts they have already been provided with the key for that specific reason.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2010, 11:33:34 AM »
Meh, if the pallid provocateur had any juicy docs, he would have published them.   

Second, since we have the original leaker, we can determine the most damaging docs he released.  Likely, they already have been leaked.

Third, the docs are likely operational in nature and get less & less sensitive over time.  No, classification level doesn't fall, but any real damage is attenuated.

I say he is the perfect target for a tragic kangaroo accident and include a goodly number of his associates.  Keep it up for a while (successors dying before their time) and while the already-released docs are out for good, Wikileaks will stick to what it's best at: re-publishing reports from the Congressional Research Service it swiped form other web sites.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2010, 12:15:22 PM »
Meh, if the pallid provocateur had any juicy docs, he would have published them.   

Second, since we have the original leaker, we can determine the most damaging docs he released.  Likely, they already have been leaked.

Third, the docs are likely operational in nature and get less & less sensitive over time.  No, classification level doesn't fall, but any real damage is attenuated.

I say he is the perfect target for a tragic kangaroo accident and include a goodly number of his associates.  Keep it up for a while (successors dying before their time) and while the already-released docs are out for good, Wikileaks will stick to what it's best at: re-publishing reports from the Congressional Research Service it swiped form other web sites.

Roughly 90k documents have been released.  It has been loosely confirmed he has 15k that are being withheld.  Allegedly on grounds that their release would actively endanger lives.  Smart money says moreso on blackmail to stay alive and inhibit exactly what you spoke of.  By the US anyways.  Foreign parties are actively conspiring to do exactly as you state, because the US would be blamed for it as much as the fallout from leaking the more sensitive documents. 

There are also a quarter of a million diplomatic cables floating around.  No one is sure what the case is there. 


Assuming this does not touch off another two wars (medium severity scenerio), it will be entertaining to read about in another 10 years or so.  I'm curious how accurate the history will be.  Worst severity case would be pretty bad.   But there's only a 2% chance of that, give or take. 

Even under the most optimistic damage assessments, most of the analysts believe the fallout from this will lead to a severe compartmentalization of information.  As everyone recalls, that was one of the circumstances that allowed 9/11 as well as other incidents to occur.  Intel weenies have to share information to prevent attacks.  But the more they share, the more likely these kinds of incidents will occur.  It's basically the intel yo-yo effect.  It sharply jerks back and forth because of incidents.  And each time, intel weenies must fall on their sword because they were doing the right thing.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

tyme

  • expat
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,056
  • Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?
    • TFL Library
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2010, 12:34:48 PM »
Also, the US now has a vested interest in keeping Mr. Assange alive.  He thought he was being clever and published an encrypted file allegedly containing a very large number of highly classified and dangerous documents.  "Substantial harm" would be an understatement.  The theory is that if he dies, the key gets released.  Everyone already has the files, just no one (hopefully) can read them yet.

Problem is, plenty of countries want to harm the US and would happily take out Mr. Assange to do so.  Other problem is, if he releases the documents, he is a dead man walking.

Not necessarily.  Suppose it's layered.  The file has some damaging stuff, along with another encrypted file with less massive but even more damaging material.  He or his associates can release keys for outer layers as necessary to "punish" anyone who tries to silence him, without giving up all their leverage.
Support Range Voting.
End Software Patents

"Four people are dead.  There isn't time to talk to the police."  --Sherlock (BBC)

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2010, 12:41:10 PM »


Not faceless at all, and as a .mil member I hope they hang the traitor.  Although that's too much to hope for these days.
I believe they have a suspect awaiting court martial.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2010, 12:51:37 PM »
That's not how game theory works.  I have few doubts they have already been provided with the key for that specific reason.

You give JA too much credit.  He doesn't seem that bright or devious. 

For instance, he did not foresee the release of civilian Afghan names and did not foresee that similarly-minded organizations would take him to task for it.  He's floundering about on those issues.

Also, what JA did was likely the absolutely stupidest thing he could possibly do, if he wants to die in bed at age 92Maybe he keeps the USA from offing him.  But, that likelihood was always quite remote even if we had a POTUS with any backbone.  OTOH, JA has provided a wonderful incentive for America's enemies to give him a dirt nap ASAP. 

Doesn't matter if the encrypted data is bogus or real.  Still sand-poundingly stupid to provide some Real Bad Dudes with incentive to kill you.

Don't make the mistake of assuming JA is as devious as you are.  So there are redundant copies of Wikileaks all over the world.  Whoopty-freaking do.  I can say the same for Fedora Linux.

