31–40 of 122 posts
"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?
"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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to hear more about this encryption cracking, which would seem to be an impressive feat. Anyone have any background?
related to this? http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/insurgents-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, I think the idea of a small amateur (as far as spycraft is concerned) organization pressuring the DoD like this is insane. They're risking their own wellbeing.
Information in the ultimate weapon and the internet is the ideal vector for attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly to draw more attention and support. They've been having funding issues lately; they might think this is a good way to get out from under that. Of course, it'll backfire if this turns out to be insignificant, a la the recent documents that they claimed were evidence of the U.S. trying to "shut them down".
I'd feel a lot more inclined to donate if they were clearer about where the money went and why they need so much for what amounts to a moderated and anonymized public file share.
Edit: Oops, it's apparently $600k to fully fund with salaries, and $200k to just fund operations. Still seems crazy high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Information in the ultimate weapon and the internet is the ideal vector for attack.
I don't understand why this comment is being voted up. What does it mean, and how does it relate to the comment it's responding to?
If they really have something that important, why would they drum up attention and wait like sitting ducks, instead of publishing it ASAP?
Two reasons: First, the "confession" -- whosever they are trying to elicit -- has more value if given out of paranoia. Think about it this way: you have a brief glimpse into something wrong that happened, but you don't know the full story. Let's say you know 10% of the full story. If you come forward with the evidence, the accused party need only acknowledge or refute the 10% that you've divulged. However if you make…
In this case, if the "leader of the free world" is responsible for something so dramatic that this is happening, then it is of the utmost importance to share it with the world. We must do what we can to stop abuses of power.
If we can't stop them, then we must make each of us reflect on the injustice leveled on others in order that we may have what we have. At some point, we must recognize that the evils we perpetrate are not worth it. I would love to see a resurgence of conscience, that is so poorly absent from our modern society full of invisible ills, purple pills, and political shills.
If they really have something that important, why would they drum up attention and wait like sitting ducks, instead of publishing it ASAP?
When you submit something to Wikileaks, you can set an embargo date. But this current stream of tweets is a bit dramatic. If it's just some random infrared kill shot like that old Apache hit ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/apachehit.mpg ), then it'll hurt Wikileaks' credibility to some degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two reasons: First, the "confession" -- whosever they are trying to elicit -- has more value if given out of paranoia. Think about it this way: you have a brief glimpse into something wrong that happened, but you don't know the full story. Let's say you know 10% of the full story. If you come forward with the evidence, the accused party need only acknowledge or refute the 10% that you've divulged. However if you make…
Those loyal to truth are often the enemy of all. We all have secrets to hide. Watching a philosopher speak the other day, he said a quote from someone I can't remember, but goes something like this: Those who introspect and attempt to confront the demons within must have more courage than a soldier on the battle field. In this case, if the "leader of the free world" is responsible for something so dramatic that this…
Nice rhetoric, but I don't buy it. Methinks the author of said quote has never been a soldier.