Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks Starts Mass Mirroring Effort

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the mirror-mirror-on-the-net dept.

Censorship 586

A beautiful mind writes "WikiLeaks is asking for hosting space on Unix-based servers. The replication is implemented by a rsync+ssh based push that copies static files to a known path, authenticated via the private half of this public key. The complete website is a few GB in size, making it feasible to replicate on a large scale. The mirror list will be published when the number of independent mirrors reaches 50." Note: wikileaks.ch seems to be down for the moment, but eventually the above links may require that instead of 213.251.145.96. See also this WikiLeaks address finder. And for even more news, try this Twitter search.

cancel ×

586 comments

Make it static. (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446592)

Lower the barrier of entry even further, and just throw up a torrent or ten of static files which can be hosted anywhere, without fear of compromising your own server.

Re:Make it static. (-1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446618)

If they're just mirroring what's currently on the site then most of the cables stuff is not there. They gave it a few news organisations, but posted this bizarre message about how putting it on their site wouldn't do it justice. Perhaps they want the news to be about their site, and not the cables themselves. Surely it's safer to mirror all the cables in case anything happens to them before they're all published?

Re:Make it static. (3, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446634)

If they're just mirroring what's currently on the site then most of the cables stuff is not there

Are you high, or just engaged in the most inept disinformation campaign since the Iraqi WMDs? It took me all of 30 seconds to go to the site and pull up the list of the cables. 10 more seconds let me pull up 5 of them to verify that the links work.

Re:Make it static. (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446680)

I think he's trying to say that most of the cables have not been released PUBLICALLY. The ones on the site are just the ones that have been released, there's quite a few more to come.

Re:Make it static. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446760)

They have been released publicly... they are just encrypted.

Re:Make it static. (2)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446720)

Wikileak's stated intention is to release these cables all over a period of several months because "doing them all at once would not do justice to them" (paraphrased).

Now what they could (and supposedly have) do is release all the cables in an encrypted format, continue to release them in batches as they are currently doing, and leak the key if there is ever a problem. Supposedly this is what their "insurance" file from a while ago is for.

Re:Make it static. (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446802)

non-paraphrased:

Why not release everything now?

The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice.

We owe it to the people who entrusted us with the documents to ensure that there is time for them to be written about, commented on and discussed widely in public, something that is impossible if hundreds of thousands of documents are released at once. We will therefore be releasing the documents gradually over the coming weeks and months.

Re:Make it static. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446900)

Better paraphrased version:

Look at me! Look at me! Are you still looking at me? Pay attention to me! I'm doing something new! I'm still important!

let me tell you (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447012)

they are important. very important.

Re:Make it static. (1, Troll)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446976)

Failed reading comprehension, huh? Please provide the link where I can download the hundreds of thousands of cables, not just the few hundred released on the site.

Re:Make it static. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446670)

The cables were being posted on cablegate.wikileaks.com, until wikileaks.com was taken down. They were being posted, there were several hundred of them (out of some 250,000 as yet unpublished). They had published the ones that the media organizations had reported on thus far.

Re:Make it static. (4, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446692)

Exactly. I do not like what Wikileaks has done, but even so I can be the devil's advocate, and say that EVERYONE should be pissed at Assange. Those that want the information to be free should be very concerned that Assange wants to release it piece meal, ramp up the drama and attention to him and his site as much as possible, and provide commentary (aka judgment) regarding the information. All this is doing is giving time for him and his site to be taken down. The US may move rather slowly and clumsily over these sorts of affairs, having to check the legality of this and that and get allies involved, etc, but given enough time, there's a good chance they will be able to get Assange on something.

The files should ALL be placed online, in a distributed manner, and be done with. Not be Assange's little plaything to manipulate and play around with. Really, this guy has a major ego / power complex, and it will cost him eventually.

Re:Make it static. (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446714)

Exactly. I do not like what Wikileaks has done, but even so I can be the devil's advocate, and say that EVERYONE should be pissed at Assange. Those that want the information to be free should be very concerned that Assange wants to release it piece meal, ramp up the drama and attention to him and his site as much as possible, and provide commentary (aka judgment) regarding the information. All this is doing is giving time for him and his site to be taken down. The US may move rather slowly and clumsily over these sorts of affairs, having to check the legality of this and that and get allies involved, etc, but given enough time, there's a good chance they will be able to get Assange on something.

