12/5/2010 1:27:44 PM

evidently wikileaks is claiming to have a back up stash of documents that would go public in the event of the website being disabled.

12/5/2010 3:38:20 PM

^
it's an encrypted file that anyone can download. if something happens to wikileaks, the key will be automatically released

12/5/2010 4:11:44 PM

So, I rarely post in TSB.... because frankly, you people disgust me.

But, this article did grab my attention the other day:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html?iref=allsearch

It's basically warning unauthorized government employees and contractors such not to attempt to look at classified documents on wikileaks.
I fully expect to roll into work tomorrow, and be welcomed with a lovely email pointing all employees to this warning. As well as some sort of mandated compliance training on security clearance issues, and the handling of classified material.

BUT...

This is consistent with the way that classified information is to be handled. You're supposed to have an adequate clearance to read this shit, and only a need to know basis. Even if one does not have adequate clearance to read classified information and they stumble upon it, they are supposed to safeguard this information until such time that they can turn it over to someone WITH and adequate clearance.
Perhaps, after all of this embarrassment dies down, people can start focusing on the bigger problem here.... the assholes that are illegally leaking this information and calling themselves whistleblowers.

12/5/2010 4:27:19 PM

but EMCE, the government should be COMPLETELY transparent in all that they do. there is no need for secrets.

12/5/2010 4:43:59 PM

lawl

I have vivid memories of essentially having to memorize the A-10 Warthog classification guide that described what I could and could not talk about before I was allowed to work the program, get on base, or work with pilots.
And for good reason. John Q public doesn't need to know mechanics, maneuvers, or battle strategy, much less potential foreign enemies.
Not saying that has been the type of thing leaked... just saying that one is charged with a responsibility with handling classified documents.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 4:48 PM. Reason : MOAR]

12/5/2010 4:47:39 PM

oh THIS should get good.

EMCE, please do stick around.

12/5/2010 4:53:40 PM

ha, I'll stick around. I'll be reading... can't promise that I'll be posting/responding... but I'll be reading. Like I mentioned before, I try not to contribute to TSB. It's filthy.

12/5/2010 4:58:25 PM

just like your goof juice dispenser

12/5/2010 5:02:29 PM

As a federal employee or contractor with a security clearance, you are legally obligated to safeguard classified information. The fact that the cables were stolen, leaked, and are now widely available does not mean they're all of a sudden automatically declassified. As such, accessing the classified files on your home computer, or on an unclassified govt network, would constitute a breach of security.

I think a medium like Wikileaks could provide a great service to the world by exposing blatant corruption and wrongdoing. But releasing any and all information it has been provided just because they have it is wrong and potentially dangerous. Assange says he's an advocate for transparency in any and all circumstances (except, of coursse when it comes to his own affairs, who his donors are, who his employees are, his whereabouts, etc...) However, IMO, Assange's foremost goal is to damage the US. I think his dismissive response to the question submitted by a reader to the Guardian below speaks volumes.

Quote :

"Julian. I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US. In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails. My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function. Julian Assange: If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention."

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 5:12:12 PM

Quote :

"I think a medium like Wikileaks could provide a great service to the world by exposing blatant corruption and wrongdoing. But releasing any and all information it has been provided just because they have it is wrong and potentially dangerous. Assange says he's an advocate for transparency in any and all circumstances (except, of coursse when it comes to his own affairs, who his donors are, who his employees are, his whereabouts, etc...) However, IMO, Assange's foremost goal is to damage the US. I think his dismissive response to the question submitted by a reader to the Guardian below speaks volumes. "

12/5/2010 5:18:44 PM

When you're fighting an evil country, it's all or nothing. Release it all, let the public sort it out.

Praise be to Bradley Manning!

