Wikileaks under dos attack

[TeaFan]

No I'm despairing at your post.

 

 

"whining"?

 

<REMOVED>

 

"you're not the sharpest tool in the box".

 

I'm bored of it. If you can't sharpen your style to something less odious, then I'm not going to bother reading it.

 

It's like you just came in from the pub, reeking of ale, and proceded to tell everyone what's what, and just like listening to <REMOVED>, it bores me stupid and annoys me at the same time.

 

And what's more, here, for once, is an interesting and serious topic where some of us can sound out our own beliefs and opinions against those who would disagree with us.

 

But no, let's post insulting drivel at each other because it's so much more rewarding.

 

Please carry on.

 

Phew. Thought normal service had disrupted for a moment. Sorry, I know I get on your tits, but he does on mine so I got it off my chest (I will admit to being a bit worse for wear though, which is not always the best time to post). Put me on Ignore if it gets to you that much, that's what I'd do.

 

The point is, it's daft to compare people who are elected or paid to do something with those who are not. I could post the text of my last sent email if that helps - I don't think anyone's going to be interested though, and why would they be? It's contained entirely in my own realm, it's not in the context of promising anything to anyone else or representing anyone else.

 

The cables leak poses some fundamental questions regarding supposedly representative democracy - have we in fact at some point acquiesced in having a whole load of information being witheld from us, and if so was that implicit or explicit? I certainly don't think it was explicit. I'd tie it in with the financial transparency that the UK government have introduced, something that I'm in favour of. Why shouldn't we know what is spent on 'our' behalf? But more importantly why shouldn't we know what is done on 'our' behalf? How else would we know that it was even on our behalf at all?

[andygardener]

Phew. Thought normal service had disrupted for a moment. Sorry, I know I get on your tits, but he does on mine so I got it off my chest (I will admit to being a bit worse for wear though, which is not always the best time to post). Put me on Ignore if it gets to you that much, that's what I'd do.

 

The point is, it's daft to compare people who are elected or paid to do something with those who are not. I could post the text of my last sent email if that helps - I don't think anyone's going to be interested though, and why would they be? It's contained entirely in my own realm, it's not in the context of promising anything to anyone else or representing anyone else.

 

The cables leak poses some fundamental questions regarding supposedly representative democracy - have we in fact at some point acquiesced in having a whole load of information being witheld from us, and if so was that implicit or explicit? I certainly don't think it was explicit. I'd tie it in with the financial transparency that the UK government have introduced, something that I'm in favour of. Why shouldn't we know what is spent on 'our' behalf? But more importantly why shouldn't we know what is done on 'our' behalf? How else would we know that it was even on our behalf at all?

 

Let's say you give me £100 to go play a poker tourament on your behalf to hopefully make you some money. I'm playing good, get to a showdown with the Chinese in the final table and the Chinese have 3/4 of their stack on the table with AAA on the flop and they're holding KK. I bet all in with 27 unsuited and then you rush in screaming nooooooo, don't fall for it he's not actually got an ace!!!!!!

 

That's your idea of ensuring public servants and politicians do things on our behalf.

[Wildcat]

What value is your vote in a democracy if you don't know what those receiving it then do with it?

 

Andygardener does have some point, complete disclosure of information could be dangerous and something we would not want. But what has been leaked so far does more good than it does any harm.

 

The people elected in a democracy can only be held accountable if we know what they have done.

[Obelix]

Yes, but it doesn't indicate when the hash was made, who made it, or who will ultimately verify it or verify them even.

 

When I dl a linux distro, I dl it from one source and get the hash from another source.

 

 

It's why web browsers have public keys of providers installed, because the weakness is when exchanging keys, because of man in the middle attacks, same applies to hashes, if I intercepted the data I could change it, make a new hash and just pass it on...

 

A hash on it's own is not security!

 

So if it's not secuirty why are you using it to verify your linux download then? If you trust the source of the hash then it is proof of the veracity of the document given the difficulty in finding a SHA256 collision.

 

Of course a full digital signature is better - but whats that signature based on? A hash....

[johncocker]

The gulf is indeed huge, as agents of the state they are entrusted with conducting diplomatic negotiations with a myriad of friendly and not so friendly countries on which efforts huge economic and other potentially much more serious outcomes hinge. So plastering them all over the internet can do much more harm than revealing whatever trivial secret opinions that you may hold. But you consider your private correspondance being kept private to be a matter of upmost importance and their correspondance a matter of public interest to steal and disemminate.

 

If a death resulted from this theft would you consider it a fair price for "the truth being revealed? If 10 deaths? If a war resulting in thousands of deaths?

 

What makes you think you have the right to read private classified correspondance while claiming your own private correspondance should be respected and protected?

 

 

 

and while we in the west continue to shoot our selves in the foot ..the chinese just laugh at what we call democracy, and carry quitely on with their world domination:)

[johncocker]

now Assange as been arrested its started to become an aussie bleeding hearts convention .john pilger,assange,geffery robertson-proberly hoping to relive the oz obsenity trials of the "sixtys". ( where they got their concept of democracy from in the first place and thats where they're mind set still is) we just need russel crowe to buy into it in is gladiator skirt and throw a few telephones or computers around to round it off.

[freezer]

Only an idiot would believe they have some "democratic right" to see classified documents above their clearance level.

 

I'd argue that only an idiot would accept without question whether something should be 'above their clearance level' or not. In fact these documents were never 'secret' - they were available to an estimated 2 million people, and available in a form that could be downloaded onto a memory stick by a young soldier.

 

You might argue that secrecy is needed to maintain security. However it also allows governments to be corrupt and lie to us.

 

See today's revelations on the release of the Lockerbie bomber as an example

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-gaddafi-britain-lockerbie-bomber

[Lotusflower]

It's interesting that for some people theft becomes liberation of documents, criminal intrusion into private correspondance becomes the exposure of truth.

 

I take it you have no objection to your own private correspondance being stolen and published in the highminded pursuit of the ideal that nothing anywhere is ever confidential?

 

Why do you think it's "high minded" to want to know what our elected representatives are doing in our name? Why is it "high minded" to want to know why our sons and daughters are dying in unwinnable "wars."

 

My private correspondence does not involve killing, kidnapping, false imprisonment without trial, political skullduggery, and lying to the electorate.

Neither does it involve the suppression of information that should be in the public domain.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you actually trust the people you elect to tell you the truth? :hihi:

[spooky3]

...

You might argue that secrecy is needed...

 

So should no-one have secrets?

 

 

Please do go down the road saying that that is taking it out of context, the principle is the same!

[kevinukms]

One thing is unbelievable that how wiki-leaks is gonna find that documents? I can't say Wikki has just started hiring detectives for mysterious and sensitive information.

 

To till now I can say that all of the information leaked by Wikki is bombing all of the countries pointed in that document.