3 ms·
There was disagreement about the decision, but again the leaks were already out there. As you mentioned, Wikileaks published them on the second. Cryptome publis
by boomboomsubban 2y ago
There was disagreement about the decision, but again the leaks were already out there. As you mentioned, Wikileaks published them on the second. Cryptome published them on the first.
Every possible decision after the keys were leaked was shitty. Maybe Wikileaks could have picked a less shitty one, but they were still in a terrible situation because of somebody else's actions.
- lukan 2y agoMy point is, if he would have been concerned, he could have used better security in the first place. "In February 2011 David Leigh of The Guardian published the encryption passphrase in a book;[6] he had received it from Assange so he could access a copy of the Cablegate file, and believed the passphrase was a temporary one, unique to that file" Assuming David Leigh was not lying, Assange should have been more clear with the security implications. (then again, I see no reason to publish the temporary key in the first place). Still at that time it was not not known, except for maybe some intelligence organisations. So if really concerned, one could have done many different things to protect informants, delay the time, instead of publishing it officially for the whole world to see.
- boomboomsubban 2y agoI won't claim Assange had great security, I don't think even he would. Still, publishing any key you get without express permission seems suspect. The key was public and the database was public. If you're an informant, would you rather be completely unaware of that while the local intelligence organization is already digging through it or have the whole world know including people that could help/warn you? I don't think "sit on it" is obviously the best choice.