10 ms·

WikiLeaks: The Spy Files

298 points by Tsiolkovsky 15y ago

blhack 15y ago
Wow they really need to redesign the layout on that page. It took me about a minute and a half to realize that this was more than just a blog post about echelon. The actual files are on the left, in that ~100px wide container. Here are some brochures from companies that do this stuff: http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/list/document-type/brochure.html http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/list/document-type/brochure.ht... (The 3G thing is the only part of this that is really surprising. Intercepting wifi isn't really that impressive) Here is a pricelist of some tech that is, I guess, being sold in Europe: http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/204_GRIFFCOMM-200802-PRICELIST.pdf http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/204_GRIFFCOMM-200802-P... (Honestly none of this seems very...leaky. Isn't most of this fairly common knowledge to anybody who even reads about hacker conferences?)
- TDL 15y ago
  It could be that this is an attempt to consolidate that information and push it towards a mass audience. I haven't read any of the files, so I have no idea what they contain.
- DasIch 15y ago
  Those companies don't exactly advertise to everyone nor do they want to. Even if some people were aware of this before I doubt that most were truly aware of the scale. Even so, if all this does is raise awareness among the average (news watching) people this has already been worthwhile.
- jdp23 15y ago
  The Wall Street Journal's Surveillance Catalog, which includes some of the same companies, has a much nicer interface although a lot less information: http://projects.wsj.com/surveillance-catalog/ http://projects.wsj.com/surveillance-catalog/
- guimarin 15y ago
  this is more about thin-thread than it is about echelon. echelon and 'echelon II' haven't been used since before 9.11.2001.
  - Zarathust 15y ago
    Source?
    - guimarin 15y ago
      you're joking right?
nextparadigms 15y ago
It seems like every other day one more of those "conspiracy theories" is confirmed and proven true.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  That statement is rather difficult to evaluate without knowing what such theories you're referring to.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  my theory is that slowly and measuredly leaking confirmations to the old, well established conspiracy theories, They create a managed well controlled sideshow ( if They wanted to take Wikileaks down - They would already have ) which takes attention, imagination and investigative effort off the new developments :)
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  What conspiracy theory? None of this is even secret nor a leak! Any one of us could have gotten a lot of this by simply asking. We just don't because we have no need for it. Super top secret spy equipment that no one is supposed to find out about doesn't get sold with effing brochures! The guys in the marketing department probably knew all about this and they probably didn't even have or need a security clearance. This is nothing more than B2B marketing. Yeah they're really specialized and not really well known but it's still just everyday B2B marketing. I seriously can't believe the hype this is getting.
runjake 15y ago
Can anyone point us to a torrent for these files? If not, why not? Every time the Wikileaks site(s) get taken offline for one reason or another, we lose access to valuable data. The bottom of the page states "courage is contagious". I'd submit that torrents are even more contagious. Get this stuff on torrents, so it never leaves the Internet for pete's sake!
- onemoreact 15y ago
  It's easy to find the IP of anyone who downloads such a torrent which may or may not be important, but would prevent many people from downloading that information.
  - runjake 15y ago
    There's a wealth of people in countries all over the world who fail to give a damn about this fact, myself included.
  - lwat 15y ago
    That doesn't mean you can't have both options.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    But many people would be happy to torrent and then mirror. You just need to find trusted mirror. I accept that's a tricky problem.
adunn 15y ago
Well, I don't see Carrier IQ in the list ;)
fsaintjacques 15y ago
Look at this file: http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/110_CELLEBRITE-UFED.pdf http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/110_CELLEBRITE-UFED.pd... Was it intended that a typical shady lawyer/congressman secret deal appears on the left?
dangrossman 15y ago
It's somewhat disconcerting that clicking through to some of these files, I worry there's probably some government agency somewhere along the round trip recording the fact that I've read Wikileaks documents, and that could be held against me any time in the future.
- aw3c2 15y ago
  I would love to share some of these with my social network but I will surely not post this at ("into") Facebook
- cb18 15y ago
  the only thing you have to fear, is fear itself
  - maqr 15y ago
    Well, that, and apparently mass surveillance.
    - cb18 15y ago
      When you come across something you are unhappy with, take action to thwart/mitigate/undo it. Don't be fearful of it, fear is not a productive emotion. Fear is a strong means of control. Why do think demonstrators are being assaulted? Their is certainly an element of trying to induce fear in others of stepping out of and drawing attention to the status quo.
      - maqr 15y ago
        Why is fear not a sensible response? Demonstrators are being assaulted, I don't want to be assaulted, therefore I should not demonstrate. Fear seems like a productive emotion to me. Fear is what keeps you safe.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Well, that, and a pervasive constellation of minor infractions.
iamwil 15y ago
Is it not well known that these companies do what they do? I dunno, a lot of the files are just brochures. It doesn't seem very leaky to me. I guess I'm not terribly surprised. Now if they had files that point to concrete instances of the adverse affects of these companies, that'd be more leaky.
GHFigs 15y ago
The introduction appears to mix fact, speculation, and editorializing. For instance, under the subheading "Weaponizing Data Kills Innocent People", it talks about "Intelligence Integration Systems, Inc" (IISi) and "Netezza", neither of which appear in the files. In fact, the story described was covered in the press last year[1]. The implication is that civilian deaths from drone strikes is somehow related to this release...but it isn't. [1]:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/cia_netezza/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/cia_netezza/
mithaler 15y ago
Wikileaks should not be editorializing. Feeding us a party line about a "mass surveillance industry" and "Orwell's World" and "Selling Surveillance to Dictators" is not going to bring people to their cause. All it does is make them look like someone with an agenda to push, and I'm not in the habit of going to people with an obvious agenda for a primary source about someone they don't like. What I want is the old Wikileaks back. Anyone else remember the days when they were actually a wiki? Whistleblowers would approach them with documents from all manner of sources from governments to corporations to religious institutions, they would be subjected to source verification, and then they would be published and indexed for the world to see with minimum fanfare. Back then, I at least got the sense that they were devoted to aiding whistleblowers, not some silly and ineffectual crusade against the US government, no matter how right that cause may be. Can anyone really say that that's gotten us anywhere useful? Let us see the documents and judge for ourselves what they mean.
