3 ms·

To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own

To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't know if people at The Guardian really are that misinformed about how encryption works, or if they're just being deceitful.

C19is20 5y ago
sauce?
anonymousiam 5y ago
Given the publicity around the "poison pill" "insurance" archive, it's difficult to believe that anybody could not understand the severity of leaking that password. Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, then David Leigh should be as well. https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html
jude- 5y ago
That's because Julian Assange reused the same password on multiple files. At best, it's terrible opsec on his part. At worst, it was deliberate on his part, so he could plausibly claim no responsibility for the fallout. Either way, unless you can prove malicious intent on The Guardian, they have nothing to admit and Julian has some explaining to do.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  The Guardian has to admit that it was horribly irresponsible to publish a decryption key, and that they are the ones who actually made the unredacted cables available to the public. They've denounced WikiLeaks for the release, without acknowledging that it was The Guardian that actually made the unredacted cables public. The Guardian journalist who published the decryption key to the unredacted cables has subsequently acted in bad faith towards WikiLeaks. He's the same guy who wrote the false story about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, which The Guardian has still not retracted, despite it being almost certainly false.
  - jude- 5y ago
    I take it that you have no evidence of malicious intent, since if you did, you would have linked it. Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that Julian just punked them? It's easy enough to pull off, and honestly more believable from someone who otherwise has impeccable opsec. Just look at the order of events: 1. Julian gives an encrypted file and its key to The Guardian. 2. In February 2011, the key gets published in a book by The Guardian's journalist. 3. In September 2011, it's discovered that the encrypted file is available via BitTorrent, with the key already public in said book. 4. WikiLeaks "helpfully" publishes all the unredacted information later that month, to "ensure" that no "malicious" actors would "selectively" publish it. I have a very hard time believing that security professionals like those who run WikiLeaks would let this happen by accident. Step 4 was probably their end-game all along.

C19is20 5y ago

sauce?

anonymousiam 5y ago

Given the publicity around the "poison pill" "insurance" archive, it's difficult to believe that anybody could not understand the severity of leaking that password. Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, then David Leigh should be as well. https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html

jude- 5y ago

That's because Julian Assange reused the same password on multiple files. At best, it's terrible opsec on his part. At worst, it was deliberate on his part, so he could plausibly claim no responsibility for the fallout. Either way, unless you can prove malicious intent on The Guardian, they have nothing to admit and Julian has some explaining to do.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
The Guardian has to admit that it was horribly irresponsible to publish a decryption key, and that they are the ones who actually made the unredacted cables available to the public. They've denounced WikiLeaks for the release, without acknowledging that it was The Guardian that actually made the unredacted cables public. The Guardian journalist who published the decryption key to the unredacted cables has subsequently acted in bad faith towards WikiLeaks. He's the same guy who wrote the false story about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, which The Guardian has still not retracted, despite it being almost certainly false.
- jude- 5y ago
  I take it that you have no evidence of malicious intent, since if you did, you would have linked it. Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that Julian just punked them? It's easy enough to pull off, and honestly more believable from someone who otherwise has impeccable opsec. Just look at the order of events: 1. Julian gives an encrypted file and its key to The Guardian. 2. In February 2011, the key gets published in a book by The Guardian's journalist. 3. In September 2011, it's discovered that the encrypted file is available via BitTorrent, with the key already public in said book. 4. WikiLeaks "helpfully" publishes all the unredacted information later that month, to "ensure" that no "malicious" actors would "selectively" publish it. I have a very hard time believing that security professionals like those who run WikiLeaks would let this happen by accident. Step 4 was probably their end-game all along.