Wikileaks Vows Release '7x the Size' of Iraq Leak 491
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the learn-the-truth-about-the-yellow-turban-rebellion dept.
from the learn-the-truth-about-the-yellow-turban-rebellion dept.
CWmike writes "WikiLeaks has promised to release a load of information seven times bigger than the Iraq War Logs, which raised the Internet group's profile around the world and caused some nations to take notice of the issue of leaks of top-secret documents online. In a note on Twitter, WikiLeaks said, 'Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs. Intense pressure over it for months,' and asked supporters to continue donating to the cause. WikiLeaks did not say what the new release of information would be about."
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Donating (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, the justice department has this handy legal billy club called RICO...
Probably not if you're donating $5 or $10, but if you were donating a large sum of money, say $10,000, then....
Other countries have Security Services...some of which are known for their ruthless efficiency.
Top Secret? (Score:4, Informative)
which raised the Internet group's profile around the world and caused some nations to take notice of the issue of leaks of top-secret documents online
Have any of the documents leaked been Top Secret? According the reports I've read, the highest level of classification in these leaks has been Secret.
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:2, Informative)
Mossad will just kill you and the KGB(or whatever three letter acronym they're using these days) will find a creative way of killing you.
More than likely they would killed the person who leaked to Wikileaks, not members of Wikileaks. Because of this, it's unlikely they would receive anything to leak about countries like that.
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:4, Informative)
I think this is a distraction. Wikileaks is about more than just the 'US v. *' set of conflicts; if you look back at the past several years you can see a number of reports they've made that have entirely to do with individual non-US corporate concerns, domestic issues in a host of countries, etc.
The stuff you hear now is largely due to the size (both of the apparatus and the leak) and that the bloodied nose is the US, and therefor important.
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. They care about doing what they think is good. What they don't care about is if you agree with what they think is good.
Practically no one ever considers themselves "the bad guy" even guys like saddam hussein, idi amin and the khmer rouge all rationalized their actions as somehow being for the greater good.
Personally, I think wikileaks is well over the line into the territory of "good" -- I'm just saying the argument that someone thinks they are doing good doesn't necessarily make it so.
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:1, Informative)
Nee nalavana ketavan?
The first time I'm seeing tamil on slashdot. Awesome!
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:3, Informative)
And all they have is their opinion, because even the Department of Defense was forced to admit [slashdot.org] that the facts do not back that position.
So that's one leg of your dichotomy taken out. All that's left is that Wikileaks is doing a good thing. Funny, who would have thought that freedom of speech could actually work?
Aljazeera != Aljazeera (Score:5, Informative)
Careful, it is important to discriminate the Aljazeeras on the internet.
There is "english.aljazeera.net", which is a more or less factual, reliable news source from an arab perspective (think arab CNN). This is the "real" Aljazeera with the global TV channel.
Then there is "aljazeera.com", which is a trashy islamist/extremist propaganda website disguised as a news outlet (think FoxNews).
Re:Donating (Score:5, Informative)
That is, if you compare them to real-world standards (private industry and other governments), instead of an idealized standard of perfection. (E.g. people who carp about medicare fraud without ever considering that insurance fraud affects all insurers).
Re:Top Secret? (Score:3, Informative)
Top Secret isn't even high as classification levels go. My wife and I both had TS clearances in the Navy, and we were just mid-level NCO's.
Re:us focused (Score:3, Informative)
Wikileaks has leaked plenty about other governments, as well as corporations local and foreign. Heck it used to be the case that the majority was non-US. I've not looked in a while, but that could still be the case.
The problem is that its the US leaks that get all the Attention in the US news (not to mention that much of what they have on other governments just is not as "juicy" as some of the US leaks).
If you have have a copy of the Taliban's membership roster, or North Koera's nuclear plans, or something similar, Wikileaks would be more than happy to publish that.
Re:NO! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Aljazeera != Aljazeera (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9019 [charlierose.com]
In fact he said the opposite, that the network used to focus on serious news and now focuses too much on opinion pieces and lighter news segments for more appeal.
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:3, Informative)
That probably because TS is more protected (Score:3, Informative)
The higher the classification, the more that is done to protect the data. For example Confidential data, which is a level of classification, basically just means "Don't show this to anyone k?" You don't have to have a security clearance to see it. Secret requires a clearance, however it isn't as hard to get as higher level ones. There are also technical safeguards taken for the data, but not as much as some others. At Top Secret is starts to get pretty serious. The background check is much more intense, as are the restrictions on what you can personally do. The technical safeguards are also higher. While Secret data has its own network (SIPRNET) Ts data has its own network again, more secure.
Also a lot of TS data is actually TS/SCI (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information). More or less what this means is that not only do you have to be cleared Top Secret, but you have to get cleared in to the specific compartment. So just having TS clearance and a need to know the information isn't good enough, you have to be cleared in to that particular compartment and clearance for one isn't the same as clearance for another.
Now none of that means it is impervious, of course, but the more classified something is, the harder it'll be for someone to get their hands on it. The cables that were leaked were more or less classified Secret just because they were via the embassy and that stuff is considered sensitive be default. None of it was particularly special, they didn't take any extra precautions in terms of its transmission and so on.
To give you a simple sort of example:
That the NSA is headquartered inside Fort Meade is public.
That someone works there is probably Confidential.
That they work as a code breaker is probably Secret.
The results of their work is probably Top Secret.
The methods use to get the data for them is probably TS/SCI.
Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys? (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but your information is outdated. They are no longer [thelocal.se] with PRQ. Admittedly, that news is from only two days ago.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Informative)
For FY2009 Military is 23%
Military budget and total US federal spending [wikipedia.org]:
"Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues."
To say that around half of your tax is spent on the military is about right. And then there is the Department of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security etc. which are don't appear in the military budget.
Of the defense budget, some of that is paying off debt from previous wars, and things like pensions.
Not true; these are not part of the military budget. Military budget of the United States [wikipedia.org]:
"This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA."
I Wrote Some of the Leaks (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go, lazy prick. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.thelocal.se/19376/20090511/ [thelocal.se]
Discussions of rape nowadays use examples of women who are asleep, or have taken drugs or drunk too much alcohol, in order to argue that they cannot properly consent to sex. If they feel taken advantage of the next day, they may call what happened rape. The Daphne project’s Sweden researchers propose that those accused of rape ought to have to ‘prove consent’, but attempts to legislate and document seduction and desire are unlikely to succeed.
I'm sure someone who speaks the language can provide some case law, but I'm sure you'd demand to see the original documents.
PS Obama was born in Hawaii. True story.
Re:WikiLeaks scared of a real challenge (Score:3, Informative)
It's easy to pick on democracies. I'd love to see them blow the lid on countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea. They are consistently targeting the wrong guys.
That rather depends on the citizens of Iran, Syria or North Korea doing something about it, don't you think?
Wikileaks aren't fucking International Spies R Us.