- ChuckFrank 15y ago
  While you are right, wikileaks shouldn't be 'editorializing' and if in fact much of this information is old, it's still vital that we hear this again and again, because the changes to our informational autonomy appear to manifesting at an accelerating rate. That said, the Montag Press Transmedia Collective just put a call out for submissions based upon "Orwell's World", if any authors are interested in partnering for publishing. See: http://montagpress.com/call/ http://montagpress.com/call/
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Maybe since there are now strategies being used by the powerful to minimize WL's effect that it makes sense for them to change their strategy as well.
- grandalf 15y ago
  While I sort of agree with your point, back in the old days, Wikileaks lost the PR war against itself. WL has learned (the hard way) that in order to get the message out it has to set the message using deliberate PR strategy. Otherwise someone else will just do so. The realization (for the cynic) is that everything (even leaked whistleblower info) involves some degree of deliberate spin. I don't think it's fair to say that WL is anti-USG btw.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Not to minimize the seriousness of the potential for this to invade a sovereign citizen's privacy, but this really counts as a leak? I didn't read through all the sources but here are the problems with the slant wiki leaks is spinning: 1. First off, this reads like an editorial. We want facts, not spin and their extremely biased writing takes their credibility from wherever it is to far lower now. Orwell's World? Maybe. But let me decide that and don't try to plant the idea. I think an organization that would spin this as anti-government propaganda is just as bad as the some of the things they're opposed to. Give me facts and let me decided - don't throw in opinions to guide me to the "correct" view. 2. I couldn't read every brochure nor do I want to but the brochures and videos I saw weren't all that evil. At least not as evil as they want me to believe. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be spied on and I do see the potential for abuse but the brochures here are things I can get by myself. The HP brochure, the Hacker Team video, and others aren't hiding in some dark government lab. They're out there trying to sell this stuff to the right people! I don't come across it because I have no need for it nor am I interested in it. But anyway, they're pretty quiet about selling this stuff but they do know how to get heard by the right people. That doesn't mean it's a secret. They don't make secret brochures for spy products if their products and services are supposed to be considered sensitive information like wiki leaks wants us to believe. 3. Don't we all know about this? It really isn't a secret anymore that there are companies creating software and hardware specifically meant to take over devices and spy on people. We hope it doesn't happen to us but we know it sometimes does. That sucks. We should know. We should make a fuss and we do. But wiki leaks isn't sharing anything groundbreaking here. We all know about Carrier IQ, right? Maybe CarrierIQ is a little more benign but then we also know about the cyber attack on Iranian nuclear program via Stuxnet so we all know it goes on, already know the abuse potential, and already know about some but not all abuses. Nothing earth shattering again. 4. This could have come off as a jumping off point for discussing the seriousness of the problem in terms of how we can spot and stop the general public from being spied on but instead they just created tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist fodder. I know it did spark some constructive discussion but I'll be damned if it didn't sound like the stuff you can find on anti GWB sites or "Obama is a member of the Skull and Bones, hey look at the secret symbols on a dollar bill" type sites. Also, I want to see The sources for where they got the information on these spy products being used in Egypt and Lybia. If its there then it's hard to find. And the site needs a better layout. Nothing fancy, just make it easier to navigate and read. I think WikiLeaks took what could have been a great jumping off point for debate and made it into a joke with their very generous helping of spin and what seems to be an antiestablishment agenda just for the sake of having an antiestablishment agenda.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
This discussion has gone south the more people that joined in. There's a lot of people expressing sentiments along the lines of being fearful that they're being tracked and that government agencies are spying on them personally. Let's get something straight. The real issue here isn't that you're being personally spied on. If the government is tracking you specifically and is willing to hold the data they collect on you against you then you should play the lottery too because you're one lucky person. If and when data is collected it is used most often to analyze groups of people, not individuals. It's very rare that an individual would be tracked and that would only happen if you were influential or a true danger to them (at least a perceived danger). For example, let's say the government was tracking Occupy Wall Street protesters. If they were targeting individuals then they'd be targeting the very few "leaders" if there are any. Otherwise they'd just like to know about you as a group. What you think, like, listen to, and read. Even so, they're not going to come after you. They're going to use that information in a way that allows them to spin a narrative or in some other subtle way. They just aren't going to bust into your living room. Also, in the rare case they collect data on an individual and actually try to do something to you personally, they sure as hell aren't going to bring it up in a court. You'll be black bagged or something but you're not going to go to trial with the prosecutor coming out saying "well, we surreptitiously collected this data from John's phone and home computer which proves he's a terrorist". They'd be shooting themselves in the foot! They'd much rather have you know they collect data while still retaining plausible deniability. You can look up anything you want all day long including how to make bombs and no one will bust in your living room until the day you somehow are in a position to influence a large group of people. So please everyone, let's take off our tinfoil hats, quit thinking we're important enough to track individually, and just generally stop sounding like conspiracy theorists. I mean, this stuff can really do damage and it isn't right but this discussion is heading in the wrong direction with that kind of rhetoric. Edit: Seems everyone doesn't like what I've got to say yet only one person is willing to say why. There's way too much group think and karma policing going on around here.
- buff-a 15y ago
  Martin Luther King Jr? Some people are important enough to track individually. One might even imagine that someone here on HN might be important enough, or become important enough. One can hope.

