WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned.

Re:WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned. by tptacek on Sunday July 11, 2010 @06:56PM (#1506324)

Regardless of how (say) Manning conveyed files to Wikileaks, leaking classified-TS cables is manifestly stupid. One doubts most of the people who might help Wikileaks from inside the DoD have any idea what they're actually doing. My guess is that it all seems unreal, happening as it does on the always fake-seeming Internet using computers that make everything seem like chat room drama.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned. by barrkel on Sunday July 11, 2010 @07:24PM (#1506357)

Do you have evidence that classified top secret cables were leaked? That one is easy to prove. A quick Google search, though, seems to only turn up rumours.

The only direct source of much of the rumours seems to be the completely unbelievable Wired story. The Salon story on Wired's reporting is the primary reason I don't trust it, nor anything implied by it on other sites:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned. by tptacek on Sunday July 11, 2010 @09:39PM (#1506518)

You're saying it's easy to prove that someone likely to have classified-TS access who said they leaked classified-TS information did or did not leak information?

And to support that argument, you're citing Glenn Greenwald?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned. by barrkel on Sunday July 11, 2010 @09:46PM (#1506525)

You earlier spoke of proving a negative; by easy to prove, I meant that this is a positive, and an existence proof is sufficient.

If something was leaked, but noone can point to it, or the consequences of it, is it really leaked?

The way you phrase your sentence about Glenn Greenwald, you seem to imply that I should know something about him. What are you imputing?

It also seems an ad hominem attack. I cited the article as reason to doubt the Wired story; but the article should be attacked on its own merits. And the reason to doubt the leak of TS cables is because I haven't seen evidence that they've been leaked. The video certainly was leaked - I saw it - but I've seen not a peep of these alleged cables.

It doesn't make any sense. Why would a 22-year old kid have access to thousands of top-secret cables? Why should we trust an attention-seeking ex-convict who says he had an IM with a leaker who spontaneously contacted him for the first time ever (randomly choosing him from twitter #wikileaks, of all things), and boasted to him that he leaked such cables? When Wikileaks denies that they have such cables?

When these stories come up in the news, who benefits?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned. by tptacek on Sunday July 11, 2010 @10:07PM (#1506549)

I am absolutely confident that 22 year old kids have access to ridiculous information; I think that's far more of an outrage than any news Wikileaks has "broken" about the DoD.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned. by barrkel on Monday July 12, 2010 @03:13AM (#1507088)

On the other hand, I think the risk of the US to the world is greater (far greater) than the risk of the world to the US.

The US is in no danger of being attacked or invaded by anyone; one cannot say the same about other countries with respect to the US.

Even something as substantial as 9/11 was only a crime - a monstrous crime - but certainly not an act of war. There isn't any actor with the capability or will to do any serious damage to the US that wouldn't be annihilated by nuclear retribution; the US's security derives from its obvious and plain-sight strengths, not anything it keeps secret.

[ Parent | on HN ]