Wikileaks publishes full cache of unredacted cables

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,219
Location
Yokohama, Japan
WikiLeaks publishes full cache of unredacted cables

WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their lives in danger.

The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners – the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde – who have worked with WikiLeaks publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.

"We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk," the organisations said in a joint statement.
Click to expand...

It seems that wikileaks can no longer claim to be just "whistle-blowing" or doing investigative journalism.
 
Maybe this will undermine American foreign policy and convince people in other countries not to work with the US State Department.

Good.
 
The cables also contain references to people persecuted by their governments, victims of sex offences, and locations of sensitive government installations and infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Even more sickening.

I guess Assange doesn't really care for people victim of sex offenses, since he's potentially an offender himself.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, according to wikileaks, it was the Guardian's editor who first published the cablegate password, revealing all the names...

I can't post a link but you can google for Nigel Parry for more information.
 
SpacemanSpiff said:
On the other hand, according to wikileaks, it was the Guardian's editor who first published the cablegate password, revealing all the names...

I can't post a link but you can google for Nigel Parry for more information.
Click to expand...

Yes, except that Wikileaks told the Guardian that it was a temporary password for one specific document. Wikileaks re-used the password.

Idiots.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Yes, except that Wikileaks told the Guardian that it was a temporary password for one specific document. Wikileaks re-used the password.

Idiots.
Click to expand...

Your wording "temporary password for one specific document" is a bit misleading. As far as I understand, prove me wrong, it was a temporary pw that gave access to entire cablegate...

Idiots? who? Guardian editor for making public such a high security pw, or wikileaks for reusing the temporary pw? Or both?

In any case, the data with names was already made public, before WL did it.
 
SpacemanSpiff said:
Your wording "temporary password for one specific document" is a bit misleading. As far as I understand, prove me wrong, it was a temporary pw that gave access to entire cablegate...

Idiots? who? Guardian editor for making public such a high security pw, or wikileaks for reusing the temporary pw? Or both?

In any case, the data with names was already made public, before WL did it.
Click to expand...

The document is a .CSV file. Wikileaks told the Guardian that it was a temporary password that would be deleted within hours. Wikileaks then re-used said password. That makes Wikileaks a bunch of idiots.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The document is a .CSV file. Wikileaks told the Guardian that it was a temporary password that would be deleted within hours. Wikileaks then re-used said password. That makes Wikileaks a bunch of idiots.
Click to expand...

The truth appears to be a bit more complicated than that. Spiegel Online has a fairly complete story. The sequence of events is roughly as follows:
  • Wikileaks put the encrypted document into a non-obvious directory deep down in its website
  • Wikileaks gave the file location and decryption key to David Leigh of the Guardian, who used it access the file after he download it
  • Wikileaks failed to protect access to the difficult-to-find directory, and failed to remove it after David Leigh had downloaded the file
  • Wikileaks became the target of several web based attacks
  • In response to the attacks, activists around the world made copies of the Wikileaks site, including the difficult-to-find directory (there are programs such was wget designed to do this)
  • These copies were compressed into a 550 megabyte file and put on to BitTorrent for distribution
  • David Leigh published a book in which he gave details of the decryption key, believing the file to which it applied was no longer publicly accessible
  • Some people put two and two together and broadcast the result over Twitter

I see the following failures:
  • In addition to encrypting the file, Wikileaks should have put a password on the difficult-to-find directory, which would have prevent recursive website retrieval programs from getting it
  • Wikileaks should have been more proactive in deleting the encrypted file
  • David Leigh should not have published the true encryption key in his book, even if he believed the file no longer existed.

Because of the information that's now public, a lot of people are going to be killed. That's very troubling. I think Wikileaks has done a service, but the two blunders (failing to remove the file promptly and publishing the encryption key) severely damage their cause.
 
Whoever thought wikileaks was a good idea should be shot. *********** moron.

Edited by LashL: 
To properly mask profanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, I very much like wikileaks.

It has shed some light into some very dark and dirty corners.

I do not want governments getting too comfortable.
 
Blue Mountain said:
The truth appears to be a bit more complicated than that. Spiegel Online has a fairly complete story. The sequence of events is roughly as follows:
  • Wikileaks put the encrypted document into a non-obvious directory deep down in its website
  • Wikileaks gave the file location and decryption key to David Leigh of the Guardian, who used it access the file after he download it
  • Wikileaks failed to protect access to the difficult-to-find directory, and failed to remove it after David Leigh had downloaded the file
  • Wikileaks became the target of several web based attacks
  • In response to the attacks, activists around the world made copies of the Wikileaks site, including the difficult-to-find directory (there are programs such was wget designed to do this)
  • These copies were compressed into a 550 megabyte file and put on to BitTorrent for distribution
  • David Leigh published a book in which he gave details of the decryption key, believing the file to which it applied was no longer publicly accessible
  • Some people put two and two together and broadcast the result over Twitter

I see the following failures:
  • In addition to encrypting the file, Wikileaks should have put a password on the difficult-to-find directory, which would have prevent recursive website retrieval programs from getting it
  • Wikileaks should have been more proactive in deleting the encrypted file
  • David Leigh should not have published the true encryption key in his book, even if he believed the file no longer existed.

Because of the information that's now public, a lot of people are going to be killed. That's very troubling. I think Wikileaks has done a service, but the two blunders (failing to remove the file promptly and publishing the encryption key) severely damage their cause.
Click to expand...

Wikileaks has done no good at all - unless by good you mean self aggrandizement for no real purpose except to get the approval of what I understand are called "useful idiots". Their only real cause - like so manyorganizations like it _ was making a "hero" out of a slimeball.
 
NoahFence said:
Whoever thought wikileaks was a good idea should be shot. *********** moron.
Click to expand...
No, too easy. Flayed and salted.


By the way, I am a Democrat and a liberal and I want to see the government
do right by us - and I do not want some feces eating rectum breather having any access to any security items of our country. Free not to like us, not free to harm us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fuelair said:
Wikileaks has done no good at all - unless by good you mean self aggrandizement for no real purpose except to get the approval of what I understand are called "useful idiots". Their only real cause - like so manyorganizations like it _ was making a "hero" out of a slimeball.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. Well said.
 
fuelair said:
Wikileaks has done no good at all - unless by good you mean self aggrandizement for no real purpose except to get the approval of what I understand are called "useful idiots". Their only real cause - like so manyorganizations like it _ was making a "hero" out of a slimeball.
Click to expand...

By good I understand acces to information such as

"Oil giant Shell claiming to have inserted staff and fully infiltrated Nigeria's government"

or

"UN peacekeepers in Ivory Coast traded food for sex with underage girls"

and hundreds of more ...
 
fuelair said:
Wikileaks has done no good at all - unless by good you mean self aggrandizement for no real purpose except to get the approval of what I understand are called "useful idiots". Their only real cause - like so manyorganizations like it _ was making a "hero" out of a slimeball.
Click to expand...

Actualy wikileaks has done a fair bit of good. For US policy objectives. At least part of the cause of the arab spring was people discovering what US diplomats (rather than press spokesmen) really thought about various dictators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom