The Wikileaks "insurance.aes256" File

[BenBurch]

How about extracting the informants now, giving them shelter in the US and protect them, and put fresh ones in place? Or are they not that valuable after all?

...

Have you any concept of the scale of such an operation? I don't think it's possible to do it without getting people killed.

 

[Wrathernaut]

As i have said, non-informants/spies in such organizations are now likely to be safer, because their paranoid leaders now may know better who that persons was, instead of accusing a lot of people and possibly killing them.

So, wait, you're saying that saving the lives of individuals in terrorist organizations that aren't informants is a benefit? Or do you think that non-terrorists are safer now that terrorists can kill the informants revealing their identities to police and other security personnel?

Tell me, what poses a bigger threat: Informant data, names, etc. handed over in secrecy to other places, without people knowing, or having it leak into the public, so that everyone knows and people can take the proper steps to protect these informants?

Yes, knowing about a leak to everybody that will include those who endanger you is less dangerous than not knowing about a leak to only the specific people who endanger you. You seem to be making the assumption that with so many people having access to that information, it's bound to get leaked. Just because you have access to that information doesn't mean you also have intent or capability to leak that information, even if you knew which people to leak the information to in order to endanger anybody.

If any informant and/or spy now dies because of the public leaks, then it is the fault of the people hiring/using them, because they did not protect them as well as they should have been. After all the threat was then out there for everyone to see, right?

If you had a safe with lots of money in it, and you become aware that the location as well as the lock's combination is out in the public, what would you do? Wait until someone opens it and robs all the stuff that was in there, and then in turn blame the person who leaked that info? Or would you go ahead and at least change the combination, if not putting the safe in a different place as well?

If the information regarding the inviduals was on a secret network, classified properly, then they were protected as they should have been.

Data and information are not a safe. It's not like PFC Manning patched the classified and unclassified networks and the US has left it open. He stole the contents and threw it out, changing the combination won't do anything.

So your answer is to make every organization not share any information with anybody who might be able to use it to connect various data?

That is the exact lack of information sharing that was blamed for 9/11.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Have you any concept of the scale of such an operation? I don't think it's possible to do it without getting people killed.

Problem is just that the whole terror hysteria gets people killed already. One also has to be very careful about the actual truth-value of the infos passed along by these informants. Maybe they abuse "the system" to play out their own, personal vendettas? Maybe some "terrorist groups" are not connected to terrorism at all, if left alone, but were pushed over by some of these informants? Like that recent one here?

Fact is that people get killed already. Sitting back and saying "Uh, well, such an extraction would not go without people dying" is quite hypocrite. If these informants have been so valuable, at least it should be tried to extract them. Otherwise it goes to show how such people are really valued in the end.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

So, wait, you're saying that saving the lives of individuals in terrorist organizations that aren't informants is a benefit? Or do you think that non-terrorists are safer now that terrorists can kill the informants revealing their identities to police and other security personnel?

Question just is if there are really so many terrorist organizations out there as they want to make us believe. And yes, i compare life with life. I simply have no concept of one human life being worth more than another one.

Nowdays i simply refuse to take any reports about people being terrorists at face value. The whole terrorist thing is abused to no end by now. It's the number one excuse for everything. People are put into constant fear, and after years of that fear they simply say "well, they say its terrorist, so be it, burn them!".

No joke: Our politicians here are so deep into that propaganda that they really go forward and tell us that if we see someone, or two or three, with luggage and/or a backpack, and they would approach a train station, it would be wise to call the authorities. They really tell us that, because these people want to hide their faces, if you see someone with a scarf in front of his face, and maybe even his jacket bulges out a bit, you better call the police. And that during winter time!

They tell us that if some people move into an appartement, and we don't see them during the day, but only in the evening, and if they speak a foreign language, and if they get visitors in the evening or night hours, we should be concerned and call the authorities.

Really, that's all just a big pile of crap by now.

