55
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 05:08 pm
@BillRM,
What about our cyber personas Bill? I value mine and anybody who makes up **** to denigrate it is guilty of libel de facto if not de jure and if they take advantage of that they are cowards. Like bushwhackers.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 05:25 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
What about our cyber personas Bill? I value mine and anybody who makes up **** to denigrate it is guilty of libel de facto if not de jure and if they take advantage of that they are cowards. Like bushwhackers.


If we used our online IDs to earn money and the libel harm that then there would be a case that a court would address but without that I do not think so.

Or such libel was so upsetting to you that you suffer provable emotional and mental harm from it.

Yes it is wrong and evil and any numbers of other things but not all such behaviors can be address in a court.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 08:17 pm
There is a new book on the history of Wikileaks: THIS MACHINE KILLS SECRETS: How WikiLeakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World’s Information, Andy Greenberg, Dutton, September 2012.

A review of the book was written by Evgeny Morozov for the New York Times:
Quote:
There’s much to like about “This Machine Kills Secrets,” Andy Greenberg’s well-reported history of WikiLeaks and the many projects it has inspired, but one unintentionally hilarious quotation stands out in particular. “You can’t run this like a zoo where everyone can go and watch,” is how Daniel Domscheit-­Berg, Julian Assange’s former lieutenant, defends his decision not to release the source code of OpenLeaks, his own challenger to WikiLeaks. Sunlight might be the best disinfectant, but even the most ardent advocates of transparency reach for the sunblock once it gets too bright.

Greenberg, a writer for Forbes, has produced an exhaustive prequel to the never-ending WikiLeaks saga. Unlike some recent books on the subject, this one adopts a decidedly historical perspective and situates the ideas behind WikiLeaks in the heady debates about computing, privacy and civil liberties that have dominated many an online conversation in the last three decades. And, as if this challenge were not grand enough, Greenberg also tries to explain the highly complex technologies that have made a project like WikiLeaks possible, introducing such hidden gems of geek cuisine as “salt hashing” and “onion routing.” By and large, he succeeds, and the resulting dish is delicious and not at all too technical. (In the interests of transparency, let me add that Greenberg once interviewed me for Forbes, and he uses some of those quotations in the book.)

According to Greenberg, what most observers fail to appreciate about WikiLeaks is the anonymity its document-­submission system provided to would-be leakers. This anonymity was not God-given but hard-earned; it would be impossible without a software tool called Tor, which, in yet another ironic twist, emerged from research financed by the United States Navy. It’s unlikely that tools like Tor would be widely used by today’s whistle-blowers if the geeks did not outwit the government in their most significant policy tussle to date.

During the so-called crypto wars that raged for most of the 1990s, the government wanted to keep secure encryption technologies all to itself, arguing that their widespread use would empower drug traffickers and terrorists. Its opponents, by contrast, wanted everyone on the planet to have access to encryption. The geeks won, paving the way for tools like Tor and sites like WikiLeaks.

Many of these “crypto” battles were debated on a handful of mailing lists, where Julian Assange was both an avid reader and an occasional contributor. Greenberg, to his credit, has ventured far beyond the online archives of those lists, meeting and interviewing many of the leading figures in those fights and even corresponding with one of them in prison. He’s at his best when on the road — driving through a volcano-­ridden Iceland, flying a decrepit Soviet plane with nine hackers, swimming in the Black Sea with fearless Bulgarian journalists. Even seasoned observers of WikiLeaks will find something new and interesting in this book. Who knew that Assange modeled WikiLeaks on Nicolas Bourbaki — a collective pseudonym for a group of very talented mathematicians active in France since the 1930s? Or that Birgitta Jonsdottir, the Icelandic politician who collaborated with WikiLeaks, used to sell Kirby vacuum cleaners in New Jersey?

Alas, as the book unfolds, reportage seems to all but displace analysis, with Greenberg documenting minor squabbles between Assange and just about everyone else, or celebrating yet another innovation in encryption rather than placing his characters and their tools in the broader political context. For all their disruptive potential, encryption technologies have not solved the dilemma that has plagued sites like WikiLeaks. That dilemma is this: To get leaks, a site needs to have a public profile and look trustworthy. Who would want to leak documents to a honey pot run by some secret government agency? Who would want to help analyze them? So trust and prominence are essential — but they are also hard to achieve if the leaking platform itself remains completely anonymous.

