Kompressor

Julian Assange Accidentally Uploaded His Secret Files to the Internet

People inadvertently put things on the internet they don't want revealed all the time. But you'd think Julian Assange would avoid such an amateur mistake. Not so: He accidentally uploaded all of his precious State Department cables, unredacted, to the internet.

Assange and Wikileaks have made much of the fact that they worked with media outlets like the Times and the Guardian to responsibly and gradually release the 250,000 State Department cables allegedly leaked to the group by imprisoned Army private Bradley Manning. But if reports are to be believed, that effort was for naught: All of the raw cables are floating around the internet, including names of informants and sources that could put their lives in danger.

According to Der Spiegel:

Since the beginning of the year, an encrypted file has been circulating on the Internet containing the collection of around 251,000 US State Department documents that WikiLeaks obtained in spring 2010 and made public in November 2010.

How this leak occurred is hazy, but has its roots in the conflict between Julian Assange and his former right-hand man, Daniel Domscheit-Berg. In September of last year, Domscheit-Berg got fed up with Julian Assange's dictatorial management style and left, taking a bunch of Wikileaks documents with him, including the cables. But Domscheit-Berg returned the cables at the end of the year. Big mistake. Soon after, Assange accidentally included the file in a cache he gave to supporters to put on the web as part of a public archive of old Wikileaks leaks, according to Der Spiegel. They unknowingly posted the cables online at the end of last year, then someone else published the password to the encrypted file, allowing effectively anyone to see them.

Who accidentally posted the cable cache? Last December Wikileaks supporters launched Wikileaks.info, an archive of old Wikileaks' leaks. "Our goal is… to show the 'old leaks' that happened when Wikileaks was not that popular," the sites' administrator, a woman who called herself "Xenia," told us at the time. She also admitted to a "very loose" connection to Wikileaks staffers. The timeline and mission of Wikileaks.info match with how the cable leak allegedly occurred. (Xenia didn't respond to our email seeking comment.)

__________________
Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

The Rev

I'm just glad that, for once, it wasn't another sex tape.



The Rev

__________________

SageTree

Show concern by reporting facts....

__________________

Jewish Pork

zerodown

so who did what? so far the only person being fucked for all these cables is Manning. the hero of the story. lol.

__________________
"I've seen people so poor all they got is money."

We have to learn to unlearn
Its not contradiction, its amendment
Not everything we see is reality
Not everything we hear is the truth
Not everything we're taught helps us grow
~Cultura Profetica

"La locura se lleva en la cabeza y las drogas en los bolsillos"
~Roberto Iniesta

kamikazi89

__________________
katie west is the best

Roach

Attached Images

 

__________________

לזיין את הקופים

DdC

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.”
~ Frank Zappa, 1977

Collateral Murder

Overview

Update: On July 6, 2010, Private Bradley Manning, a 22 year old intelligence analyst with the United States Army in Baghdad, was charged with disclosing this video (after allegedly speaking to an unfaithful journalist). The whistleblower behind the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, has called Mr. Manning a 'hero'. He is currently imprisoned in Kuwait. The Apache crew and those behind the cover up depicted in the video have yet to be charged. To assist Private Manning, please see bradleymanning.org.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

__________________

kamikazi89

__________________
katie west is the best

Parallax

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. "

Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

__________________
FUCK THE ROBOTS!!!
NUKE THE WHALES!!!

zerodown

Interesting site on the obomba sign.

__________________
"I've seen people so poor all they got is money."

We have to learn to unlearn
Its not contradiction, its amendment
Not everything we see is reality
Not everything we hear is the truth
Not everything we're taught helps us grow
~Cultura Profetica

"La locura se lleva en la cabeza y las drogas en los bolsillos"
~Roberto Iniesta

kamikazi89

WikiLeaks site comes under attack - Yahoo! News

__________________
katie west is the best

Roach

sorry kami,

but I thought this article (from the same page) was better.


Under a new Florida law, people applying for welfare have to take a drug test at their own expense. If they pass, they are eligible for benefits and the state reimburses them for the test. If they fail, they are denied welfare for a year, until they take another test.

Mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants is becoming a popular idea across the U.S. Many states - including Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Louisiana - are considering adopting laws like Florida's. At the federal level, Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has introduced the Drug Free Families Act of 2011, which would require all 50 states to drug-test welfare applicants.

And the focus isn't even limited to welfare. In July, Indiana adopted drug tests for participants in a state job-training program. An Ohio state senator, Tim Grendell, recently said he plans to introduce a bill to require the unemployed to take a drug test before they receive unemployment benefits.
Drug-testing the needy has an undeniable populist appeal. It taps into deeply held beliefs about the deserving and undeserving poor. As Alabama state representative Kerry Rich put it, "I don't think the taxpayers should have to help fund somebody's drug habit."

But as government policy, drug testing is being oversold. These laws do not do what their supporters claim. And more importantly: they are likely to be unconstitutional.

Drug testing proponents like to argue that there are large numbers of drug users going on welfare to get money to support their habits. The claim feeds into long-standing stereotypes about the kind of people who go on welfare, but it does not appear to have much basis in fact.

Several studies, including a 1996 report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have found that there is no significant difference in the rate of illegal-drug use by welfare applicants and other people. Another study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

Drug-testing laws are often touted as a way of saving tax dollars, but the facts are once again not quite as presented. Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

That happens to be Florida's experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.

Given that cost-benefit reality, it is hard to escape the suspicion that what is really behind the drive to drug-test benefits applicants is a desire to stigmatize the needy.
The fact is, there are all sorts of people who benefit from government programs. Businessmen get state contracts, farmers receive crop subsidies and retired state workers receive pensions.
The pro-drug-testing movement, however, is focusing exclusively on welfare recipients - an easy target.

Policies like Florida's will almost certainly end up in court - and there is a good chance that they will be struck down. The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug tests are considered to be a search. In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish "personal privacy for a symbol's sake," the court said.

Drug testing welfare applicants does not seem to meet the Chandler test since there is no particular safety reason to be concerned about drug use by welfare recipients. In 2003, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Michigan's drug testing of welfare applicants as a Fourth Amendment violation.
If Florida and other states are really concerned about drug use, they should adopt stricter laws and better enforcement policies aimed at the whole population, not just the most vulnerable. But these laws are not really about drug use. They are about, in these difficult economic times, making things a little harder for the poor.


Cohen, a former TIME writer and former member of the New York Times editorial board, is a lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Monday. You can continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.




actually should have it's own thread, but then jfk would flip out.

__________________

לזיין את הקופים

Jewish Pork

^^^ I think it's a good idea, albeit a waste of money...

Roach

then what purpose does it serve.

__________________

לזיין את הקופים

Jewish Pork

It panders to certain political groups...

My personal ideology makes me believe that the only benefit society (as a whole) gets from having a welfare system is that it is an investment in an individual to get his or her shit together ie getting a job and paying money into the system instead of taking it. Someone who's getting welfare and doing drugs (even alcohol) is a bad investment, in my opinion.

kamikazi89

alcohol abuse is extremely prevalent in the military....
the question isn't whether this is popular..is it constitutional...
JURIST - Paper Chase: First Circuit upholds right to record public police action

__________________
katie west is the best

Stonie Jo

Dammit you guys, it's ALL the freakin' government!! Both of these subject just show how fuckin' retarded this place is. Now I'm getting paranoid!! Seriously though, I am getting to where I only want to be viewed as human, not American. I love this stupid place and I hate this stupid place....can I make my own little country here in So. Il.?

__________________
I've thought of something cool a thousand times for this but as I sit here stoned right now I can't come up with any of them............

Jewish Pork

Yes... Tons of people in the military love alcohol. I love alcohol myself. But we show up for work and get the job done; and we're punished if we let it get in the way of "accomplishing the mission." What's your point?



And how does that article relate to this discussion?

Jewish Pork

I would not object to the secession of Il, personally.