12/5/2010 5:23:56 PM

Quote :

"As a federal employee or contractor with a security clearance, you are legally obligated to safeguard classified information. The fact that the cables were stolen, leaked, and are now widely available does not mean they're all of a sudden automatically declassified. As such, accessing the classified files on your home computer, or on an unclassified govt network, would constitute a breach of security. "

This is absolutely true, and consistent with how classified information is to be handled. With that said, this also leads to the next very important point:
Contractors and the government go to great lengths to protect classified information Unfortunately, this information is occasionally leaked. How exactly is Assange protecting this information on his network now that he has it? Are we supposed to just blindly believe that he has, and always will protect this information? Are we just relying on him to edit out classified names, places, systems, etc...?
I am not willing to put that much faith in the man.




oh God... I can feel it happening.
TSB is sucking me in, and taking my soul I'm getting Shang-Tsunged


[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM. Reason : |]

12/5/2010 5:30:19 PM

I understand the need for secrecy. However to this point it seems that NO ONE has been able to point to any specific instances in the releases that "threaten our national security". This leads most people to the conclusion that the government has something to hide. It seems like our government has been using the excuse of needing to protect "national security" to hide corruption and wrongdoing. Notice the attacks on Wikkileaks have intensified immediately after the threat to release information that will be extremely damaging to a bank. Interesting to see what our government is trying their hardest to protect isn't it?

12/5/2010 5:51:44 PM

Just off the top of my head, the revelation that the president of Yemen had no qualms about claiming responsibility for our operations in his country is potentially problematic for our national security.

In a broader sense, the leaking of diplomatic cables will almost certainly lead to diplomats and their sources being less candid and honest in their discussions, which is in and of itself problematic and runs contrary to wikileaks' own stated goals. That is to say, their crusade for honesty and transparency will be stymied by their own lack of discretion. Everyone loses in the end.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 5:58:37 PM

Not to mention that I think that you're severely underestimating just how big of business information synthesis is these days. Because one classified document does not have very damaging information in it does not mean that, collectively, thousands of documents under the scrutiny of someone looking for trend information could not be extremely damaging. In the sense that, by definition, classified information ranging from Confidential to Top Secret could cause damage to national security ranging from damaging to exceptionally grave damage if made public.... I don't see how any of this ISN'T a national security issue.
For example, if someone had you in their crosshairs, and decided to collect every single entry that you have ever made on the internet (email, AIM log, google search, etc..)... I'm sure they could build a very damaging profile to you.


Again, I'm not trusting enough of Mr. Assange to be diligent in protecting this information. Realistically, because nothing crazy has happened yet doesn't mean that it won't happen. Realistically, there is a need to protect against that potential threat.

12/5/2010 6:15:11 PM

exactly. sometimes the aggregate of a lot of unclassified data is classified.

12/5/2010 6:18:32 PM

Quote :

"For example, if someone had you in their crosshairs, and decided to collect every single entry that you have ever made on the internet (email, AIM log, google search, etc..)... I'm sure they could build a very damaging profile to you."

Your argument would make sense if it weren't for the fact that a government is not an individual. An individual person can make rash decisions. A government is supposed to make calculated, responsible decisions. Of course, governments are prone to mistakes, but mistakes are not the same as flat out corruption and dishonesty.

Quote :

"exactly. sometimes the aggregate of a lot of unclassified data is classified."

This might be the most ridiculous notion in the entire thread.

12/5/2010 7:15:35 PM

you may think it's ridiculous, but it is 100% true

12/5/2010 7:20:35 PM

The point makes perfect sense. Information synthesis has nothing to do with the actions and decisions of an individual vs. that of a government. Information synthesis has everything to do with building a trending profile with smaller pieces of data.
The individual sentences of your favorite novel mean very little, until they are put together to form paragraphs, pages, chapters, and ultimately, a book.

It's both naive and irresponsible to think there aren't people out there doing this.


In another example, a while back The Washington Post thought it would be a good idea to do a story on Top Secret America. They went in, and gathered the publicly available data on the locations of defense contracts in America.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/map/
So what... you know the location of a defense contractor building. Big whoop.
But when you gather this data, all the sudden, you have something that could be potentially damaging to the contractors, the workers, the businesses.... not to mention providing attack points plotted out on a nice little map complete with addresses.

