Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security The Media Politics

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair 258

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
JDRucker writes "Supporters are concerned. Very concerned. Would-be whistle-blowers hoping to leak documents to Wikileaks face a potentially frustrating surprise. Wikileaks' submission process, which had been degraded for months, completely collapsed more than two weeks ago and remains offline, in a little-noted breakdown at the world's most prominent secret-spilling website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:18PM (#32758594)

    Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17498238199 [twitter.com] is this:

    "Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' http://bit.ly/aZm4US [bit.ly]"

    Posted by: mpineiro | 07/1/10 | 9:21 am |

    ADDITIONAL INFO REQUIRED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ARTICLE:
    Below are some additional bits of information that may change your understanding of why this heavily-editorialized piece is appearing in Wired at this time.

    1. The editor of the Threat Level blog at Wired, Kevin Poulsen, has recently been questioned by journalists and privacy activists for his strange role in the recent Wikileaks / Bradley Manning story. A number of questions have been asked of Poulsen in order to clear up any suspicions of impropriety or violation of journalistic ethics by Poulsen but he hasn’t been able to answer those questions, resulting in stronger suspicions and newly-revealed information that strengthens the suspicions further still. This entire matter could be cleared up and resolved except for Poulsen’s on-going non-cooperation.

    2. Kevin Poulsen apparently did not like even being *asked* about conflicts of interest (something that all journalists are questioned on all the time as part of the job). To make matters worse, Poulsen is resorting to retaliation, as if this was a BBS war between pre-teens and not an important discussion about law enforcement abuses in the US, abuses committed by occupation soldier abuses in Iraq, a co-ordinated campaign to discredit Wikileaks and the unethical, allegedly illegal manner in which PFC Bradley Manning was interrogated by someone who Poulsen has known and worked with for years and years.

    If you look at Poulsen’s Twitter feed (@kpoulsen), it is sparsely updated. It appears that Poulsen only posts on Twitter when he is announcing a new Threat Level blog post or he is openly attacking Wikileaks. It seems safe to say that the “editorial line” over in Poulsen’s corner of Wired is sharply opposed to Wikileaks.

    Any journalist should be prepared to respond, without getting emotional or defensive, if legitimate questions about conflict-of-interest or ethics are asked of them. That’s part of the job.

    3. In the If-It-Wasn’t-So-Serious-It’d-Be-Funny Department, both Poulsen and known police informant Adrian Lamo are WELL AWARE of the SERIOUS implications of Poulsen being involved with law enforcement in any way. As a result, they both say the exact same thing when anyone asks about the nature of the relationship: “It’s a reporter-source relationship,” they’ll both recite. Lamo, who has much less to lose than Poulsen and possibly has reason to feel resentful that he has to take all the heat for something that benefited both of them, recites that line with a hint of sarcasm. But, maybe I’m reading something in the tone that isn’t actually there. Could be.

    4. Poulsen was asked (you might even say “challenged”) by Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald to release the unedited, un-redacted portions of the chat transcripts between Poulsen’s long-time source/friend (Lamo) and PFC Bradley Manning also, releasing the logs would help clear up any perceived impropriety by Poulsen or Wired.

    Poulsen refused to do so then and continues to refuse the many requests by Greenwald and others to release the logs. Even worse, the reason Poulsen gave about why he wouldn’t release them was shown to be untrue, as documented by Greenwald. Poulsen has never said ANYTHING MORE AT ALL about THAT maybe under the advice of his attorney?