Yes, knowing about a leak to everybody that will include those who endanger you is less dangerous than not knowing about a leak to only the specific people who endanger you. You seem to be making the assumption that with so many people having access to that information, it's bound to get leaked. Just because you have access to that information doesn't mean you also have intent or capability to leak that information, even if you knew which people to leak the information to in order to endanger anybody.

Espionage is a very old business. Stealing important information is something that can earn a lot of monies. Most people do not act because they are altruists. Most act for personal gain. People with access to such data do know how important it is, and how valuable it would be to others.

Yes, i have the strong assumption that data, to which many people have access, is bound to leak. And i am damn sure that it happens day in and day out. Just that the stuff that gets public on WL is a very, very small fraction of that. Most of such things never get out in the public.

If the information regarding the inviduals was on a secret network, classified properly, then they were protected as they should have been.

Obviously it was not as protected as it should have been, otherwise we would not have that data in the public now. Obviously too many people had access to it. Obviously it was collected in a way that if, lets say, someone gets access to a report from an informant, that informants real name and stuff was also in the same document.

This could have been avoided, or at least made harder to find out about.

So your answer is to make every organization not share any information with anybody who might be able to use it to connect various data?

That is the exact lack of information sharing that was blamed for 9/11.

No, that is not my answer. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what i have written.

My answer is that first and foremost: try hard to not make stupid things that can backfire badly. Do not shoot people just for fun and film it. Try to behave as honest as possible. The goal should be to have less stuff to be secretive about. The less of that you have, the less you have to fear a leak.

Then, the next thing is to not stupidly grab whatever data you can get hold of. Try not to force others to hand over their data to you. Collect only what you really, really need. Delete everything else. And from the stuff you do need, only make the absolute smallest amount that is needed accessible in networks where thousands, if not millions of people have access to.

And finally, from that little bit that is left, sort out the _really_ sensitive stuff, remove real names of important people and replace them with code names. And hand a list of the code-name <-> real-name relationship to only a very, very select few that need this information.

Doing all that will greatly reduce the risk of leaks. And if something leaks, it also reduces the risk of it being readily usable for everyone who gets access to the leak.

Unfortunately, the reality todays is as different as it can get. Every little piece of whatever information is collected and stored, readily accessible at any time. Even more data is demanded every day. They want to have all the bank transfer data, because, uhm, well, some bad dude could transfer a few bucks to some other bad dude. That's just stupid. First, find out who the allegedly bad dude is, and then store only the bank transfer data from that guy. Do not, never ever, just collect all the data from all transfers of all people just because there could be someone in there.

Really, all that terror-paranoia leads to nowhere good. Not from a social perspective, and surely not from a technological one.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Wrathernaut]

And yes, i compare life with life. I simply have no concept of one human life being worth more than another one.

That'd be great if the people's whose lives you value valued others' lives, but they don't. If one person, or group of individuals is going to continue killing until it is no longer in their power to do so, you have to remove that power through capture or death. If they're going to kill some of their own group out of paranoia, that's a good thing.

 

[Christian Klippel]

While it gets more and more off-topic, i'll just respond to this anyways.

That'd be great if the people's whose lives you value valued others' lives, but they don't.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If we already did know for sure, we would not need informants, now do we? What about the people who originally did indeed value the lives of others, but where talked into stupid things by those very informants?

If one person, or group of individuals is going to continue killing until it is no longer in their power to do so, you have to remove that power through capture or death.

Absolutely right. But this needs to applied to all sides. Otherwise it becomes hypocrite nonsense.

If they're going to kill some of their own group out of paranoia, that's a good thing.

I see. But you have not thought that through, have you? What if there are other informants in such a group, that would get killed because of that paranoia, but could continue their work instead if some other informants were uncovered, reducing that paranoia and thus probably saving their lives? And that's just one of the things i can think about.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[ddt]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html

That is a clear example of people lives who are now threatened due to the release, who in most cases wanted to help security in their own country. Thanks wikileaks!

