What is your opinion on WikiLeaks?

Post Reply New Topic

the term is "cracker", a "hacker" is

Actually, if you read my posts, you will see "Redacted information does not prevent against situational analysis - essentially reverse engineering the situation in an effort to identify individuals concerned. Assange is not an intelligence analyst. Manning was the lowest level intel analyst. As in, neither Manning, nor Assange have the professional experience necessary to effectively redact any form of int sum - they have effectively killed quite a few intelligence operatives."

I think you are missing the point; this isn't a pissing contest between you and me, this is about a 'cracker' compromising the very people who keep you safe.

As for illegal activity, are you really that naive to assume that all other governments conduct their intelligence gathering according to international law?

Assange has threatened to release all of the information - names and all.

I did answer you question, you are simply not able to realize that I did.

This is what I used to do for a living.

Nope, I'm not denying there were journalists present.

However, they were with individuals carrying an RPG and AK47's. Now, I could see that the AK's could be used for personal protection, however, an RPG is not a defensive weapon.

If you hang out with insurgents - regardless of who you are, or what you do - you're going to pay.

Interviewing insurgents is one thing, patrolling with them is something completely different.

good point but i'm pretty sure i've done nothing on the internet that they would care about, and if they attack youtube well i'm not getting views anyway.

and my answer to the body scanner is never to fly again, which doesn't bother me i'd rather never leave the security of my house or room in this case.

OK, but the people who supposedly do have the experience have looked at the leaked documents and haven't seen anyone being actually compromised, so you are still just speculating.


Assange isn't a cracker. He never illegally accessed government computers (if he had, he would certainly be facing charges for that). He published documents that someone else gave to him. You should note that this is no different from what the editors at the New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and El Pais have been doing, as all of those newspapers are in possession of all the leaked documents and are publishing them. I downloaded several large databases of raw data directly from the Guardian, not from Wikileaks.

And again—as far as any defence agency in the world has been able to ascertain, no one has been compromised. You are making things up.

As to whether this is a pissing contest, you were the one who began with the condescending BS. Act like a mature adult if you want to be taken seriously.


Illegal bombings by the US in Yemen? The UK violating the anti-cluster-bomb treaty it signed? How are such acts "intelligence gathering?" And no, I am not under the illusion that all other countries stictly abide by the law. But that does not excuse criminal behavior on the part of our government. I cannot control what Putin and the Russian government does. I do ostensibly share in responsibility for the American government, though, and I can't support a policy of illegal espionage and undeclared wars.


Incorrect. You are making far too many invalid assumptions, both about the leaks and about me.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You also don't have a clue how a government agency would handle 'publicly' any form of info sec breach.

What you do seem to have a handle on is that you love to hear yourself speak and love to read your own posts.

Further communication with you - who seems to be interested in merely acheiving some form of internet 'win' - is tantamount to pissing in the wind.

Frankly, you are so clueless about any form of defense matter, I'd have to compromise opsec just to bring you up to speed.

Blab on all you like from here, I'm having nothing more to do with you.

Ditto. This always annoyed me as well. Hackers are people who are extremely skilled with computers. This doesn't mean they are crackers, nor does maliciously breaching security require any computer skills.

Wikileaks doesn't impulsively leak documents - they've literally combed over thousands of the documents to ensure that nothing compromising military lives is leaked.

Not to mention attempting to consult with the US government to ensure that anything that could even risk compromising national security would be properly redacted. The US government, of course, declined to do so. Who's irresponsible and doesn't care about national security now? Wikileaks could quite easily have just dumped all the uncensored files out onto the Internet.

Assange did not solicit Manning. Wikileaks deliberately keeps itself unaware of the names of their sources (note: an eyewitness is a primary source, so yes, Fixer, you do have a 'source.'), and Wikileaks was unaware of Manning's identity until Manning outed himself online.
Wikileaks' entire model is a site where whistleblowers can deposit information that they believe is newsworthy while remaining anonymous. Given that the U.S. has already jailed journalists in an attempt to force them to reveal their sources, this is an important niche in the news media. The niche would not be there -wikileaks would have no role - if the news media were doing enough actual investigative journalism and there were some other way for whistleblowers to release information anonymously.

Some of Ran Prieur's views http://ranprieur.com/archives/032.html#assangemyth

That lad cracks me up.

My philosophy is that open systems are almost always better than closed ones.

could you point one out plz

An open system is one that allows energy to flow freely.

In this context, I mean open as in people have access to information, as opposed to not having access to information.