But once the anonymity cover is blown, the platform becomes vulnerable: its networks could be infiltrated by informers, its staff could be harassed and spied on, its online presence could be stymied by cyberattacks and legal hassles. Allowing whistle-blowers to leak anonymously is a crucial first step — but it might also be the easiest step. In fact, it may even instill the leaking platform with a false sense of invincibility and resilience. One of the few unambiguous lessons of WikiLeaks is that early success can easily devastate the leaking platform, for such success will normally be followed by political trouble. Encryption technologies are of little help here. Their greatest impact is on the leakers, not on those processing the leaks.

Even with regards to the leakers, however, the situation is far more complex than Greenberg lets on. He draws elaborate comparisons between the cases of Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg, arguing that digital technologies have expanded the scale and the speed of leaking and made it easier to cover the tracks. But have we entered a truly new era, in which technology provides a robust infrastructure for leaking — a common techno-­optimistic view advanced in many books about WikiLeaks? Or is the whole Cablegate episode just a blip in the long institutional march toward even greater secrecy — perhaps an instanceof governments and corporations not taking their network security seriously but hardly a guarantee that they won’t adapt in due time?

While the former view dominated most of the early responses to WikiLeaks, it seems excessively cheerful in retrospect. It’s true that one set of technologies has made it easier to release the leaked documents to the outside world, but another set of technologies is also making it harder to get them off the corporate or government networks. A pertinent recent case that Greenberg doesn’t discuss is that of Joe Muto, a former Fox News employee who, convinced of his anonymity, leaked some internal Fox footage to the popular blog Gawker. It took Fox less than 48 hours to out him — by analyzing who on their network had retrieved the footage in question. Likewise, just this past June, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, ordered that all employees at federal intelligence agencies who take lie detector tests also answer a specific question about their leaking practices. Very little about the heavily policed contemporary workplace suggests that leaking will become easier.

Greenberg does sense that an anti-­leaking backlash might be in the offing: his early revolutionary rhetoric all but disappears as the book progresses. He even documents some recent efforts to automate the process of identifying potential whistle-blowers on government networks. But here the reporter in Greenberg is too attached to the human side of the story — it is, after all, ironic that Julian Assange’s former hacker friends are now employed by the American government to make leaks impossible — to offer a comprehensive picture of the recent technological solutions to leaking. Once all of those technologies are factored into our analysis, it may very well be that the much-lauded revolution in transparency is just a counterrevolution in disguise. For every machine that kills secrets, there are at least two that keep them alive.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 10:22 pm
@wandeljw,
Such sites as wikileaks can and should move to the darknet in the near future and then see how must luck any government will have in causing it trouble or monitoring it behaviors and if it is a honey pot tracing back the people who contact it.

Second there is no real need for a wikileaks as leakers could just used such places as newsgroups to dump informations to the public and or sending such information to every major newspaper on the planet using tor and tormail to do so.

Governments and businesses going to have a harder and harder time keeping secrets and that can be good or bad but that is the situation.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 10:26 pm
@wandeljw,
Hell I see dark websites set up that will offer to pay for governments any government secrets and any business trade secrets in bitcoins that are or at east can be untraceable.

We live in interesting times and short of shutting down the internet completely it is going to get more and more interesting.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 04:49 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
So, why don't you guys vote with your "mouse" then? I am only asking you guys why, if it is really so bad, that you stay here. Nobody's keeping you here. I don't think you'd stay if you really thought it were that bad, so I think it's a healthy dose of hyperbole.
That makes sense to me!





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 04:59 am

When will the new system of blocking go into effect ?





0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 07:08 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

msolga wrote:
A2K is about debate, at least part of the time , yes?
Anyone can comment on another person's comment, yes?


Just want to mention that a2k is going to change so that "ignoring" is like "blocking" and just prevents people from seeing or replying to someone who has blocked them.

This is one of the reasons. If someone doesn't want to talk to you, insisting anyway is just boorish harassment. In the future when someone "blocks" someone else they both simply won't see each other's posts or be able to reply to them.

It will be a much-needed change on a2k. If someone doesn't want to talk to you they should be given better mechanisms to avoid it. The "ignore" feature needs a lot of improvement to make it actually remove more of what the user is wishing to ignore. Debate does not mean everyone should have the ability to force people to have to listen to you when they are trying to ignore you.
I don't mean to be negative concerning changes to the Ignore function, but upon reflection,
I remember that some A2Kers have sentenced others to short terms on their Ignore lists, e.g. 30 days.

I was once in that position, because I made a joke
regarding a matter to which the farmer was sensitive (which I did not know, at the time).

The contemplated new arrangement is more like capital punishment,
in its A2K finality. Maybe something to consider.





David
Robert Gentel
 
  7  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 08:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It's nothing like capital punishment. If you guys are that worried about someone blocking you then you should consider altering the obnoxious behavior that causes people to consider it. If you aren't willing to do so then live with the consequences, it's just not any kind of dramatic apocalypse for people to be able to more efficiently ignore you.

