Whistleblower site Wikileaks under attack!

Originally posted by roguetechie
reply to post by markfelt

Breaking a midlevel scandal or two... ATS has broken more than that. As far as things go to tell me I need to get my facts straight and imply I don't know what I'm talking about or I'm somehow new to this arena is laughable to say the least.

I never said you don't know what you're talking about, nor was anything I said an ad hominem attack. I simply said that your statement, which was that Wikileaks wasn't much of anything before some guy in the Obama administration was sworn in, is absolutely false. Furthermore, I gave two facts which back my claim that your statement is false. These facts are independently verifiable. Google 'Wikileaks Julius Baer' for starters.

You, on the other hand, have offered not a single verifiable fact in defense of your statement, choosing instead to utter a bunch of non-sequitars about ad hominem attacks that I did not make and other such bravado.

Err well there is his close associates bailing on him and making statements to the tune of all is not as it seems...

Then there's his whole border wizard act... kinda like the underwear bomber that

Then there is his walking away after minimal jail time and a laughable fine from a MAJOR hacking indictment in which others were ... not so..... UHHH .... Lucky yeah that's it lucky.

I've known people that get "lucky" like that whenever someone gets caught for something... funny thing at least in the US if you file motions correctly how much luck looks like selling out the rest of your crew.

Now I'm not saying he did or didn't do this.... BUT it's certainly something to consider. And really as far as stories being broken and the way bradley manning went down and who supposedly figured out who he was (a confirmed snitch) and the "feud" between asssange and the wired editor as backdrop for this whole soap opera conveniently drawing attention away from wikileaks getting this poor kid manning sent away for life when part of wikileaks draw was supposed to be them protecting people.

I don't know it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth always has... especially with them ratcheting up all this tension in a time when the only thing blatantly showing how vulnerable cyber assets really are is likely to get is all of our access SEVERELY limited JUSTIFIABLY when they're already just looking for an excuse...

It just strikes me that if they were really as about freedom and access for all and social responsibility AT ALL COSTS like they CLAIM, Wouldn't they see the ugly attitude on the hill and the just PALPABLE LUST for an EXCUSE to take away our access. Wouldn't the social responsibility and desire to make things better for us all indicate that maybe now would be a good time to chill out for awhile so they don't ruin things for EVERYONE!

But instead their need for PR overrides any and all good sense and they push into a situation that there is just NOTHING good that can come from it!!

Bottom line: In my book if your actions seem to be at odds with your message no matter who you are I will be skeptical of your motives. And Assange just seems to be playing INTO the hands of the big boys rather than playing smart and tactical to get info out while not burning bridges for EVERYONE just to get mention on CNN.

edit to add personal disclosure: also the first time and every time since then that I've seen this man's picture or seen him speaking I had an overwhelming negative reaction to him... Every time I've caught a vibe like that off of a picture or off of a chance meeting with someone they have turned out to be bad news and ignoring this reaction I have now realized is something I do at my own peril. While this may seem like a stupid reason to distrust and dislike someone ... It has just been too correct to ignore.

reply to post by roguetechie


I agree there is cause for concern...

Is that really his natural hair color?

Originally posted by roguetechie
Err well there is his close associates bailing on him and making statements to the tune of all is not as it seems...

You mean Daniel Domscheit-Berg, aka "Daniel Schmitt"? Apparently Assange and Schmitt had a disagreement, yes. What Schmitt said about others in the Wikileaks organization is rumored to be false, at least that was the word in #wikichat. (I have logs)

In any respect, this is non-sequitar. It does not back your statement.

Then there's his whole border wizard act... kinda like the underwear bomber that

I assume you're talking about Jacob Applebaum. He was detained by customs and questioned by the FBI; unlike the underwear bomber, who was arrested, Applebaum was not charged with a crime. Again, I fail to see how this backs your unsupported claim about Wikileaks being much of nothing before the Obama administration took office.

Then there is his walking away after minimal jail time and a laughable fine from a MAJOR hacking indictment in which others were ... not so..... UHHH .... Lucky yeah that's it lucky.

