LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   Mass-mirroring Wikileaks. Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack. (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/mass-mirroring-wikileaks-wikileaks-is-currently-under-heavy-attack-848534/)

David93 12-05-2010 05:28 PM

Mass-mirroring Wikileaks. Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack.
 
In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, we need your help.

if you have a unix-based server which is hosting a website on the Internet and you want to give wikileaks some of your hosting resources, you can help!

http://wikileaks.ch/mass-mirror.html
http://www.wikileaks.nl/mass-mirror.html

MensaWater 12-06-2010 03:43 PM

Just don't do it if you're a US citizen - the US government WILL try to to prosecute you because it considers much of the content illegal.

Jeebizz 12-06-2010 04:00 PM

With the growing number of mirrors already, it is simply futile for the US gov try even to ask other countries hosting wikileaks to quit hosting. For every one domain taken down, more than one springs up :p.

http://www.allyourleakarebelongtous.com/

--edit:

Quote:

From http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...391753644.html

Whoever leaked the cables should be prosecuted but not much can be done about WikiLeaks, a former CIA official says.

The tone of the document is prim and earnest. The directive from the White House’s office of management and budget instructs that new information security procedures must be drawn up - and right away - to ensure "that users [of classified information systems] do not have broader access than is necessary to do their jobs effectively".

Solid, if plodding, advice, that -- as if official Washington were discovering the need for information security for the first time. By contrast, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, looking like a school headmistress who has suddenly found herself the butt of an embarrassing student prank, adopted a tone of wounded dignity.

"I will not comment on or confirm what are alleged to be stolen state department cables," she sniffed, before doing just that. And as for those guilty of perpetrating or facilitating this prank, "I want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information."

Meanwhile, over at the department of justice, the man actually charged with bringing to book the miscreants responsible for Washington's latest outrage, and perhaps for others to come, could not seem to command the same masterly tone.

Sounding wonkish and defensive, Eric Holder, the attorney general, could only manage the following: "To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law… they will be held responsible."

One detected in that a certain lack of confidence that the law would be his friend in this venture, which Holder then went on to confirm: "To the extent there are gaps in our laws, we will move to close those gaps."

Security lapses

Even in a place where political and bureaucratic obfuscation have been raised to the level of fine art, the degree of disingenuousness on display in Washington this week, in the aftermath of the massive revelation of internal state department documents by WikiLeaks, has been quite a sight to behold.

Actually leading the charge in this respect are the so-called mainstream media, who are now tut-tutting about the need for greater care and attention to protection of confidential government information.

My favorite, as usual, is the Washington Post, which scolds the department of defence for allowing Bradley Manning, a 22 year-old army private and the main suspect in a series of massive document leaks, to have been afforded such freewheeling access to troves of information far removed from any legitimate professional interest he might have had.

The newspaper notes approvingly the defence department's newly-announced procedural changes designed to make it more difficult for other, would-be Pfc Mannings to download such information in bulk. No doubt the newspaper is confident that its own, higher-level sources will remain exempt.

Washington’s fecklessness and mendacity in confronting this latest WikiLeaks outrage falls into at least a couple of categories.

First, there is the matter of protecting sensitive information. Many of those caterwauling most loudly about the failure to keep secrets are the very souls who have excoriated the US government for failing to share information as widely as possible, in the context of a series of alleged "intelligence failures", from 9/11 itself to the most recent case of Umar Faruq ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the would-be 2009 Christmas airline bomber.

Human intelligence

The caterwaulers would argue, as the Washington Post has recently, that they have merely advocated wider intelligence-sharing on terrorist threats, and not expanding access to ambassadorial memorandums of conversation with Middle Eastern potentates.

What they fail to realize, however, is that at a certain level, security in large organisations is a matter of culture, of habits of mind. For quite a few years now, those in the US government inclined to argue in favour of protecting secrets have not been in the ascendency, to say the very least.

And those who advocate modest, human-based solutions to the problems of information sharing have been pushed aside in favor of the sweeping, technically-driven solutions which threaten to create more Private Mannings.

Whoever designed a ubiquitous military system for storing and sharing classified information which permitted a junior enlisted man of no particular account, located off in some minor military intelligence unit in Iraq, to have access to literally hundreds of thousands of classified documents on topics of little if any concern to him, as well as the means to independently download them, ought to be shot.

