WikiLeaks failed to redact names because it was hard

[GigaBuist]

Why no wrath aimed at whoever submitted the information to wikileaks?  Just because they are faceless?

Bradley Manning, aka BradAss87, has been arrested.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Televised trial. And if guilty, firing squad, televised. Hell, steel an idea from Carlin,'put it on pay per view. Take the proceeds to help pay the deficit down.

[tyme]

My brain just exploded.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/08/05/HP/A/36637/Defense+Department+Press+Briefing.aspx

So... wikileaks without authorization makes available on the web classified files.  A pentagon PR flunkie demands that wikileaks, and wikileaks only, return those documents, and keeps emphasizing that they must be returned prior to being deleted?

He goes on to suggest that even though a lot of major news organizations have undoubtedly copied and started reviewing those files, (at about 11:00) "I believe they [the NYT] were allowed to review those documents; I do not believe they are currently in possession of those documents."

Every thing that pentagon spokesman says leads me to believe he's never used, much less seen, a computer.  Why do they have a Luddite handling PR for what is clearly a technological/digital issue/crime?

[BrokenPaw]

My brain just exploded.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/08/05/HP/A/36637/Defense+Department+Press+Briefing.aspx

So... wikileaks without authorization makes available on the web classified files.  A pentagon PR flunkie demands that wikileaks, and wikileaks only, return those documents, and keeps emphasizing that they must be returned prior to being deleted?

Yeah, he should have asked for everyone in possession of those docs to fax them back.  Then we'd be sure we'd gotten them all.

[CNYCacher]

My brain just exploded.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/08/05/HP/A/36637/Defense+Department+Press+Briefing.aspx

So... wikileaks without authorization makes available on the web classified files.  A pentagon PR flunkie demands that wikileaks, and wikileaks only, return those documents, and keeps emphasizing that they must be returned prior to being deleted?

He goes on to suggest that even though a lot of major news organizations have undoubtedly copied and started reviewing those files, (at about 11:00) "I believe they [the NYT] were allowed to review those documents; I do not believe they are currently in possession of those documents."

Every thing that pentagon spokesman says leads me to believe he's never used, much less seen, a computer.  Why do they have a Luddite handling PR for what is clearly a technological/digital issue/crime?

I'm not sure, but I think the 15,000 unreleased documents in question may be what he is talking about

[tyme]

If that were the case, why did he not provide a pgp or s/mime key for wikileaks to use?  "Get the key from foobar.mil/blah and here's the key's hash: ..."

These are unreleased, classified documents after all.  Isn't the military's claim that the documents need to be kept secret belied by their request for the documents to be "returned" without any specific security precautions?

I think from context that he was referring to the entire wikileaks classified military document collection, but that's merely my impression.

I'm tempted to track down his contact info and send him information on how to use web browsers to download (right-click save-as!), and maybe curl and wget instructions just to be safe.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My brain just exploded.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/08/05/HP/A/36637/Defense+Department+Press+Briefing.aspx

So... wikileaks without authorization makes available on the web classified files.  A pentagon PR flunkie demands that wikileaks, and wikileaks only, return those documents, and keeps emphasizing that they must be returned prior to being deleted?

He goes on to suggest that even though a lot of major news organizations have undoubtedly copied and started reviewing those files, (at about 11:00) "I believe they [the NYT] were allowed to review those documents; I do not believe they are currently in possession of those documents."

Every thing that pentagon spokesman says leads me to believe he's never used, much less seen, a computer.  Why do they have a Luddite handling PR for what is clearly a technological/digital issue/crime?

The last place I worked had a policy sorta like that.  If you had any proprietary or sensitive data that belonged to them, they expected you to "return" it (their word, not mine).  By "return", they meant "make a copy for us, hand it over, then delete all other copies".

It actually makes a bit of sense.  By giving them a copy, you're telling/showing them exactly what you had in your possession.  They always said it was for the benefit of the security folks, so that they know what slipped past their guard and was loose in the wild.  I always suspected it was so that they'd have ammunition to use against you in any potential NDA litigation.

And that stuff wasn't even classified.  Classified data handling takes bureaucratic OCD to a whole nother level.

[RaspberrySurprise]

It doesn't help that on nearly every major TV show "uploading" data off a computer magically makes it gone off the computer it was on originally. Some days I wonder if TV is intentionally working to make us stupider.

[tyme]

Okay I can accept that.  Maybe he's not a Luddite.  Maybe he is dissembling.

It was really quite clever of him to couch it in terms of physical property.  "blah blah does not belong to [wikileaks]; [wikileaks] return it all to us, and delete all copies".  One or two reporters were confused like I was, but it makes sense.  Of course they're not concerned about copies that NYT or other news organizations may already have.  They want a copy as close as possible to the format in which wikileaks received it.  They want to use that to help their internal investigation and maybe to aide in future prosecution of Assange or other wikileaks-related persons.

[RevDisk]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0S9XgGg16cmsDSJQVHFzQ97LbjA

They're gonna release the other 15k.

They are allegedly going to redact parts that would get folks killed.

[tyme]

Tempest in a teapot?  DoD review concludes that no sensitive intel sources or methods were disclosed by Wikileaks' initial disclosure last summer.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T2

[tyme]

They released the rest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11612731

[roo_ster]

A couple of interesting confirmations in teh leaked data.

Yes, there were WMDs in Iraq:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wikileaks_proves_wmd_found_in.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

The Soros-funded Lancet (Brit med journal) study of civvie casualties was inflated by 600%:
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2010/10/wages-of-wikileaks-understanding-iraq.html
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wikileaks_nails_the_wild_lancet_scare/

Old news to some, but inconvenient fro many Bush-bashers.

I'd still like to see the petulant Assange go after some real bad guys, some time.  He's like the cop who pulls over my white, 5'-nuthin, 100lbs-maybe wife while driving in the 'hood.  There is a panoply of crime & criminals in every direction, but my wife's out of date inspection sticker is a whole lot safer for the cop to go after.

I'm not the only one with that thought:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/secret-war-at-the-heart-of-wikileaks-2115637.html

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'd still like to see the petulant Assange go after some real bad guys, some time. 

Pull that crap against Russia and you die of radiation poisoning.

[MicroBalrog]

There's a very simple, economical reason about why people whine harder about minor violations of civil rights - or things they perceive as violations, even if they aren't - in decent countries, and ignore places like China and DPRK.

If someone decided that the President of the United States wearing a tie - rather than a bowtie  - to his appearances was a violation of human rights, and they whined hard enough about it, it's quite possible Obama would give in and switch to a bowtie. If they protest about China, China is just going to shrug and ignore them.

[Monkeyleg]

If they protest about China, China is just going to shrug and ignore them.

Or worse.