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, Informative)
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, the Dems are in charge so he should be whining like the rest of his party about unchecked socialistic power? Seriously, this:
He recently introduced legislation that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process.
would have made sense 2 years ago, but now? He's committing career suicide enabling the Dems in this fashion. Weird.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason it's not political suicide is because he's in New York's 3rd Congressional District, which is on Long Island. Long Island and New York City are much more liberal than most of the state. New York is only a "blue state" because the city vastly outnumbers everyone else, a fact that many people up in Central and Western NY generally resent. Nearly anywhere north of the city and he'd be tarred and feathered in about five minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the militia during the revolutionary period (the militia referenced in the constitution) consisted of all able bodied adult white male citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's less of a stretch to just ignore the militia phrase rather then re-think what militia means today?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure you're just trolling, because this issue was recently decided in Heller.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Nice sentiments. However, have you ever listened to the CSpan call-in show in the morning? Have you ever wondered just how come what seems to be a significant segment of the callers have more than a screw loose? Those are the people you want to arm. They are about as well-adjusted as a squirrel after his third cup of coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
and? freedom of speach gives every youtube commenter and conservative radio host air time. These are the people you want to let speak to everyone?
Works for me. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been thinking about a charity that provides weapons, ammunition and range time to poor inner-city people. Let them have the weapons they need to protect themselves, their families and their property. You'd think the NRA would be all over that but they seem not to care.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooookay.
Except for the freedom not to carry a firearm, I guess.
Re: (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 wit
Re: (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: (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)?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.
Why are we blaming him then? His voters put him in office. It's their discretion if they should not vote for him again if his actions don't meet their requirements. Political corruption and ineptness will always rise to meet society's acceptable level of corruption and ineptness.
Once they go over the level accepted by society, the politicians are removed in an appropriate manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, his voters were given the choice of voting for him or for his opponent. The political machine and wealthy connections gave him the money to run his campaign, gave him the support to run, and most importantly, ensured he runs un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.
Aren't blue-collar Irish Catholics generally union members (D)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that King's fiscal base is wealthy Irish Catholics and Jews (both tend to be conservative Republicans), but his voting base is blue-collar. That's how the Republican party works, especially in suburban areas.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is easy to just dismiss this man is it really fair?
Yes pager traffic is unencrypted but you could make a claim that the uses have a valid assumption of privacy. Email is also not encrypted, how you like all your email published on the net?
For the most part I find Wikileaks to be nothing but tabloid press at it's worst. They have a right to freedom of the press but they are not knight in shinning armor that many people on slashdot hold them up to be. Frankly they seem to miss the difference between
Re: (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: (Score:2)
I do also but we are in the minority. Most people will assume that pages and emails are private. I for one do not need to see pages sent between parents wondering if there children are safe or between husbands and wives wondering if the spouse got out of the tower alive.
Yes I know technically that emails are as public as post cards and that pages are not encrypted but most people don't. In this as is many cases Wikileaks is just being a tabloid.
Re: (Score:2)
whoa whoa whoa...
I am Irish Catholic and I think the man is an ass. Not all religious folks are bigoted morons who use fear for control.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you smoking? Peter King is a Republican Congressman who's been in office since 1992. When someone refers to "the Current Administration" they are referring to the President's Office, not Congress. In general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But perhaps he is confused about fascism, since the state-corporate intertwining is only one aspect -- and on the other aspects, the current Admininstration is far different from the prior one (and the fascist-leaning Republicans in general).
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism has more to do with leaders of industry forming a self regulating cabal. Those cabals then form the state. Though I admit, this aspect of fascism is not well defined.
Imagine what the world would be like if the heads of IBM, Intel and Microsoft had the right to regulate the computer industry. And that same cabal was also allowed to guide national information policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Taken over? All of private industry? Your hyperbole doesn't help. The Military-Industrial Complex snickers from 'round the corner. Shame Obama doesn't have the stones to cut military spending in these hard times.
Re: (Score:2)
You are asking someone in government to understand something slightly technical.
YOU FAIL. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
As pager traffic is totally unencrypted...
