3 ms·

Which is essentially their most important form of communication, with the website only being used to host documents these days.

ErrantX 17y ago
It won't take much to turn this into a headline like "Wikileaks detained by US" (this is the first step...[1]). When all it is so far is unverified postings on the Wikileaks Twitter feed. Is it a publicity stunt? Paranoia? Or the real thing? We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity - but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons. I might be slightly more cynical this week because of their last piece of paranoia the other week ;) 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1216034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1216034
- dsplittgerber 17y ago
  Sure, their PR methods are edgy. But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security, due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger", and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of whisteblowers etc. What makes you think Wikileaks is being paranoid instead of realistic?
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    They said that the US Army had attacked them and were planning to shut them down. Which, if you read the document, was not actually the case.
    - dsplittgerber 17y ago
      Please point to any news article that actually says that. Quote from the NYT: "Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical. “It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any real harm being done.” " http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&sq=wikileaks&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&s... If I may say, you do seem to be quick with your assumptions, in this case.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Im not sure why a news article is needed... Wikileaks themselves said: U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks I admit where I said attacked in the parent that was never explicitly stated; but the emphasis was heavily on the breathy kind of "OMG we were under attack" type. Honestly I didnt see anything particularly revelatory in the document deserving of such breathless excitement :D

ErrantX 17y ago

It won't take much to turn this into a headline like "Wikileaks detained by US" (this is the first step...[1]). When all it is so far is unverified postings on the Wikileaks Twitter feed. Is it a publicity stunt? Paranoia? Or the real thing? We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity - but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons. I might be slightly more cynical this week because of their last piece of paranoia the other week ;) 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1216034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1216034

dsplittgerber 17y ago
Sure, their PR methods are edgy. But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security, due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger", and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of whisteblowers etc. What makes you think Wikileaks is being paranoid instead of realistic?
- ErrantX 17y ago
  They said that the US Army had attacked them and were planning to shut them down. Which, if you read the document, was not actually the case.
  - dsplittgerber 17y ago
    Please point to any news article that actually says that. Quote from the NYT: "Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical. “It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any real harm being done.” " http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&sq=wikileaks&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&s... If I may say, you do seem to be quick with your assumptions, in this case.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Im not sure why a news article is needed... Wikileaks themselves said: U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks I admit where I said attacked in the parent that was never explicitly stated; but the emphasis was heavily on the breathy kind of "OMG we were under attack" type. Honestly I didnt see anything particularly revelatory in the document deserving of such breathless excitement :D