12/5/2010 7:24:18 PM

^^^not at all.

in the same way that relatively mundane information about you like your address, your phone number, your birthday, age, sex, relationships, occupation, etc. may seem benign when each viewed independently, taken as a whole by someone with nefarious intentions, the aggregate can lead to some very damaging activities.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM. Reason : ^]

12/5/2010 7:28:11 PM

^^
Well, yes, you can put information together to make someone look bad. In my opinion, that is a poor argument against transparency. The government is perfectly capable of defending itself, if it is in the right.

Besides, there is ALREADY enough information. The whole fucking world thinks our government is corrupt.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 7:31:23 PM

Shame on Sweden

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335888/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html

Quote :

"Mr Stephens told the BBC that legal moves to arrest Mr Assange, who is wanted for questioning over the rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion of two women during a visit to Sweden in August, appeared to be a 'political stunt'. Originally the entire case was dropped by Sweden's chief prosecutor. Mr Stephens said that only 'after the intervention of a Swedish politician' that a new prosecutor in Gothenburg - not Stockholm, where his client and two women had been - began a new case. He denies the allegations vehemently and has described them as a 'smear'. Mr Stephens said that Sweden had allowed U.S. planes carrying terror suspects - the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition - to use its airfields. He said: 'It doesn't escape me that Sweden was one of those lick-spittle states which used its resources and facilities for rendition flights.'"

I thought Sweden was above such sicknesses (the 2 bolded ones)? After all, they have been ranked the most transparent/lease corrupt country again this year.

I hope they do ultimately release their "thermonuclear device", aka as "doomsday files":

Quote :

"The 'doomsday files' which have been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by tens of thousands of supporters are understood to include information on Guantanamo Bay, and aerial video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP reports and Bank of America documents."

12/5/2010 7:36:29 PM

Quote :

"you can put information together to make someone look bad. In my opinion, that is a poor argument against transparency."

Except no one is arguing against transparency because it makes the government look bad. The conversation was about how the release of seemingly benign diplomatic cables, even those that don't explicitly detail information or data that a cursory glance would suggest is damaging to national security, can lead to potential problems when taken as a whole.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 7:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 7:38:50 PM

Quote :

"Mr Stephens told the BBC that legal moves to arrest Mr Assange, who is wanted for questioning over the rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion of two women during a visit to Sweden in August, appeared to be a 'political stunt'. Originally the entire case was dropped by Sweden's chief prosecutor. Mr Stephens said that only 'after the intervention of a Swedish politician' that a new prosecutor in Gothenburg - not Stockholm, where his client and two women had been - began a new case. He denies the allegations vehemently and has described them as a 'smear'. Mr Stephens said that Sweden had allowed U.S. planes carrying terror suspects - the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition - to use its airfields. He said: 'It doesn't escape me that Sweden was one of those lick-spittle states which used its resources and facilities for rendition flights."

Great source, Assange's lawyer.

12/5/2010 7:55:36 PM

In the ongoing cables leak(only 5% complete at this point), wikileaks has published the complete list of all worldwide assets that the US considers targets. It's essentially the entire planet. Everything from foreign oil pipelines to a snake venom factory in Australia. We claim all of it.

Also, al-Jazeera offered to censor itself in Egypt in exchange for diplomatic bargaining. No wonder reporters hate wikileaks, it exposes their corruption.

Meanwhile, donations to wikileaks can now be made to secure swiss bank account, and the site itself is mirrored hundreds of times around the world. Paypal is being attacked by Anonymous for their cowardice in abandoning wikileaks. The DDOS should really get underway soon.



