Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Censorship Government The Media

Moscow Has Eyes On WikiLeaks, Too 579

Posted by timothy
from the now-that's-a-sweet-little-tacit-endorsement dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moscow Has Eyes On WikiLeaks, Too

Comments Filter:
  • by bigspring (1791856) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:24PM (#34423150)
    ... Wiki leaks you. I guess?
    • by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:09PM (#34423900)
      No. In Soviet Russia those who offend us ingest toxic radioactive metals
    • by rainmouse (1784278) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:10PM (#34423910)

      'The Russianvs play by different rules'

      All this outcry has done little except prove the exceedingly dubious moral fibre of very powerful elected political figures the world over. People who brag openly about transparency one day and murder to prevent it another day. I'm no longer convinced the Russian rules are really that different from our own.

      • by mcvos (645701)

        Russia is willing to assassinate people quite openly just to set an example. Julian Assange is relatively safe from the US, because if the US wants to kill him, they'll want to do it either legally or secretly. Russia has very few of such qualms.

        • by mrcaseyj (902945) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:43PM (#34424442)

          The US better not kill Assange because then future leaks probably wouldn't be redacted and past leaks would probably be re-released unredacted. The names of confidential informants would be released directly into the open. Future leaks would still happen because this stuff wasn't leaked by Wikileaks, it was leaked by the army guy that stole them. He could have just emailed the documents to a thousand random email addresses and every newspaper in the world, including our enemies. He could have posted a torrent link on Slashdot and had it downloaded 10,000 times before the gov noticed it, by people here that have the expertise to distribute it reliably. Wikileaks is just publicizing and making convenient what would be out there anyway. The guy who actually leaked these things couldn't possibly have redacted them himself, and he couldn't have asked for help from the govt. So governments should encourage leaks to go through Wikileaks.

          I don't know if Russia will kill him. He might be making himself hard to find.

          • Also, we still don't know what the Insurance.aes256 file really contains. I'm pretty sure that if something happens to Assange, we'll get to know. It might be bluff, but it might not...

      • by TheViciousOverWind (649139) <martin@siteloom.dk> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:23PM (#34424164) Homepage
        It's somewhat sad that when China executes people who opposes the regime, the rest of the world cry "Murder!", but when someone releases information embarresing to them, the line is not as clear.

        The way I see it. If the documents had been released by "real" journalists (what defines a real journalist anyway?) 10 at a time, there would be no talk about hanging said journalists. When thousands of documents is released at one time, we suddenly call for his head?
        • by suzerain (245705) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @07:13PM (#34424904) Homepage

          In my opinion, there's something conscious and subconscious going on here, with respect to the vitriolic calls for assassination, and so forth.

          The conscious thing is simple: "we want to kill him because he released sensitive shit that's detrimental to us, either personally or strategically".

          But I sense an unspoken outrage here, not so much at the content of the cables, but at the disruptive nature of what those in power see as a "flagrant violation of the rules". There have been countless examples of this throughout history...American revolutionaries employing guerrilla tactics against an enemy fighting an old-style war, to name but one.

          Ultimately, I think the way this stuff goes down, in the old world, is that news outlets get ahold of a bunch of sensitive shit, and then they schedule lunch with the people on the ass-end of the offensive shit, and they say "look, do some stuff that helps us and we'll release A, B and C, but we'll gloss over D, E and F." And I think this happens largely because media are either for-profit concerns, or else funded by the governments. They can only go so far in exposing the truth.

          Wikileaks, in the new world, has basically said "Fuck that. We're not going to play by the old rules. We're releasing all this stuff, but if you want you can help us redact some of it." They can only do that because they have little financial stake in the outcome of their actions. And I think that among the people used to the old system, this is an affront to the assumptions of people well-versed in these well-developed social and cultural mores. And furthermore, I think vast swaths of the public go along with the outrage simply because they really don't want to know "the truth". They'd rather accept some version of the truth that doesn't upset the apple cart, because they have more mundane concerns like putting their kids through school.