    The logs that Poulsen won’t release would have enormous value in the public domain — they would help individuals & government/law enforcement watchdog groups deal with the increasing erosion of our civil liberties. They also show an unfortunately side effect of California’s

  • Not true? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ChrisMounce (1096567) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:27PM (#32758760)
    Apparently they're just upgrading:

    http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17461648435 [twitter.com]

    And even if Wikileaks was to disappear, there's always Freenet if you want to leak something:

    http://freenetproject.org/ [freenetproject.org]

    Of course, you'd have to check your own data to make sure there's no metadata that can be used to identify you. But Freenet covers the anonymous distribution angle.
  • by Squiggle (8721) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:30PM (#32758794)

    Oh, and Greenwald's article on Manning, Lamo and Poulson is detailed and fantastic:
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks/index.html [salon.com]

  • Re:Wikileaks.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by AnonGCB (1398517) <(7spams) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:34PM (#32758858)
    Torrents die, something like that very quickly too, due to it's taboo nature. And they're not going to starve themselves so they can pay for the site, that'd be stupid.
  • Re:Wikileaks.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Yo Grark (465041) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:46PM (#32759046)

    Kinda like this: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Support [wikileaks.org]

    ?

    Yo Grark

  • Re:Wikileaks.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @01:14PM (#32759510)
    There's a lot of hyperbole in your post, but this is true: cultural apathy and self interest to the point of idiocy will destroy western civilization, not terrorists. Now excuse me while I tune in Oprah and watch some Youporn.
  • by dwillden (521345) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @01:20PM (#32759622) Homepage
    You misunderstand the Shield law. It protects journalists from being forced (in some but not all circumstances) to give up sources to avoid being charged with contempt of court. It does NOT prevent any journalist from willingly giving up sources or other information on their own volition.

    Further Lamo's coverage under the Shield law, even if it worked like you indicate it does, would be of questionable value since he is not a Journalist. He's not even working as a freelance journalist. He's a source who provided information to a journalist. He didn't request and was not given any assurances of secrecy by Poulsen so he has no claims or protections.

    There are no implications, serious or otherwise with either of them working with law enforcement. They uncovered claims of potentially damaging espionage, and they did the right thing. They reported it to the authorities. Any claims of Lamo being a journalist are of absolutely no concern. He's not a journalist, a journalist is not a law enforcement or other government agent. It is no crime to claim to be a journalist. And claiming to be one does not instill some magic responsibility to not report a crime. Espionage however; is a crime. A very serious one that can result in deaths of US personnel as well as others.

    It's all fine to proclaim that information needs to be free, and that the government should be 100% transparent, but no government can operate nor will any country long stand without keeping secrets. Secrets allow us to negotiate. Secrets protect those who provide us with critical information for successful operations that keep our country free.

    Does the ability to keep secrets occasionally get abused, absolutely. Is the vast majority of classified information just covering up abuses, absolutely NOT.

    SPC. Manning is a fool, who is going to spend a long time in a very unpleasant prison at Ft Leavenworth. He is not a hero, and needed to be turned in.
  • by bannable (1605677) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @02:02PM (#32760448)
    Wikileaks has never claimed to be unbiased. Assange himself explained that the organization will attempt to present material in a way to maximize impact. Stop confusing Wikileaks with the WSJ.
  • Not by accident... (Score:4, Informative)

    by metrometro (1092237) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @02:14PM (#32760670)

    Not by accident that Reporters Sans Frontiers has launched an "anti-censorship shelter" online, consisting of VPN, onion routers and training docs. Sound familiar?

    Wikileaks is essentially a pilot project. They have demonstrated the need. The day-to-day work will be picked up by long running groups with funding models and full time staff and a CEO who doesn't go out his way to piss off every anti-secrecy activist who so much as murmur reservations about their comprehensive lack of transparency.

    http://en.rsf.org/reporters-without-borders-unveils-25-06-2010,37809.html [rsf.org]

  • by slashdotisgay2 (1832210) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @02:20PM (#32760764)
    Lizard people are a fake idea implanted into victims of monarch programming.
  • by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @04:13PM (#32762930)

    No one came into even double the effective range of that alleged weapon. At no time was it ever pointed at anyone. The rules of engagement were not followed, period. Likewise the video also shows the firing of rockets into a residential area, killing bystanders passing by on the streets. The video itself showed clearly the callus nature of our troops and a blind disregard for the right to inhale oxygen, even for children, when it would be more fun to kill them and score as many points as possible in this the greatest of video games.

