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.


Untraceable Whistelblower Site To Go Online To Expose The Truth

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 03:27 PM

They are using PGP which is very secure...

It's not as secure as one would think.....PGP can be cracked.

Any country with the proper resources will be able to trace the documents.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:28 AM

Originally posted by ferretman2

They are using PGP which is very secure...

It's not as secure as one would think.....PGP can be cracked.

Any country with the proper resources will be able to trace the documents.

Can be? Maybe yes, but I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you

3.2. Can't you break PGP by trying all of the possible keys?

This is one of the first questions that people ask when they are first
introduced to cryptography. They do not understand the size of the
problem. For the IDEA encryption scheme, a 128 bit key is required.
Any one of the 2^128 possible combinations would be legal as a key,
and only that one key would successfully decrypt all message blocks.
Let's say that you had developed a special purpose chip that could try
a billion keys per second. This is FAR beyond anything that could
really be developed today. Let's also say that you could afford to
throw a billion such chips at the problem at the same time. It would
still require over 10,000,000,000,000 years to try all of the possible
128 bit keys. That is something like a thousand times the age of the
known universe!
While the speed of computers continues to increase and
their cost decrease at a very rapid pace, it will probably never get
to the point that IDEA could be broken by the brute force attack.


3.4. Can the NSA crack RSA?

This question has been asked many times. If the NSA were able to crack
RSA, you would probably never hear about it from them. The best
defense against this is the fact the algorithm for RSA is known
worldwide. There are many competent mathematicians and cryptographers
outside the NSA and there is much research being done in the field
right now. If any of them were to discover a hole in RSA, I'm sure
that we would hear about it from them. I think that it would be hard
to hide such a discovery.
For this reason, when you read messages on
USENET saying that "someone told them" that the NSA is able to break
pgp, take it with a grain of salt and ask for some documentation on
exactly where the information is coming from.


3.9. What is the best way to crack PGP?

Currently, the best attack possible on PGP is a dictionary attack on
the pass phrase. This is an attack where a program picks words out of
a dictionary and strings them together in different ways in an attempt
to guess your pass phrase.

This is why picking a strong pass phrase is so important. Many of
these cracker programs are very sophisticated and can take advantage
of language idioms, popular phrases, and rules of grammar in building
their guesses. Single-word "phrases", proper names (especially famous
ones), or famous quotes are almost always crackable by a program with
any "smarts" in it at all.

Using a 1024 bit key, and a smart passphrase and you are pretty secure. It depends on how much computer power they throw at the problem though. If this page already has millions of documents I see no way that they would have the computer power to decipher all of those transmissions within the next couple of million years... But by all means, nothing is 100% foolproof...

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:24 AM
Don't be so sure it's not a corporate/goverment sting operation to crack down on dissenters and send them off to parts unknown. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Wikipedia
Wikileaks — Anonymous Whistle-Blowing Slashdot


Now, we have the latest sting operation. This ‘Wikileaks” project is just as fake as the ‘secure and unbreakable” telephone scrambler. It is well-known inside the Beltway that Wikipedia was used by creatures like Karl Rove to spread slanderous fabrications on the Internet against anyone the Republicans disagreed with or, more important, anyone who dared to disagree with them. Now, the same people are further assisting the government by declaring they are going to post “vitally important, secret documents” on the Internet to inform the public of official wrongdoings. In the first place, bragging about this sort of illegal posting would immediately draw official attention to Wikileaks and if secret papers were really published, swift retaliation would follow just as night follows day.

There will, of course, be publicly expressed outrage from the CIA and the DoJ but nothing will be done because Wikileaks is doing exactly what it is well-paid to do.

And the real purpose for the Wikileaks project? There are genuine horrific leaks pouring out of Washington these days. Virtually all the agencies have disillusioned and outraged employees sending copies of highly sensitive, and often even more embarrassing, classified documents to the press and members of the internet. Therefore, Wikileaks is specifically designed to lure these unsuspecting, and soon to be prosecuted, leakers into sending confidential or secret papers to them for “public exposure” Once identified, often by the IP address, arrests will be made.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Tips: Crypto-anarchism - Wikipedia

[edit on 16-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:44 AM
What's the deal with

"According to a real official memo, now circulating amongst us, what Wikileaks will put up will be actual but very dated controversial documents and also heavily larded with deliberate disinformation. “Secret documents’ are even now being prepared in various agencies, including my own (I have access to this project) for postings."

