Highly suspicious Wikileaks bashing

Originally posted by SneakAPeek
You do know Wiki is a group of individuals like us here on ATS. Meaning they are able to voice their own opinions on anything they want. Even in the definitions areas. As for Wikileaks, same thing.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SneakAPeek]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SneakAPeek]

wikileaks is a cia front.

theres plenty of threads on it already. i feel sorry for everybody donating to help them "break the super secret video encryption!!!".

hey, whens the next debut leak premier? have they set a date? is their a teaser trailer yet?

im rather disappointed in the amount of people so quick to jump on this bandwagon.

you all must think wikileaks is the first website of its kind or something...it certainly isn't...its just the first to go "mainstream". Cryptome.org another whistle blower leak site (that has been around for A DECADE) accused wikileaks early on of being a government front...think about it...

1) perfect way to get a 1 up on whistleblowers.
2) our own ATS members have submitted material that ended up questionable at best (not the material...the submitting process..lets just say it wasnt successful)
3) new with no credibility
4) being accused by people w/credibility (cryptome)
5) "we need $$$ for cpu's to crack secret code" charade. which sounded like something out of a bad movie, suspicious at best...anybody with even entry level programming skills knows why this is bs.
6) setting "premier" dates instead of just releasing the videos.
7) all the media attention and hype. why on earth would the MSM report it if it didnt fit their agenda? i dont see cryptome doc's on CNN or FOX...


my tin radar goes nuts every time i read a wikileaks article. so far the ONLY thing ive been able to find landing them any credit whatsoever is this Julien guys history...which isnt very in depth, and all pretty media centered.... but it seems to me hes almost a separate entity from wikileaks...if he even exists..

i wont even get into how obvious the whole "Lamo/Manning" thing is...

There's been a lot of attack on Wikileaks lately. Including a number of threads on ATS and in other conspiracy media claiming that it was a CIA front.

I have yet to see any evidence supporting any of this.

I am not tech proficient enough to know whether any of the security issues raised in the article are valid, but it seems obvious that an article like this would be a good way of hindering the work of Wikileaks.

They have ruffled a lot of feathers and are about to ruffle a hell of a lot more once they release those wires we have heard so much about.

I just wish they would get on with it already

Reply to post by MR BOB

lol YA! Who the hell reads WIRED!? They are full of crap... like those people who tried to pass of that internet chat between manning & that hacker as REAL... OH WAIT that WAS the same people wasn`t it? well then...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

cool!

[edit on 2-7-2010 by cllj7]

reply to post by and14263


Good post, S&F.

I've posted numerous threads on Wikileaks including the one about their paypal account being frozen.

Some people are trying very hard to discredit them. But you know what? Even if they only produced ONE document that disclosed some information we should know, then I think that is enough but they've done it on more than one occasion so screw those trying to talk down about Wikileaks. They've done more for us than a lot of others have separately so keep supporting them!

Perhaps Wired could create some relevancy for itself in these issues by divulging the full content of the texts between its "reporter," Adrian Lamo, and Private Bradley Manning. Many, I believe, are curious of Lamo's journalistic methods. Who knows what might be revealed about Wired's integrity and credibility, as they continue to revel in their sponsorship of Lamo, someone who may or may not be completely sociopathic?

And then, maybe it would make sense for them to judge the credibility of others.

Heres the deal folks.

Is Wired lieing?

No.

Wikileaks is not perfect and should be met with as much skeptism as anything else in this world.

Sorry to say but that is the truth.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Helmkat]

Originally posted by tetrahedron
reply to post by Greensage

 

"She said that if Assange spent more time fixing his hair he would do better in this world..."

Hah. That's quite a tell. Megyn Kelly gets to play luscious blonde Manhattanite while Assange runs around the world in Ikea sweaters, unkempt, playing open-source spy.

They draw their livelihood from the same source...

Are there any real, legitimate sources (and by legitimate I mean not ATS threads with posters saying the same thing with zero evidence) for this? I couldn't care less about this Megyn Kelly joke, but I've never seen evidence Assange is financed by the same financiers as ... Fox News. And that's quite a revelation. Would like to peruse for myself the, I'm sure, abundant evidence.

Also, does Ikea sell sweaters? The one I go to doesn't. Is this a European thing?