    This is an old argument, and is getting really tired at this point. You want to blindly believe and conduct ad hominem attacks against those who draw other conclusions, fine. But please go ahead and label them as a 'pinko commie' in the first paragraph so less time is wasted getting to the end of your paragraphs.

  • by StikyPad (445176) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @04:34PM (#32763252) Homepage

    Will Wikileaks weather wicked waylays while we watch wistfully with wonder? We waste weeks while wretches wreak waste! Wikileaks, worthy watchdog, warrants works! Wisen wayward wits with winning words (when we wake, where we work, while we walk)! Wax wealth, wield weapons, wear white, woo wet whorish women!

    Wait, what?!?

  • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @04:50PM (#32763546) Homepage

    The problem is, they aren't providing raw information,

    Except of course thats a lie, the uncut video was released along with the commented one. Not raw enough for you? Complain to the US military, Wikileaks can't release stuff they don't have.

  • Re:Wikileaks.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by unitron (5733) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @05:11PM (#32763952) Homepage Journal

    And how, exactly, is PBS not neutral?

    They're biased in favor of the truth, maybe? And the truth, as we all know, has a well-known liberal bias? : - )

    Actually, PBS does lean a little to the Left/Liberal side. But the people who get all bent out of shape about that are really complaining because it isn't heavily Right-Wing/Conservative. They can't understand how a straightforward presentation of the facts doesn't, and won't, and can't, always, and in every case, support the way they see things, so when it doesn't, they're sure it's a Godless Commie conspiracy.

  • by WNight (23683) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @05:13PM (#32763980) Homepage

    They might have thought the group was armed but they were obtaining permission to fire based on the cameras the journalists were carrying. By the time the possible weapons are visible they've already phoned home for permission. That some weapons were found on some people doesn't change that they'd have gunned the journalists down for their cameras alone.

    Then they attacked the first responders in a follow-up attack (a typical terrorist ploy), and as you say - blamed the rescuer for the death of his children for trying to rescue victims of what would appear to be a roadside bomb attack to a layman on the ground.

    You say that "soldiers", plural, rushed the children to safety. This is completely untrue. The video shows one soldier rushing the children, one at a time because the rest of the soldiers do not help, to a vehicle for medical help. He was later reprimanded for this and it is part of why he left the armed forces.

    i didn't see an apache shooting at innocent journalists or children. I did see an apache shooting at what they thought was an armed group.

    Would you be okay if I shot you because I thought you were a kidnapper? I mean, it's okay because I'm not shooting an innocent guy, I'm shooting a kidnapper... right? Or is there suddenly some burden of proof required because you're you and not some ignorant foreign mud-blood too stupid to be born in our country?

    But of course there's no need to be civilized over there where we're trying to win hearts and minds and install democracy...

  • Re:Wikileaks.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@nOSPAM.yahoo.com> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @06:56PM (#32765762) Journal

    Oh, and an off-hand jab? This?

    Personally, I think conservatives find the very idea of a publicly owned broadcast system communistic and repugnant.

    How is that a jab at all? It is not negative. Is it even untrue? Have conservatives embraced communism while I wasn't looking? Is it bad to say they don't like it? Do they not look at PBS that way? Maybe they don't, but stating that I think they do is hardly negative. I bet conservatives don't like terrorists, either. Is that insulting to conservatives?

    Seriously, if conservatives find what I just said insulting, that certainly explains why they don't like PBS: because they take offense at hallucinatory insults. There, do you see? That was slightly insulting to conservatives, implying they take offense at completely non-offensive things. Do you see the difference?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 02, 2010 @12:43AM (#32768898)

    Wikileaks posted the full video for you to watch and draw your own conclusions, so what's your problem? You didn't have to read their commentary and if you did you were empowered to view the material yourself and draw your own conclusions. Wikileaks did what you wanted but I suspect that the source of your complaint here is your own laziness (both in the mind and in actions.)

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk

Working...