So this is a disinformation agent? Why are they preparing fake documents?

"In one case, a gentleman had searched for material on the Christian Gospels and within an hour, his mail box was stuffed with religious notices, fact sheets, requests for money and other support. Most of these obnoxious and unwanted communications came from Evangelical Christian groups. In the first week, this individual received over 700 emails and by the end of the month, the total had exceeded 2000."

Wikipedia is being used by thousands if not millions of users. Why haven't anybody reported this? I myself have used it for many different topics and never received any spam, nor have any of the people I know.

"And while on this subject, curious people had best be careful when searching Google for forbidden topics. Certain key words trigger immediate notification of the competent federal agency. For example, if someone wants to know about port security, the DHS is automatically notified, meth manufacture goes to the DEA and the FBI gets sexually forbidden topic seekers (sex with pre-teen goats?)."

If you want to know about Benjamin Franklin, or baseball giants, don’t worry, but if you ask about the Ricin patent or shaped charges, expect a quick visit. (For a quick visit, considering the usual performances of government agencies, read six weeks. And they will more than likely raid your neighbor or someone on a different street.)

Come on, who seriously believes this? They can't controll the whole world you know! So what if the FBI thinks I'm a drug dealer? What are they gonna do about it? I'm in another country...

Again, it is highly recommended that those seeking information use the Encyclopedia Britannica website and save yourself a great deal of trouble.

And why are they soo keen on redirecting people to Encyclopedia Britannica? Scholars or not, they do the same thing: repeat what some guy wrote in some book and add a reference to that book. How is that any different?

I don't know anything about this site so I would very much like your opinions...

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:05 AM
I'm happy to see some optimism regarding this, but sorry to say my first reaction to the thread title was: Gestopo tactics

This is pretty much how Hitler got control of the riff-raff, or should I say how the riff-raff got control of Germany. Turn in your neighbor and get his job, his house, just about anything you thought you always wanted.

Whistleblowers do need somewhere to go that they can trust, I agree. But it must only be for noble purposes, documented and verifiable crimes. We're supposed to trust the Law to do that for us.

If this is seen as a step in the right direction, everything MUST stay open and aboveboard at all times.

Someone run this by Jr. or Snowjob and whatever they say, believe the opposite.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:01 PM
i see this early premature announcement as a planned strategy !

to get donations from the idealists & naive on the internet,
those having unrealistic visions that the roll-out of such a site
will change the status-quo...................... Bah humbug

i also wonder, will any potential WaterGates or Iran-Contra affairs not get to a Investigative or Trial phase
...because such a site & the ?factual? docs presented,
& the resulting controversy over the truthfullness of the 'evidence'
will always be in question!

The working model, that historically works, is that a whistleblower goes to a ethical & reliable News reporter or News Media...and they have the resources & contacts, to make-a-difference in society or politics

Another working model is for the whistleblower to 'sell' the documents or e-mails, memos to the Legal Council or competitors or highest bidders such as authors/screenplay writers even the UN or other NGOs

??but to give incriminating stuff away for free is absurd to the pragmatists in the crowd.

much ado about nothing, imho

[edit on 16-1-2007 by St Udio]

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:06 PM
Anonymous IP's is one thing, but how do you remain elusive when you are posting your...

Phone: +1 (202) 657-6222
under "contact" us?

Other than that it sounds great!


posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:39 PM
If all this is true, I just have one more thing to say. This is one low down, cheap, and both safe and unsafe thing to do for the NSA and CIA.

It seems they can get info with no cost to them, no personnel risks, and no promises of safety to the whistleblower. Who it just may become obvious once the info is there for them to begin to investigate.

Cheap because they're learning to use technology in place of agents in the field. Safe for that same reason. But how safe for the whistleblower?

But why would the NSA/CIA be interested in investigating another countries problems? To use against them is the only thing obvious to me. That's the lowdown.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in