          The lesson from all this, IMO, is that Wikileaks, basically, is the Internet (metaphorically because of what it represents). It's a game-changer. Since the mid-90's, when we saw this new communications medium emerge, this is what we all envisioned: information in control of the masses, citizen journalism, etc. and so on. It has finally emerged in the form of Wikileaks (and if they are destroyed, it will re-form under a different guise. The implication is this: the way the world works is going to change. This diplomatic cable leak will be remembered as a moment that the old-accepted rules started to be trampled on.

          No matter what, it's going to be fascinating how it all shakes out. And, some people might die, lose their jobs, increase or decrease in terms of relevance. But ultimately life will go on. It always does.

          One final comment related to the above poster: really, Wikileaks isn't leaking this information at all. The Guardian is. The New York Times is. Der Spiegel is. Le Monde is. Wikileaks just dumped the documents. But it's these news organizations that are making money off packaging all the supposedly damaging information into bite-sized chunks that the average consumer can digest. Yet, I haven't heard any calls for the assassination of the editor in chief of the New York Times.

          • I think vast swaths of the public go along with the outrage simply because they really don't want to know "the truth".

            An insightful post for the most part. But with this statement, I'd say instead that vast swaths of the public don't want to have to figure out what the truth is, don't know how or don't want to spend the time or are just plain incapable of reasoning through such a process, and so they've decided that their "team" has got a line on the truth (Reps or Dems or whatever), and so they'll just

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:24PM (#34423156)

    If you want to play James Bond, you better expect to get your hair mussed.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Totenglocke (1291680) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:58PM (#34423732)
      Assange just needs to remember to only become shaken by their assassination attempts, not stirred.
  • Assange (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215)

    I support transparency, but I get the impression that Assange is a hypocrite and egotistical douche. Assassinate him and you turn him into a hero/martyr. Given that his organization is still fairly secret, it could continue to run without him.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Peach Rings (1782482)

      Given that his organization is still fairly secret, it could continue to run without him.

      Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it. I wish he would just release everything he has already. Apparently the next big release will cause scandal and humiliation in major banks, and it's killing me that the release of such information could depend on Assange's life.

      Probably his best shot is to send the decryption key for the insurance file [wired.com] as a threat to someone like the state department and let them shut these idiots up a

    • Re:Assange (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:34PM (#34423346)

      Assange is a distraction and knows it. Chasing him wastes law enforcement resources and he knows that too. Wikileaks, the organization goes on while idiots chase their tails by chasing him. Moreover, if Wikileaks goes away, 10 more Wikileak clones will arise.

      Governments, apparently, never learned the lesson of Napster. When Napster went, other free music sites were created. When those went, distributed torrent sites were created. When torrent sites go, another as yet unknown solution will occur.

      With cameras, computers and the internet, almost nothing can be hidden anymore. Information leaks in the USA can't be stopped, except by regaining the respect and trust of the American people. In a wired world, the only way to do that is to play it straight, not lie and do what you say you'll do. As of yet, no political organization or movement in the USA is up to that task. When they appear, I'm sure they will be regarded as dangerous radicals by the mainstream media.

      • Re:Assange (Score:5, Interesting)

        by melikamp (631205) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:01PM (#34423768) Homepage Journal

        When torrent sites go

        Hahahahaha, everything you say is true. These clowns cannot even shut down http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org] after years and years of litigation and actually throwing individual people in jail. The media shitstorm around Wikileaks is getting more amusing every hour. Say what you want about Assange, but if his goal was to draw attention to factual info leaked into the wild by US government employees, then he succeeded beyond even his own wildest dreams.

        • Say what you want about Assange, but if his goal was to draw attention to factual info leaked into the wild by US government employees, then he succeeded beyond even his own wildest dreams.

          Other than the narrow focus on the US government, that is precisely what his goal has been. He even said so about a year ago:

          "At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives. Now how do we present that? It's a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it."

          ---Bank Of America Set [businessinsider.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Borland (123542)

        Information leaks in the USA can't be stopped, except by regaining the respect and trust of the American people.

        I do not think there is a government in operation since three burly cavemen got together and beat the others of the tribe into line that had "the respect and trust" of the people. And the more educated, rich, and free a nation is, the more that suspicion is widespread. Come to think of it, I'd rather never have the government of the US gain the respect and trust of the people -- that means all divisions have been erased; all debate has ended. Possibly because people are just too poor, ill-educated, and s

    • Re:Assange (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:36PM (#34423390)

      I get the impression that Assange is a hypocrite and egotistical douche.

