Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#101

Post by slashdotaccount »

aroman wrote: post #73
seabee wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN, reddit, digg et al. would have failed long long ago if half the websites required a login before you could see the linked content. I see no good reason to make an exception for just one particular website.

This entire discussion is moot since Facebook does not, in fact, require you to log in to see content. At least not the content linked in this thread.

Faceebook's abiolity to track you does not reqquire you to loginn. Yore y vewing pages with lick bittons preevids a rabust seat of indieacktor variaabbles. This why some cuntry mek illegal teh luke bouton.

Also, all the text you type on your smartphone goes to the fbi. You can probably be id'd by what you mosspell. It.s a question of whether they give a fuck.

Resistance is poodle!

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#102

Post by aroman »

yaddayadda wrote: post #97
aroman wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entire discussion is moot since Facebook does not, in fact, require you to log in to see content. At least not the content linked in this thread.

The thread started off with hnha asking, "why on earth is this a link to Facebook of all things?" followed by RexRollman responding, "I agree. I see Facebook in a URL and I won't visit it, regardless of what it is.", followed by you asking, "And why is that, exactly?". None of which were asking, "can I access this link without logging into facebook" , so positing that the discussion can be ended simply because this l…

I appreciate your well-thought out reply, but I was simply referring to the tree of comments responding to my own original comment. Asserting that further discussion was (and is) moot was neither a non-sequitur nor based on inconsistent evidence.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#103

Post by gizmo686 »

chimeracoder wrote: post #81
tjohns wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're releasing something that they could reasonably expect the NSA to be able to crack, there's a non-zero chance other governments would be able to read it as well. That's not really "responsible disclosure" anymore. It would be safer to just send the decryption key directly to the NSA on a CD. ;)

Well, that also lets the NSA (or anybody who intercepts the CD) release the key to try and make it look like it came from Wikileaks. Depending on how an adversary times that, it could be damaging for Wikileaks.

They could encrypt it using a pre-existing NSA public key.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#104

Post by gizmo686 »

jdiez17 wrote: post #98
SimHacker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Due to its incessant work, NSA is the largest electricity consumer in Maryland." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency So what would the carbon footprint be of WikiLeaks releasing 50 gigabytes of encrypted random data?

There is not enough energy available in our universe to crack a container encrypted with AES256.

We do not know that. Using thermodynamics we can establish a limit on how much computation we can do (if I recall correctly Applied Chryptography says that a super nova does not have sufficient energy to count to 2^256 in base 2). However, we have no theoretical bases regarding how much computation is involved in breaking AES256. All we do know is that we (the public) do not know of a way to do it.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#105

Post by saraid216 »

greenyoda wrote: post #84
rayiner wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do state the law correctly, your confusion seems instead to be with regards to the phrase "due process." It means literally what it says: everyone is entitled to "due" (i.e. warranted) process, not judicial process. What process is "due" in any given case? It is, on its face, a context-sensitve inquiry. If you trace the due process clause back to its origins in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta, you'll see that it is…

Before mentioning "due process", the Fifth Amendment states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..." The exclusion for "cases arising in the land or naval forces" apparently applies to members of…

Huh. I wasn't aware of the "in the Militia" bit. Is that the same militia that lets us all have guns according to the Second Amendment?

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#106

Post by saraid216 »

a3n wrote: post #44
atmosx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if I'm not a USA citizens, they are watching me anyway. Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News I'd already have targeted half it's crowd potentially dangerous to the security of the country, just for being so interested in national security matters. Those Geeks!!!

"Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News ..." Wait, wait. You're saying there's a way to get paid to read HN all day? Where do I sign?

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/1223/

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#107

Post by saraid216 »

thirstywhimbrel wrote: post #64
0x45696e6172 wrote: post #63

Part of Wikileaks' manifest is a promise to the leakers to release the information eventually, and they have proven track record of doing so. Aware of this, I wonder if new insurance files will have any influence on the actions of their enemies.

| I wonder if new insurance files will have any influence on the actions of their enemies. Even without that, no effect. Blackmailing a bureaucracy... it's not like dealing with a single rational actor. That's the Hollywood version of Washington. It's like coming upon a traffic jam and deciding you should bribe those responsible so you can go on your way.

> It's like coming upon a traffic jam and deciding you should bribe those responsible so you can go on your way.

This is officially my new favoritest analogy.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#108

Post by notdrunkatall »

sklivvz1971 wrote: post #83
Renaud wrote: post #30

I wonder what are the risks associated with downloading and sharing such torrents. Evidently, anyone getting them becomes a highly visible target and once the content of these torrents is known, you could become involved in the distribution of classified data. Even if the content is not known, it could be viewed as an 'unfriendly' act and could make you become a "target of interest" to some zealous 3-letter agency...…

Apparently having used TOR makes you a person of interest. Not that difficult.

Really?

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#109

Post by notdrunkatall »

msantos wrote: post #89

Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) tweeted at 1:00 AM on Sun, Aug 18, 2013: For those asking, @MikeGrunwald's now-deleted tweet: "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange" ( https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/368885133803143168 )

That's just horrible.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#110

Post by SimHacker »

dsl wrote: post #100
SimHacker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Due to its incessant work, NSA is the largest electricity consumer in Maryland." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency So what would the carbon footprint be of WikiLeaks releasing 50 gigabytes of encrypted random data?

The NSA dedicates most of its resources to "working smarter not harder." If they have discovered a weakness in AES, it could be as little as running a single executable on a Macbook Air.

If by "working" you mean "bullying" and "strong arming" and "threatening" and "blackmailing" people. It doesn't take a lot of energy to bullying somebody into putting trojan horses into their encrypted email service, and threatening to arrest them if they shut down their company. What kind of dirt do you think they have on Obama and Pelosi and the rest of the Senate and House of Representatives, to make them so cooperative? More like "Work illegally, not smarter."
Post reply on HN