5 ms·

Pentagon declared Wikileaks as a threat to national security. I we look at The Apache helicopter and Australian internet plans leaks, the government was trying

by man1sh 16y ago

Pentagon declared Wikileaks as a threat to national security. I we look at The Apache helicopter and Australian internet plans leaks, the government was trying to do something wrong, which Wikileaks exposed. Now they have been declared threat to national security. Great progress in hypocrisy.

tptacek 16y ago
That's just about the most generous possible interpretation of what's been happening with Wikileaks. A less generous interpretation: * Wikileaks leaked the video that accompanies a detailed transcript (with quotes) of the same video that appeared in the Washington Post many months beforehand --- a PR black eye to be sure, but in no way a revelation. * Wikileaks has in fact cultivated confidential sources inside DoD and military service agencies that are talking about forwarding cables and other TS-classified material, and is in fact part of a grave threat to national security (which, true, the real "threat" is clearly the negligent lapses in operational security that allow someone like Manning to leak cables in the first place). In other words: Wikileaks is less valuable to society than it seems, and at the same time the government has a legitimate (if misdirected) concern with them.
- barrkel 16y ago
  Do you really believe Manning is the leaker?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I don't care that much, but, what's your theory?
    - barrkel 16y ago
      I just found the whole story a quite odd - the Wired reporter and his friend's difficult to believe story, this low-level kid, the obvious desire - and leaked plans - of the US to find and punish leakers to discredit Wikileaks. I don't care that much either. On net, I think Wikileaks is a good thing, but I've never donated and never would until they are more transparent about their own operations. Re that video, the first half wasn't what disturbed me, but rather the firing of the missiles into the building in the second half. But there's an obvious strategy for the US to discredit Wikileaks, and that's to find someone - anyone - that appears to have leaked to them, and come down hard on them. Finding an oddball kid suits the story they want to tell, irrelevant of how guilty he may be. But the Wired stuff is just off the wall odd.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Doesn't it bother you that without reliable evidence, you can make a similarly credible narrative out of almost anything else? Maybe it was the Bush-era DoD people who leaked the story to discredit the Obama administration! You can't prove a negative. I'm working under the assumption that someone named Manning did in fact do something stupid with Wikileaks, which did indeed encourage him to do that stupid thing. That Wikileaks is encouraging stupid people to do stupid things is something that bothers me about Wikileaks; that stupid people are given access sufficient to do stupid and damaging things is something that bothers me about the DoD.
        barrkel 16y ago
        I don't think Wikileaks encourages stupid behaviour - as I understand it, the input avenue is primarily an file upload field. As to evidence (in the legal sense), I don't have any one way or the other that Manning had anything to do with the leak. I just have media reports, which sound really weird, which makes me not give them much weight.
        tptacek 16y ago
        Regardless of how (say) Manning conveyed files to Wikileaks, leaking classified-TS cables is manifestly stupid. One doubts most of the people who might help Wikileaks from inside the DoD have any idea what they're actually doing. My guess is that it all seems unreal, happening as it does on the always fake-seeming Internet using computers that make everything seem like chat room drama.
        barrkel 16y ago
        Do you have evidence that classified top secret cables were leaked? That one is easy to prove. A quick Google search, though, seems to only turn up rumours. The only direct source of much of the rumours seems to be the completely unbelievable Wired story. The Salon story on Wired's reporting is the primary reason I don't trust it, nor anything implied by it on other sites: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18...
- torpor 16y ago
  >threat to national security The real threat to national security is the predominance of special-interest groups who are currently in control of the US Military machine, having it fight un-just, disgusting wars, in the name of the United States of America. The true threat to national security is the Pentagon itself, which simply wouldn't be necessary if it weren't creating its own reasons for war around the world. You want real national security? Stand down your soldiers, America. That is the only true way to be secure in your beds, Americans.

by man1sh 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

That's just about the most generous possible interpretation of what's been happening with Wikileaks. A less generous interpretation: * Wikileaks leaked the video that accompanies a detailed transcript (with quotes) of the same video that appeared in the Washington Post many months beforehand --- a PR black eye to be sure, but in no way a revelation. * Wikileaks has in fact cultivated confidential sources inside DoD and military service agencies that are talking about forwarding cables and other TS-classified material, and is in fact part of a grave threat to national security (which, true, the real "threat" is clearly the negligent lapses in operational security that allow someone like Manning to leak cables in the first place). In other words: Wikileaks is less valuable to society than it seems, and at the same time the government has a legitimate (if misdirected) concern with them.

barrkel 16y ago
Do you really believe Manning is the leaker?
- tptacek 16y ago
  I don't care that much, but, what's your theory?
  - barrkel 16y ago
    I just found the whole story a quite odd - the Wired reporter and his friend's difficult to believe story, this low-level kid, the obvious desire - and leaked plans - of the US to find and punish leakers to discredit Wikileaks. I don't care that much either. On net, I think Wikileaks is a good thing, but I've never donated and never would until they are more transparent about their own operations. Re that video, the first half wasn't what disturbed me, but rather the firing of the missiles into the building in the second half. But there's an obvious strategy for the US to discredit Wikileaks, and that's to find someone - anyone - that appears to have leaked to them, and come down hard on them. Finding an oddball kid suits the story they want to tell, irrelevant of how guilty he may be. But the Wired stuff is just off the wall odd.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Doesn't it bother you that without reliable evidence, you can make a similarly credible narrative out of almost anything else? Maybe it was the Bush-era DoD people who leaked the story to discredit the Obama administration! You can't prove a negative. I'm working under the assumption that someone named Manning did in fact do something stupid with Wikileaks, which did indeed encourage him to do that stupid thing. That Wikileaks is encouraging stupid people to do stupid things is something that bothers me about Wikileaks; that stupid people are given access sufficient to do stupid and damaging things is something that bothers me about the DoD.
      - barrkel 16y ago
        I don't think Wikileaks encourages stupid behaviour - as I understand it, the input avenue is primarily an file upload field. As to evidence (in the legal sense), I don't have any one way or the other that Manning had anything to do with the leak. I just have media reports, which sound really weird, which makes me not give them much weight.
        tptacek 16y ago
        Regardless of how (say) Manning conveyed files to Wikileaks, leaking classified-TS cables is manifestly stupid. One doubts most of the people who might help Wikileaks from inside the DoD have any idea what they're actually doing. My guess is that it all seems unreal, happening as it does on the always fake-seeming Internet using computers that make everything seem like chat room drama.
        barrkel 16y ago
        Do you have evidence that classified top secret cables were leaked? That one is easy to prove. A quick Google search, though, seems to only turn up rumours. The only direct source of much of the rumours seems to be the completely unbelievable Wired story. The Salon story on Wired's reporting is the primary reason I don't trust it, nor anything implied by it on other sites: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18...
torpor 16y ago
>threat to national security The real threat to national security is the predominance of special-interest groups who are currently in control of the US Military machine, having it fight un-just, disgusting wars, in the name of the United States of America. The true threat to national security is the Pentagon itself, which simply wouldn't be necessary if it weren't creating its own reasons for war around the world. You want real national security? Stand down your soldiers, America. That is the only true way to be secure in your beds, Americans.