I am not aware of the particular facts of that case in the 1990s, but they still do nothing to back your claim that Wikileaks was much of nothing before the Obama administration took office.

The rest of your post similarly does not defend this claim. Rather than address that, you choose to try to change the subject and distract me and others here from the fact that your statement, which is the lynchpin in your entire argument that Wikileaks is a CIA front, is absolutely untrue. Your credibility is looking pretty thin about now.

While I do so love a battle of semantics repackaged as a battle of wits...

I made my points. People can agree or disagree on the MERITS of our arguments why is it you feel the need to
"bolster the strength" of your points by trying to tear down my argument? Why not let your argument speak for itself?

Is it because you aren't familiar with critical issues that indeed ARE MAJOR lynch pins in this guys credibility. And BTW on that note I haven't come out and said Wikileaks is a CIA op. Far from it actually... I just jumped in to give Mr. Mask some backing as he was being beset from all sides by hero worshippers that couldn't let the strength of their arguments stand and instead made an issue out of his "conspiracy theorist street cred and or bona fides by insinuating that anyone that held his outlook was obviously not really on "Our side""

Which has now happened to me... and my point with the underwear bomber which you totally missed, just for the sake of keeping score on who is looking bad right now, was simply this. The underwear bomber managed to GET On A PLANE WITH NO PASSPORT because he was escorted by SOMEONE OFFICIAL who we still haven't got any story about!!

and it's not just his second in command that have said things ... there have been MULTIPLE wiki defectors. which I made plain was what I was referring to in my post. After I rather generously, I feel, conceded that taking the word of his second in command who won't come straight out and level accusations might be a bad idea. It's the other wiki refugees that have made statements that I was referring to.

But you can malign my credibility all you want in your manning of the battlements to defend the "honor" of Assange.... Like I said I don't like the guy, never have never will.

And the fact that you're "unfamiliar" with his hacking saga earlier in life yet telling ME I need to do more research and check MY facts????

YEAH enough said

so to refute the LYNCHPIN of YOUR ARGUMENT and for those keeping score...

did I say wikileaks was NOTHING before Cass Sunstein was confirmed....

OR did I say wikileaks hadn't done much of anything truly newsworthy before he was confirmed...

I know Assange wasn't "wanted" and the Bradley Manning thing weren't even a BLIP ON THE WIKI HORIZON pre Sunstein...

so as I said before, even though I love semantics games and "righteous indignation" which usually comes out hot an blustery with little sound and fury just like the hot air it is...

You can feel free to keep twisting my LOGIC to "proove" your assertions of me being wrong... Or you can take a step back and look at the motives behind the two sides to this argument.

On My side: I have never once came out and said Assange IS CIA or Is a good guy... I have from post one in this thread been solely interested in LAYING OUT THE BACKSTORY and RELEVANT FACTS for those considering involvement in this Epic internet saga. My motivation has always been and my posts prove this out, to give people the MEANS to make informed decisions and to illuminate the RISK involved in even peripheral involvement in this dodgy and highly odd situation.

On Mark Felt's side: Well he just wants to be RIGHT... He has shown ZERO concern for the safety of others or even the EFFECTIVENESS of what the organization he is championing is doing. As long as he is right there is ZERO concern for whether his side has done more to HELP or HURT the cause of TRANSPARENCY and EQUAL ACCESS FOR THE MASSES.

While I like being right too... I think in the long run I'll be the one proven right in the scenario (especially considering that I haven't made a line in the sand saying Assange and wikileaks is THIS OR THAT)

But What I do know and have said over and over is this...

It doesn't matter whether they are working for the government or NOT their actions are detrimental to the cause they SAY THEY SUPPORT. And at the end of the day, isn't that more important than whether this is a honey trap or genuine?

Originally posted by roguetechie
Err well there is his close associates bailing on him and making statements to the tune of all is not as it seems...

Then there's his whole border wizard act... kinda like the underwear bomber that

Then there is his walking away after minimal jail time and a laughable fine from a MAJOR hacking indictment in which others were ... not so..... UHHH .... Lucky yeah that's it lucky.