Constant updates here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 8:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2010 7:50:28 AM

Quote :

"A secret State Department cable released by WikiLeaks on Sunday, Dec. 5, provides in almost numbing detail a list of foreign critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) vital to the national security of the United States. ... The cable notes cobalt mines in Congo, munitions and chemical manufacturers in Germany, a smallpox vaccine plant in Denmark, Hitachi large electric power transformers in Korea, hydroelectric production in Quebec, and dozens of undersea cable landings around the world. It also includes strategically vital sea lanes such as Singapore's Straits of Malacca and Spain's Strait of Gibraltar; and key energy facilities, such as Russia's Nadym Gas Pipeline Junction ("the most critical gas facility in the world") and Qatar's Ras Laffan Industrial Center -- which the cable notes is vital because by "2012 Qatar will be the largest source of imported LNG [liquified natural gas]to U.S.""

http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/massive_list_of_foreign_infrastructure_critical_to_us_released

Holy shit. I can pretty much guarantee that there are some DHS folks contemplating jumping out of a tall building right now. What's scary as shit is the thought that these cables may include a similar list of domestic CI/KR. Here's a situation where the actual aggregation of the data matters. No one is going to be surprised to learn that the Strait of Gibraltar is a key sea lane. But when you put all of these things on a list, and call it "Here's the Shit We Need to Protect," it becomes a crucial national secret. This may be the most damaging cable to US security yet released. It's basically a terrorist's itinerary.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 9:04 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2010 8:59:43 AM

Can any cablegate apologists explain the intrinsic value of that kind of information being widely available?

12/6/2010 9:32:34 AM

I think the argument goes:

1)The government shouldn't be doing anything that we wouldn't want to see anyway.
2)It does, so we should subvert it in any way possible without thought of the consequences.

Or something like that.

12/6/2010 9:37:14 AM

Quote :

"In a most ironic turn, the leaked cable scoffs at FDP Parliamentarian Gisela Piltz, who cautioned against data-sharing operations with the US government on the grounds that the US government as a whole lacks effective data protection measures even as it accumulates massive amounts of data on innocent citizens."

12/6/2010 9:41:26 AM

What I don't understand is how any American can think this is anything but horrific. Not only does it destroy our international reputation, but it exposes every single one of us to danger. Yes, transparency is important is government, but I don't think every single American needs to know the ins and outs of international politics. It's like Assange just exposed our chess strategy half way through the game.

12/6/2010 9:48:08 AM

Quote :

"Holy shit. I can pretty much guarantee that there are some DHS folks contemplating jumping out of a tall building right now."

Sweet

Quote :

"What's scary as shit is the thought that these cables may include a similar list of domestic CI/KR. Here's a situation where the actual aggregation of the data matters. No one is going to be surprised to learn that the Strait of Gibraltar is a key sea lane. But when you put all of these things on a list, and call it "Here's the Shit We Need to Protect," it becomes a crucial national secret. This may be the most damaging cable to US security yet released. It's basically a terrorist's itinerary."

Are these locations really so secret that they couldn't have been compiled into a list before? Is anybody surprised the cable landing sites are a big deal? Were the locations of these classified before? Just curious

Quote :

"What I don't understand is how any American can think this is anything but horrific. Not only does it destroy our international reputation, but it exposes every single one of us to danger. Yes, transparency is important is government, but I don't think every single American needs to know the ins and outs of international politics. It's like Assange just exposed our chess strategy half way through the game."

This is such a typical American delusion. The actions themselves have already destroyed our international reputation, don't you get it? People have known this shit has been going on for a long time. The only people shocked here are Americans; precisely why DHS and US capital are fighting as hard as they can to keep Americans from viewing the information.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2010 10:01:29 AM

Dear McDanger,


National Sec_rity is not complete without U!



xoxo,
EMCE

12/6/2010 10:09:44 AM

^
Hey glad to have you here in the soap box but please stop acting like you're above the rest of us who post here on a regular basis. It is mostly a shit hole, but it's the only outlet on TWW for this type of discussion.

12/6/2010 10:19:55 AM

Quote :

"Sweet"

Yeah, we should definitely revel in the anguish of dedicated civil servants (oh, I mean Fascists) who work 80 hour weeks trying to keep factories from getting blown to smithereens only to see their whole project get shot to shit by some smart ass with a wiki.

Quote :

"Are these locations really so secret that they couldn't have been compiled into a list before?"