It is however illegal to snoop other people's pager traffic. Why, I'll bet most of your phone calls are unencrypted...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Landline calls are privileged correspondence, not a broadcast (unlike pager signals). I have Verizon as a wirel
Re:"Raises security issues"? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Pagers are used all over the world and have been for decades.
Pagers were never widespread in the UK, nor I think in mainland Europe. SMS dominated before the pager market could take off. I believe pricing issues slowed SMS adoption in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Pagers were around long long before SMS even existed. They just were never in the mass-market communication space that SMSs dominate now since they were not 'peer to peer', at least not in the most common form
Waste of tax money (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:5, Funny)
How many decades of our foreign policy have you slept through?
No kidding. If it turns out Sweden is responsible for this outrage, you can bet we'll invade Finland to punish them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moomins (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it
Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Waste of tax money (Score:5, Funny)
Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.
Oh wait...
Yeah, but he had weapons of mass... ... oh, right you are. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Pirate Bay? Ah yes...
Re: (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:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a note, this has happened to wikileaks before, [wikipedia.org] and the result was ex
Re: (Score:2)
Given its political influence, I'm surprised Wikileaks hasn't been relegated to Tor yet.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: Freenet is decentralised. It has no servers to take down / DoS.
Re: (Score:2)
it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.
Come now. Of course in order to be able to read these messages, his staff will need new computers, blackberries, iPhones and high speed internet connections - both at the office and, because they're so hard-working, at home too. It's only logical that such an undertaking cost at least $10-15 million. But just think, this is money the government is spending to stimulate the private sector, which means that by doing t
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. You see, by "probe", they mean "skim until the Senator's name comes up".
Re: (Score:2)
it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.
To be fair, there is really no such thing as a small trillion.
Re: (Score:2)
What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back?
No, they will consult with their friendly lobbyists and reprint whatever they provide.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the standard complaint (Score:2)
cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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-ca [nytimes.com]
Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic (Score:5, Funny)
Just because you can do something does not make it legal to do.
This line of text is illegal because of a DMCA takedown notice retroactively placed by me and cannot be read by anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right here [imageshack.us]
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the big deal? This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation. It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept. There is no data security.
The telecommunications privacy act made it illegal to pass on any information recorded that wasn't intended for you to receive (I'm over-simplifying) - this law was a compromise between the telephone companies and everyone else - instead of requiring encryption for over the air stuff, they just made it illegal to do anything with the information intercepted - saving the telcos the cost having to implement encryption. A number of congress droids who thought it was a good idea have been hoisted by their own
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: (Score:2)
King is more outspoken than most.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So he's not really a politician but he likes to think that he is?
The real security issue, ... (Score:2)
... if there really is one (it's more of a privacy issue isn't it?), isn't that Wikileaks got a hold of the pager messages. It's who leaked them to Wikileaks.
This strongly echoes the Pentagon Papers fracas. Let's not go after the people who leaked the Pentagon Papers information in the first place. Let's go after the people who let the rest of the wolrd see them. That King wants to go after the people who are making the messages available and not so much those who leaked them is yet another example of his
THIS STORY IS FALSE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This story is AWESOME! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it does seem to be getting stranger by the minute. After speaking with the Congressman's office I emailed the author of the original Newsday article. He replied that the Congressman was quoted accurately. So, the question is whether Rep. King was telling the truth about his intent to probe WikiLeaks or not.
If not, then why grandstand for the cameras? If so, then why lie about it now?
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Second Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now -- tell us how you really feel.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:4, Funny)
Blatant trolling. I'm not religious, but Mods, hello?
Thanks for the advice AC. I'll look into it. Oh, whoops, I just posted. Well, maybe next time.
Re:Second Flamebait (Score:2)
"You may decide to read every post, but I'd prefer to cut through the crap."
Your own -1 post included?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, since he was telling the mods to mod-down a subset of posts, he is in fact wanting to decide for others what is appropriate for them to see, not himself.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To make sure nobody likes what he's about to say even before he said a word. This is common in mainstream media today...
Okay lets address these "Unpopular statements." (Score:2)
Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot. Posting something to an article stating that this politician has made "unpopular statements" either means you are trying to show your support for Congressman King, your resentment of him and subsequent setup for bashing, or you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits. I personally think it's the third option as it's been this way for a while around slashdot. In terms of reporting, there is a way to make
Re: (Score:2)