Comments on: The US government's war on Wikileaks http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Wed, 22 May 2013 00:19:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: glaborous immolate http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746758 glaborous immolate Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746758 A piece of information might appear reprehensible to someone who lacks full knowledge of the context of the piece of leaked information. The low-level leaker better hope he knows enough about the context as well, because otherwise the leak might not be justified. A piece of information might appear reprehensible to someone who lacks full knowledge of the context of the piece of leaked information.

The low-level leaker better hope he knows enough about the context as well, because otherwise the leak might not be justified.

]]> By: MadMolecule http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747532 MadMolecule Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747532 LiudvikasT said, "Leaks are always justified." I disagree, and figured I'd try to get him/her to elaborate on the statement. Does some part of that bother you for some reason? LiudvikasT said, “Leaks are always justified.” I disagree, and figured I’d try to get him/her to elaborate on the statement. Does some part of that bother you for some reason?

]]> By: MadRat http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747280 MadRat Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747280 Change you can believe in. *sigh* Change you can believe in. *sigh*

]]> By: LiudvikasT http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747045 LiudvikasT Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747045 Leaks are always justified. The very idea that the government keeps secrets from its citizens makes me sick to my stomach. As government is by the people, for the people, it is always fair game to leak the secret. It is every citizens duty to leak those secrets if they have access to be able. Once more - all governments secrets must be leaked, no exceptions. NO EXCEPTIONS. Leaks are always justified.
The very idea that the government keeps secrets from its citizens makes me sick to my stomach.
As government is by the people, for the people, it is always fair game to leak the secret. It is every citizens duty to leak those secrets if they have access to be able.

Once more – all governments secrets must be leaked, no exceptions. NO EXCEPTIONS.

]]> By: MadMolecule http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746790 MadMolecule Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746790 While I can see valid points on both sides of this issue, I definitely can't see how "expos[ing] U.S. military plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and endanger[ing] the military mission" could be rephrased as "avoiding embarassment." While I can see valid points on both sides of this issue, I definitely can’t see how “expos[ing] U.S. military plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and endanger[ing] the military mission” could be rephrased as “avoiding embarassment.”

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747063 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747063 I'll suggest it. Leaked information may provide a threat to operational security, but WikiLeaks isn't creating that, it's simply collecting it in one place. It might make it a bit easier to find, but once it's out there, someone determined can make use of it regardless. Plus this goes both ways: it's easier to find, but it's also easier to know it's been found. A secret that shows up on WikiLeaks is one the military knows has been compromised. You can adjust your plans accordingly, rather than being suprised by what your opponents have discovered, and to some extent that could even help operational security. So no, I'm not convinced it significantly adds to the threat. I’ll suggest it. Leaked information may provide a threat to operational security, but WikiLeaks isn’t creating that, it’s simply collecting it in one place. It might make it a bit easier to find, but once it’s out there, someone determined can make use of it regardless.

Plus this goes both ways: it’s easier to find, but it’s also easier to know it’s been found. A secret that shows up on WikiLeaks is one the military knows has been compromised. You can adjust your plans accordingly, rather than being suprised by what your opponents have discovered, and to some extent that could even help operational security.

So no, I’m not convinced it significantly adds to the threat.

]]> By: zikzak http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746828 zikzak Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746828 <i>use Freenet, someone will get a search warrant to find child porn, child porn may be found, and you'll be nailed to the wall</i> Though you may be well intentioned, you're spreading FUD, and it's harmful to the cause of internet anonymity because it scares people off using Freenet without cause. From the <a href="http://freenetproject.org/faq.html#legal">Freenet FAQ</a>: <i>"We don't currently know of any prosecutions for using merely using Freenet. [...] We have done everything we can to make it extremely difficult for any sane legal system to justify punishing someone for running a Freenet node, and there is little precedent for such action in today's developed countries."</i> use Freenet, someone will get a search warrant to find child porn, child porn may be found, and you’ll be nailed to the wall

Though you may be well intentioned, you’re spreading FUD, and it’s harmful to the cause of internet anonymity because it scares people off using Freenet without cause.

From the Freenet FAQ: “We don’t currently know of any prosecutions for using merely using Freenet. [...] We have done everything we can to make it extremely difficult for any sane legal system to justify punishing someone for running a Freenet node, and there is little precedent for such action in today’s developed countries.”