298 points by Tsiolkovsky 15y ago

Wow they really need to redesign the layout on that page. It took me about a minute and a half to realize that this was more than just a blog post about echelon. The actual files are on the left, in that ~100px wide container. Here are some brochures from companies that do this stuff: http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/list/document-type/brochure.html http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/list/document-type/brochure.ht... (The 3G thing is the only part of this that is really surprising. Intercepting wifi isn't really that impressive) Here is a pricelist of some tech that is, I guess, being sold in Europe: http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/204_GRIFFCOMM-200802-PRICELIST.pdf http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/204_GRIFFCOMM-200802-P... (Honestly none of this seems very...leaky. Isn't most of this fairly common knowledge to anybody who even reads about hacker conferences?)

TDL 15y ago
It could be that this is an attempt to consolidate that information and push it towards a mass audience. I haven't read any of the files, so I have no idea what they contain.
DasIch 15y ago
Those companies don't exactly advertise to everyone nor do they want to. Even if some people were aware of this before I doubt that most were truly aware of the scale. Even so, if all this does is raise awareness among the average (news watching) people this has already been worthwhile.
jdp23 15y ago
The Wall Street Journal's Surveillance Catalog, which includes some of the same companies, has a much nicer interface although a lot less information: http://projects.wsj.com/surveillance-catalog/ http://projects.wsj.com/surveillance-catalog/
guimarin 15y ago
this is more about thin-thread than it is about echelon. echelon and 'echelon II' haven't been used since before 9.11.2001.
- Zarathust 15y ago
  Source?
  - guimarin 15y ago
    you're joking right?

nextparadigms 15y ago

It seems like every other day one more of those "conspiracy theories" is confirmed and proven true.