      He's not though. From the interviews I've seen he seems reasonable enough and even made sure to remove names from the Iraq docs. People always say he's an ass but I've never seen anyone actually justify it.

    • by medv4380 (1604309)
      But are they secret enough to stop Russia from planting say uranium flakes the company pickinic basket
      • by lennier1 (264730)

        In truch the Russians probably are pissed because he got his hands on some documents without greasing the usual government officials' hands like the rest has to do. A bit like the MAFIAA, but on a whole new level.

    • by jythie (914043)
      I think it would run better without him.. the guy is a douche... though with the figurehead gone various companies and governments would just start going after the other people... Assange DOES make a good lightning rod if nothing else... .so maybe he does have a use.
    • yes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by unity100 (970058) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:05PM (#34423822) Homepage Journal
      you get that impression from where ? fox news ?

      dont get any impressions.

      the only way he is alive, and there is wikileaks still, because he had done everything to put himself on the spotlight and keep people remembering him and wikileaks, so that assassinating him would be hard.

      get a clue. really. get a clue.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Enderandrew (866215)

        His refusal to wear a condom despite his sexual partners begging that he do precisely that, as he sleeps with multiple strangers in a short period of time is one reason I think he is a douche.

        And while he wants to keep informants secret, as that location of his servers (to protect the information) he won't disclose how much money has been donated, how he spends the money, why he doesn't disclose all leaks given to him, etc.

        And I've never watched a minute of Fox News. Please stop with the ad hominem attacks.

      • by elucido (870205) * on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:17PM (#34424042)

        That might protect Assange from the US government but it wont protect him from Russia.

    • Re:Assange (Score:5, Informative)

      by grcumb (781340) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:06PM (#34423842) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • I support transparency, but I get the impression that Assange is a hypocrite and egotistical douche.

      I'd imagine if I were the target of an international smear campaign, I could be made to look like a hypocritical, egotistical douche too (as opposed to a hypocritical, SEMI-egotistical douche.)

      My point is: don't let the character assassination distract you from what's ACTUALLY important, which is of course, not Assange's character.

  • by Ensign_Expendable (1045224) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:25PM (#34423180)
    Any Slashdoters out there who sell Polonium detectors could make a fast sale.
    • nah, Russia never uses the same trick twice. So, let's make a spin on the wheel of assassination:

      *click**click**click**click* Concentrated Neutron Deathray

      *click**click*...*click*.....*click* hidden in a shoe
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:26PM (#34423208) Journal

    Prof Tom Flanagan said Barack Obama should "put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something" to rid the world of Mr Assange.

    "Put out a contract?" Yeah, then maybe he should chew on a cigar while hanging out of a suicide door on a car as he fires two tommy guns from either arm? And then maybe he should cut off a horse's head and put it in Manning's jail bed? I'm sure after that contract is transmitted out to Kessel, Boba Fett will freeze Assange and deliver him to Sarah Palin. "Put out a contract?" He's the leader of the United States, not a gangster -- although I'm sure there'll be comments asking for the difference of the two.

    Yeah put out a contract for drones. Obama should offer one billion dollars to the first drone to kill Assange. Well, you'd have to offer it to the drone before it detonates itself while targeting Assange ... or at least to the drone's family so the widow drone can send their little Predator to a nice drone school.

    And this guy's an adviser to the Canadian PM? What kind of advice does he provide? "Well, sir, I think you should grow wings and save the internet or at least threaten to break its kneecaps if it doesn't shape up."

    • "Put out a contract?" Yeah, then maybe he should chew on a cigar while hanging out of a suicide door on a car as he fires two tommy guns from either arm? And then maybe he should cut off a horse's head and put it in Manning's jail bed? I'm sure after that contract is transmitted out to Kessel, Boba Fett will freeze Assange and deliver him to Sarah Palin.

      Actually, that sounds freaking awsome. I *wish* the world worked that way.

