Not to mention it provides further evidence of Wikileaks' complete lack of scruples in vetting their leaks, or really processing it in any way whatsoever. I was largely on board with Wikileaks at first, but kept their mishandling of personal information flagged in my mind for future reference. Since then they've shown basically zero ability to identify and admit mistakes, let alone learn from them.

Not sure who you think works at wikileaks but I assure you no one gets paid to set on the computer and check every single email. I doubt anyone gets paid at all. This isnt some fortune 500 competitor, this is a group of people that are attempting to give power to the commoners.

>but I assure you no one gets paid to set on the computer and check every single email

No one gets paid to to that anywhere, because it's been possible to automate that for a very long time. It doesn't take the resources of a Fortune 500 company, either.

Why should the malware be removed? Going through government email dumps seems like a great way to locate the next stuxnet.

If the detection is as easy to automate as you claim, I'm sure the users antiviruses will take care of it.

>Going through government email dumps seems like a great way to locate the next stuxnet.

Which, if everyone reading these dumps was a researcher looking for the next stuxnet, would be a good point. But by that rationale, we might as well not bother with security anywhere on the internet just to maximize the chance of an interesting infection.

The malware should be removed because it's malware, no other rationale is necessary.

I'm sure the same people who get infected by spam emails on wikileaks are the same people who have already been infected by spam emails in their own inboxes.

It really doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

Do ... do you really consider this a rational reply?

that's indeed news-worthy, but should have made it in to the title than. (or at least in to the article)