GHFigs 15y ago
That statement is rather difficult to evaluate without knowing what such theories you're referring to.
VladRussian 15y ago
my theory is that slowly and measuredly leaking confirmations to the old, well established conspiracy theories, They create a managed well controlled sideshow ( if They wanted to take Wikileaks down - They would already have ) which takes attention, imagination and investigative effort off the new developments :)
billpatrianakos 15y ago
What conspiracy theory? None of this is even secret nor a leak! Any one of us could have gotten a lot of this by simply asking. We just don't because we have no need for it. Super top secret spy equipment that no one is supposed to find out about doesn't get sold with effing brochures! The guys in the marketing department probably knew all about this and they probably didn't even have or need a security clearance. This is nothing more than B2B marketing. Yeah they're really specialized and not really well known but it's still just everyday B2B marketing. I seriously can't believe the hype this is getting.

runjake 15y ago

Can anyone point us to a torrent for these files? If not, why not? Every time the Wikileaks site(s) get taken offline for one reason or another, we lose access to valuable data. The bottom of the page states "courage is contagious". I'd submit that torrents are even more contagious. Get this stuff on torrents, so it never leaves the Internet for pete's sake!

onemoreact 15y ago
It's easy to find the IP of anyone who downloads such a torrent which may or may not be important, but would prevent many people from downloading that information.
- runjake 15y ago
  There's a wealth of people in countries all over the world who fail to give a damn about this fact, myself included.
- lwat 15y ago
  That doesn't mean you can't have both options.
- DanBC 15y ago
  But many people would be happy to torrent and then mirror. You just need to find trusted mirror. I accept that's a tricky problem.

adunn 15y ago

Well, I don't see Carrier IQ in the list ;)

fsaintjacques 15y ago

Look at this file: http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/110_CELLEBRITE-UFED.pdf http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/110_CELLEBRITE-UFED.pd... Was it intended that a typical shady lawyer/congressman secret deal appears on the left?

dangrossman 15y ago

It's somewhat disconcerting that clicking through to some of these files, I worry there's probably some government agency somewhere along the round trip recording the fact that I've read Wikileaks documents, and that could be held against me any time in the future.

aw3c2 15y ago
I would love to share some of these with my social network but I will surely not post this at ("into") Facebook
cb18 15y ago
the only thing you have to fear, is fear itself
- maqr 15y ago
  Well, that, and apparently mass surveillance.
  - cb18 15y ago
    When you come across something you are unhappy with, take action to thwart/mitigate/undo it. Don't be fearful of it, fear is not a productive emotion. Fear is a strong means of control. Why do think demonstrators are being assaulted? Their is certainly an element of trying to induce fear in others of stepping out of and drawing attention to the status quo.
    - maqr 15y ago
      Why is fear not a sensible response? Demonstrators are being assaulted, I don't want to be assaulted, therefore I should not demonstrate. Fear seems like a productive emotion to me. Fear is what keeps you safe.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Well, that, and a pervasive constellation of minor infractions.

iamwil 15y ago

Is it not well known that these companies do what they do? I dunno, a lot of the files are just brochures. It doesn't seem very leaky to me. I guess I'm not terribly surprised. Now if they had files that point to concrete instances of the adverse affects of these companies, that'd be more leaky.

GHFigs 15y ago

The introduction appears to mix fact, speculation, and editorializing. For instance, under the subheading "Weaponizing Data Kills Innocent People", it talks about "Intelligence Integration Systems, Inc" (IISi) and "Netezza", neither of which appear in the files. In fact, the story described was covered in the press last year[1]. The implication is that civilian deaths from drone strikes is somehow related to this release...but it isn't. [1]:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/cia_netezza/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/cia_netezza/

mithaler 15y ago

Wikileaks should not be editorializing. Feeding us a party line about a "mass surveillance industry" and "Orwell's World" and "Selling Surveillance to Dictators" is not going to bring people to their cause. All it does is make them look like someone with an agenda to push, and I'm not in the habit of going to people with an obvious agenda for a primary source about someone they don't like. What I want is the old Wikileaks back. Anyone else remember the days when they were actually a wiki? Whistleblowers would approach them with documents from all manner of sources from governments to corporations to religious institutions, they would be subjected to source verification, and then they would be published and indexed for the world to see with minimum fanfare. Back then, I at least got the sense that they were devoted to aiding whistleblowers, not some silly and ineffectual crusade against the US government, no matter how right that cause may be. Can anyone really say that that's gotten us anywhere useful? Let us see the documents and judge for ourselves what they mean.

ChuckFrank 15y ago
While you are right, wikileaks shouldn't be 'editorializing' and if in fact much of this information is old, it's still vital that we hear this again and again, because the changes to our informational autonomy appear to manifesting at an accelerating rate. That said, the Montag Press Transmedia Collective just put a call out for submissions based upon "Orwell's World", if any authors are interested in partnering for publishing. See: http://montagpress.com/call/ http://montagpress.com/call/
- rhizome 15y ago
  Maybe since there are now strategies being used by the powerful to minimize WL's effect that it makes sense for them to change their strategy as well.
grandalf 15y ago
While I sort of agree with your point, back in the old days, Wikileaks lost the PR war against itself. WL has learned (the hard way) that in order to get the message out it has to set the message using deliberate PR strategy. Otherwise someone else will just do so. The realization (for the cynic) is that everything (even leaked whistleblower info) involves some degree of deliberate spin. I don't think it's fair to say that WL is anti-USG btw.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