    • by EdIII (1114411)

      And this guy's an adviser to the Canadian PM? What kind of advice does he provide? "Well, sir, I think you should grow wings and save the internet or at least threaten to break its kneecaps if it doesn't shape up, eh."

      There, fixed that for you.

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:40PM (#34423428) Journal
      It got buried down below, but I already made a post explaining that Flanagan recanted. The recantment was reported in lots of places yesterday, I saw it on the late news here in the NY metro area.

      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.
      • I just wish that Timothy and the other editors would fact-check their editorializations before they get all those page views.

        FTFY
      • by SJ (13711) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @07:51PM (#34425338)

        The problem with this is the first statement is usually what you really meant to say. You shoot it out in the heat of the moment when all your mental filters are distracted. Flanagan may now say that he doesn't advocate hunting down another human and murdering them, but the fact that he said it in the first place shows that the thought is prominent in his subconscious.

    • by AioKits (1235070)

      Yeah, then maybe he should chew on a cigar while hanging out of a suicide door on a car as he fires two tommy guns from either arm?

      If you'll excuse me, I need to make a call to an artsy type friend with this idea... I owe ya one!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • Given Canada's previous history of what happens to Prime Ministers who make silly decisions, I'd say that Mister Flanagan must have advised him on how to avoid getting a pie to the face.

    • by RJHelms (1554807) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:53PM (#34423656)

      And this guy's an adviser to the Canadian PM? What kind of advice does he provide? "Well, sir, I think you should grow wings and save the internet or at least threaten to break its kneecaps if it doesn't shape up."

      Former adviser. Media outside of Canada likes to leave that part out, I guess because it makes it seem like our government is reacting to WikiLeaks.

      No one in Canada takes him seriously, he just goes on CBC and says outrageous things. It's pretty amusing that he was taken seriously internationally.

  • by Shoten (260439) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:30PM (#34423254)

    out of fear in Moscow that WikiLeaks is prepared to release damaging personal information about Kremlin leaders

    I wonder what the basis for that assessment is. My assumption would be that they're more interested in seeing what gets disclosed to them, instead of having to wait for the information to be released like everyone else. If you take that a step farther, they can potentially figure out who is talking to them in the hopes of recruiting them (nicely or otherwise) as assets for their own "wiki", so to say. I'd actually have been surprised if the FSB hadn't been observing WikiLeaks far before now.

    • This. I'm not an intel guy but from what I've read about russian warfare and intelligence they're basically the ultimate pragmatists - if they somehow can use the wikileaks situation to their favour they will. And the FSB has apparently expanded a lot under Putin.
  • That is why they have Insurance [wired.com]?

  • by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:31PM (#34423274) Journal
    Summary is false. Flanagan does NOT currently openly advocate assassination of Assange. Flanagan recanted [www.cbc.ca].

    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.
    • by compro01 (777531) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:44PM (#34423502)

      "Recanted" in this case most likely means "Harper threw a fit when he heard what I said, so I'm taking it back before I get blackballed". There's a reason why he's a former head of staff and a former adviser, i.e. he's a political loose cannon if let near a camera or microphone and not the type of person Harper wants anywhere near him, lest his chances of ever getting a majority be destroyed.

    • But in the first paragraph he admits he did make the statement. If he didn't want it reported he shouldn't have said it. Making "glib" comments gets you into the news.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by purpledinoz (573045)
      If he didn't feel that way, he wouldn't have said it in the first place. He clearly is just doing damage control and saying the "right thing".
  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:31PM (#34423284) Homepage

    Clearly that doesn't fit the situation. But you know, we are told since childhood that being honest to others in your dealings and relations is the best policy. Meanwhile, our world leaders are constantly playing dirty, lying, cheating games at every turn.

    • Which is why we can easily identify the good politicians from the bad now. The good politicians will support Wikileaks and others who are exposing corruption. The bad ones will condemn Wikileaks and label them terrorists.
  • subject goes here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gTsiros (205624) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:32PM (#34423306)

    if assange does anything that irritates russian intelligence (kgb fsb or whatever) the very next day he'll be an unfortunate victim of a very peculiar, uncommon and comically spectacular accident. russians aren't the half-assed weak-sauce fascists that the americans are.

    • the very next day he'll be an unfortunate victim of a very peculiar, uncommon and comically spectacular accident.

      I am sure the woman will be spectacular but the "accident" fairly mundane. Lets do it on the balcony daaaahling. Such a lovely night.

      Julian: thats a hint. If is a woman you want drop in at the Daily Planet [dailyplanet.com.au] next time you are in Melbourne. I am sure you can afford it and they do proper QA.

    • Re:subject goes here (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bcmm (768152) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @07:06PM (#34424804)
      Note that it is US officials that are saying he's pissing off Russia. It's looking a little bit as if they might be preparing to play by those Russian rules and hope someone else gets the blame.
  • Easy Answer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RazzleFrog (537054) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:32PM (#34423308)

    Perhaps if governments stopped doing and saying such embarrassing things in written or recorded form this wouldn't be such an issue?

    • Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Microlith (54737) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:40PM (#34423438)

      But that would mean less power and money for them, and we can't have that. What gets me is how much the heads of other states are drooling over the prospect of the Russians assassinating people that work for Wikileaks. It's almost like they're too cowardly to take the next step into corruption that they so wish for, so are waiting for an already wholly corrupt government to do their dirty work for them.

  • by gilbert644 (1515625) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:33PM (#34423318)
    US has to have some sensitive embarrassing Russian intel so getting rid of wikileaks should be easy. Just upload it to wikileaks and have them publish and then just wait for wikileaks members to get sick from radiation poisoning.
  • by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:34PM (#34423362) Homepage Journal

    I'm still processing this but I think Rubin makes some good points here [tnr.com].

    • by nomadic (141991)
      Good editorial; I especially like this paragraph:"There’s another irony here, too. The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic o
    • by joh (27088) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:51PM (#34424570)

      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.

  • Las Vegas probably already is taking bets.

    Wonder how long they give him?

    Certain people with a lot to lose are certainly quietly planning, and not necessarily on damage control.

  • by SirAstral (1349985) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @05:47PM (#34423554)

    I notice that a lot of people seems to conveniently forget their "Morals" when it's their neck on the chopping block. Julian has not mass murdered anyone yet he appears to be more hated than Saddam, Hitler, or Chavez right now.

    Unless Julian himself did the work of taking these documents from officials by hacking or circumventing some security he should not be considered guilty of anything. The person's at fault are those that handed these documents over to him. They are the one's at fault.

    I notice that our government officials are very good at making laws that "appear" to kosher with the constitution when they actually are NOT. Lets make it simple. If you don't like the first Amendment and its freedom of the press then you just make a law that says possession of "classified/government/secrect" information is illegal as heck. This way, you can maintain your image of supporting the Constitution while not having to fear it. You can classify the fact that they take a crap each morning as a security precaution and make it a capital offense if that information is given to the press!

    Everyone has gone mad and we are feverishly giving our leaders far too much power!

  • Someone, or something, is protecting wikileaks and all their team. you think they would come so far, if it wasnt so ? look at the previous shit they released :

    http://mirror.infoboj.eu/ [infoboj.eu]

    random corporation A somewhere would have taken them out, had they not been guarded in some way. look how many megacorps and countries they ticked off.

    sorry moscow. there wont be any plane crashes this time.
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:08PM (#34423864) Homepage

    Why is the focus on Wikileaks and it's leader? This is a great case of shooting the messenger. Bradley Manning [guardian.co.uk] was the solider who stole the information. How he disseminated it is not the point. Granted: Wikileaks posted the information, but if Wikileaks didn't exist they would have just posted it elsewhere. Do you think that if a dozen newspapers suddenly got this information in the mail, they wouldn't have posted it? I doubt it. And are the owners of the newspapers who posted the information being targeted by the federal government? I haven't heard anything about that.

    Stopping Julian Assange isn't going to solve the problem. Better idea: infiltrate Wikileaks and corrupt the information before it arrives. Let them post garbage. Ruin their reputation.

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:21PM (#34424130) Homepage

    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."

  • by countSudoku() (1047544) on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:31PM (#34424298) Homepage

    are the ones who are protesting the loudest. Forced, premature FOIA is a bitch.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein

Working...