Lighthawk wrote:How has something "unfortunate" fortunate not happened to these people by now?
Fixed for you, and apparently not, although the fact that they've apparently sent these files to half a dozen different news agencies would limit the effectiveness of going after WikiLeaks itself. What I don't understand is why no-one's slapped a D-notice or equivalent on the NYT, Grauniad, etc, or simply got a warrant to search their offices and computers for all this data.
Tyyr wrote:I dunno, the Yahoo news site seems to be full of idiots who think this is a good thing. My favorite has to be the comment that this stuff was all available via the Freedom of Information Act.
Lighthawk wrote:Right so then...these guys are still free to do what they are doing how?
Because they aren't in the US. Or, for that matter, any sane country by the looks of things.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
SolkaTruesilver wrote:Regarding the DNA and iris-scan, I believe my imagination is failing me. Somebody has any idea how DNA sampling might be useful to the U.S.'s State Department?
Probably something to do with biometric security measures, or the US obsession with cramming that sort of stuff onto passports.
But... I mean, it's diplomatic personnel. They don't need to go through fancy security checks (I think, I am not up to date with the most recent international protocols regarding dignitaries).
Maybe they'd need these samples for confirmation of identity, make sure there ain't impostors? Wait, they also wanted to know about their main airlines used. Maybe they'd want to track down their movements, making sure Russia dignitaries don't meet too much with, let's say, Georgia.
Biometrics are more and more commonly used as identifiers. Why wouldn't dignitaries be subject to such things, both by the host country and by the parent country?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Mikey wrote:Biometrics are more and more commonly used as identifiers. Why wouldn't dignitaries be subject to such things, both by the host country and by the parent country?
I guess there is always the risk of having the dignitary being replaced somewhere. But wouldn't that be the Dignitary's own country and intelligence agency's reponsability to make sure he is secured, and not the host country's?
If Canadian ambassador gets kidnapped and replaced on the way to Washington, mething it's Canadian security who got lax. Specially if no one notice the difference among his staff.
Then again, why do it covertly? I think that's the question that's puzzling me most of all. Biometrics security system could be something that would be more efficient if the respective countries agree to cooperate on such security measures. Why go all the way to steal genetic material?
SolkaTruesilver wrote:If Canadian ambassador gets kidnapped and replaced on the way to Washington, mething it's Canadian security who got lax. Specially if no one notice the difference among his staff.
Indeed, but if he is replaced in Washington I'm sure American security would be held responsible.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
SolkaTruesilver wrote:If Canadian ambassador gets kidnapped and replaced on the way to Washington, mething it's Canadian security who got lax. Specially if no one notice the difference among his staff.
Indeed, but if he is replaced in Washington I'm sure American security would be held responsible.
Moreover, imagine the sort of US data the Canadian ambassador, as the representative of a close US ally, would have access to.
They might also be trying to get hold of the biodata of any "diplomats" who are actually undercover members of that country's intelligence agency, and perhaps even using the data to get access to whatever biosecurity-covered data said ambassador would have access to.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
The most disturbing thing revealed by all this is my own hypocrisy. I've in the past cursed under my breath when reading about Wikileaks deciding they know best, and publisicing leaked documents with scant regard to the consequences.
Then I prompty sat down this morning and read every single disclosure I could find on the news sites.
"You ain't gonna get off down the trail a mile or two, and go missing your wife or something, like our last cook done, are you?"
"My wife is in hell, where I sent her. She could make good biscuits, but her behavior was terrible."
kostmayer wrote:The most disturbing thing revealed by all this is my own hypocrisy. I've in the past cursed under my breath when reading about Wikileaks deciding they know best, and publisicing leaked documents with scant regard to the consequences.
Then I prompty sat down this morning and read every single disclosure I could find on the news sites.
Don't worry about it too much. It's the temptation of knowledge. And it's not like you not reading it is gonna change something about said leak.
I really don't see what the fuss is all about. Are the politicians today really that far out of this world that they are shocked by those "revelations"? It might by somewhat rude to hear it in this form but those evaluations of foreign politicians differ not much from what every man and his dog on street thinks of them. For example those documents "reveal" that they think that the german chancellor Merkel is uncreative and her foreign minister is agressive and incompetent. Well altough not exactly flattering I have the feeling that most germans have a few stronger choice words for them.