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

tyme

  • expat
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,056
  • Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?
    • TFL Library
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2010, 01:01:01 PM »
Quote from: RevDisk
Problem is, plenty of countries want to harm the US and would happily take out Mr. Assange to do so.  Other problem is, if he releases the documents, he is a dead man walking.
Quote from: roo_ster
Doesn't matter if the encrypted data is bogus or real.  Still sand-poundingly stupid to provide some Real Bad Dudes with incentive to kill you.

A terrorist organization would have to weigh the immediate damage they could cause the U.S. by killing Assange and (maybe) getting all the insurance data released, against the continuing damage Assange could cause to the U.S. by remaining alive.

Out of curiosity... does this make me a terrorist?
Support Range Voting.
End Software Patents

"Four people are dead.  There isn't time to talk to the police."  --Sherlock (BBC)

Viking

  • ❤︎ Fuck around & find out ❤︎
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,207
  • Carnist Bloodmouth
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2010, 01:04:44 PM »
Wikileaks is apparently hosted by PRQ, based in Stockholm. In case you were wondering, those are the same guys who are also behind The Pirate Bay...
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 01:24:21 PM by Viking »
“The modern world will not be punished. It is the punishment.” — Nicolás Gómez Dávila

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2010, 01:22:29 PM »
A terrorist organization would have to weigh the immediate damage they could cause the U.S. by killing Assange and (maybe) getting all the insurance data released, against the continuing damage Assange could cause to the U.S. by remaining alive.

Weight what? According to Wikileaks, there are numerous people and servers to continue their "crusade."

Kill one, get the current "security deposit" data and wait for the next one to release new "security deposit" data. Kill him. Repeat.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2010, 01:46:00 PM »
A terrorist organization would have to weigh the immediate damage they could cause the U.S. by killing Assange and (maybe) getting all the insurance data released, against the continuing damage Assange could cause to the U.S. by remaining alive.

Out of curiosity... does this make me a terrorist?
http://a.imageshack.us/img710/2387/wikileaksinsurance.png

Lots of terrorists and rogue nations.  Only one has to make the calculation that they want what's behind Door #2 for JA to be worm food.  Like I wrote, JA ain't that bright(1) and he is toying with some dangerous folk. 

Also, if they are looking for really damaging stuff, they were likely disappointed with what has been dumped so far and want the "real" goodies.



tyme, I would be circumspect about downloading classified material.  I doubt it makes you a terrorist, but it might make you a fool.



(1)  If JA were smart(er), he would have informed us.gov quietly and privately that he had more damaging material, perhaps embedded in the more innocuous materials already downloaded.  Trumpeting to the world, "I have valuable information that can damage America that will be revealed if I die" is the work of an idjit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubw5N8iVDHI



Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2010, 02:07:26 PM »
You give JA too much credit.  He doesn't seem that bright or devious.  

For instance, he did not foresee the release of civilian Afghan names and did not foresee that similarly-minded organizations would take him to task for it.  He's floundering about on those issues.

Also, what JA did was likely the absolutely stupidest thing he could possibly do, if he wants to die in bed at age 92.  Maybe he keeps the USA from offing him.  But, that likelihood was always quite remote even if we had a POTUS with any backbone.  OTOH, JA has provided a wonderful incentive for America's enemies to give him a dirt nap ASAP.  

Doesn't matter if the encrypted data is bogus or real.  Still sand-poundingly stupid to provide some Real Bad Dudes with incentive to kill you.

Don't make the mistake of assuming JA is as devious as you are.  So there are redundant copies of Wikileaks all over the world.  Whoopty-freaking do.  I can say the same for Fedora Linux.

Just for the record, I completely 100% agree with you.   But our government's position is what I posted above.   I should have been a bit more specific, my apologies.


Lots of terrorists and rogue nations.  Only one has to make the calculation that they want what's behind Door #2 for JA to be worm food.  Like I wrote, JA ain't that bright(1) and he is toying with some dangerous folk. 

Also, if they are looking for really damaging stuff, they were likely disappointed with what has been dumped so far and want the "real" goodies.



tyme, I would be circumspect about downloading classified material.  I doubt it makes you a terrorist, but it might make you a fool.

Ayep.  That's why everyone in every intel agency facepalmed at his insurance gambit.  He more or less put a bullseye on his back until the data is released or is completely nonrelevant (which is uh...  while admittedly on a decreasing scale, not likely to be his natural lifespan).  Someone is going to kill him in a way that looks like the US could have done it.  Which won't be bloody hard.  "No one" would believe that the US government did not do it, even if it was fairly obvious it wasn't us.

And I don't believe tyme would be in the legal wrong to download information that's in the public domain.  US government would be better legally to claim copyright infringement than classified data, judging by previous court cases.   :facepalm:
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 02:13:23 PM by RevDisk »
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.