Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

first previous 9 10 11 12 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

Ash Small

Thu Dec 16 2010, 03:39PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

IntraWinding wrote ...

.
I'm uncertain about the publication of lists of soft high value targets. It seems irresponsible, but I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of Wikileaks making decisions over what should and shouldn't be leaked. I'd like to hear their opinion on this question.

I agree that the publication of this list is the only point upon which the US government 'might' have a case'

I don't know what these 'important sites' are, whether they are military installations or something else.

Firstly, I'd assume that, as they've been identified as important, the US has implemented measures to defend them, so they are unlikely to be targeted anyway.

Secondly, Terrorists were probably already aware of these sites, otherwise they would not have been identified as 'potential targets', so no information has been given to terrorists that they didn't know anyway.

Thirdly, by publishing this list, the likelyhood of them being targetted has probably been diminished, as the terrorists will lose the 'element of surprise' which makes this type of attack successful.

Three million US Government employees have access to these files. The probability that none of them are double agents is infintessimally small. Neither we, nor the US government will ever know how many of these three million people have already passed more sensitive documents to terrorists. If anything, by publishing these documents, Wikileaks is exposing weaknesses in the US security system. (Three million people having access to sensitive information is ridiculous.)

Nicko

Thu Dec 16 2010, 03:40PM

Registered Member #1334 Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615

Bail granted:

IntraWinding

Sat Dec 18 2010, 03:38PM

Registered Member #2261 Joined: Mon Aug 03 2009, 01:19AM
Location: London, UK
Posts: 581

Ash Small wrote ...

I might be wrong here, but I think the publication was of soft high value targets in the UK. The Guardian newspaper which has been republishing the leaked stuff as it becomes available from Wikileaks apparently chose not to publish that particular information.

The list was made at the request of someone in government. It is a list of the places terrorists could do the most damage at which have little or no security. Generally terrorists go for the high profile targets, which tend to have security, but there are numerous ways to cause far more significant damage to infrastructure that is unguarded. I'll resist the urge to list ones I can think of.

Fortunately most of these terrorists seem to be idiots, with a few tragic exceptions. Whilst anyone could work out a list of high value soft targets with a brainstorming session, it seems they don't. but publishing a list of such targets is making too easy for them. The problem is there are just too many of them to do much more than put barbed wire fences around them. Whilst any specific targets on the list might now seem less attractive, the list will provide an education in how to seek out similar targets not on the list that may still be very high value but unprotected.

I agree that the real problem was poor US security. It seems the 'Need to Know' principle got lost along with a load of other lessons from history in the wake of 9/11.

... Just found this. It seems the list was asked for by the us and covers targets around the world that are unprotected but would cause the US significant damage if targetted. This discusses the concept of 'Responsible Disclosure' as developed from the experience of hackers revealing software vulnerabilities before a patch was available. I haven't read it all, but it looks good

Ash Small

Sat Dec 18 2010, 04:57PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

From Wikipedia:

"TAT-8 was the 8th transatlantic telephone cable, initially carrying 40,000 telephone circuits (simultaneous calls) between USA, England and France. It was constructed in 1988 by a consortium of companies led by AT&T, France Telecom, and British Telecom. It was able to serve the three countries with a single trans-Atlantic crossing with the use of an innovative branching unit located underwater on the continental shelf off the coast of Great Britain. The cable lands in Tuckerton, New Jersey, USA, Widemouth Bay, England, and Penmarch, France."

Does this mean Wikipedia is also guilty of publishing confidential information that is useful to terrorists?

(I could give numerous other examples, but this is the example that has previously been reffered to.)

BTW, My Ex-father-in-law helped lay this cable. He worked for Cable and Wireless and then AT&T.

EDIT: Wikipedia not only lists every undersea cable in the world, but also has separate pages giving details of the majority of them.

Proud Mary

Sat Dec 18 2010, 05:07PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Caroline Muscat has written a very perceptive article on the media's presentation of the wikileaks story here:

GluD

Sun Dec 19 2010, 12:41AM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

"Does this mean Wikipedia is also guilty of publishing confidential information that is useful to terrorists?"

Yes it does, a very irrespondispel act, which could damage us all. (in my opinion, although i find it rather obivous and would be really quite surpised if you thought otherwise.)

Yes most terrorists are stupid but some day there might be a smarter one. With this infomation he wont actually have to be that smart at all.

Ash Small

Sun Dec 19 2010, 05:55AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Then why is it that sites like this are not being targeted by the US Government?

I found this article which some here may be interested in. I saw it mentioned in a thread here somewhere

"TSA Backscatter Body-Scan Radiation Safety FOUO"

It is marked "For Official Use Only"

and titled "NSTD-09-1085 Radiation Safety Engineering Assessment Report for the Rapidscan Secure 1000 in Single Pose Configuration". Not read it yet, but I recall that others have been discussing TSA backscatter scanners here.

There are loads of other articles, including detailed maps and photos of transatlantic cable sites here:

GluD

Sun Dec 19 2010, 11:35AM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

I simply state they are breaking the law. Maybe the US goverment doesnt think its worth the trouble to do something about it. I'd rather not visit that website so thats the best answer I can give you.

Chris Russell

Sun Dec 19 2010, 11:44AM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

GluD wrote ...

"Does this mean Wikipedia is also guilty of publishing confidential information that is useful to terrorists?"

Yes it does, a very irrespondispel act, which could damage us all. (in my opinion, although i find it rather obivous and would be really quite surpised if you thought otherwise.)

Yes most terrorists are stupid but some day there might be a smarter one. With this infomation he wont actually have to be that smart at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia be scrubbed of any and all information that could prove useful to terrorists, and that you're surprised to find that anyone thinks otherwise?

GluD

Sun Dec 19 2010, 12:23PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

I think they should not have published the targets and I would be suprised if anybody except the people who the list was made for and the terrorists would find it a usefull.

"any and all infomation"
I think the question was very speficly about confidential infomation useful to terrorists and that is what my answer is about. If you're thinking about their chemistry/physics sections I certianly think that should remain just as it is.

I would be suprised if someone would say it was positive that the terrorists know where to put their bombs. I dont see how we as the general public could gain anything from this infomation. Maybe you think its part of their "freedom of infomation" to know the most suitable place to blow up?

Are you purposelly misunderstanding my writings or am I just really bad at expressing myself in english....

Lets look at the question Ash Small asked, "Does this mean Wikipedia is also guilty of publishing confidential information that is useful to terrorists?"

I think its against the law to publish confidential infomation, and I also think this infomation is usefull to terrorists, so I answered yes to the question. I also belive it is irresponsibel to publish this sort of infomation because it could damage us all. So I added that it was irresponisbel and could damage us. I dont see where you could misunderstand that unless you wanted to.

My answer is only to been viewed in the context of the question, which I think is about the targets, not whatever else they have and is claimed by the goverments to endanger "national security", or anything else you might like to call "any and all infomation", just the targets. If I misunderstood Ash' question and it was in fact about the "any and all infomation" and not the confidential infomation useful to terrorists (the targets) which I belive the question was about, I shall re-write my answer.

first previous 9 10 11 12 next last

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob