WikiLeaks

[Atlanteanlost]

It seems democracy costs too much..

CLICK - Story

CLICK - Site

[-pogo-]

It seems democracy costs too much..

CLICK - Story

CLICK - Site

[Kyelo]

The people didn;t go on it and donate. The people voted against it. Democracy won!

[t8yman]

how the f**k a website costs $600,000 per year to run I will never know. I appreciate its value as a resource and a safe haven for whistle blowers, but come on....

[-pogo-]

Disagree with that. Think it's more people want the goods but because they don't have to pay don't. Much like MP3 downloads and museum entrances haha

[Mahdnyw]

Not realy true though is it. You look at those mp3 and torrent sights and take a peek at how much is donated to them. If people want them there they donate.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Mahdnyw

[-pogo-]

Comparing Wikileaks to a torrent site is hardly fair - Most torrent sites have huge communities behind them and virtually no overheads besides storage & bandwidth, whereas Wikileaks has offices & staff on top of their IT requirements.

[dakyras]

Comparing Wikileaks to a torrent site is hardly fair - Most torrent sites have huge communities behind them and virtually no overheads besides storage & bandwidth, whereas Wikileaks has offices & staff on top of their IT requirements.

[Mahdnyw]

And wikileaks lacked the huge community behind it to ensure its existence.

[lost]

surprised this hasn't been bumped, so Mastercard and visa have suspended payments and the founder is getting deported to Sweden on a rape charge. Not looking good for the site, seems some-things are seen as too sensitive to release.

[llcoolphil]

surprised this hasn't been bumped, so Mastercard and visa have suspended payments and the founder is getting deported to Sweden on a rape charge. Not looking good for the site, seems some-things are seen as too sensitive to release.

[Ed209]

Ive got to admit that when they revealed that BAe were a component of national security I was astonished.

[Alcatraz]

The websites still up here

edit: Oh just seen the date of the initial post But thats the new domain

Edited December 7, 2010 by Alcatraz

[eFestivals]

surprised this hasn't been bumped, so Mastercard and visa have suspended payments and the founder is getting deported to Sweden on a rape charge. Not looking good for the site, seems some-things are seen as too sensitive to release.

yep, PayPal and the Swiss bank they use have binned them too, as well as some of their domain names getting revoked and the mirrors being cyber attacked by traffic that's coming from the USA, Russia and China. Funny that, eh?

It's very obviously an orchestrated attempt led by the USA to get it shut down, but while that sort of thing worked in the old world I'm not sure it's going to work out good for the USA in the internet age.

The simple fact is that nothing of what Wikileaks is publishing is anything new to those who want to know the intimate secrets of the USA - it's all info that 3M Americans have always had unrestricted access to. That means it's been in the hands of the 'big' enemies or potential enemies (Russia, China, Iran, Korea, Al-Qaeda) of the USA for years, and none of this is causing the USA any danger from those enemies.

The 'damage' is being done in the minds of the world's public. Many of us have always believed the attitudes being revealed as being America's motivations, but for some it's all new, and for all of us it's now proven as true.

America is being exposed for what it really is. The mistake America is making is in thinking few thought it previously.

[bunique]

I didn't see this. What was said?

BAe are one of the worlds largest defense contractors. They work on a huge number of US led contracts to do with their military and national security, seems fairly logical to me that the US would highlight BAe as being critical to national security.

[llcoolphil]

I didn't see this. What was said?

BAe are one of the worlds largest defense contractors. They work on a huge number of US led contracts to do with their military and national security, seems fairly logical to me that the US would highlight BAe as being critical to national security.

[Ed209]

I assumed Phil's comment was rather tongue in cheek

[bunique]

I was wondering if it was or not. Sarcasm isn't always easy to spot on t'internet

[llcoolphil]

it's all info that 3M Americans have always had unrestricted access to.

Edited December 7, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

True

Have the leaks actually revealed anything particularly shocking yet or has it all been as obvious as the BAe stuff?

