Does Anyone Know Why Wikileaks Is Not Releasing All The Info At Once?

I am curious as to why the information is being given in small amounts. Is this a technical issue? As I looked further into this, I found these comments. What do you think?

www.foxbusiness.com...

WikiLeaks possesses data about major U.S. banks and plans to leak some information early next year, according to an interview posted Monday with group founder Julian Assange.
While Assange gave no information regarding the leaks or parties involved, he told Forbes that the data could contain tens of thousands of documents.
The news follows an October 2009 interview with Computerworld, where Assange reportedly said Wikileaks was sitting on 5 gigabytes of data from Bank of America (BAC: 10.95 ,-0.34 ,-3.01%) executives' hard drives.
Assange declined to comment to Forbes about which U.S. bank would be involved in the early 2011 leaks, though he said the megaleak could launch investigations, particularly involving alleged ethics violations.

www.computerworld.com...

"At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives," he said. "Now how do we present that? It's a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it."

It's called wikiLEAKS I guess

Not wikiFlood!

Nah, dunno, I think it's all a bit suss if you ask me. ASS Angel also

Maybe theyre releasing em like that cause theyre waitin for someone to fess up.
sorta like when a parent counts to 3 (or 10) depending on the situation

reply to post by hypattia


It creates more suspense when they release in dribbles and bits.

The answer is they have limited resources to process incoming data and the amount of incoming data is currently rising in a non-linear fashion, it's rising exponentially.

Forbes: To start, is it true you’re sitting on trove of unpublished documents?
Julian Assange: Sure. That’s usually the case. As we’ve gotten more successful, there’s a gap between the speed of our publishing pipeline and the speed of our receiving submissions pipeline. Our pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises, and our ability to publish is increasing linearly.

Here is the full article - a very good read

Source

5 GB is nothing as far as data goes. If it were 5 TB, then yes. If he wanted to, he could post it to an ftp site and allow people to download it. I'll even volunteer my box.net account!

Simple, if everything was dumped in one pile, while you're looking over here, there doing damage control over there.
Small doses keep the effected off balance and do not allow the time to preplan a defense ( read lie ).

Originally posted by peter_kandra
5 GB is nothing as far as data goes. If it were 5 TB, then yes. If he wanted to, he could post it to an ftp site and allow people to download it. I'll even volunteer my box.net account!

.. nothing?

5GB is an immense amount of text data.

'The Bible' download is about 1.5mb - about 1 in 3400 (5GB).

It takes time to fabricate so many story's I kid

Originally posted by VeniVidi
reply to post by hypattia

 

It creates more suspense when they release in dribbles and bits.

This.

Wikileaks are no longer just a doc dump site, they engineer their leaking methods to have maximum impact.

There's a huge amount of work involved in checking authenticity, checking content, redacting personal info, checking legal issues, etc, etc.

In a recent interview he said they had a bottle neck of information. I think some of their funding was frozen by TPTB a little while ago, so they are short of money to pay more salaries too.

Because he wants to taunt Obama?

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

Because if you dump 250,000 news stories to the public at once, they only read a few and give up. He said in a Time interview today hes releasing them slow for impact reasons. So we see everything. And yes, he is saving best for last.

Originally posted by derickonfire

Originally posted by peter_kandra
5 GB is nothing as far as data goes. If it were 5 TB, then yes. If he wanted to, he could post it to an ftp site and allow people to download it. I'll even volunteer my box.net account!

.. nothing?

5GB is an immense amount of text data.

'The Bible' download is about 1.5mb - about 1 in 3400 (5GB).

I'm used to processing large volumes of data. I wonder how much space the bible would be with pictures

Originally posted by krashx6
Because if you dump 250,000 news stories to the public at once, they only read a few and give up. He said in a Time interview today hes releasing them slow for impact reasons. So we see everything. And yes, he is saving best for last.

Yes!

I said this in another thread. If the release everything at once it one big news story that gets forgotten about in a few weeks, if they carry on releasing bits at a time the story drags on for months and does more and more damage every day.

I guess it proves that their is definitely an agenda to cause problems rather then just release the truth. Whether thats good or bad I can't decide