Those files have been there for everyone to see now for months. I still note you fail to mention a single name of an informant that is in those files as published.

I think by now we may safely call you (and the Pentagon, whom you're parroting) liars for continuing to press this claim with a complete lack of evidence. No evidence has been produced of names of informants that had remained in the published, redacted, papers, nor of information that could be traced back to a particular informant.

And while the DoD can simply find the names by comparing the redacted papers with the originals (a simple program would automate that), the Taliban would have to assemble pieces of information together and then guess who could have provided that information.

Wouldn't you say, that anybody who had been an informant now has their life in greater danger than before? Would future informants be less willing to produce information which could save lives, knowing that a future leak could identify them?

You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Conversely, what individuals have been now indicted on corruption charges from the release of the leaks? Any warcrimes charges brought up to anybody?

Considering the brother of a drug lord is president of Afghanistan, I hold that unlikely. But what happened to "regime change"? What's the difference between Karzai and Noriega?

Clearly there is harm done from the release, and I'm not seeing any benefit from the "increased transparency" of these documents out in public.

The Iraq and Afghanistan papers - which you're now discussing - make abundantly clear that the US leadership from a very early stage knew both wars were a dismal failure.

The cables make, for instance, clear that US diplomats acknowledge there are nuclear weapons present on Dutch soil, something neither the US nor the Dutch government has ever officially acknowledged.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Fact is that people get killed already. Sitting back and saying "Uh, well, such an extraction would not go without people dying" is quite hypocrite. If these informants have been so valuable, at least it should be tried to extract them. Otherwise it goes to show how such people are really valued in the end.

Greetings,

Chris

No, I think MORE people, uninvolved people, will have to die in a mass extraction. You do not sacrifice dozens to possibly save one unless making the point is worth more than the human beings. The scale of such an operation is such that errors will be made.

See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

 

[babycondor]

I used to think wikileaks was a good thing. It never hurts to air out the house from time to time. "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone (beyond hurt feelings), it's not a bad thing." I had thought.
...
There's no way I can think of that can justify this. I just can't. What good can possibly come from releasing something like this? If this is a "lesson", what's the lesson? The only one that I can think of is "Don't give information to wikileaks, because they'll use it help terrorists."

From the link you provided, and in answer to your question:

"In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors, though it does reveal the U.S. asked its diplomats to report back on these matters," he [Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesman] told the paper.

"This further undermines claims made by the U.S. government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence-gathering role," he added."

 

[Christian Klippel]

No, I think MORE people, uninvolved people, will have to die in a mass extraction. You do not sacrifice dozens to possibly save one unless making the point is worth more than the human beings. The scale of such an operation is such that errors will be made.

See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

Maybe i was a bit unclear, so that you did not really grasp what i meant in this context. So i will attempt to make it a bit more clear.

At the time such things get published at WL, they usually put up a notice beforehand. They even give information to the media first, before putting it online.

They attempt to redact certain personal information, albeit that was not always the case if i remember correctly.

They did not publicise all the data at once, as one big leak, but bit by bit instead.

So, early on it was very clear what type of information would possibly be revealed. Even if WL did publish all data at once, it still needs time to sift through all that.

Now, what would be the problem to tell the informants "Hey, look, your identities are maybe about to leak. We need to get you out of there. Move to location X and let us pick you up there. If you don't, we can no longer guarantee your safety"

There is absolutely no reason to wait until some heavy operation is needed. That is, until all data is made public, until maybe non-redacted info shows up, until the other side had time enough to go through all the data with a fine comb.

So, i stand by my previous assessment. If now any informant/spy will die due to any of that leaked information, because he got exposed through any of these leaks, it is simply because the people employing them were too damn lazy or did not really care in the first place, but just wanted information no matter what. There was and is plenty of time to act properly to protect these people.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[BenBurch]

You make a huge assumption if you assume that such notification is feasible.

 

[Christian Klippel]

You make a huge assumption if you assume that such notification is feasible.