I've known people that get "lucky" like that whenever someone gets caught for something... funny thing at least in the US if you file motions correctly how much luck looks like selling out the rest of your crew.

Now I'm not saying he did or didn't do this.... BUT it's certainly something to consider. And really as far as stories being broken and the way bradley manning went down and who supposedly figured out who he was (a confirmed snitch) and the "feud" between asssange and the wired editor as backdrop for this whole soap opera conveniently drawing attention away from wikileaks getting this poor kid manning sent away for life when part of wikileaks draw was supposed to be them protecting people.

I don't know it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth always has... especially with them ratcheting up all this tension in a time when the only thing blatantly showing how vulnerable cyber assets really are is likely to get is all of our access SEVERELY limited JUSTIFIABLY when they're already just looking for an excuse...

It just strikes me that if they were really as about freedom and access for all and social responsibility AT ALL COSTS like they CLAIM, Wouldn't they see the ugly attitude on the hill and the just PALPABLE LUST for an EXCUSE to take away our access. Wouldn't the social responsibility and desire to make things better for us all indicate that maybe now would be a good time to chill out for awhile so they don't ruin things for EVERYONE!

But instead their need for PR overrides any and all good sense and they push into a situation that there is just NOTHING good that can come from it!!

Bottom line: In my book if your actions seem to be at odds with your message no matter who you are I will be skeptical of your motives. And Assange just seems to be playing INTO the hands of the big boys rather than playing smart and tactical to get info out while not burning bridges for EVERYONE just to get mention on CNN.

edit to add personal disclosure: also the first time and every time since then that I've seen this man's picture or seen him speaking I had an overwhelming negative reaction to him... Every time I've caught a vibe like that off of a picture or off of a chance meeting with someone they have turned out to be bad news and ignoring this reaction I have now realized is something I do at my own peril. While this may seem like a stupid reason to distrust and dislike someone ... It has just been too correct to ignore.

edit on 22-10-2010 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)

I agree, I don't really know what to think about wikileaks. At first it seemed legit, but as time goes on I don't know. A lot of how they respond seems childish to me. They seemed to have this arrogance instead of the professional attitude I thought they started with. The wired thing, they should have just released a simple "this is incorrect" and asked for a correction.

Originally posted by roguetechie
Err well there is his close associates bailing on him and making statements to the tune of all is not as it seems...

Then there's his whole border wizard act... kinda like the underwear bomber that

Then there is his walking away after minimal jail time and a laughable fine from a MAJOR hacking indictment in which others were ... not so..... UHHH .... Lucky yeah that's it lucky.

I've known people that get "lucky" like that whenever someone gets caught for something... funny thing at least in the US if you file motions correctly how much luck looks like selling out the rest of your crew.

Now I'm not saying he did or didn't do this.... BUT it's certainly something to consider. And really as far as stories being broken and the way bradley manning went down and who supposedly figured out who he was (a confirmed snitch) and the "feud" between asssange and the wired editor as backdrop for this whole soap opera conveniently drawing attention away from wikileaks getting this poor kid manning sent away for life when part of wikileaks draw was supposed to be them protecting people.

I don't know it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth always has... especially with them ratcheting up all this tension in a time when the only thing blatantly showing how vulnerable cyber assets really are is likely to get is all of our access SEVERELY limited JUSTIFIABLY when they're already just looking for an excuse...

It just strikes me that if they were really as about freedom and access for all and social responsibility AT ALL COSTS like they CLAIM, Wouldn't they see the ugly attitude on the hill and the just PALPABLE LUST for an EXCUSE to take away our access. Wouldn't the social responsibility and desire to make things better for us all indicate that maybe now would be a good time to chill out for awhile so they don't ruin things for EVERYONE!

But instead their need for PR overrides any and all good sense and they push into a situation that there is just NOTHING good that can come from it!!