[edit on Jul 02, 2010 by Hadrian]

Originally posted by SneakAPeek
You do know Wiki is a group of individuals like us here on ATS. Meaning they are able to voice their own opinions on anything they want. Even in the definitions areas. As for Wikileaks, same thing.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SneakAPeek]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SneakAPeek]

Maybe i'm wrong, but something tells me you have no idea what Wikileaks is ... maybe you're confusing it with Wikipedia?

Julian is the real deal,he is safe here in Australia altho his passport has been removed,this was on local radio stations weeks ago.

A recent interview by ABC foreign correspondent will educate you further.
Australians love him,even the fed cop that delt with him.
Iceland is supporting him also.
Is it all lip service? we will see.

Link to interview in transcript,,www.abc.net.au...

reply to post by LurkerMan


"wikileaks is a cia front."

Evidence please!
And btw, i made a hitler/wikileaks satire
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by and14263


Awww.... did the CIA or NSA aquire 'Wired' as another Front?

Or is Homeland Security embarked on a new Disinfo Front?

I think 'Wired' made an error here or perhaps they think they should be a Clearing House for what Wikileaks has to offer.

reply to post by and14263


Certainly hope not. Just hope Assange does not get arrested or
killed. Remember transparency?
Could use more like Assange to keep the people informed and up
to date on current events. We do not belong in the mid-east.
Mass exterminations on both sides.

Originally posted by LurkerMan
wikileaks is a cia front.

Why would then the CIA publish that video of the two reporters being taken out?

Let's be honest here, the man has provided nothing really "new." A few videos of civilians being killed is hardly "ground breaking" considering everyone and their mother already knew such things were happening.

He hasn't provided anything "earth shattering" and I highly doubt that site ever will. You act as if the man has provided video of Obama and other world leaders meeting with an Alien or something.

reply to post by and14263


If I recall correctly (it was awhile since I read the book 'Takedown' by John Markoff) Kevin Poulsen was working for the FBI himself ratting out hackers to save his own skin (which led to the eventual arrest of Kevin Mitnick). If you check out Kevin Mitnick's Wikipedia page it oddly has a photo of Llamo an Poulsen on there.

I am more willing to bet on the idea that this isnt wired's position or a heavy influence by anyone other than Poulsen defending not only his guilt over the people he put away in his early career... but his mentally disturbed friend who he associates with and gets these stories from... self interest is going to take precedence over the interest of some shadowy elite pulling strings.

Either way he's not a hacker... hes a sellout.

reply to post by Gakus


Just a few innocent civilians killed? The video Wikileaks released was United States troops committing a warcrime. Sure it wasnt ushering Jews into a concentration camp oven and flipping a switch... but it was a clear violation of the rules of engagement at best and at worst just cold blooded murder.

It really shows the apathy our society has when it comes to this. Our video games don't approach the subject as deep as 'the rule of law' when your gunning down silhouettes of people from an AC-130.

Although I take it personally that you think this way, I think this is the attitude of the American public pacified into an oblivion that has had the luxury of not sacrificing anything for needless wars and endless aggression for resources.

reply to post by LurkerMan


I really don't understand where your coming from. My statement was to reflect how I think en.wikipedia.org... is affiliated with Wikileaks. Both sites are done by a mass of individuals with their own opinion, that's why wikipedia definitions are different from any dictionary. Wouldn't Wikipedia sue Wikileaks for including their trade marked "Wiki" name?

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SneakAPeek]

Originally posted by Now_Then
Do you know, if even some of that article is correct regarding the absence of the security features, I would suspect that Wikileaks either has knowledge that any of those those measures can be 'backdoored' at will by those with the power....... Either that or it's a case of the paranoia.

Or maybe they have their hands full. - Or maybe, one thing you can never rule out, is that it was a front all along and has served it's purpose... A nice big list of whistle blowers to hang.

I think you got it.
Too many people want a white knight in shiny armor to come to the rescue and defend us "the peasants"...
That makes them much more gullible and ready to accept as their champion the first guy that seems descent enough to fit that role...

I had my suspicions on Assage for quite some time now. And when you start to "dig" a bit in his past you find out that he was very lightly "punished" for hacking nasa, if I dont mix him with someone else (a challenger mission I think)... Suspicious if you ask me.

And now that same guy (who, at the very least, was watched by some of our 3 letters ag), is the one menacing them??

