Moscow Has Eyes On WikiLeaks, Too 579
mark72005 writes "National-security officials say that the National Security Agency, the US government's eavesdropping agency, has already picked up tell-tale electronic evidence that WikiLeaks is under close surveillance by the Russian FSB, that country's domestic spy network, out of fear in Moscow that WikiLeaks is prepared to release damaging personal information about Kremlin leaders. 'We may not have been able to stop WikiLeaks so far, and it's been frustrating,' a US law-enforcement official tells The Daily Beast. 'The Russians play by different rules.'" Something tells me those rules might be in line with professor Tom Flanagan (an adviser to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper), who openly advocates assassinating Assange. Update: 12/03 00:56 GMT by S : Reader Red Flayer points out that Flanagan later recanted, saying, "It was a thoughtless, glib remark about a serious subject."
Flanagan has recanted (Score:5, Informative)
C'mon guys... I know it's too much to ask to have you guys fact-check the actual submissions... but you should seriously consider fact-checking your editorializations that succede them. Not only would it help ensure a better project, but would also help prevent getting your asses sued.
Re:Tom Flanagan, Hilarious Idiot (Score:5, Informative)
Flanagan explained it away as a "glib" response that doesn't actually represent what he feels to be the best course of action.
But, of course, you fed the troll editorialization. Don't worry, we all do it sometimes.
I just wish that Timothy and the other editors would fact-check their editorializations before they get into hot water.
Re:Tom Flanagan, Hilarious Idiot (Score:2, Informative)
It's a poor joke in poor taste. He's already retracted all that [www.cbc.ca], and even critics of the current Canadian government on the opposite side of the house have said that Flanagan was probably joking. He was stupid for putting it that way, of course, but he wasn't serious.
The thing is, some other people have suggested targeting him "like the Taliban" and are apparently serious.
Re:Assange (Score:5, Informative)
I support transparency, but I get the impression that Assange is a hypocrite and egotistical douche.
He may be a douche, but he is emphatically not a hypocrite. He's written several essays [wordpress.com] about what motivates him and why he's chosen the tactics that he has. You may not agree with his reasoning, but to his credit, he has been nothing if not consistent in his behaviour.
Backup copy in the bunker (Score:5, Informative)
Wikileaks is actually hosted in a data center in an underground bunker [cnn.com] in a Swedish mountain. That was a good move. They actually need that level of protection.
The data center operator, Bahnhof, is fully behind Wikileaks in this. "The company's data center is "a kind of metaphor" for Bahnhof's commitment to resist any sort of intrusion, physical or legal. We're proud to have clients like these," he says. The Internet should be an open source for freedom of speech, and the role of an ISP is to be a neutral technological tool of access, not an instrument for collecting information from customers."
Re:Truth? Let me tell you about TRUTH (Score:3, Informative)
Wow. Did you ever fall asleep on the floor and get covered in Sharpie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/quotes?qt0470412 [imdb.com]
Re:Truth? Let me tell you about TRUTH (Score:4, Informative)
This is the dumbest propaganda since Bristol crashed Dancing With The Stars.
Dont let the source of the quote [imdb.com] get in the way of your frothing sentiments.
Wikileaks is not about the US (Score:5, Informative)
This is the typical rubbish of someone who thinks Wikileaks aims at the US. It doesn't.
I'm pretty sure Rubin doesn't know that Assange won the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya. And Rubin doesn't know this because he doesn't care the fuck for who is murdered by whom in Kenya. Instead he thinks that Wikileaks is evil and out to destroy the US because it exposes what some US diplomats think about Putin. What an ignorant self-important wanker.
Re:Truth? Let me tell you about TRUTH (Score:4, Informative)
Sigh. I'm going to assume from your comments that you haven't seen the movie [imdb.com].
The context in the movie is that a military officer is offering excuses for giving the order -- an illegal order -- that resulted in the death of a soldier under his command. Exactly as you suggest, the speech sounds impressive but the rationale is deeply, deeply wrong. If you know the context, the point the original post is making by twisting that movie quote a little is pretty insightful.
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Informative)
"I can't help but cry bullshit to all of this WikiLeaks mess. I have difficulty believing the US government is unable to bring WikiLeaks down, either notoriously or covertly."
I think you'd be suprised, Assange has spoken briefly in the past of Australian intelligence sources giving him warnings, but interestingly right now he's in the UK and yet we've not followed through on the international arrest warrant for him.
I suspect he's actually got as much support amongst intelligence agencies as he has detractors. After the Lugovoi incident in London I'm sure MI5 would love nothing more than to prevent and capture a Russian assassin active on British territory.
Keep in mind that British foreign intelligence- MI6 had a list of their operatives leaked some years back, and the US was the first country to defend publication of the leak citing constitutional protections etc. and in that case there was equally a risk of lives in danger. This coupled with the fact Wikileaks may have contacts or information that even the security services haven't been able to acquire yet.
There's many reasons why Assage might well have just as many people in the security services on side as against him- if Wikileaks hasn't really done much serious to harm British interests, and if he has information that's important about say, Russian interests, and if he's the perfect honeypot for luring in foreign agents who may wish to spy on him or attempt assassination, then they may believe he is a rather valuable asset to keep around, at least for now.
We've had Russian assassinations on British soil, but then we never really believed the Russians were our friends in the first place. A US assassination on British soil? murder of someone on the sovereign land of their closest ally? Now that would be devastating for the US' position in the world, and would almost certainly do far more harm than any leaks have managed. The US (or Russia for that matter) getting rid of him might not be as easy as you think.