Care to explain? Or just an assumption as well?

 

[BenBurch]

Care to explain? Or just an assumption as well?

OK, you suppose that officials know the names of anybody in that large body of material that might be in danger. They would likely have to read it all and comprehend it to make any such list and could not do so ahead of time because they do not know what MIGHT have gone into that file.

I am quite sure that an order like; "warn anybody who might have ever given us intelligence information to go to the nearest US Embassy for sanctuary" is not an order you can carry out even in principle.

And there could easily be tens of thousands of such people.

You also suppose that having the name of a contact or informer will translate into being able to contact this person now. This is unlikely.

 

[Christian Klippel]

OK, you suppose that officials know the names of anybody in that large body of material that might be in danger. They would likely have to read it all and comprehend it to make any such list and could not do so ahead of time because they do not know what MIGHT have gone into that file.

Given the fact that well before the actual documents are published, they already have somewhat of a clue what they might be about, that is, about what region on the maps they are. Now add the fact that "we", as opposed to "them", have far more computing power to do such searches.

And they surely have a list of informant names, so they know with whom they are communicating, right?

I am quite sure that an order like; "warn anybody who might have ever given us intelligence information to go to the nearest US Embassy for sanctuary" is not an order you can carry out even in principle.

Why not? How are troops recalled? By carrier-pigeons and mouth-to-mouth propaganda? Remind you, we are talking about oh-so-important informants, whose names must be kept so super secret because otherwise it would pose a really huuuuge threat to [insert country here]. So, again, they surely must know with whom they speak and how to contact them.

And there could easily be tens of thousands of such people.

I seriously doubt that number. If that would be case, we surely would have so much information by now, even some years ago, that organizations like Al-Quaida should be long gone. So, either there are far less informants out there, or the majority of them gives crappy information. Maybe a lot of them just babble along for personal profit, like a bit of money, food, whatever? Or to get rid of his neighbors, maybe?

You also suppose that having the name of a contact or informer will translate into being able to contact this person now. This is unlikely.

How so? Again, carrier-pigeons? What if an informant has super-hot information that is very urgent. Does he have to wait for the next meeting date, scheduled once a year at the same date? What if other informants have to know what to look for now, in case something shows up that needs to be corroborated?

If they have no way of communicating properly, or at least of making contact in case of whatever emergency, then i fail to see why to have informants in the first place. Unless, of course, no one really cares about the people, but only about information of whatever quality. Either these people are important, or they are not. If they are important, it would be plain stupid to not have ways to get in contact with them in a reasonable period of time. If they are not that important to think about things beforehand, then there is no need for an "oh, but that puts them in danger" uproar.

Oh, and let's not forget that, at least i hope, these people are well aware of what they are doing, that their cover can blow anytime, and that they risk their lives. They chose to be in that situation in the first place. Sure, a weak argument to make, but a reality nonetheless.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Oliver]

Oh, and let's not forget that, at least i hope, these people are well aware of what they are doing, that their cover can blow anytime, and that they risk their lives. They chose to be in that situation in the first place. Sure, a weak argument to make, but a reality nonetheless.

I'm pretty sure the guys in question are following the whole issue very closely to react immediately whenever something about them may be about to be published...

 

[SnakeTongue]

So they're trying to use it to blackmail people into letting them get away with whatever they want?

I've seen some people refer to it as "Teh real ufos!" information.

Sorry, it's blackmail. And he hasn't realized it yet, but this is the sort that creates a REASON to kill him; Some people really want to know what that has in it. And they are not nice people.

blackmail

noun
[mass noun]
- the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.
- money demanded by a person or group engaged in blackmail: we do not pay blackmail
- the use of threats or the manipulation of someone's feelings to force them to do something: some people use emotional blackmail​

No, Mr Assange is not blackmailing anyone.

 

[Christian Klippel]

(I'm going to report myself after this post, since it probably is way too off-topic here. If that's the case, the moderator(s) please move it to a new thread instead, something like "WikiLeaks Fallout" maybe.)