Not to minimize the seriousness of the potential for this to invade a sovereign citizen's privacy, but this really counts as a leak? I didn't read through all the sources but here are the problems with the slant wiki leaks is spinning: 1. First off, this reads like an editorial. We want facts, not spin and their extremely biased writing takes their credibility from wherever it is to far lower now. Orwell's World? Maybe. But let me decide that and don't try to plant the idea. I think an organization that would spin this as anti-government propaganda is just as bad as the some of the things they're opposed to. Give me facts and let me decided - don't throw in opinions to guide me to the "correct" view. 2. I couldn't read every brochure nor do I want to but the brochures and videos I saw weren't all that evil. At least not as evil as they want me to believe. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be spied on and I do see the potential for abuse but the brochures here are things I can get by myself. The HP brochure, the Hacker Team video, and others aren't hiding in some dark government lab. They're out there trying to sell this stuff to the right people! I don't come across it because I have no need for it nor am I interested in it. But anyway, they're pretty quiet about selling this stuff but they do know how to get heard by the right people. That doesn't mean it's a secret. They don't make secret brochures for spy products if their products and services are supposed to be considered sensitive information like wiki leaks wants us to believe. 3. Don't we all know about this? It really isn't a secret anymore that there are companies creating software and hardware specifically meant to take over devices and spy on people. We hope it doesn't happen to us but we know it sometimes does. That sucks. We should know. We should make a fuss and we do. But wiki leaks isn't sharing anything groundbreaking here. We all know about Carrier IQ, right? Maybe CarrierIQ is a little more benign but then we also know about the cyber attack on Iranian nuclear program via Stuxnet so we all know it goes on, already know the abuse potential, and already know about some but not all abuses. Nothing earth shattering again. 4. This could have come off as a jumping off point for discussing the seriousness of the problem in terms of how we can spot and stop the general public from being spied on but instead they just created tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist fodder. I know it did spark some constructive discussion but I'll be damned if it didn't sound like the stuff you can find on anti GWB sites or "Obama is a member of the Skull and Bones, hey look at the secret symbols on a dollar bill" type sites. Also, I want to see The sources for where they got the information on these spy products being used in Egypt and Lybia. If its there then it's hard to find. And the site needs a better layout. Nothing fancy, just make it easier to navigate and read. I think WikiLeaks took what could have been a great jumping off point for debate and made it into a joke with their very generous helping of spin and what seems to be an antiestablishment agenda just for the sake of having an antiestablishment agenda.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

This discussion has gone south the more people that joined in. There's a lot of people expressing sentiments along the lines of being fearful that they're being tracked and that government agencies are spying on them personally. Let's get something straight. The real issue here isn't that you're being personally spied on. If the government is tracking you specifically and is willing to hold the data they collect on you against you then you should play the lottery too because you're one lucky person. If and when data is collected it is used most often to analyze groups of people, not individuals. It's very rare that an individual would be tracked and that would only happen if you were influential or a true danger to them (at least a perceived danger). For example, let's say the government was tracking Occupy Wall Street protesters. If they were targeting individuals then they'd be targeting the very few "leaders" if there are any. Otherwise they'd just like to know about you as a group. What you think, like, listen to, and read. Even so, they're not going to come after you. They're going to use that information in a way that allows them to spin a narrative or in some other subtle way. They just aren't going to bust into your living room. Also, in the rare case they collect data on an individual and actually try to do something to you personally, they sure as hell aren't going to bring it up in a court. You'll be black bagged or something but you're not going to go to trial with the prosecutor coming out saying "well, we surreptitiously collected this data from John's phone and home computer which proves he's a terrorist". They'd be shooting themselves in the foot! They'd much rather have you know they collect data while still retaining plausible deniability. You can look up anything you want all day long including how to make bombs and no one will bust in your living room until the day you somehow are in a position to influence a large group of people. So please everyone, let's take off our tinfoil hats, quit thinking we're important enough to track individually, and just generally stop sounding like conspiracy theorists. I mean, this stuff can really do damage and it isn't right but this discussion is heading in the wrong direction with that kind of rhetoric. Edit: Seems everyone doesn't like what I've got to say yet only one person is willing to say why. There's way too much group think and karma policing going on around here.

buff-a 15y ago
Martin Luther King Jr? Some people are important enough to track individually. One might even imagine that someone here on HN might be important enough, or become important enough. One can hope.