It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

No Smoking Gun In Hints That WikiLeaks Actively Stole Data

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

No Smoking Gun In Hints That WikiLeaks Actively Stole Data


blogs.forbes. com

At midnight Wednesday night, Bloomberg posted a strongly-worded story that outlined hacking accusations against WikiLeaks by a small company, headquartered on the outskirts of Pittsburgh, known as Tiversa claiming that as many as half of its revelations have come not from insider whistleblowing, but from WikiLeaks itself actively siphoning information out of government networks via peer-to-peer filesharing networks like Limewire and Kazaa.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The documents released by wikileaks are government property so at the end of the day The united states government still believes this information was "stolen" from them ,and the information now stating wikileaks might of actively siphoned information off networks, so this sheds some light on the pfc. bradley manning case and maybe a less harsh
sentence if they can narrow what he released , and if he even released any documents. My opinion is the thing that strikes me most about all three major leaks is that nothing was really embarrassing to the United States.
The Afghan logs did not contain any significant new information about the war.
The Iraq logs’ most important revelation, I think, was the brutal, torture-happy state of Iraqi-run prisons. Americans could perhaps be blamed for “turning a blind eye,” but I’m not sure how much power or resources we actually had to deal with the problem.
The diplomatic cables are far more embarrassing to foreign leaders than the diplomats writing about them.

Aside from that, I’m actually glad that a lot of these documents are seeing the light of day, because they provide valuable perspective and fodder for historians.
Transparency can be used to hold people accountable and to expose cover-ups or other criminal activities, but Wikileaks has simply not done that, at least not yet. I am looking forward to the leaked e-mails from the US bank that Assange is talking about, though

blogs.forbes. com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Because you can't steal what is given to you.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
You have to wonder if the government isn't going to start using dummy corps or companies it exerts influence over to make charges that Wikileaks "hacked" them. Let me guess, this company will bring about charges that the feds can then pursue. Looks shady...
edit on 20-1-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Because you can't steal what is given to you.



Double "duh" on ya! --Ever hear of a "fence" being arrested?

You fail to understand the US laws in regard to receiving stolen property and how the receiver is connected to the crime or not. And have no doubt about it, there was a crime of gigantic proportions, and it seems without a doubt also that there was a connection between the original thief (whomever) and the one quite pleased to take the merchandise.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Because you can't steal what is given to you.



Double "duh" on ya! --Ever hear of a "fence" being arrested?

You fail to understand the US laws in regard to receiving stolen property and how the receiver is connected to the crime or not. And have no doubt about it, there was a crime of gigantic proportions, and it seems without a doubt also that there was a connection between the original thief (whomever) and the one quite pleased to take the merchandise.


The materials were accessed for a large part (allegedly) on government computers, and anonymously submitted to wikileaks.

But if these were controlled leaks (many were IMO) then the agencies involved in the leaks have to be very careful about any potential self incrimination in regard to those leaks.

Hard to charge someone for receiving stolen property if it can possibly be proven that it was YOUR property and YOU gave it to them, even if by a proxy.

Which is exactly why most of those involved with wikileaks, haven't been nor will be prosecuted.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by Aliensun

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Because you can't steal what is given to you.



Double "duh" on ya! --Ever hear of a "fence" being arrested?

You fail to understand the US laws in regard to receiving stolen property and how the receiver is connected to the crime or not. And have no doubt about it, there was a crime of gigantic proportions, and it seems without a doubt also that there was a connection between the original thief (whomever) and the one quite pleased to take the merchandise.


The materials were accessed for a large part (allegedly) on government computers, and anonymously submitted to wikileaks.

But if these were controlled leaks (many were IMO) then the agencies involved in the leaks have to be very careful about any potential self incrimination in regard to those leaks.

Hard to charge someone for receiving stolen property if it can possibly be proven that it was YOUR property and YOU gave it to them, even if by a proxy.

Which is exactly why most of those involved with wikileaks, haven't been nor will be prosecuted.



You fail to understand that if Assange is charged and a case, of course, made against him, then HE has to prove that he is innocent. And frankly, it goes without saying that Wikileaks is guilty (even if you want to insist that he was set up). And that just does not seem likely and will be totally impossible to prove even if that were the case.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun

You fail to understand that if Assange is charged and a case, of course, made against him, then HE has to prove that he is innocent. And frankly, it goes without saying that Wikileaks is guilty (even if you want to insist that he was set up). And that just does not seem likely and will be totally impossible to prove even if that were the case.


IF!

There have been a lot of allegations, rape even, but Assange is Teflon man... Nothing can or will stick to him.

No matter how many IF's you throw his way.

Hell, he has eluded the CIA and every other agency by hiding in plain sight, even doing speeches in public, announced in advance.

wikileaks is guilty of being a vehicle for the advancement of covert agendas, and to entrap any potential anonymous contributors.

Feel free to alert me when any of those involved in wikileaks are actually captured by the US government, or extradited to the US to face these criminal charges... will ya?

edit on 20-1-2011 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Right on.

If wikileaks was actively phishing for data, and conducting a data mining campaign as an information collections asset, who is to fault them, for exploiting a vulnerable open source.

But they propped the manning kid up as some sole source font of info, and with the other hand had already fingered the cord to pull a carpet for out under him. Why else would they say they were going to support him, and then turn a deaf ear on him.

Distract and deceive slight of hand, but this time did it work?




top topics



 
5

log in

join