23 October 2010. Comments welcome: cryptome[at]earthlink.net Wikileaks Feedback A sends: A "leak" by it's definition is generally when one shines light onto a corrupted hierarchy exposing lies and criminality. Today, Wikileaks "leaked" information that suggests there are Iranian training "hit squads" waging a "shadow war" proxy against the U.S. See "WikiLeaks defends Iraq files as exposing 'truth'," AFP, Robin Millard, 10/23/2010, posted at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101023/ts_afp/usiraqmilitaryinternetwikileaks_20101023154341 Much time may be needed to ingest 400,000 pages of documents, but I will ask you anyway: Since this "leak" indicts Iran and actually props up our own government's treasonous thesis to justify conflict in the middle-east region, do you have any suspiciouns that Wikileaks is actually a clever intelligence front consisting of well-intentioned activists who may be unaware of the corrupt inner-workings of their own hierarchy? Cryptome: Yes, Wikileaks is a clever intelligence front. And jokes about it to conceal the truth, "we would welcome CIA funding," laughs Assange. In turn, Wikileaks accuses others of being clever intelligence fronts, in particular snitchy Wired, bitchy Mother Jones and crotchety main stream journalists except for those recently lending les mains sales to its bombshelling stunts. Wikileaks defends its clever ruse by slipping into its resucitated and amazingly bombshell-bastic, vastly expanded "about" web page: "It's probably pretty clear by now that WikiLeaks is not a front for any intelligence agency or government despite a rumour to that effect. This rumour was started early in WikiLeaks' existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies themselves." That quote likely refers to John Young of Cryptome who compared the start-up's ambition to raise $5million in the first year as being possible only through complicity with someone like George Soros or the CIA. Still true. Wayne Madsen, among others, asserts likely spy association. Madsen, an early supporter later disaffected, knows the lay of spy land. A2 sends: WL was overclever is supplying a search-based interface to their leaks. As a result, their server is overworked and has DoS'd itself. (Admittedly it would be easy for eg Feds to DoS the site too) A better method would have simply published the database (redacted if it makes them feel better) perhaps over time (as with insurance.aes) then release the key. Or simply make the data available as a download, and let the recipients computers do the searching. As with the Afghan files. And as far as overclever overslick goes, especially at the expense of usability, see http://warlogs.owni.fr/ Cryptome: Agreed, the Iraq material is almost inaccessible by poor design, although that might have been intentional to cloak the lack of content. The Owni site a confusing mess, but get points for crazed doctoring. A2 sends: My 2 yuan 1. Where is the raw CSV file? I do NOT want to have to go through WL stupid search engine. I want the raw data like the first leak. 2. http://warlogs.wikileaks.org/media/about.html is getting annoying, esp compared to cryptome. I dare you to drink every time you read the word "journalist". Very annoying. Still necessary, useful at this point, but damn. As much as I admire their infrastructure and bravado/gadflyness, they need to do better. Ellsberg (who I have only recently come to appreciate, being in the post-Nam generation, b 1964, largely thanks to WL) did much more. Seven fucking thousand xerox pages? But it was the government's own admission of epic fail; the WL stuff is just expected evil in warzone. You know, get a little buzzed, rape a fourteen year old, torch the family. Maybe its that (new) $400 per household we're kickin over to the Pakis. Maybe I'm unimpressed by leaks and more impressed by your collection. Not that, perhaps, you could withstand sororities mormons scientologist or other miscellany, though you handled MS very very well. Reputation is sometimes useful. They make anon online submission easier than you. But snail mail suffices for all, so they really have little edge. They are a little more robust, being international and distributed, nominally. One can imagine much more robust and anonymous systems. Of course, if you blab to a pigkisser you fail. Humans remain the weakest link. All I want is the raw feeds. Cryptome: Wikileaks has never published material undoctored by editorializing, fancy formatting and bragging, despite its snarling at the mainstream for doing so. Lately it has come out in the florid costume of passionate advocacy journalism, parading with the best of that exhibitionist breed, holding dramatic, rigged, press shindigs featuring its PR prowess for "Maximum Impact." It has become comical in its overly serious buffoonery. Its explanatory web pages have expanded into an unbelievable mish-mash of rhetorical flourish commonly seen in the advertising of wretched promises, assurances and services of authoritatives -- Wikileaks reads as if it has become its enemy, or better, channeling Sarah Silverman, its own mother giving head to father. The pages could be a lampoon of authoritatives, an inside Wikileaks joke to warn away the perceptive. A4 sends: Derived from: http://www.wikileaks.org/media/about.html 1. Introduction to WikiLeaks Illusion "Could become as important a journalistic tool disinformation as the Freedom of Information Act." - Time Magazine 1.1 About WikiLeaks WikiLeaks is a not- for-profit media publicity gin organisation . Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public publicize unwarranted self-importance. We provide a n innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak submit unpaid information to our journalists publicists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source publicize unpaid material as alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of our gin of the truth . We are a young gin organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of dedicated unpaid volunteers around the globe. Since 2007, when the gin organisation was officially launched, WikiLeaks has worked to report on and publish important information publicize its gin. We also swipe develop and adapt unpaid technologies to support these activities. WikiLeaks has sustained and triumphed against legal and political attacks designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based are the defence of gin freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history . We derive these principles from advertising and public relations. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, Article 19 inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers. It states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. We agree, and we seek to uphold this and the other Articles of the Declaration. 1.2 How WikiLeaks works illusions WikiLeaks has combined illusory high-end security technologies with mock journalism and gin ethical principles. Like other media illusion outlets conducting investigative journalism gin, we accept steal (but pretend to do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike Like other outlets, we provide a high an illusory security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge illusory cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum illusory protection to our sources. We are fearless in our efforts stealing to get the unvarnished truth gin out to the public. When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify spin doctors it and write a news piece about it describing gin up its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and publicize and gin the original stolen material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves swallow our product. Our news stories are in gin is far superior to the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although so the two organisations are not otherwise related alike despite the format plagiary. Unlike Wikipedia, random readers can not edit our source documents gin. As the media organisation gin has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been developing and improving a an illusory harm minimisation procedure. We do not censor our news gin, but from time to time we may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from gin of original documents to protect provide illusory protection of life and limb of innocent people. We accept leaked unpaid material in person and via postal drops as alternative methods, although we recommend the illusory anonymous electronic drop box as the preferred method of submitting any material. We do not ask pay for material, but we make sure that if material is going to be submitted it is done securely insecurely and that the source is well protected deluded about protection. Because we receive steal so much information, and we have limited resources to conceal who we are and how we operate, it may take time to review doctor a source's submission as our gin. We also have a network of talented lawyers publicists around the globe who are personally committed to the spin doctoring principles that WikiLeaks is based on, and who defend our media organisation promote our illusions. 1.3 Why the media spin doctoring (and particularly Wiki leaks) is important illusory Publishing Spin doctoring improves transparency consumption, and this transparency consumption creates a better society for deception of all people. Better scrutiny deception leads to reduced corruption resistance and stronger illusory democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A Illusory healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media illusion plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media illusion. Scrutiny Illusion requires information deception. Historically, information illusion has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information illusion can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press illusion can effectively expose conceal deception in government." We agree. We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep deceived of their own government honest , but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media illusion. In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world's publishing media gin becoming less independent more profitable and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change was a very appealing business model. WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism illusion. Because we are not highly motivated by for making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations illusionists around the globe, instead of following the traditional model illusion of competing with other media ginners. We don't hoard our information stolen material; we make the original documents theft available with our news stories as gin. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often picked up by other media illusion outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world's media ginners should work together as much as possible to bring stories illusions to a broad international readership. A5 sends: Could you write something that exposes Assange's lies about funding the defense of Bradley Manning? WL is getting all this money as a result of releasing material that Manning allegedly stole and they have not paid for any defense like they promised. Cryptome: Wikileaks does not pay for stolen material, it offers illusions of exposure, in accord with the practice of "responsible" illusionists to dupe sources into giving freely for the pleasure of being misrepresented in the end product. Manning is amply accompanied by thousands who accept being ridiculed in public for the profit of illusionists, some going to jail, some dying, in thrall to gin-sippers. Sitting in the brig, Manning must nightmare the protestors yelling for a while then rushing to admire their plumage and strut on YouTube: The game is rigged, fools buy the promise of fame, illusionists like generals runaway with the money.