]]> By: pef http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-956303 pef Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-956303 I haven't checked, but according to this reddit post it seems it's already mirrored on freenet, which is precisely the kind of alternative anonymous network you're looking for : http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/eevp8/why_isnt_wikileaks_on_freenet/ I haven’t checked, but according to this reddit post it seems it’s already mirrored on freenet, which is precisely the kind of alternative anonymous network you’re looking for :
http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/eevp8/why_isnt_wikileaks_on_freenet/

]]> By: hungryjoe http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746656 hungryjoe Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746656 Are you suggesting that WikiLeaks poses no real threat to opsec? Are you suggesting that WikiLeaks poses no real threat to opsec?

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746657 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746657 Avoiding embarrassment? Wikileaks has openly published vulnerabilities of U.S. military systems and personnel. That's not "whistleblowing", that's -- something else. See, for example: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/warlock-wikilea/ Avoiding embarrassment? Wikileaks has openly published vulnerabilities of U.S. military systems and personnel. That’s not “whistleblowing”, that’s — something else. See, for example:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/warlock-wikilea/

]]> By: LiudvikasT http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747942 LiudvikasT Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747942 MadMolecule, yes that leak would be justified. I repeat once more - GOVERNMENT CANT HAVE SECRETS. It is a privilege only awarded to individuals. MadMolecule, yes that leak would be justified. I repeat once more – GOVERNMENT CANT HAVE SECRETS. It is a privilege only awarded to individuals.

]]> By: IRC http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746664 IRC Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746664 OpSec. OpSec. OpSec. I feel cool just typing it. Also: the Leave a Comment link doesn't seem to work in the mobile version of the site. Safari. iPhone. It just did...nothing when tapped upon. OpSec. OpSec. OpSec.

I feel cool just typing it.

Also: the Leave a Comment link doesn’t seem to work in the mobile version of the site. Safari. iPhone. It just did…nothing when tapped upon.

]]> By: Kerov http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746670 Kerov Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746670 Wikileaks meaningfully threatens the Government's ability to override its own employees' moral judgment. Because make no mistake: the original leakers are, by definition, trusted government agents. In the past, such people had no low-risk options for exposing secret government behavior that they found immoral or reprehensible. The best they could do is go to the press and hope the reporter didn't reveal his source, or they could simply go overtly public and let the government imprison them and financially ruin their families. Wikileaks forces a culture shift in government: simply designating something as "secret" is no longer sufficient to make it so. Secrecy will only be preserved if those entrusted with the secret don't find it morally outrageous. Wikileaks meaningfully threatens the Government’s ability to override its own employees’ moral judgment.

Because make no mistake: the original leakers are, by definition, trusted government agents.

In the past, such people had no low-risk options for exposing secret government behavior that they found immoral or reprehensible. The best they could do is go to the press and hope the reporter didn’t reveal his source, or they could simply go overtly public and let the government imprison them and financially ruin their families.

Wikileaks forces a culture shift in government: simply designating something as “secret” is no longer sufficient to make it so. Secrecy will only be preserved if those entrusted with the secret don’t find it morally outrageous.

]]> By: hacky http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747183 hacky Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747183 The Government doesn't like having documents it wants secret made public? Ya don't say. The Government doesn’t like having documents it wants secret made public?
Ya don’t say.

]]> By: M http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746687 M Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746687 I wonder if a model could be developed for web sites similar to BitTorrent, where the information would reside everywhere, be easily accessible to all, and knocking out one location would have no effect. It seems like this would be a desirable thing, and a worthwhile open source type of project. I wonder if a model could be developed for web sites similar to BitTorrent, where the information would reside everywhere, be easily accessible to all, and knocking out one location would have no effect. It seems like this would be a desirable thing, and a worthwhile open source type of project.

]]> By: hungryjoe http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746688 hungryjoe Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746688 I don't know much about WikiLeaks. Is there any mechanism in place to prevent exposure of secrets that aren't reprehensible? Or do we operate on the assumption that the government only makes reprehensible activity secret? I suspect that there are many government employees who might like to expose secrets purely for the joy of exposing them. Imagine, for instance, a low-level Defense Department employee just bursting to tell the world the US plans to invade the Marjah province in February. WikiLeaks publishes the plans, and the next thing you know, our Marines and Afghan civilians have to face thousands of IEDs and snipers. I don’t know much about WikiLeaks. Is there any mechanism in place to prevent exposure of secrets that aren’t reprehensible? Or do we operate on the assumption that the government only makes reprehensible activity secret?