The files should ALL be placed online, in a distributed manner, and be done with. Not be Assange's little plaything to manipulate and play around with. Really, this guy has a major ego / power complex, and it will cost him eventually.

I was going to make a post saying it's rather poor planning to only just now realize the necessity of a de-centralized distribution model... but I think your explanation gets closer to the heart of it. Unfortunately people with the very best of intentions can exhibit the kind of ego you're describing. It doesn't even have to be a deliberate act of self-glorification; it's more like a default state one can overcome.

Re:Make it static. (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446736)

He has to release it a bit at a time. The fact of the matter is, they have many many huge stories. If they release several bombshell issues at once, they are likely to have some of them ignored by the media because they'll just go after the most sensational stuff. They are playing the media like they should play the media.

Re:Make it static. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446826)

Any student of Machiavelli would know that he's doing the release in a way to cause the most damage. If he released all at once, there'd be a big sized storm for a short while and then it would be over. But by releasing them piecemeal there's the potential for many big storms for over a long period of time.

Re:Make it static. (5, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446874)

Correction: By releasing them in small batches, they are ensuring that each story gets the attention it deserves .

Any shitstorm that results from this isn't at the hands of wikileaks, but at the hands of those who actually caused the shitstorm. The people the cables are about.

Re:Make it static. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446854)

He IS the media. With their same faults.

Re:Make it static. (0, Troll)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446908)

It also allows for investigative journalism and editorial. Far better to get it reported correctly, rather than misinterpreting the cables.

Unless you're Fox News...

Re:Make it static. (3, Interesting)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446932)

The US may then benefit from attempting to crack the encrypted cables and releasing them all at once -- since they certainly can't eliminate them all now that they have been decentralized.

Or, simply put, the US may not care very much. I haven't seen anything released that is a big surprise.

Re:Make it static. (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446778)

What you can attention seeking, I would call covering his ass. He's much protected if he's a "personality" than unknown.

Also, the info has been coming out anyway, regardless of attacks and pressures, so I'm not sure what's the problem with the slow release. It's not like they can't release it faster if the need comes. For all we know, it may only need a couple KBs to all be released: the key to Insurance.aes256.

Re:Make it static. (5, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446842)

Another point of view is that WikiLeaks had best inspect what they release, and do their best to prevent putting lives at risk, especially those of innocent bystanders and those who are working for the greater good. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't: if they take their time to filter and redact, they are delaying and possibly twisting the truth, but if they don't do that, they are irresponsible.

Re:Make it static. (4, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446858)

Assange has done more for Democracy, as in the right of people to direct the actions of their government, than the entire Western world has done since WWII. That's why the United States government is so pissed off: it despises the right of people to know what their government is up to with their tax dollars. It didn't want Pakistanis to know of their government's complicity in the drone strikes. It didn't want to admit that the puppet government in Afghanistan was riddled with corruption, even though the State Department has been aware of this fact since the beginning. Just like it didn't want it getting out that we have been systematically destroying democratic institutions, from Iran to Vietnam to Argentina to Palestine, because reality might upset some of it's electorate.

Sure, Assange is kind of a douchebag. You don't think Patrick Henry was? Churchill? However, the marketing ploy of providing this narrative and stringing along the releases has kept this in the news far longer than the previous leaks. It's unfortunate that the mass media, which is owned by corporations, has no self-interest in the truth anymore. But the last hole that can be exploited is the desire to keep their ratings up, and he has done well to exploit this weakness in the system.

If COINTEL PRO had been leaked in the same dramatic fashion, perhaps more people would remember it. The fourth estate is broken. It's going to take soap opera narratives with entertainment value targeted at the masses in order to fix it, which is a hell of a lot better than another war.

The stage is now set to hopefully expose Bank of America or some other major institution for fraud and corruption. Personally, Assange is the only douchebag I would trust with that information. Everyone else in the media are compromised. They are fools, cowards, and intellectual prostitutes [constitution.org] .