The problem, however is that no such person exists.

No doubt the responsibility for this outrage is widely shared. The many guilty parties should include not only those who made the proximate decisions, but those who encouraged an environment in which such enormous risks were tolerated.

No strategy

Even more important, however, is the inconvenient truth lying at the heart of this whole matter: that even at this late date, the US government has not devised a straightforward, effective and intellectually honest means of dealing with the conflicting values at play when a serious leak of classified government information occurs.

This is true even in the context of normal press leaks, let alone when dealing with the issues generated by mass information-storage devices and the internet. The US government is well equipped to deal with cold-war-era espionage: Individuals providing classified information clandestinely to foreign – usually hostile – powers. The law here is quite unambiguous, and there is a large body of case precedents to back it up.

Where the press is concerned, however, the US government, even after many decades, still has not arrived at a clear, viable means of balancing the legitimate need for a free, open and unfettered press (to use an archaic term) with the equally legitimate government requirement to protect certain information for the public good.

In fact, there routinely are press leaks every bit as harmful as old-fashioned espionage. About the only thing one can say in favor of leaks, as against compromise of the same information through classic espionage, is that at least in the former case, you know when you’ve been robbed. Indeed, in the latest WikiLeaks case, the harm to national security and international relations is all the greater precisely because it was an open leak; at least a hostile power having acquired the same information would have treated it more discreetly.

As handcuffed as the US has been over ordinary press leaks, modern information media have made the problem and the challenge infinitely more acute. Anything even approaching the scope of these recent leaks would have been logistically impossible just a few years ago.

I have written in the past about my own suggested formula for dealing with leaks of national security information. The first point to stress is that the executive branch of government should not be the final arbiter of what is properly classified, or of what does genuinely great harm to national (and indeed international) security.

New media

In the context of a potential criminal leak case, judges should make that determination, and a special judicial panel could be organized for the purpose.

Second, given the importance of independent news media and the threat of their being stifled for reasons related primarily to the political convenience of the powerful, there should be no prior restraint– that is, neither the US nor any government should have the power to bar the media from disseminating sensitive information which comes to it.

A small aside here: Given the ubiquitousness of the "new media" and of the technology which empowers it, virtually anyone can now qualify as a media outlet. Distasteful though it might be, and whatever the substantive differences among them, technology has put a malicious prankster such as Julian Assange on the same legal footing as The New York Times or The Guardian.

There is nothing to be done about it.

Once it is established by independent judicial authority, however, that a media leak has crossed the threshold to be considered a genuine crime, law enforcement in the US and elsewhere must be empowered to pursue the perpetrators vigorously.

As a practical matter, that means that media outlets– be they newspapers, WikiLeaks, or some young person operating from a bedroom in Estonia – must be on notice that they are liable, as enablers of a crime, to be compelled to appear before an independent grand jury, under threat of arrest for contempt of court, and required to reveal their sources – i.e., the actual perpetrators of the crime.

Espionage?

The locus of the crime, in other words, must rest with the individual who has violated the public trust, and not with the media – even when we are talking about an essentially malevolent actor such as Julian Assange.

If, therefore, the media reports concerning Private Manning are to be believed, the criminal in this case is already in custody, and there is little more to be done about WikiLeaks, at least for the time being. The point is not to be dragging media figures routinely into the courts.

The point is to create a positive tension in the system, utterly lacking now, whereby potential leakers and their would-be media outlets are mindful that when they place public safety at risk, they are likely to be called to account – the former as criminal defendants, and the latter as witnesses to a crime.

There are many in the US who would find my mild formula for dealing with the Assanges of the world quite unsatisfying. Some are crying out to indict Assange in the US under the 1917 Espionage Act, although legal experts dispute whether the statute applies here.

Others clamor for new legislation to deal with the novel threats of the internet age. Yes, the threat posed by new-age technology, which makes it possible to post huge volumes of purloined information in a location where much of the world can see it, does pose a qualitatively new and potent menace. In many respects, the internet makes the threat posed by old-fashioned press leaks pale in comparison.