The revelation isn't that these places exist, or even that they're important (I'm not sure if any of the locations were somehow classified; I doubt it). The revelation, from a national security perspective, is the fact that you now literally have a list, authored by the United States, of all the global infrastructure it feels is the most critical to its existence. It is now a document that reads, "If you really want to hurt the us, here's how you should do it."

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 10:27 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2010 10:25:19 AM

any competent nation has a similar list of strategic assets they consider important to protect and any competent nation's intelligence agency could have come up with most of the things on that list if they were trying to attack us.

Terrorists seem less likely to target strategic points as they try to create "terror" by targeting the mundane and commonplace.

not that big of a revelation to me.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM. Reason : I just don't see it as some huge chink in the armor suddenly being exposed]

12/6/2010 10:33:27 AM

Quote :

"The revelation isn't that these places exist, or even that they're important (I'm not sure if any of the locations were somehow classified; I doubt it). The revelation, from a national security perspective, is the fact that you now literally have a list, authored by the United States, of all the global infrastructure it feels is the most critical to its existence. It is now a document that reads, "If you really want to hurt the us, here's how you should do it.""

You still haven't answered my question: could anybody with the will compile this list? Everybody seems to be saying yes. If that's the case, then having the list handed to you is a minor convenience at best. Anybody serious could put this together, and likely already has.

12/6/2010 10:41:09 AM

^^ I would say you overestimate the world's intelligence agencies. You may be right about terrorist groups not wanting to hit targets with purely economic value. But there's a good chance you're not.

^ No. I do not think any terrorist group could put together a list as comprehensive (and accurate) as that. They would need huge amounts of data and extremely sophisticated analytical capabilities to put something like that together. Again, the key thing about this list is that it is literally a Top 100 Most Critical list, authored by the United States itself. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of infrastructure targets around the world. You think some dudes in a mud hut in North Waziristan could whittle that much information down to a few select sites per region? I doubt it.

I mean, you're a smart person who, if I recall correctly, does analytical work for a living. How long do you think it would take you to put together a list of the most critical 150 global infrastructure sites, from the United States' perspective? And how confident would you be that your list looks anything like the list drawn up by the United States itself?

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2010 10:53:53 AM

Quote :

"No. I do not think any terrorist group could put together a list as comprehensive (and accurate) as that. They would need huge amounts of data and extremely sophisticated analytical capabilities to put something like that together. Again, the key thing about this list is that it is literally a Top 100 Most Critical list, authored by the United States itself. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of infrastructure targets around the world. You think some dudes in a mud hut in North Waziristan could whittle that much information down to a few select sites per region? I doubt it."

How many of the foreign sites are tied to our global empire, and how many are tied to purely domestic interests (ones that don't involve the exploitation of a foreign population)? Legit curious here. The cobalt mines stood out.

Quote :

"How long do you think it would take you to put together a list of the most critical 150 global infrastructure sites, from the United States' perspective? And how confident would you be that your list looks anything like the list drawn up by the United States itself?"

No idea, that's why I was asking you. I can't imagine it taking prohibitively long with internet access, which terrorists have (!!!).

12/6/2010 11:19:26 AM

The analysis part is easy. Terrorists can do that.

The only real thing keeping them at bay is the mere academic difficulty of mining all the necessary public data. It's not all in the same place, and it's not easy to find, even if it is public. It takes more than a google search of "Pentagon loading dock schedule" to get meaningful data.

12/6/2010 11:21:20 AM

Quote :

"The only real thing keeping them at bay is the mere academic difficulty of mining all the necessary public data. It's not all in the same place, and it's not easy to find, even if it is public. It takes more than a google search of "Pentagon loading dock schedule" to get meaningful data."

Of course but these guys have been at it, presumably, for 10 years.

12/6/2010 11:23:04 AM

Quote :

"Anybody serious could put this together, and likely already has."

I think you are overestimating thier abilities.

I bet they would list 60-70% of the targets on this list, but not all of them.

Any way you shake this, having this kind of transparency is bad. Call me crazy, but I WANT the govermnent to just "handle" some things and sweep them under the rug.