I'm pretty sure the guys in question are following the whole issue very closely to react immediately whenever something about them may be about to be published...

I surely hope so. However, i think that the real "threat" is not WikiLeaks, nor the contents of what it publishes. The real danger is the fallout/backlash, whose dimensions we can only guess at the moment. It is not about some secret documents, that shouldn't be that secret in the first place. Well, most of them, anyways.

It is the grave dangers and threats to democracy itself, caused by the governments and corporations involved. And these dangers are just starting to show up, it's all just beginning. We will be concerned about that in months, if not years, to come.

Just take a look what already happened. And all that without any court deciding that yes, there was something illegal. It happened just because some powers influenced certain people:

- Visa and MasterCard terminated their services for WL. Just because. Of course they have no problem to still handle transactions for porn, anti-abortion fanatics, Ku Klux Klan...

- PayPal cut off their services to WL. Without any court ruling or similar.

- Post Finance of Switzerland closed WL's accounts. Allegedly because Assange does not have a residency in Switzerland. Of course, Swiss banks never had any problems with Nazi-Money, money-laundering, tax-evasions, etc. It's only WL that all of a sudden "touches our moral emotions", as they say.

- Amazon throws out WL's website from the cloud. Just for a second think about what that means. Any company's or entity's web presence can be shut down, without any legal basis, just because they feel like it. Mind you, it's not proven that what WL does is unlawful. There is no court ruling that says so, and it will be extremely hard to get one anyways. Think about the implications. If you have a business, hosted there, and they don't like it, they basically can drive you bancrupt.

- Certain politicians already call for a death penalty of the person who leaked the cables. And just in case, if that's not possible according to current laws, they should be changed to allow for that. Democracy anyone?

- Most of the press is bashing WL. However, they fail to see that what happens to WL right now, directly and equally affects them as well. If they don't like what WL is doing, they have to stop uncovering secrets as well. No more publishing secret information. No more whistle-blower protection. No more any safety for a newspaper that publishes such things. Certain politicians already want a trial for the NYT as well, mind you.

All these things do not bode well for anything that even remotely calls itself a democracy. BTW, there is a long post that covers many (and more) of such points in German here. Lot's of quotes there are in English, however, and for the rest Google-Translate is your friend.

As i said, it's all just beginning. We are about to face real threats, and they have nothing to do with what WL publishes. I think that this is something that most people overlook right now. Currently it's all about the "Ohh, look, the bad guys at WL" or the fake "But they are threatening lives with these publications" or the "But that's so embarrassing for the government of x" arguments.

Want free speech? Then take the risks of defending it. Want to see WL stop what they are doing? Then give up your desire for free speech. You can't have it both ways. And anyways, think twice where you host your companies web pages. Think twice about which bank and/or credit card you want to use. Because, you see, just because someone has bad feelings about what you do, you can loose it all in a blink of an eye. It doesn't take a court verdict that you did something criminal. Sad as it is, but that's the reality, one that we just begin to see. Be prepared for what will come in the near future.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Oh, and if you are in for a real laugh:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004EEOLIU

Yes, that's right. WL is so bad that Amazon has to cut of their services. And that Visa and MasterCard had to cut off their services as well.

Of course that does not stop Amazon from making profit of the latest leak, and you can pay for that with Visa and MasterCard, of course!

Any more questions?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[BenBurch]

...
Of course that does not stop Amazon from making profit of the latest leak, and you can pay for that with Visa and MasterCard, of course!

...

Amazon does not pre-review content. Let them know it's there, and I bet they remove it.

 

[BenBurch]

Amazon does not pre-review content. Let them know it's there, and I bet they remove it.

In fact, did you look at the link?

WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies. All cables with tags from 1 5000 [DOES NOT CONTAIN TEXT OF CABLES][PLEASE NOTE - REMOVED BY AUTHOR]