Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Something is up

morgue.isprettyawesome.com

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#21
WikiLeaks getting in trouble is nothing new. The US Army has admitted to planning attacks on WikiLeaks in the past ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/army_wikileaks/ ), So far they have always managed to survice - even against damning odds.

If some major press picks up this news, then it will certainly help WikiLeaks. I pushed it through at http://techie-buzz.com/latest-news/wikileaks-pentagon-murder...

I just hope that the information they are sitting on is indeed significant.Though, to be honest it probably is, since WikiLeaks is already popular (too popular for their own good).

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#22
post #11
post #2

If they really have something that important, why would they drum up attention and wait like sitting ducks, instead of publishing it ASAP?

i think they talked about this in the past. they thought it was a problem that almost nobody picked the storys up in depth so they thought about changing the release model. they talked about releasing stuff a few days earlier for the press so that they can have people digging through the (often enormous amounts of) releases to prepare articles.

Yeah, I read that in a wired article. It makes sense, and if one press organisation is going to put the time in to comb over the data then they usually need an incentive, like getting the exclusive.

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#23
post #17

Call me a cynic but this is based on just the Twitter feed. Let's not get too excited till something more concrete appears. (unless of course your suggesting we should believe everything posted on Twitter as gospel without verification.........)

Which is essentially their most important form of communication, with the website only being used to host documents these days.

It won't take much to turn this into a headline like "Wikileaks detained by US" (this is the first step...[1]). When all it is so far is unverified postings on the Wikileaks Twitter feed. Is it a publicity stunt? Paranoia? Or the real thing?

We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity - but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons.

I might be slightly more cynical this week because of their last piece of paranoia the other week ;)

1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1216034

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#25
post #21

WikiLeaks getting in trouble is nothing new. The US Army has admitted to planning attacks on WikiLeaks in the past ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/army_wikileaks/ ), So far they have always managed to survice - even against damning odds. If some major press picks up this news, then it will certainly help WikiLeaks. I pushed it through at http://techie-buzz.com/latest-news/wikileaks-pentagon-murder... I just…

Let's all applaud Google for hosting a WikiLeaks server to accompany it's bold anti-censorship stance!

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is essentially their most important form of communication, with the website only being used to host documents these days.

It won't take much to turn this into a headline like "Wikileaks detained by US" (this is the first step...[1]). When all it is so far is unverified postings on the Wikileaks Twitter feed. Is it a publicity stunt? Paranoia? Or the real thing? We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity - but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons. I might be slightly more cynical this week because of th…

Sure, their PR methods are edgy.

But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security, due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger", and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of whisteblowers etc. What makes you think Wikileaks is being paranoid instead of realistic?

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#27
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't take much to turn this into a headline like "Wikileaks detained by US" (this is the first step...[1]). When all it is so far is unverified postings on the Wikileaks Twitter feed. Is it a publicity stunt? Paranoia? Or the real thing? We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity - but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons. I might be slightly more cynical this week because of th…

Sure, their PR methods are edgy. But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security, due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger", and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of w…

They said that the US Army had attacked them and were planning to shut them down.

Which, if you read the document, was not actually the case.

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#29

"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs." http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034 This may have to do with it.

I would like to hear more about this encryption cracking, which would seem to be an impressive feat. Anyone have any background?

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#30
I recall reading a report that was published on wiki-leaks that was by the US government about wiki leaks itself. There were some worrying things in there, the foremost of which was the summary at the top of the document, written not by the US government, but by wikileaks.

In the summary they claimed that the US was recommending trying to fire/expose anyone who posted on wiki-leaks. However, all the article really said was "If people are fired or exposed for publishing on wiki leaks, this will probably serve as a deterrant." Two very different things. The summary was full of exaggerated claims like this one that really, in my opinion, made wiki-leaks look stupid.

The point is that wikileaks has a really awesome ideal, which is to expose bad things that are secrets. However, I worry that they are trying too hard to make everything into a conspiracy theory.

We need to step back and say, "Ok, so in some movies there are conspiracy theories like the ones we're presenting. And those movies are highly entertaining because they are so ridiculous. So, do we believe this because it is true or because we want it to be true?"

In the end, I would really like to know if the US government, or any government, is shooting journalists. But only if it really is true. Otherwise we're no better than schizophrenic conspiracy theorists and it really won't make a difference.

So to tie it in, is something really up with wiki-leaks? If it is that would be good information. But I would not be surprised to find out tomorrow that these claims were highly exaggerated.

Post reply on HN