I suspect that there are many government employees who might like to expose secrets purely for the joy of exposing them. Imagine, for instance, a low-level Defense Department employee just bursting to tell the world the US plans to invade the Marjah province in February. WikiLeaks publishes the plans, and the next thing you know, our Marines and Afghan civilians have to face thousands of IEDs and snipers.

]]> By: MadMolecule http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747464 MadMolecule Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747464 LiudvikasT: Suppose the US finds out where bin Laden is, and has plans to capture and/or kill him. Now suppose someone leaks those plans onto the Internet, and bin Laden reads it. The planned surprise attack on his camp is instead an ambush, and Osama puts another thirty notches on his "Death to America" belt. Is that a justified leak? LiudvikasT: Suppose the US finds out where bin Laden is, and has plans to capture and/or kill him. Now suppose someone leaks those plans onto the Internet, and bin Laden reads it. The planned surprise attack on his camp is instead an ambush, and Osama puts another thirty notches on his “Death to America” belt.

Is that a justified leak?

]]> By: bhtooefr http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746697 bhtooefr Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746697 It's called Freenet. Problem is, while it does give plausible deniability for the content that you have on your machine... a government could argue that it was installed to give an alibi, and apparently it's used for child porn quite a lot, meaning you run a very high risk of getting child porn on your machine. And many governments (US, UK, AU, at the very least) and their people have proven that reason doesn't come into play when child porn is involved. So, use Freenet, someone will get a search warrant to find child porn, child porn may be found, and you'll be nailed to the wall, whether you intended for it to be there or not. It’s called Freenet. Problem is, while it does give plausible deniability for the content that you have on your machine… a government could argue that it was installed to give an alibi, and apparently it’s used for child porn quite a lot, meaning you run a very high risk of getting child porn on your machine. And many governments (US, UK, AU, at the very least) and their people have proven that reason doesn’t come into play when child porn is involved.

So, use Freenet, someone will get a search warrant to find child porn, child porn may be found, and you’ll be nailed to the wall, whether you intended for it to be there or not.

]]> By: Xenu http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746966 Xenu Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746966 The average Joe hasn't heard of Freenet, and even if he has, do you seriously think he's going to spend hours and hours figuring out how to use it? The average Joe hasn’t heard of Freenet, and even if he has, do you seriously think he’s going to spend hours and hours figuring out how to use it?

]]> By: avt_tor http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746719 avt_tor Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746719 Wikileaks doesn't affect operational security. Pentagon staff have always been able to find foreign agencies or American news outlets to give or sell information to if they are so inclined. US intelligence agencies have many processes to identify leaks, if they are important enough to chase down. Wikileaks doesn’t affect operational security. Pentagon staff have always been able to find foreign agencies or American news outlets to give or sell information to if they are so inclined. US intelligence agencies have many processes to identify leaks, if they are important enough to chase down.

]]> By: Ugly Canuck http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-747488 Ugly Canuck Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-747488 Hey make up some more examples for us! They are so entertaining. Omniscient beings are always so right. Hey make up some more examples for us! They are so entertaining.

Omniscient beings are always so right.

]]> By: Kerov http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-746721 Kerov Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-746721 The mechanism that prevents Wikileaks from exposing secrets that "aren't reprehensible" is the morality of each individual entrusted with that secret. The same thing that currently prevents those same individuals from selling secrets to the enemy. I'd rather accept the hypothetical risk that a psychopathic-yet-trusted government agent will get his kicks by feeding Wikileaks, rather than tolerate the definitely <b>not</b> hypothetical abuse of "state secrets laws" to cover-up embarrassing and immoral government actions. The mechanism that prevents Wikileaks from exposing secrets that “aren’t reprehensible” is the morality of each individual entrusted with that secret. The same thing that currently prevents those same individuals from selling secrets to the enemy.

I’d rather accept the hypothetical risk that a psychopathic-yet-trusted government agent will get his kicks by feeding Wikileaks, rather than tolerate the definitely not hypothetical abuse of “state secrets laws” to cover-up embarrassing and immoral government actions.

]]> By: MadMolecule http://boingboing.net/2010/03/29/the-us-governments-w.html#comment-748282 MadMolecule Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-748282 Thanks for the follow-up, LiudvikasT. I disagree, but y'know, "so many flavors of ice cream" and all that. Thanks for the follow-up, LiudvikasT. I disagree, but y’know, “so many flavors of ice cream” and all that.

]]>