[Kowalski]

It was the revelation that the US highlighted BAe as critical to national security and there has been an outcry since. I was being ironic. The idea that Wikileaks revealing this info is a threat to anyone is nonsensical.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Kowalski

[llcoolphil]

This is loosely connected to the area I work in. We advise some of the organisations that the UK government have deemed as "vital to national infrastucture" (energy companies, water companies, pipelines etc...). I have recently been part of an audit of some UK power stations to review their cyber security arrangements, and some of the stuff I have found is quite astonishing. In general, these types of installations are wide open to security breaches (both physical and logical) if people know what they are doing. This is the reason the Stuxnet worm was created, as it is one of the first examples of malware to specifically target industrial control systems (in this example it was targeting power stations in Iran but it has affected other parts of the world, including Germany). I don't know how much people know about industrial control systems but they tend to have no malware protection and it's not a simple case of installing anti-virus software. If the Stuxnet worm (or similar) got into a control system in a power station in the UK, it could cut off the energy supply to millions. And people who know the right IP addresses can do the same damage without having to write some malware to do it.

Anyway, by releasing the list of worldwide sites vital to to US national infrastructure they are providing the terrorists with a list of sites they can target and there is no way they knew about all those sites on that list. If the list of UK sites (deemed vital to national infrastructure) is ever released then a few people will start to get hot under the collar, as it wouldn't be too difficult to switch off the energy supply to large amounts of the population, you just need to know what you're doing. You can pretty much guess what the list is but there are somethings you wouldn't expect on the list, and vice versa.

Hope that hasn't bored you too much.

My colleagues and I raised an eyebrow with the Wikileaks release of those sites, as it is a potential god send to us as consultants! Addressing cyber security issues at these sites is hellishly expensive though, and many organisations are not being proactive enough. It is quite a fascinating area to work in.

[Kowalski]

I'd never heard of this stuxnet worm until this morning and now twice in one day I think - is it the same thing the Israelis (allegedly!) used on Iran's Uranium programme to send some centrifuge spinning out of control? It'll be something similar anyway. And slightly more subtle than sticking a bomb to a scientist's car window as he drives along. But of course potential terrorists knew what was on that list - or certainly the ones that are in a position to do something with it. Just as the Chinese and the Russians and every other developed state knows - if a bloke can go into work and copy it to a CD, it simply isn't that confidential.

It does rather make the point that the real threat to national security is cyber. Whilst the London bombings make a very visible statement, cyber terrorism is where the real future threat lies. Though if I know about the stuxnet worm from the Today programme this morning, I'll be prepared to bet a not unreasonable amount of money that we have this one pretty much covered - and if we dont, thank goodness to wikileaks for bringing it to our attention.

[eFestivals]

This is loosely connected to the area I work in. We advise some of the organisations that the UK government have deemed as "vital to national infrastucture" (energy companies, water companies, pipelines etc...). I have recently been part of an audit of some UK power stations to review their cyber security arrangements, and some of the stuff I have found is quite astonishing. In general, these types of installations are wide open to security breaches (both physical and logical) if people know what they are doing. This is the reason the Stuxnet worm was created, as it is one of the first examples of malware to specifically target industrial control systems (in this example it was targeting power stations in Iran but it has affected other parts of the world, including Germany). I don't know how much people know about industrial control systems but they tend to have no malware protection and it's not a simple case of installing anti-virus software. If the Stuxnet worm (or similar) got into a control system in a power station in the UK, it could cut off the energy supply to millions. And people who know the right IP addresses can do the same damage without having to write some malware to do it.

The most stupid stupid stupid thing about the stuxnet worm is that there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for any power station or anything else to be connected to the 'net. Remove that connection (or be smart enough to not have made it in the first place), and all the security worries vanish in an instant.

Anyone with a modicum of sense wouldn't have made this most basic of errors in the first place.

[eFestivals]

It does rather make the point that the real threat to national security is cyber.

completely and utterly wrong.

The real threat to national security is the gross stupidity which hooked any vital control system up to to a public and open service in the first place.