I believe NYT will stay away from such articles. What would happen is, they will call CIA first to verify the authenticity. Then CIA will threaten them and will claim this is 'classified' and if they don't immediately turn it over, heads will roll, hard drives will be shredded, offices will be closed for an indefinite time for investigation and so on. NYT will not touch this stuff with a ten foot pole. From a more ge…
This story was first broke by the New York Times: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
This is not about spying on US callers. That was already known.
This is most likely about murdering civilians in a botched air strike by CIA. CIA can and will shut a place down if they believe there is classified information there. I have heard of offices being raided and all hard drives shredded.
I believe NYT will stay away from such articles. What would happen is, they will call CIA first to verify the authenticity. Then CIA will threaten them and will claim this is 'classified' and if they don't immediately turn it over, heads will roll, hard drives will be shredded, offices will be closed for an indefinite time for investigation and so on. NYT will not touch this stuff with a ten foot pole. From a more ge…
This story was first broke by the New York Times: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
If this WAS it, then they should be shut down. I'm not saying the video shouldn't be released or that the contents should be covered up, but the encryption algorithms that pertain to DoD COMSEC are classified and I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. I've seen many things from Wikileaks that are classified in nature and if they think that it's ok to do that they're mistaken, IMO. I do howe…
Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational…
Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal, is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of classification in general and weakens the trust of citizens. In such a case, it might be desirable to post such information, if one could be sure that doing so did not jeopardize people's safety, etc. Maybe there should be a special court where such materials could be examined and a determination made as to whether they had been appropriately classified, with the onus being on the government to prove that the classification was warranted.
If this WAS it, then they should be shut down. I'm not saying the video shouldn't be released or that the contents should be covered up, but the encryption algorithms that pertain to DoD COMSEC are classified and I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. I've seen many things from Wikileaks that are classified in nature and if they think that it's ok to do that they're mistaken, IMO. I do howe…
Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational…
You may be downvoted because you seem to imply, at least to my eyes, that they shouldn't be permitted to break the encryption on any alleged videos.
Interesting. I guess the way you wind up facing death changes things? I ride motorcycles, and every now and then there are moments you are sure you're going to die (though you may not be thinking 'die' in your head). You can taste the fear as it bubbles in the pit of your stomach. I haven't known anything more frightful in my life, except for possibly the time I was fully paralyzed (lungs included) for a half-minute…
The first time I was swerving to miss a dog in the middle of a dirt road and the car spun out of control and nearly ended up in the water. The next day all my tires were flat from the sand and gravel that got lodged between the rubber tire and the rim. My windows were down and the inside of the car was full of sand and dirt and plants. The second time, I fell asleep on the interstate. The sound of the tires on the di…
Each of those times you nearly died by accident. In combat you nearly die on purpose. Repeatedly. Can you will yourself into that fear as part of your job - regularly?
Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational…
Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal , is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of clas…
The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do what is right despite those consequences, that is the agent of change. So, yes, the laws in place ought to be enforced, and if they are wrong, let the law be changed. Laws should not invite or be subject to invite arbitrary application, and in this case the matter under consideration is the very nature of what can be classified and what actually constitutes national security.
Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational…
You may be downvoted because you seem to imply, at least to my eyes, that they shouldn't be permitted to break the encryption on any alleged videos.
Well, that IS what I believe. But regardless to what I believe, it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information. The ramifications of doing so with respect to hacking the encryption algorithm could possibly cause far greater damage that the release of the video itself (provided it showed something ACTUALLY classified, not this cover up stuff).
The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion.
What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational…
Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal , is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of clas…
Totally agree with you on all points. Good suggestions too. This instance is a little different because they hacked a DoD communication encryption algorithm. Even if this was used to cover up something, how much other data has been sent using this method. Was the hack specific to the key used or will it work regardless? Will the hack be release in addition to the video?
It's pretty easy for our enemies to set up scanners in the field and capture streams of data to analyze later. If the hack is generic enough and the method was used enough I can see how this could be potentially VERY bad.
That being said, I think we're using very simple encryption on our UAVs video feeds. So it's probably the equivalent of locking the front door and not as big a deal as I've made it out to be.
Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal , is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of clas…
The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient , and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do wh…
Yes, exactly. I feel I have been very bad at saying that the content should never have been classified to begin with (though due to the nature of how it was gathered it must be), and that it is the protection of our communication security which is of much greater importance in this case.
Would you be willing to host the torrent file? It sounds like there'd be some risk involved..
Trackerless torrent files combined with hosts like Rapidshare, Zshare, Megaupload, etc should do the trick. Once it starts to spread it's unstoppable. Or host it in a country that likes to irritate the US government. Iran comes to mind. Venezuela would surely be open to it as well. If Osama Bin Laden can find hosting there is no reason why a group of clever engineers can't as well.
If the wikileaks guys are smart enough to have made it this far you can bet they've already set up a "dead man switch" torrent file somewhere that will self-tweet and self-publish the video x days from now if they fail to check in. PR stunts aren't their style- this smells like either a disinformation campaign to discredit them or a smoke screen for something else. Fortunately there's enough intelligent, vocal people watching this ordeal at this point that it can't be swept under a rug if they disappear. good luck fellas- you're leading an important charge right now.