Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Republicans Politics

US Congressman Announces Plans To Probe Wikileaks 311

eldavojohn writes "Congressman Peter King (R-NY) is calling for a probe into Wikileaks with regard to the recent publication of half a million 9/11 pager messages. He has announced that he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation because Wikileaks' action 'raises security issues.' A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Congressman Announces Plans To Probe Wikileaks

Comments Filter:
  • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @09:26AM (#30282180) Journal
    The realities of the issue don't make one iota of difference. King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.

    The fact that pager signals are easily intercepted and are typically sent in plain text means nothing, nor does the concept of a free press to this man. He, like many career politicians, only cares for what serves his purposes.

    Maybe I'm a bit overly cynical this morning, since I've only had one cup of coffee so far... but it's men like Peter King who would gladly usher in fascism if they stood to gain from it.
  • by slim ( 1652 ) <john@hartnupBLUE.net minus berry> on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @09:54AM (#30282474) Homepage

    Let me translate for you: the "interception" here was by the government. The "security issue" is that somebody in the government leaked that info, or (less likely) that it was swiped by someone outside the government.

    We don't know that.
    Schneier on the issue: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/leaked_911_text.html [schneier.com]

    Anyone could have been logging all that pager traffic. Not necessarily government. With 2009 technology, it wouldn't even be expensive. In 2001, it would only be a little expensive.

  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @10:19AM (#30282744) Journal

    Yeah that worked so good for TPB.

    Well, Wikileaks has survived attacks [slashdot.org] (even physical attacks [slashdot.org]). And the important distinguishing factor between TPB and Wikileaks is that Wikileaks is providing documents the public wants to know about ... they may be copyrighted and protected but they contain newsworthiness. In the United States (before the DMCA), that used to be enough to protect people trying to get the word out. Not anymore. But if another country chooses to uphold that sort of common logic about what should be protected to benefit the public than you're not going to have a TPB repeat.

    And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)

    This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org]. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly. If those people are trying to stop you from disseminating information, you must be doing something right if not interesting.

  • by drerwk ( 695572 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @10:38AM (#30282926) Homepage
    Just because you can do something does not make it legal to do.
    Or, do you believe that an door is unlocked door is an invitation to enter? I believe what you describe doing falls under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act [wikipedia.org]. "ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. " See also: John and Alice Martin http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/24/us/florida-couple-are-charged-in-taping-of-gingrich-call.html [nytimes.com]
  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @10:42AM (#30282992) Journal

    Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them.

    He's already working on that. He recently introduced legislation [foxnews.com] that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process. He thinks the Federal Government should have the right to put your name on a list and take away your right to keep and bear arms without any burden of proof whatsoever.

    What's wrong with that picture?

  • by jambarama ( 784670 ) <jambarama AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @10:44AM (#30283020) Homepage Journal

    This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly.

    As a note, this has happened to wikileaks before, [wikipedia.org] and the result was exactly as you describe. After the take down, news websites and forums exploded with the wikileaks IP address, and encouraged visitors to see what all the fuss was about. In addition, the judge had ordered the takedown of only wikileaks.org; wikileaks.net, wikileaks.co.uk, wikileaks.fr, wikileaks.cn, secure.ljsf.org, secure.sunshinepress.org, and dozens of other wikileaks websites with alternate names and identical content remained online.

  • by slim ( 1652 ) <john@hartnupBLUE.net minus berry> on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @10:45AM (#30283042) Homepage

    If not the government, then who? Saucer People? Mole Men?

    A L0pht type who gets off on comms hacking?
    Someone hoping to glean trading tips from the chatter of financial workers?

    Yeah, it could have been the government. But it could easily have been anyone. As others have pointed out, the equipment necessary is cheap and non-specialized. This stuff was floating around the RF spectrum unencrypted. Note that the entire archive is only 13MB compressed. When I say it wouldn't be expensive, I mean you could log all pager traffic for a year, for well under $1000.

  • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @11:21AM (#30283546) Journal

    It is however illegal to snoop other people's pager traffic.

    Source, please. Pagers use a radio broadcast, IIRC it is not illegal to snoop them, especially considering there is no security barrier to break. Plus no warrant is required for law enforcement to snoop them either, which lends credence to the idea that they are public broadcasts.

    Why, I'll bet most of your phone calls are unencrypted...

    Landline calls are privileged correspondence, not a broadcast (unlike pager signals). I have Verizon as a wireless carrier, so my cell calls are encrypted with CDMA. However, it's easily overcome, as you can spoof a tower signal and tell a cell phone to stop encrypting. That, however, IS illegal, as it is circumventing a security measure to prevent unauthorized access.

  • Re:word of caution? (Score:3, Informative)

    by L4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @12:04PM (#30284132)
    If I were to compare politians to Christians, King is the equivalent of Westboro' Southern Baptist. Controversial for the sake of getting his agenda in the papers.
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @12:25PM (#30284422)

    Bin Ladin supposedly didn't realize that we were tracking him via his satellite phone until that fact was leaked by a member of the Clinton administration. He kept using it right up until the point that the story appeared in the press.

    Lolz [washingtonpost.com]

    it's also foolhardy to think that these types of disclosures don't have any real world implications.

    It's even more foolhardy to be so credulous.

  • by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @01:56PM (#30285716)

    Yeah, but he had weapons of mass...

    Weapons of mass? Saddam was a Catholic?

  • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <`gameboyrmh' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @02:32PM (#30286324) Journal
    The Denying Explosives and Firearms to Evil Atrocious Terrorists Act of 2009.

    AKA DEFEAT act. Short, unique, still has the T-word in it with a scary adjective. The only downside is that, while sugar-coating is no longer necessary these days, hilariously ironic backronyms (PATRIOT) are still preferable to descriptive ones such as this.
  • by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @03:25PM (#30287310) Journal
    US CODE: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, SubSection 311:[1 [cornell.edu]]

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


    Ok, I'm male, over 17 years of age and under the age of 45, not part of the National Guard, and Section 313 of Title 32 doesn't apply to me (it actually applies to the National Guard) and I'm a US Citizen. That makes me part of the "unorganized militia". Now, where's my fucking M-16?
  • by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @04:06PM (#30287956) Homepage

    Yes, but if you've ever met a Swiss, you'd know they don't carry their army issued rifle, and they don't even like having one, because it's too much of a hassle to go to mandatory recertification.

      Mandatory ownership, let alone mandatory carrying, is not freedom.

  • by Tawnos ( 1030370 ) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @02:36AM (#30294278)

    I'm sure you're just trolling, because this issue was recently decided in Heller.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...