But make no mistake: As much as Washington political and media figures would like to pretend otherwise, they cannot deal with the first without finally dealing with the fundamental issues posed by the latter. We can deal with WikiLeaks. But not without dealing with The New York Times and the Washington Post as well.

Robert Grenier is a retired, 27-year veteran of the CIA’s Clandestine Service. He was Director of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center from 2004 to 2006.

jiml8 12-07-2010 01:04 AM

This guy is no hero. Wikileaks is not a good thing. If he'd exercise some judgment and focus on exposing corruption and governmental/corporate wrongdoing then he would be a hero. As it is, he seems to be just an anarchist trying (successfully) to stir the pot, and he is causing a lot of trouble.

There is no good reason at all to "out" all the routine intra-governmental and diplomatic correspondence that he is outing. He could damage alliances (not just US alliances) and conceivably start a war, and get a lot of people killed.

To what purpose? To what possible purpose?

smeezekitty 12-07-2010 02:24 AM

Wikileaks is good.
It exposes the evil Government corruption and helps keep it under control.
The Government should not be keeping possibility critical information secret.
True there are some "theoretical" risks but in practice the risk is very minimal.
Wikileaks does not provide that much information that would assist an enemy.
Also the US does not have that many true dangerous enemies.
Sure it has its negative points but anyone just claiming blanket "Wikileaks is bad" is blowing hot air!

REMEMBER: The more you allow the Government to continue its secrecy, the worse it will get. We are slowly loosing freedom but Wikileaks helps battle this.

"Those who want security at the expense of freedom, deserve neither. -Benjamin Franklin"

prodev05 12-07-2010 02:33 AM

Every possible steps would be monitored by CIA. So plan for the alternate or redirect the attack to the in-coming cloud.

Regards

Ulysses_ 12-08-2010 11:19 AM

Sites can be shut down easily, even if they are hosted a thousand times.

Better find a way to host a web site over p2p filesharing networks, then it automatically exists a practically unlimited number of times. We need a firefox addon to display p2p files as though they were a web site. I'd even pay for it.

(By the way, wikileaks is a psyop. Not the place to discuss this further, sorry)

MensaWater 12-08-2010 02:44 PM

Quote:

The Government should not be keeping possibility critical information secret.
I disagree. I'd would say nuclear codes are "critical information" and I certainly don't want to know them myself and hope the government is doing its damndest to prevent most folks from knowing them.

I'd also say that the intent of this person seems not to be to expose corruption/illegal actions but rather to give a black eye to as many people as possible. If an ambassador says "I met with PM so and so and he seems to be a putz" that is NOT critical information to anyone - it is his opinion reported to his superiors and there is no overriding need of the general population to know that opinion.

Imagine if everything you'd ever said about your boss, family members or friends suddenly became known to all of them! While you might generally have a favorable opinion and/or love/like any of those people the chances that you've said something they wouldn't appreciation if they heard it is very high.

Contrast that with information that says "We bribed PM so and so to allow us to torture someone". I can see a desire to try to out that kind of behavior but not a lot of what has been reported so far which is simply an embarassment to folks rather than something that might be morally or legally reprehensible.

Jeebizz 12-08-2010 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MensaWater (Post 4185101)
I can see a desire to try to out that kind of behavior but not a lot of what has been reported so far which is simply an embarassment to folks rather than something that might be morally or legally reprehensible.

Maybe I am misinterpreting this cable, taking it out of context? But what is this about the US working with some guy in Afghanistan, and the guy in question is “purchasing a service from a child.”? Hrmmmm

jiml8 12-09-2010 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz (Post 4185115)
Maybe I am misinterpreting this cable, taking it out of context? But what is this about the US working with some guy in Afghanistan, and the guy in question is “purchasing a service from a child.”? Hrmmmm

What this is, as is stated clearly in the cable, is a situation where people are being arrested for the crime of "purchasing a service from a child" which, per the cable, is a violation of both Afgan Sharia law and Afghan civil law. This appears to be an effort by the Afghan minister of the interior to clean up corruption in the police.

And this is a problem...why, exactly? This is government misconduct...how, exactly? Disclosing this in this fashion benefits...who, exactly? In and of itself, it isn't significant. But if this is representative of the type of material currently being disclosed, then it is damaging to the USA, when the USA is doing nothing wrong other than failing to secure these communications.