I dont buy it, he's a front. And the worst is I start to see some threads/comments like: "If Assange didnt release anyting on UFOs, that's proof NO serious proof exist...(???) As if there was real proof he would have already leaked them...(!!!)" or "if the best stuff wikileaks got on our gvt are the videos of the muder of these journalists, maybe our gvt is not that bad..."

He (gvt) gave us some bones to chew on, not enough for trully worsen the image of our gvt but enough to make him credible enough (?) to the point for some to raise questions/suspicions about ALL conspiracies theories that he doesnt have material on.

Hell, they can even intercept proofs or potential threats at their source since some could be trusting enough to turn to them.

As you see there is some arguments to think about here...

Plus I want to say I agree with this:
quote: If you would all care to direct your irritation towards Ryan Singel the author of the piece. He appears to be primarily concerned with privacy issues and is essentially a one trick pony. Obviously he feels the Governments right to privacy should be respected.

This guy doesnt seem to follow the "Wired" (editorial) line. Gives him more credit I think, and the points he raised, even if they seem light, add to the questionning IMO.

Your thoughts?

Well to address the article directly, the author is being quite unfair. For a technical magazine they sure avoided being technical unless it suited them, even then they were vague as to why they potentially could be avoiding moving as quickly as they should.

Anyhow, with that being said here is my response to the article.
Oh wait, I am sure people want to know my credentials.
12 Years Web Application Development & Design.
I am proficient (some certifications, not all) in the following coding languages:
VB Script, Visual Basic, Java, Javascript, C#, PHP, Actionscript 1.0 to version 3.0.
I have worked internationally in the USA and Canada. Ive lived in New Jersey, New York, and of course my Nations Capital Ottawa. I currently work for the government as a Senior Web Developer within our Intranet. I have done CISSP Training, am very well versed in PCI Compliance and OWASP Standards, Follow the W3C guildelines and continue daily to educate myself. Want a resume, U2U me and ill be happy to provide it as proof along with any other proof you want.

First ill address Wikileaks population issues.
Wikileaks was popular and they were managing fine for awhile, probably just barely. However due to the amount of traffic they got and the type of base they had, upgrades they should of made but didn't were probably put on the backburner while they focused strictly on content. Which is Paramount. (So is architecture and useability, but thats the man behind the curtain, its the show that drags in the crowds. Tough Balancing act to say the least...without one the other falls.)

Since they were thrust on the world stage these issues now have to be addressed. First you need a setup that can handle the traffic with load balancers and other hardware for further protection against hacks, exploits and vulnerabilities and also someone to run that hardware. Your talking big money here. Even for one site. You might as well launch 10 sites because you can use the same hardware for that many sites without it flinching really. Unless all 10 are massively popular...getting a bit off track here...

SSL is attached to domain, domains are attached to DNS', DNS are attached to your server. Why didn't they buy an SSL? Potential reasons:
- Moving servers, if their moving it makes sense to wait to buy the SSL once the move is completed. If they haven't chosen where their moving yet it may also affect the purchase, so its again better to wait.
- Upgrading architecture and functionality and security of submissions, why buy an SSL you wont use for 2 weeks or more if its 24 hours to set up and you pay by year? Business sense says buy it once your new upgrades passes the stress, security and exploit tests.
- Legal issues, if they want to remain off USA jurisdiction then their server should be hosted in a country of their preference. Perhaps they are seeking legal advice on this and we all know how fast lawyers work when your pockets are emty right?

I can go on and list a few more reasons but i believe this is sufficient.

Security for them is going to be tough, since they are using an Open Source software they might need to re-write a lot of base code. I dont know how many coders are working at wikileaks, but if its one guy, expect long delays in updates to the sites functionality and site bug fixes.
Since they also didn't develop the wiki they also have to be careful on upgrading the wiki if they made changes to how it works in any way.

Its a tough thing using open source sometimes, its great to start but once you want to make an identity for yourself and move away from the open source programs look and feel and overal architecture its very difficult .

Anyways, im almost at the max allowable post here....sorry for the long winded post but i found the article unfair.

CISSP - www.isc2.org...
OWASP - www.owasp.org...
PCI - www.pcisecuritystandards.org...

EDIT TO ADD LINKS

[edit on 2-7-2010 by EspyderMan]