WikiLeaks is under attack.

It has been under Ddos attack for 6 days now by a group identifying themselves has AntiLeaks. They say that WikiLeaks is a terrorist organization and a threat to America.

This got me thinking,

Should all sensitive and top secret information be published regardless of the content ?

what does ATS think?


What comes first ? Freedom of information or National security (protection of our institutions)?

In other words...AntiLeaks = US Gov't.
Next wiki leak to be uncovered...who is exactly behind AntiLeaks. Big mistake AntiLeaks...big mistake.

Originally posted by CompisMentis

what does ATS think?

What comes first ? Freedom of information or National security?

That's the problem. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it.

Regardless of which answer is chosen, Average Joe's opinion has no effect on the end result.

reply to post by CompisMentis
I think you've confused "National Security" with "things that are politically inconvenient or uncomfortable to have shown in the light of day because they're true and make us look bad".

When Wikileaks stops reporting on wrongdoing by government and merely releases classified intel on things we SHOULD be doing but are bad for our actual enemies to know about, then I'll agree they're a terrorist organization. But perhaps I'm not up to date on this and missed something.

No all of it shouldn't just be automatically published, there are very real national security concerns. Places, operational details, people etc.

But certainly there needs to be way more transparency in the government, obviously places like Wikileaks exist because of the totalitarian level of secrecy is at an all time high.

In the absence of government transparency atrocities can be committed.

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation

In other words...AntiLeaks = US Gov't.
Next wiki leak to be uncovered...who is exactly behind AntiLeaks. Big mistake AntiLeaks...big mistake.

Of course it is. It ALWAYS is.


There is only one goal that is accomplished from boldly exclaiming that↑ particular assumption as if it is undeniably true, even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement. It simply lowers the credibility of all of those times when it actually is true.

The more times it is stated, the harder it becomes to believe. Quite similar to the story of 'The boy who cried wolf'.

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
In other words...AntiLeaks = US Gov't.
Next wiki leak to be uncovered...who is exactly behind AntiLeaks. Big mistake AntiLeaks...big mistake.

Probably the same govt organization that brought down Demonoid, who then eventually got busted.
No "true hacker" goes after sites that promote a free and open internet.

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
In other words...AntiLeaks = US Gov't.
Next wiki leak to be uncovered...who is exactly behind AntiLeaks. Big mistake AntiLeaks...big mistake.

Probably the same govt organization that brought down Demonoid, who then eventually got busted.
No "true hacker" goes after sites that promote a free and open internet.

My point exactly...thank you

I figure they are both govt ops.
I have seen no "groundbreaking" info come out of lemmewinks err wikileaks, so.....
Thoe whole wiki thing reminds me of another christ/alien/revolution thing.
They will release info that will squash the status quo, then we will be free overnight!!
NOT!
If we are to fix things, it will have to be us doing the hammering and cutting and nailing.
Opt out of their crap and system and grab a tool folks!
Nobody is coming to save you!

reply to post by HawkeyeNation


I just hope their attacks left enough a print to determine its origin. If so, maybe Anonymous or Lulzec will step up and "do the right thing"

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
In other words...AntiLeaks = US Gov't.
Next wiki leak to be uncovered...who is exactly behind AntiLeaks. Big mistake AntiLeaks...big mistake.

Probably the same govt organization that brought down Demonoid, who then eventually got busted.
No "true hacker" goes after sites that promote a free and open internet.

lol so now we have a group of Government trained hackers to counter the efforts of present day freedom fighter hackers. Hah, is that even legal? And the plot thickens.

And I think there is a difference between National Security and exposing corruption and lies. In a world where we punish the whistle-blower for shining light on terrible crimes, there's obviously something extremely wrong. These so called "hackers" of AntiLeaks should be ashamed of themselves.

reply to post by CompisMentis


Yes.

That information was obtained on the tax payer dime.

It belongs to the people.

Considering the type of people that are typically against wikileaks, i'm gonna have to assume it's the government. I doubt overly patriotic hillbillies are very good at hacking.

Originally posted by Juggernog

No "true hacker" goes after sites that promote a free and open internet.

I cannot understand how you could reach such a conclusion.

Maybe they don't consider themselves to be a 'True Hacker', but that doesn't mean that they do not have the knowledge and ability to accomplish anything that a true hacker can.

It is extremely probable that someone who does not want an entirely "free and open internet", would pay a hacker to fight back for them.

'Hackers' have been around for awhile now. You don't think the government trains people so that they will be able to accomplish the exact same things that the 'hackers' can do?

reply to post by Bodhi7

I doubt overly patriotic hillbillies are very good at hacking.

ZING!!!!

Haha that was funny stuff. Nice one.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by CompisMentis

 

I think you've confused "National Security" with "things that are politically inconvenient or uncomfortable to have shown in the light of day because they're true and make us look bad".

When Wikileaks stops reporting on wrongdoing by government and merely releases classified intel on things we SHOULD be doing but are bad for our actual enemies to know about, then I'll agree they're a terrorist organization. But perhaps I'm not up to date on this and missed something.

I think their are interconnected, political instability caused by politically inconvenient truths inevitably has repercussion on National security.

Note that i take no side in this story as i am just trying to know what most people think of this.

Originally posted by CompisMentis
...
What comes first ? Freedom of information or National security ?

It is never been a question of priorities... but a question of the authority to deem something as "National Security" when it is actually an exercise in hiding corporate/government malfeasance.

The Wilikleaks claim to fame, the "diplomatic cable leak" revealed that our tax dollars were being used to pay and fund all manner of 'business' interests that were in no way security matters. In fact, there were true crimes at play, and had they not been "leaked" by the novo-terrorism of imposed transparency - we would remain ignorantly thinking that our prestigious diplomatic core was occupied working for our national interests. Instead it became clear that they were little more than business middlemen setting up commerce for the benefit of well-connected robber barons on both sides of the table.

Furthermore - this waste of taxpayer dollars was being perpetuated and protected by the government's political "appointees" by means of fraudulent classification and the use of secure US-owned and operated channels of communications. The government's outrage (and that of other governments) was the product of "embarrassment" and not much else.

"National Security" is not about plans and machinations to perpetuate the revenue stream for political celebrities, their sponsors, and their business friends. It is not about making sure that BP doesn't get creamed over their "spill" and that Haliburton's relocation to Dubai goes well. It's not about making sure that Pfizer and Monstanto continue to get away with shenanigans in overseas markets; and it is certainly not about political appointees achieving technocratic supremacy.

The very words "National Security" says it all.. the safety of the nation. That is why classification is so important... but the keys to classification have been given over to those who use it to "get away with" something... It used to be a long and arduous process to establish classification guidelines - to ensure that information was handled appropriately.... but ever since several decades ago, those restrictions were rewritten - sold to the dupes in the congressional playhouse as "cost saving' and immediately put to use by the lobbyists and political appointees to strengthen their hand when playing games with our sovereignty.

Wikileaks was not the only internet entity to suffer from this attack by the way... and the others who were equally subject to these attacks tells us much about who is behind it.... who were they? Let's see....

WikiLeaks, Demonoid, and security site felled by crude (but potent) attacks

news.hitb.org...

What do WikiLeaks, Demonoid, and security website KrebsOnSecurity have in common? They've all been the target of crippling denial-of-service attacks carried out over the past two weeks by faceless enemies determined to punish the sites for viewpoints or services they find objectionable.

Demonoid being in the news recently as her administrators have been arrested ... they dared to share copy written material... Krebs is guilty of trying to protect organizations like these from such attacks.....

It's the protectors of the status quo who are on the attack, anyone else would be called cyber-terrorists.... but I can't imagine anyone wanting to appear to be "unpatriotic" by saying so in the main stream.

reply to post by CompisMentis
I can agree with that view - but in that cases of us being in the wrong, it's nothing more than a self-inflicted wound. Don't do stupid and quite terrible things we shouldn't be doing in the first place, and you won't have to worry about anyone trying to expose them for what they are and getting bit in the behind for it.

It's just like we always hear some people say in support of government spying, etc.: "If you haven't done anything wrong, what have you got to hide??" Sure, in cases where information is being released that doesn't pertain to openness regarding offenses against human rights and various other abuses, and is instead intended or likely to allow attack or threat to valid US actions, military systems, invasion or assault here at home and so on - we've got a problem.

But when the information merely makes us lie in the bed we've made for ourselves - well, take the whooping and learn the lesson. The government sure doesn't give us any outs when it catches us doing something wrong.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by CompisMentis
...
What comes first ? Freedom of information or National security ?

It is never been a question of priorities... but a question of the authority to deem something as "National Security" when it is actually an exercise in hiding corporate/government malfeasance.

The Wilikleaks claim to fame, the "diplomatic cable leak" revealed that our tax dollars were being used to pay and fund all manner of 'business' interests that were in no way security matters. In fact, there were true crimes at play, and had they not been "leaked" by the novo-terrorism of imposed transparency - we would remain ignorantly thinking that our prestigious diplomatic core was occupied working for our national interests. Instead it became clear that they were little more than business middlemen setting up commerce for the benefit of well-connected robber barons on both sides of the table.

Furthermore - this waste of taxpayer dollars was being perpetuated and protected by the government's political "appointees" by means of fraudulent classification and the use of secure US-owned and operated channels of communications. The government's outrage (and that of other governments) was the product of "embarrassment" and not much else.

"National Security" is not about plans and machinations to perpetuate the revenue stream for political celebrities, their sponsors, and their business friends. It is not about making sure that BP doesn't get creamed over their "spill" and that Haliburton's relocation to Dubai goes well. It's not about making sure that Pfizer and Monstanto continue to get away with shenanigans in overseas markets; and it is certainly not about political appointees achieving technocratic supremacy.

The very words "National Security" says it all.. the safety of the nation. That is why classification is so important... but the keys to classification have been given over to those who use it to "get away with" something... It used to be a long and arduous process to establish classification guidelines - to ensure that information was handled appropriately.... but ever since several decades ago, those restrictions were rewritten - sold to the dupes in the congressional playhouse as "cost saving' and immediately put to use by the lobbyists and political appointees to strengthen their hand when playing games with our sovereignty.

Wikileaks was not the only internet entity to suffer from this attack by the way... and the others who were equally subject to these attacks tells us much about who is behind it.... who were they? Let's see....

WikiLeaks, Demonoid, and security site felled by crude (but potent) attacks

news.hitb.org...

What do WikiLeaks, Demonoid, and security website KrebsOnSecurity have in common? They've all been the target of crippling denial-of-service attacks carried out over the past two weeks by faceless enemies determined to punish the sites for viewpoints or services they find objectionable.

Demonoid being in the news recently as her administrators have been arrested ... they dared to share copy written material... Krebs is guilty of trying to protect organizations like these from such attacks.....

It's the protectors of the status quo who are on the attack, anyone else would be called cyber-terrorists.... but I can't imagine anyone wanting to appear to be "unpatriotic" by saying so in the main stream.

I have long ceased to think of National Security as the protection of the people but more as the protection of the established institutions. So yes, in order to protect these institutions it is most likely the one that benefit the most from them that are behind this.

I read the title and went to look at what the person who took it down before had to say about it...

ʇuıɐs ʞɔopuooq ‏@th3j35t3r
#wikileaks is currently down & has been sporadic for a while now. For the record it's NOT me THIS TIME. Stay Frosty. www.techweekeurope.co.uk... …

twitter.com...#!/th3j35t3r/media/grid