And the notion that this is a fatal blow to free speech just doesn't hold water. Users still have the ability to say what they wish and other users merely have the improved ability to choose for themselves what they want to peruse and what interactions they wish to have, instead of ceding each thread to the most obdurate, obnoxious and tenacious individuals. The ones who value their time the least should not be able to monopolize threads.

If people aren't buying what you are selling they have the right to get you out of their faces. Insisting otherwise is just boorish and obnoxious behavior.

Freedom of expression ends where the right to peaceful coexistence begins. The software will be designed to maximize the individual freedoms of expression and individual freedoms to choose what one wants to peruse (and not just cede this choice to the most tirelessly relentless and the most obnoxiously aggressive). The people who wish to insist on what others experience here are just not going to be well served here. We just aren't designing this software to maximize their ability to try to monopolize attention and in the marketplace of ideas if someone else isn't buying what you are selling they should have the right to block the annoying commercials.

Right now, with the way the ignore feature works it doesn't do enough and too many parts of able2know are dominated by the fools who are the loudest and most obnoxious. This needs to change and it will.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 10:49 am
@Robert Gentel,
It should be amusing to see your traffic take oue hell of a sharp drop if you do manage to drive the posters you do not care for off the system.

The greatest fool might be found in your mirrors and not among the posters you do not care for.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 11:00 am
@Robert Gentel,
U make a very strong case
for your conclusion, Robert.
I understand and respect your reasoning.
I certainly agree that it will cause A2Kers
to be a lot more polite all the time.

One other factor that u might consider, tho
is the potential for forgiveness
by the participant who employed the Ignore function.
Historically, some of the people upon whom
the Ignore Button was used have been released,
after a short time. I have been on both ends of this pardoning process.
I am pleased that I had second thoughts and took some folks off of
my Ignore list, after a while. Some of them have since been good & respectable.


Under the new procedure, is it possible
that the Ignored people can have a second chance, IF the person
who blocked them chooses to relent ?

I wonder whether this will have a negative effect on joking around, in our posts.





David
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 11:43 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
The ones who value their time the least should not be able to monopolize threads.


The materialist political position in its pure form. Based on some notion that anybody's time can be scrutinised by actuaries and graded according to some postulate which stands as the premiss on which the conclusion is based. And which it doesn't take long to work out what the postulate is.

The only trouble with conversations where only polite discourse is acceptable is that they go nowhere. Polite conversation is a device for getting to know people slowly. Slowly enough for the parties to be prevented from reaping the benefit due to having passed away.

Pubs are designed to short-circuit that sort of thing. A pub landlord is a moderator of the community in his pub regarding what is acceptable or otherwise and different landlords take different views. Not the customers.

As Bob is landlord here he has the obvious right to do what he thinks fit and say, as he has, take it or leave it.

It's a clear out the yobs and hooligans policy in attempting to go up-market. Medical waiting room glossy magazine style. All political balance will go, in the perfect case, the ideal type, as it resolutely aims dead centre.

And who are we to say what suits Bob objectives? Not me. I invested my dough in other things. We have Bob's Choice.

0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 12:35 pm
An online betting website is taking bets on how Assange will leave the Ecuador embassy. The odds for him leaving in a UK police car are 11 to 8. Other choices are: in a diplomatic bag, through a tunnel, inside a laundry van and a few others.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 01:27 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I can't say that I understand the changes being proposed nor the effect they will have on A2K. I think putting people on Ignore or Block is self-jinxing in a black-magic direction.

It ought to be borne in mind though that "plain speaking" about various things has very often an air of finding fault.

This is, unhappily, unavoidable despite their being no intention to disparage. It is in the nature of the case where "plain speaking" infringes on sensitivities unused to it.

But no serious discussion of facts is contented with anything short of "plain speaking". The air of disparagement derives from the facts being discussed plainly where general usages avoid "plain speaking".

But it is an air of disparagement and not to be confused with real disparagement and the risk is that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, a cliche I hesitate to try improving upon.

All discussion concerning motives, aims, principles, methods and achievements of posters will quickly fall foul of effective improvements in the Ignore function which is bad enough as it is now.

It is not possible to defend the idea that "plain speaking" is per se "obnoxious". Nothing speaks more plainly that the Theory of Evolution and the basic facts of life.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 03:09 pm
@spendius,
Thinking through the practicality of Robert's plans, I present the following hypothetical;

Users X,Y,and Z decide to "ignore" user B, while still debating with users A and C, who remain friends with user B.

