It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You mean one Private First Class did all this????

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by squirelnutz

Thanks, I thought it was the actual CD.
I walked around with that in my mind for a long time.
Still, begs the question of how all that info was put onto
a single CD?

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by HEREFORD 1969

That's why they released it all.. So, the people stand up and say, "We don't want these people in office anymore." and then the Military stand behind us..

I dunno it's my "American Wet Dream" but we are too lazy and stupid

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by HomeBrew
By the way, I served in the mid 90's and am sure security has clamped down since then. However, I assume most of the work is being done by low ranking enlisted, and as such, the plausability of this being done by one(or a small handful) still seems possible to me.

Assumptions up there...but then fact down there?

Originally posted by HomeBrew
I know for a FACT that not all computers in the forces are monitored to such a level, even those that contain low level classified materials.

Now I am confused. First you state you haven't been around military infosec since the mid 90s but then claim you know for a FACT otherwise.

Which is it? Either you know the most basic of infosec or you once knew of it...

Sorry one of my pet peeves is one who displays two different things. Nothing against you, just your claims now.

Well played sir. It's a bad habbit of mine, but sometimes when I am certain of something based on my small sampling, I get overzealous with my facts. But, as you pointed out my second statment stated as fact should be read 'based on my expierence, and from what I think I know of now', which boils down to opinion rather than fact. Sorry for that. But I still believe what I believe, however it should not be taken as fact.

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:04 PM
Personally, I think security was JUST that bad. There was a recent incident at the pentagon as well involving a flash drive.

They have not hardened their machines. There was no good auditing of file access in place.

It was in 1985 (I think) when I went into the military. My MOS required a TS Top Secret Clearance. They had my clearance ready BEFORE I was out of basic training. I went in as a E2 so yes, privates even LOWER than PFCs can have a security clearance.

The government has said that THOUSANDS had access to these files. There was a push to 'share' information so that analysts could make connections.

Well, it got shared all right.

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

CD-R= 700MB
DVD-R= 4.7GB

So maybe it was really a DVD. But that would need a DVD burner. Do they have them on any mill computers?
Still even if they do and he found one that was not locked it just deos not add up. For one thing the 250,000 cables there are said to be would you be able to put that many even on a DVD? I am thinking he was at the end of a long chain and even if he did not know it he was being feed and used. And what has came out so far is really meanless or well know information. Not nothing that most people do not already know or just plain dumb crap. Nothing worth the mess going on about it. Nothing about this adds up.

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by HomeBrew

My intentions were not to bind you in a pickle. Just wanted clarity. I think you have some good thoughts on the matter.

Truly it is a trait I retain and try not to be overzealous with it when it comes out.

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:08 AM
Quasi O/T

Finally a well thought out thread discussing the more stranger aspects of all things Wiki.

I am more of a reader than an active poster here, and I will admit, the gossip part of the Wiki dumps have made for one heck of a read for me, but (isn't there always a but....) watching so many posters thrashing about if someone even questioned the all mighty Wikilinks made my head spin!

I am not in the thick of things on ATS, and like my user name, I am truly 'Justaposter' around here, but I really have had a hard time wrapping my brain around some kid with a Lady Gaga CD gaining all this info.

Thank you again for a very well thought out thread questioning things that I am sure many around here are wondering about.

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:56 PM
Thank you for a well thought out and interesting "take" of the situation.

It had crossed my mind the reason behind the amount of work that went into attaining the information. The risk, the sleepless nights, the heart palpatations but for what??

It was not financially motivated, what was the motivation??

It seems his clearence level, ease of accquiring the information and lack of consideration of the consequences makes this smell more than burnt toast.

I am surprised that this thread is over 24hrs old and such few replies as it questions the sources and the very structure of Wikileaks to the core.

As much as I am happy that we are being given the information and I applaud Wikileaks for being the vessel to do this, I personally feel there is ALOT more to this than just getting the truth out there.

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Irish Matador
Thank you for a well thought out and interesting "take" of the situation.

It had crossed my mind.......

I think the reason we are not seeing more post's here is that there is really nothing to post about aside from speculation at this point, which the first page or so covered pretty well. I agree that this just does not add up. As it is now, and as you pointed out already...

1 A low ranking member of the armed service had seemingly unregulated access to varying levels of classified material(s).

2. Seemingly, with ease, was able to copy and walk off with said material(s).

3. No clear motive has been attached to alleged activities mentioned in 1 and/or 2.

Now, number 1 in and of it'self does not seem all that outlandish, and is not uncommon at all. Number 2 seems to be a bit harder to swallow, but again, I personally believe this too could be done with relative ease with proper planning. However, number 3 is what has me scratching my head. I simply can not believe that it was not premeditated by and with others...

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in