Everyone else in the media are compromised. (1, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447068)

And you have no idea if Assange has been or not. Unless hes your best friend you really don't have a clue.

I also wont go as far as you have in raising him to nearly god like status, as while i agree he has done some good with some of the information he has given us, he has also done some bad. There really are cases where information is better left out of public hands for the time being.

Bravo (5, Insightful)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447094)

Never have mod points when I really need them. I've never seen people so terrified of the truth since.....well....hmmm.... I'd REALLY like to get a look at those Cheney Energy Task Force documents that they've been hiding from us for 10 years. I can hope that these will be leaked eventually.

Re:Make it static. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446868)

From what I've read [wikipedia.org] , he's not the dictatorial leader of wikileaks that everyone imagines. I wish there was both a way to verify this and a way to disseminate the info so that everybody else would realise, but maybe just replying to you will be enough to make me feel better for now. It seems like we all sort of assume he's the boss, and the people on the news certainly use words that make it sound that way, but actually the facts are that wikileaks has a nine member advisory board and stuff and Assange is just the front-guy for taking shit from the press and so on.

I don't disagree that it's kinda lame how they trickle the data out, but it does seem like it's more of a clever media savvy organisation's decision than that of one media savvy guy. It's all "he" t

Re:Make it static. (5, Interesting)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447032)

he's not the dictatorial leader of wikileaks that everyone imagines. I wish there was both a way to verify this and a way to disseminate the info so that everybody else would realise

While true, it is not in wikileaks interest for this to become commonly known. Assange's job is to be the shit-shield for wikileaks, while everybody wastes their time hurling smear campaigns and arrest warrants against him, wikileaks is able to continue it's mission as before.

Do you notice the dozens and dozens of replies to every wikileaks article that follow the general form: "I wouldn't be opposed to wikileaks, but Assange is a [tool/jerk/douche/rapist/spy/...]"? That is wikileaks strategy in action. Since you are in on the truth, feel free to laugh at them :)

Re:Make it static. (1)

danhaas (891773) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446872)

Erasing informants' names and other (truely) dangerous informations seems like a bit of work, and I doubt they have a large staff. Could anyone confirm if they are near their processing limit, thus releasing it piece meal?

Re:Make it static. (5, Insightful)

leehwtsohg (618675) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446886)

Just to remind you - these latest cables are just the last and probably most significant of a huge list of things that wikileaks released. Look at the "all leaks archived" link on the wikileaks site for an incredible list of torrents of all the leaks that wikileaks already did, some of which already had great influence in some countries/companies (iceland, peru, australia...). It is not all about the US.

I think that they are releasing the data so slowly, because there are many parts in it that have to be digested slowly - see for example the media flare up going on in spain because of the released documents, the clusterbombs issues in the UK, the anger in germany over the 15% overhead taken by the US army, etc. If it was all released in a day, such issues would be buried among hundreds of others of similar importance.

Re:Make it static. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447076)

It is impossible to please everyone.

WikiLeaks is performing an editing process; Releasing 250k documents in one batch cannot be done in a controlled manner. As it is now, WikiLeaks handed the entire package to a bunch of newspapers, and those newspapers are picking interesting material from it and recommending it to be released on the site. They also blank out many names of people who could be endangered by having their name attached to the info.

If you just release it all at once with no editing, as you sugget, then many other people will complain that WikiLeaks isn't doing "journalism".

Re:Make it static. (1)

jambox (1015589) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447092)

Really? I think it's pretty clear he's trying to make it more dramatic so the leaks get more media coverage. He's become quite expert at making the regular media types salivate ahead of a release; this is no mean trick. I think if nothing else it shows that "new media" isn't new, it's just the old media on a website. We're just starting to conceive of what new media is.

Re:Make it static. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446710)

You know, if I wanted to discredit Wikileaks for some reason, I'd arrange a situation where Wikileaks needed to establish mirrors, such as DDOS'ing the main site and getting the DNS entry removed.

Then I'd set up my own Wikileaks mirror and pepper the files with plausible disinformation. When you look at a Wikileaks mirror, how do you know you're looking at the real thing?

Next, I'd spam the torrent sites with dozens of "Wikileaks" torrents, all containing my disinformation. When you download one of these torrents, how do you know it's real?