Assange would be a hero if he'd display some judgment. As it is, he's just an anarchist trying to stir things up. And succeeding. He's going to get people killed and in the worst case will trigger a war.

GlennsPref 12-09-2010 03:28 AM

Hi,

The opinions I've read on this page range, as they fairly should, from one extreme to the other(2 dimensional).

Which is good, democratically.

In Australia we had a Political party called "The Democrats" and their motto was, "Keep the Bastards Honest".

I feel this is what Pfc Mannings, Assange, wikileaks and the Journalists is/are doing.

And it can only be to our (the General Public) benefit, I believe.

Remember these politicians are public servants, voted in by us and paid by us!

Therefore they are responsible to us, not the US government (except in the US, of course).

If a politician is found corrupt, he gets a slap on the wrist, they should be executed.

They outlived/<edit>betrayed</edit> their Office.

But the reason they don't clean all this up (make new laws) is because it may apply to them,

and they (the politicians) would be personally Affected (because some of them are liars and cheats), just look at the British stories a while ago, they (the politicians) were ripping off the public Just because they can. No morals!, no ethical base!

In Australia, all the politicians names are prefixed, "The Honourable ..."

What's Honourable about snide remarks, which is mostly the content of the wikileaks I've read.

I'm sorry, But if you do something illegal and you get caught, you suffer.

Assange has done nothing wrong except embarrass a few Politicians, who should have kept their mouth shut.

I lived in Townsville, back in 83 (21 months), and I thought it was/is a nice place to live and grow.

Ok, it's only 1500 klicks up the road, but....

Definitely not a terrorist environment. Well you can play Skirmish (paintball) or join the military forces.

Cheers and Regards Glenn

alan_ri 12-09-2010 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiml8 (Post 4183165)
This guy is no hero. Wikileaks is not a good thing. If he'd exercise some judgment and focus on exposing corruption and governmental/corporate wrongdoing then he would be a hero. Assange would be a hero if he'd display some judgment. As it is, he's just an anarchist trying to stir things up.

You could have read about WikiLeaks - Link.

There, you can see:
Quote:

2.2 Some of the stories we have broken

* War, killings, torture and detention
* Government, trade and corporate transparency
* Suppression of free speech and a free press
* Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence
* Ecology, climate, nature and sciences
* Corruption, finance, taxes, trading
* Censorship technology and internet filtering
* Cults and other religious organizations
* Abuse, violence, violation
So you can say that WikiLeaks is focused on general wrongdoing, which includes governmental wrongdoings:
Quote:

We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
As for the judgment thing you've mentioned:
Quote:

We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination and procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We do not censor our news, but from time to time we may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents to protect life and limb of innocent people.
About the hero thing, maybe you should go and meet all those families and friends of innocent people killed, look them in the eyes and say: it would have been better if Assange never did expose the truth about your loved ones, who killed them and why. You could start with Kenya.

mjolnir 12-09-2010 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiml8 (Post 4185546)
Assange would be a hero if he'd display some judgment. As it is, he's just an anarchist trying to stir things up. And succeeding. He's going to get people killed and in the worst case will trigger a war.

+1, I agree.

GlennsPref 12-09-2010 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan_ri (Post 4185743)
You could have read about WikiLeaks - Link.

There, you can see:
So you can say that WikiLeaks is focused on general wrongdoing, which includes governmental wrongdoings:

As for the judgment thing you've mentioned:

About the hero thing, maybe you should go and meet all those families and friends of innocent people killed, look them in the eyes and say: it would have been better if Assange never did expose the truth about your loved ones, who killed them and why. You could start with Kenya.

You're so right!

easuter 12-09-2010 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan_ri (Post 4185743)
You could have read about WikiLeaks - Link.

There, you can see:
So you can say that WikiLeaks is focused on general wrongdoing, which includes governmental wrongdoings:

As for the judgment thing you've mentioned:

About the hero thing, maybe you should go and meet all those families and friends of innocent people killed, look them in the eyes and say: it would have been better if Assange never did expose the truth about your loved ones, who killed them and why. You could start with Kenya.

+1.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 PM.