Also, if the government tells us that we have to be transparent and that we need not fear the violation of our privat sphere if we have nothing to hide, I would assume the same holds true for the government.
So not to worry USA, the only one "offended" by those leaks are the upper ten thousand who are probalby only mock-upraged because they fear future leaks, whereas the rest of the world probably gives kudos to the people making such correct and precise evaluations of foreign personnel and only bemoans that such facts are not allowed to be spoken of in public.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Atekimogus wrote:I really don't see what the fuss is all about. Are the politicians today really that far out of this world that they are shocked by those "revelations"? It might by somewhat rude to hear it in this form but those evaluations of foreign politicians differ not much from what every man and his dog on street thinks of them. For example those documents "reveal" that they think that the german chancellor Merkel is uncreative and her foreign minister is agressive and incompetent.
It's somewhat different when you deal with the people face to face. Politicians are people like any other; it's one thing for me to know, say, that the public at large likes to trash my competence. I can always say they're just the public, they don't understand what government is really like. But then I'm in a meeting with Hillary Clinton next week, and the night before I read a note she personally wrote which says "Yeah, this guy is an incompetent clown and not really somebody to take seriously," - why am I going to be disposed to come to some agreement with this person now, and how can I trust that she will take anything I say seriously when I know what she really thinks of me?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Wiki leaks founder has an Interpol alert out for him - relating to an alleged sexual assault in Sweden. He denies it and claims it a fix up job to make him look bad.
Given how many times that the case in question has been dropped and taken back up again, I wouldn't half be surprised if it was a set-up to get him out of the way for a while. Though, of course, it's perfectly possible that the case is indeed legitimate. It'll be interesting to see what Assange does.
If it is a set-up, then I think whoever's planning it is a complete moron. All putting him in jail would do is make him a martyr. It won't stop Wikileaks itself, it'll continue on with someone else in charge. Hell, if anything it might increase the number of leaks, as an attempt to silence the organisation may well convince some fence-sitters that Wikileaks is in the right to publish stuff like this.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
Sionnach Glic wrote:If it is a set-up, then I think whoever's planning it is a complete moron. All putting him in jail would do is make him a martyr. It won't stop Wikileaks itself, it'll continue on with someone else in charge. Hell, if anything it might increase the number of leaks, as an attempt to silence the organisation may well convince some fence-sitters that Wikileaks is in the right to publish stuff like this.
You know, it could be the exact opposite. The case is genuine, and the guy is feeling the authorities's breath down his neck, so he starts publishing the information, and then claim the accusations are meant to smear him.
I received yesterday a STRATFOR article regarding Wikileak, it was fairly interesting. Are people here interested I post it, of should I try to save up the space?
Atekimogus wrote:I really don't see what the fuss is all about. Are the politicians today really that far out of this world that they are shocked by those "revelations"? It might by somewhat rude to hear it in this form but those evaluations of foreign politicians differ not much from what every man and his dog on street thinks of them. For example those documents "reveal" that they think that the german chancellor Merkel is uncreative and her foreign minister is agressive and incompetent.
It's somewhat different when you deal with the people face to face. Politicians are people like any other; it's one thing for me to know, say, that the public at large likes to trash my competence. I can always say they're just the public, they don't understand what government is really like. But then I'm in a meeting with Hillary Clinton next week, and the night before I read a note she personally wrote which says "Yeah, this guy is an incompetent clown and not really somebody to take seriously," - why am I going to be disposed to come to some agreement with this person now, and how can I trust that she will take anything I say seriously when I know what she really thinks of me?
That, and the fact that that isn't the only thing that was in there. You've also got quite a bit of insider information that was told to US diplomats in confidence, like the fact that half the Mid East leaders really wish we'd level Iran's nuclear program. Now how will they trust us with that kind of information if it might wind up on Wikileaks in a month? We need to be able to have those kind of frank discussions with people and this could ruin that.
Funniest description of what's happening I've read yet:
Lies is the essential social lubricant. You need them to get along in society, so there aren't too many friction between peoples. There is something petty about revealing all the lies and truths of everybody. The owner of WikiLeaks is acting with the maturity of a kid who found his elder sister's personnal diary and started reading it out loud at the family reunion.