During the debate, users A and C choose to quote the posts of user B, to clarify points that they are making to bolster their side of the debate.

Will users X,Y, and Z be able to see what users A and C are quoting from user B? Or, will their posts, including text quoted from user B, be also invisible, because of the included content from user B?

On other boards I frequent, users on your ignore list can still be quoted by anybody, and their own posts are still there, but only if you choose to click on a button to display them.

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 03:28 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I can't say that I understand the changes being proposed nor the effect they will have on A2K. I think putting people on Ignore or Block is self-jinxing in a black-magic direction.

It ought to be borne in mind though that "plain speaking" about various things has very often an air of finding fault.

This is, unhappily, unavoidable despite their being no intention to disparage. It is in the nature of the case where "plain speaking" infringes on sensitivities unused to it.

But no serious discussion of facts is contented with anything short of "plain speaking". The air of disparagement derives from the facts being discussed plainly where general usages avoid "plain speaking".

But it is an air of disparagement and not to be confused with real disparagement and the risk is that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, a cliche I hesitate to try improving upon.

All discussion concerning motives, aims, principles, methods and achievements of posters will quickly fall foul of effective improvements in the Ignore function which is bad enough as it is now.

It is not possible to defend the idea that "plain speaking" is per se "obnoxious". Nothing speaks more plainly that the Theory of Evolution and the basic facts of life.
R u taking the position
that "disparagement" i.e., ad hominem abuses
need to be safeguarded, for proper discussion of topics?
For instance, that the Intelligence Quotients of posters shud be impugned, with impunity ?





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 03:56 pm
@Builder,
To say nothing of someone having a read only account to be able to see and response to any posting that person wish to using his main account.

Even limiting accounts by ISP addresses would not work.

The whole thing is not thought out well for many reasons but that seems to be Robert mode of actions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 05:06 pm
@Builder,
That problem has arisen many times on the evolution threads and on others.

I have been placed on Ignore by certain parties, who I will not name due to my delicate sense of taste and decorum, and other parties have then quoted me in order to respond to my paltry efforts and the poor dears that had announced I was on Ignore were faced with the ghastly prospect of reading my spiels or Ignoring the post someone they had not placed on Ignore or scrolling past them.

In such cases, and there have been a considerable number, it might be better if they Ignored the particular discussion altogether and thus place themselves on Ignore.

It really is very perplexing.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2012 05:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
R u taking the position
that "disparagement" i.e., ad hominem abuses
need to be safeguarded, for proper discussion of topics?


Not in the least. The position I take is that contributions to a debate cannot be Ignored on the basis that they are ad hominem abuses when they are not.

One does not, in a civilised society, impugn the intelligence of others on the grounds that there is nothing to be done about it. One might point it out though if the evidence warrants it in order to reduce any influence such an intelligence as warrants impugning might have on unsuspecting innocents.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 02:24 am
@spendius,
DAVID wrote:
R u taking the position
that "disparagement" i.e., ad hominem abuses
need to be safeguarded, for proper discussion of topics?
spendius wrote:
Not in the least. The position I take is that contributions to a debate cannot be Ignored
on the basis that they are ad hominem abuses when they are not.
It has happened, too ofen,
that in responding to a comment, a poster decides to DEVIATE,
from substantive analysis of the subject matter,
to offer a gratuitous evaluation (usually negative -- attributions of idiocy r very popular).
If an A2K participant posts approval of one event or condemnation of another,
that is NOT a covert means of soliciting a diagnosis of intellectual ability,
but it is very commonly treated as if it WERE.
Doing that is both illogical and impolite.

If I am getting the idea correctly,
it looks like we will LOSE the ability to FORGIVE
minor offenses to the dignity, by taking an offender off of Ignore.
I had Spendius on Ignore, and soon after I took u off my Ignore list, for some reason.
At the moment, I am pleased that I did. U had not been 1OO% forgotten.

I am not entirely sure that it is for the best
to put members of A2K into COMPLETE oblivion and being ABSOLUTELY FORGOTTEN.

I can think of a few (abrasive) people in A2K
who might well end up with about 3 people
who r still willing to converse with them.




spendius wrote:
One does not, in a civilised society, impugn the intelligence of others on the grounds that there is nothing to be done about it. One might point it out though if the evidence warrants it in order to reduce any influence such an intelligence as warrants impugning might have on unsuspecting innocents.
Does that mean that u will apply your professional diagnostic skills
to analysis of the intelligence of posters whose product u dislike??

Does it go like this:
Poster: "Candidate Joe Blow ought to be elected to office."
Spendius: " If u believe that, then u have proven yourself to be too dum to vote
or to offer opinions on the election." ??


 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 03:49:19