We definitely need to know certain things, but knowing the details of our intelligence or military operations is not something that anyone not directly involved needs to know.

12/6/2010 11:27:10 AM

Quote :

"Not only does it destroy our international reputation"

umm...

George Bush and decades of neo-imperalism has already done this; if anything it has merely took the shroud off of the
american publics eye. To be fair our "neo-imperalist" policies have in many cases benefited us as a people over all.
This though will always create resentment elsewhere.

The only major change internationally this does is illustrate to foreign diplomats that their discussions with US envoys are
leakier than the titanic in certain situations. Not sure why all this correspondance was not better encrypted to begin with....

Quote :

"The only people shocked here are Americans; precisely why DHS and US capital are fighting as hard as they can to keep Americans from viewing the information. "

exactly

Quote :

"to smithereens only to see their whole project get shot to shit by some smart ass with a wiki. "

last time i checked assange was not doing any espionage. The only criminals are people the traitors who "leaked" our
secrets to the smart ass who the US supreme court has ruled has the right to transmit released information as protected
by the 1st amendment. The only wrong doers are the ones extracting information.

12/6/2010 11:36:05 AM

Quote :

"I think you are overestimating thier abilities. I bet they would list 60-70% of the targets on this list, but not all of them."

I'd bet a different number but this is all conjecture and I'm actually curious. They're going to blow up 0% of them though. I doubt publishing a list is going to change the fact that none of these things have been fucked with for a decade.

Quote :

"Any way you shake this, having this kind of transparency is bad. Call me crazy, but I WANT the govermnent to just "handle" some things and sweep them under the rug. We definitely need to know certain things, but knowing the details of our intelligence or military operations is not something that anyone not directly involved needs to know."

I agree with you, but secrecy should only be afforded with legitimacy. The sad state of our rogue government and military at this point should compel the public to examine these records carefully. Things need to be brought back into alignment; America is currently throwing herself onto her sword for the sake of the upper crust. That the military and government abroad work together to funnel money to that group is beyond rational disagreement at this point. If you care that our domestic democracy and prosperity is being sacrificed at the altar of the oligarchy, then you should demand full transparency and the immediate dismantling of our empire. The British did it, so can we.

Quote :

"To be fair our "neo-imperalist" policies have in many cases benefited us as a people over all. This though will always create resentment elsewhere."

Not in any real sense. The standard American is much worse off as a matter of these practices.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2010 11:40:06 AM

I'm not defending this release because I don't see the merit in it. However, I don't think the terrorists need any help in deciding where to attack. They are smarter than you think. Besides, what terrorist organization is capable of carrying out coordinated strategic attacks on a global scale? (besides the US, LOL).

12/6/2010 11:41:42 AM

I don't get the threat of these doomsday files being released keeping him and his site from disappearing.

We all know he's going to release all that shit anyway when he starts running out of other stuff to leak, and his fame and international relevance begins to dip down to zero again.

12/6/2010 11:42:16 AM

According to wikileaks, they've had to start turning down leaked information. They're getting more and more each day.

12/6/2010 11:56:29 AM

I can see how some of you would be concerned over the data released. I simply have a hard time viewing these leaks as a novel occurrence. If it happened once chances are it has already happened or would happen at some point in the future (also it would likely happen on the dl so the government wouldn't be able to enact in retroactive protective measures). I feel it is delusional to think otherwise.
That being said I would have preferred to see the referenced BP and Bank documents. I feel that possible domestic financial corruption should definitely be exposed if it exists.

12/6/2010 12:14:33 PM

So much for the "Twitter Revolution". Twitter is censoring any tweets with #wikileaks from appearing as trends. They will probably close the wikileaks account soon under government pressure.

http://bubbloy.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/twitter-is-censoring-the-discussion-of-wikileaks/

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2010 12:19:18 PM

Quote :

"Can any cablegate apologists explain the intrinsic value of that kind of information being widely available?"

I can't.

Actually, this most recent release has shaken loose my opinion of WL, and in fact I can see myself actually landing on the other side of the fence now.

12/6/2010 12:25:18 PM