Bottom line: In my book if your actions seem to be at odds with your message no matter who you are I will be skeptical of your motives. And Assange just seems to be playing INTO the hands of the big boys rather than playing smart and tactical to get info out while not burning bridges for EVERYONE just to get mention on CNN.

edit to add personal disclosure: also the first time and every time since then that I've seen this man's picture or seen him speaking I had an overwhelming negative reaction to him... Every time I've caught a vibe like that off of a picture or off of a chance meeting with someone they have turned out to be bad news and ignoring this reaction I have now realized is something I do at my own peril. While this may seem like a stupid reason to distrust and dislike someone ... It has just been too correct to ignore.

edit on 22-10-2010 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)

I agree, I don't really know what to think about wikileaks. At first it seemed legit, but as time goes on I don't know. A lot of how they respond seems childish to me. They seemed to have this arrogance instead of the professional attitude I thought they started with. The wired thing, they should have just released a simple "this is incorrect" and asked for a correction.

I think what many of the people here are trying to say is that don't just accept the stories Wikileaks gives you at face value. Be skeptical. Don't put all your hopes into this guy. We don't know the whole truth and he claims too.
Yes, i agree that having this option for whistleblowers is a good idea. It is needed. I am sure most, if not all, people here would agree on that.

However, you have to keep in mind that most whistleblowers are breaking the law in order to prove that someone else is breaking the law. If you believe two wrongs can make a right then by all means, lets agree to disagree.

To deny that their is a possibility this guy is not what he says he is, to deny that maybe he is using the veil of truth to achieve his own selfish goal, to deny this is all a farce to me is blind. There always is a chance.

This guy could be a saviour or a devil and why anyone puts 100% faith in him, while searching logic, totally astounds me.

reply to post by enteri


Here's the latest tweet from about a minute ago.

Al Jazeera have broken our embargo by 30 minutes. We release everyone from their Iraq War Logs embargoes.

Looks like the story is now out there...

Thank you Canuck CODER that was EXACTLY my point...

And I for one think that whistleblowing and whistleblowers are VITAL to a healthy society....

That's the problem I have with the situation that is developing around wikileaks as I see it...

Their actions and their PR seeking at a time when our access to information on the web etcetera is already EMBATTLED ON ALL SIDES seems to be having the EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT as their stated goals.

If anything every day this whole situation continues makes our Rights even less likely to survive without a fight and even more importantly they are making a situation that is even more dangerous hostile and Not worth it to potential whistle blowers.

Like I said... it all comes down to the fact that their stated goals do not seem to match up with what they are doing. That is ALWAYS a sign to be careful.

So wiki has successfully published the documents. They tweeted that they were under attack. So a reasonable assumption is that the Wiki hackers out hacked the US hackers. I so wish I could know the how and what of what happened.

what methods were employed. Like they kept typing in the pw?? lol


Or was it just a matter of cat and mouse with servers.

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by DomCheetham
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Mr Mask, what do you have against it?

Here are some facts for you to consider while you roll your eyes at my musings on the legitimacy of wikileaks.

1) Wikileaks Co-funder John Young has openly stated he left wikileaks because it was a CIA operation.

2) China's inteligence agencies have openly stated that wikileaks is a CIA/Mossad Cointel project under the US Government's "new cyber war policies".

3) The Pentagon has said openly, wikileaks appears in all ways to be a typical CIA operation.

edit on 20-10-2010 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

Interesting indeed, can you verify those statements with links to interviews or video of Young ,China officials, and Pentagon employees?
I found Young's critique on Wikileaks in interviews, but nothing about the "CIA operation" stuff.

Would be great, thanks!

WikiLeaks hit by new online onslaught

WikiLeaks suffered the most serious blow in its struggles with corporate and official America yesterday when PayPal, the payments processing company, suspended the organisation's account. The move will have a major impact on WikiLeaks' ability to collect donations.

A statement by PayPal, which is owned by eBay Inc, said: "PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.

We've notified the account holder of this action." Attempts to donate to WikiLeaks via PayPal yesterday were greeted with an error message. PayPal has been probably the most convenient way to support the organisation.