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."
"Raises security issues"? (Score:5, Insightful)
As pager traffic is totally unencrypted, it's not a surprise that someone might be intercepting them. Especially on Wall Street, like the article states, because it's high valued information. Of course, pagers are pretty much used only in USA... phone/sms traffic elsewhere is better encrypted.
So will government understand that all communications over the Internet too (browsing, email, im) have to be changed over SSL? Or will they do the normal thing; ignore the problem and just arrest and sue the guy who was intercepting that traffic and/or wikileaks because they're supposedly risk to security, along with demanding more government regulation on the Internet?
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them. The gains would just be gravy.
Re:Second Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah that worked so good for TPB.
And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:2, Insightful)
cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (Score:5, Insightful)
word of caution? (Score:2, Insightful)
A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.
Word of caution my ass. Every congressman says dopey things that someone finds inflammatory and unpopular. Why is it pointed out here so specifically? How about leaving the bullshit sniping behind when posting the summaries there, kdawson?
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:5, Insightful)
They probably collected it, along with a ton of security cam footage/phone logs/witness testimony/etc., as part of the 9-11 investigation. The real news to me is that the telco's were keeping such extensive logs of all their pager messages and that they were willing to turn it all over without telling the public about it (which would no doubt had been a pretty uncontroversial action if they had just been upfront about it). It points to a pattern of secrecy behind telco/government interaction that's way more disturbing than the information that has probably actually been shared.
It's like the secret rooms [wired.com] that the NSA has been installing at telco hubs. I think that people would have accepted that if the government had simply told the public upfront they were doing it and said "And here are some of the rules we're following to make sure innocent people aren't specifically targeted" (and knowing the CYA aspect of government, I'd bet they do actually have such rules). As for the argument that this would have somehow tipped off the terrorists, does the NSA honestly think that terrorists (at least the smart ones, who are the real threat anyway) don't ALREADY realize their calls are being monitored?
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:3, Insightful)
If not the government, then who? Saucer People? Mole Men? It's not a crackpot conspiracy theory to accuse the government when they've the most likely candidate, especially when they confirm it for us by stumbling into action to investigate the leak.
If much of the traffic was from Wall Street, then it wouldn't be hard to imagine corporate espionage, or other kinds of snooping, where recording pager traffic would be a useful addition to other schemes.
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Advocating for gun control measures in New York State is anything but "political suicide" I'm afraid. He'll sell this crap to his constituents as being "tough on terror" and the morons will eat it up hook, line and sinker. In the end the only thing that will suffer is our Constitution and civil liberties.
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care what your opinion is regarding the 2nd amendment but I should think that you'd be smart enough to see in the danger in the Government having the power to take away your rights merely by placing your name on a list. No due process, no burden of proof.
This kind of fucking hypocrisy makes my blood boil. Many of the supposed civil libertarians in Congress have spent the last eight years screaming as loudly as they can about the lack of due process afforded those held in Gitmo. Now many of those same legislators line up to support legislation that grants the Government the power to strip away the rights of American citizens without according them due process. I'll ask it again, WTF is wrong with this picture?
Pot, kettle, black.
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell are you talking about?
1: more people die from auto accidents every year in the US than die of fatal shootings.
2: more people die from tobacco related health issues (cancer, pneumonia, emphysema, etc) than of fatal shootings.
3: more people die from the seasonal flue than from shootings.
4: etc, there are more things than I can list that kill more people than guns.
The right to bear arms is this nations last line of defense against our enemies, and here is the key "both foreign and domestic". Nothing gives the police-statists a greater sense of security when sending out their jack booted thugs than a populace that does not have the means to fight back. Responsible ownership of firearms is not only a right, but I believe it is a requirement for a well functioning liberal democratic society.
If you really wanted to reduce the shooting crime rate in the US, I would suggest the following actions:
1: provide mandatory firearm safety courses in high school.
2: provide, free of charge, firearm safes and safety locks to all families owning firearms to prevent accidental use by children.
3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public.
4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).
But hey, I am just one of those dirty freedom loving liberals.
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Email is also not encrypted, how you like all your email published on the net?
Actually, I assume that all of my email is discoverable and could wind up being published somewhere. For that reason, I am careful what I write, and I use PGP for the more sensitive things.
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mentioned it twice because the few communities that I know have enacted mandatory carry did so only for men. I found this odd, considering women are far more likely to be victimized than men. Also see my other comment on mandatory carry above.
Re:Heinlein was WRONG (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This story is AWESOME! (Score:3, Insightful)
Representative King probably uses this technique for similar reasons. He gets to talk tough without having to engage in immediate damage control (I bet his office is closed over the weekend). His staff can cover that when the beginning of the week comes around. Most of the US media probably has dropped the story by then.
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:3, Insightful)
3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public.
4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).
Isn't that also just as terrifying, if not more terrifying than a police state? Why should I have to worry about every time I walk into a bar, and there's some drunk asshole picking a fight with another drunk, that lead is going to start flying? I always thought a gun was a like condom, you don't bring one unless you plan on using it.
Whenever I hear about people arguing that everyone to start carrying guns, I think back to this incident in Texas back in the early aughts, where two suburban soccer moms with concealed carry guns starting shooting at each other during a road rage incident.
Random crime just doesn't happen all that often, and it always seems to me that people that want more guns, more "protection" are overly scared to walk outside their house.
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair enough, and my apologies for the somewhat inflammatory remark.
Would you care to let me know what "communities" these are/were? I've never heard of such a thing, and find the idea curious, to say the least. Is/was the point of the requirement to fight internal threats (criminals) or external ones ("foreign" attackers)?