14 ms·

Oops Wikileaks: Informants Who Aided U.S. Named in Classified Reports

27 points by donohoe 16y ago

cma 16y ago
Preliminary statement from the government, without giving detailed independently verifiable information that could be used to confirm the safety claims; I guess we'll have to wait on a leak to know whether this was a real concern or part of an anti-wikileaks strategy.
- pvg 16y ago
  "A search by The New York Times through a sampling of the documents released by the organization WikiLeaks found reports that gave the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing credible information to American and NATO troops."
  - HNer 16y ago
    they continued 'But the 75,000 documents WikiLeaks put online provide information about possible informants, like their villages and in some cases their fathers’ names. '
mynameishere 16y ago
Does "wikileaks" provide any service beyond promoting the material it is given? I mean, if I wanted to leak classified data, I can think of lots of ways that would be as technically effective and much, much safer than handing it to wikileaks.
- mkelly 16y ago
  Their strategy, as I recall, is to make sure the information remains available even when it's politically unpopular. E.g., they provided info about Kaupthing when some media in Iceland was gagged: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikileaks#Bank_Julius_Baer_lawsuit https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikileaks#Ban...
grandalf 16y ago
So I imagine that this gives the moral high ground back to the US Government? (sarcasm)
nphase 16y ago
Hopefully nobody gets killed over this...
- viggity 16y ago
  Whoever leaked this is guilty of treason, and if any of the informants get killed over this, the leaker should executed.
jacquesm 16y ago
Not oops wikileaks, oops US that can not keep their secrets bottled up and/or convince their personel that it is to every bodies advantage to keep those secrets safe. This really is collateral damage, but of a different kind than the one where a village gets blown up in order to get a few insurgents. (and creating a whole pile of new insurgents in the process). Don't blame the messenger, wikileaks really is just a dumb pipe (in spite of their aspirations), the person that leaked this carries the responsibility, both the good and the bad, and his superiors carry the responsibility for allowing that person access when they apparently could not trust him.
- drcode 16y ago
  Another news organization would have withheld their names, so your "blame the leaker" argument doesn't seem very convincing.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    In spite of their ambition to be seen as a 'news organisation' I don't agree with that. Wikileaks is just a dumb pipe that vets information for basic correctness and then throws it before the wolves. They shouldn't change the data in any way because that would mean a measure of editorial control and hence responsibility, also, once you start censoring some of the data you are on a slippery slope. What they did with their collateral damage video was utterly stupid, it has reduced their status tremendously in my opinion. Their latest play to become the CNN of leaked data is a further move away from what they stood for. They're now actively turning themselves in to an anti-war propaganda machine. Maybe we need one, I don't know but wikileaks was an invaluable resource the way it was, it has become strongly tainted.
    - drcode 16y ago
      I agree that their past editorialism hurts their credibility. As you say, it really undercuts the "big dumb pipe" argument as a defense whenever there is collateral damage from leaked information. I really hope Julian Assange can figure out how to navigate the many minefields involved in a site like wikileaks.
tomjen3 16y ago
Not really, it is not wikileaks job to care about either side of the war. Just because the western powers favor one side, doesn't require wikileaks to do the same.
drcode 16y ago
I really like wikileaks in principle, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that 6 months from now the Obama administration will give a report naming some random Afghan, exposed in the wikileaks files, who was killed by the Taliban in reprisal. That will be the beginning of the end of wikileaks.

27 points by donohoe 16y ago

cma 16y ago

Preliminary statement from the government, without giving detailed independently verifiable information that could be used to confirm the safety claims; I guess we'll have to wait on a leak to know whether this was a real concern or part of an anti-wikileaks strategy.

pvg 16y ago
"A search by The New York Times through a sampling of the documents released by the organization WikiLeaks found reports that gave the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing credible information to American and NATO troops."
- HNer 16y ago
  they continued 'But the 75,000 documents WikiLeaks put online provide information about possible informants, like their villages and in some cases their fathers’ names. '

mynameishere 16y ago

Does "wikileaks" provide any service beyond promoting the material it is given? I mean, if I wanted to leak classified data, I can think of lots of ways that would be as technically effective and much, much safer than handing it to wikileaks.

mkelly 16y ago
Their strategy, as I recall, is to make sure the information remains available even when it's politically unpopular. E.g., they provided info about Kaupthing when some media in Iceland was gagged: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikileaks#Bank_Julius_Baer_lawsuit https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikileaks#Ban...

grandalf 16y ago

So I imagine that this gives the moral high ground back to the US Government? (sarcasm)

nphase 16y ago

Hopefully nobody gets killed over this...

viggity 16y ago
Whoever leaked this is guilty of treason, and if any of the informants get killed over this, the leaker should executed.

jacquesm 16y ago

Not oops wikileaks, oops US that can not keep their secrets bottled up and/or convince their personel that it is to every bodies advantage to keep those secrets safe. This really is collateral damage, but of a different kind than the one where a village gets blown up in order to get a few insurgents. (and creating a whole pile of new insurgents in the process). Don't blame the messenger, wikileaks really is just a dumb pipe (in spite of their aspirations), the person that leaked this carries the responsibility, both the good and the bad, and his superiors carry the responsibility for allowing that person access when they apparently could not trust him.

drcode 16y ago
Another news organization would have withheld their names, so your "blame the leaker" argument doesn't seem very convincing.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  In spite of their ambition to be seen as a 'news organisation' I don't agree with that. Wikileaks is just a dumb pipe that vets information for basic correctness and then throws it before the wolves. They shouldn't change the data in any way because that would mean a measure of editorial control and hence responsibility, also, once you start censoring some of the data you are on a slippery slope. What they did with their collateral damage video was utterly stupid, it has reduced their status tremendously in my opinion. Their latest play to become the CNN of leaked data is a further move away from what they stood for. They're now actively turning themselves in to an anti-war propaganda machine. Maybe we need one, I don't know but wikileaks was an invaluable resource the way it was, it has become strongly tainted.
  - drcode 16y ago
    I agree that their past editorialism hurts their credibility. As you say, it really undercuts the "big dumb pipe" argument as a defense whenever there is collateral damage from leaked information. I really hope Julian Assange can figure out how to navigate the many minefields involved in a site like wikileaks.

tomjen3 16y ago

Not really, it is not wikileaks job to care about either side of the war. Just because the western powers favor one side, doesn't require wikileaks to do the same.

drcode 16y ago

I really like wikileaks in principle, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that 6 months from now the Obama administration will give a report naming some random Afghan, exposed in the wikileaks files, who was killed by the Taliban in reprisal. That will be the beginning of the end of wikileaks.