Finally I'd make sure that everyone was aware of the disinformation I'd planted. Job done - nobody can tell which files are genuine and which are fake.

Why, it would be just like the time those rightwingnuts faked FOIA.zip to make it look like the most brilliant scientists of our time were actually all a bit dodgy.

Re:Make it static. (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446792)

Next, I'd spam the torrent sites with dozens of "Wikileaks" torrents, all containing my disinformation. When you download one of these torrents, how do you know it's real?

Sign the files and tell the key publicly?

Re:Make it static. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446894)

The problem with that is that there is whole ordeal that someone has to go through to make a mirror server.
Which includes giving wikileaks the ftp password, and other things, which when completed they will put you
on their list of official servers. If you aren't an official server then you can't be trusted, and if you are an official
server and you edit the web pages and such then wikileaks can just go in there and change it with ftp.
I suppose once they put everything on your server you could change the ftp password however then
you would probably be discredited right away.

There is a problem with my argument though. If someone takes down the main server then there isn't
an official list of servers.

People still use FTP? (2)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446930)

I mean, giving Wikileaks an ssh account (as they're asking for) is pretty stupid, security-wise, but it's nowhere near as bad as giving _everyone_ your password by using FTP. You'd think Firesheep would've taught people something...

Re:Make it static. (1)

Ignatius (6850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446988)

This can be trivially fixed by digitally signing the content.

Re:Make it static. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446794)

That works too, but this form of access presumably allows them to push updates as well.

Re:Make it static. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446918)

It also requires me to give them ssh access. No thanks.

Re:Make it static. (3, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446986)

    It'd be easy enough to throw a VM like VirtualBox on your machine, assuming you have full control over it. I do it for something that simply wouldn't install on a couple machines I have. You could give him access, and all he/they would have access to is that virtual machine.

    There are larger risks though. How long until the feds come knocking on your door. That's not just US based, you could likely have your nations law enforcement seizing all of your equipment. Even if they didn't, I'm sure the DDoS attacks will come back. They may be by some kid in a country you've never heard of, some militant group, or by governments around the world trying to suppress the information. A DDoS from seemingly random locations is a lot easier to pull off and a lot more anonymous than a court order to seize property.

    I thought about mirroring his stuff. I actually did, but it's not available to anyone else yet. I can't weigh the continuity of my own sites and freedom, versus the need to get his information of dubious sources out to the general public.

    I do believe in free speech, and I believe he should be allowed to run with it. Hell, there are plenty of conspiracy nuts out there, that put up all kinds of anti-government propaganda. The pressures being put against him are only serving to make it clear that there is some truth to what he's putting out there.

Insurance file torrent (2)

Gla'funk (1953002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446942)

Re:Make it static. (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447026)

Seed, people, seed.

BTW for the moment, http://cablegate.wikileaks.lu/ [wikileaks.lu] is still working.

Internet in prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446598)

If convicts in maximum security can post on facebook, wikileaks can stay online.

Re:Internet in prison (1)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446604)

Really? I think Wikileaks is more scary to the government then a few mass murderers... (unfortunately)

Re:Internet in prison (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446678)

if we're lucky they will really be mass murderers in a few months after the leaked information compromises the soldiers and allies over in Afghanistan and Iraq

Re:Internet in prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446748)

if we're lucky they will really be mass murderers in a few months after the leaked information compromises the soldiers and allies over in Afghanistan and Iraq

They went there to kill other people. They went there, fully knowing they could die. They compromised their lives on their own, BY GOING THERE.

Re:Internet in prison (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446898)

A mass murderer, assuming he's not in the US, is an international problem. We've left other countries to more or less mind their business since our country's founding. ("More or less" meaning that we largely negotiate and strongarm with whomever manages to act like a government in some cases, and when we don't do that we always regret it.)

Wikileaks, however, is an organization that has come to directly target the operational security of the USA. It's not even journalism -- it's just "secrets are bad." There's hardly anything in the last three big releases that should be news to ANYONE. (War is hell in Iraq. War is hell in Afghanistan. What countries say in private isn't what they say in public.)

OTOH, I wouldn't say that the federal government is SCARED of wikileaks. If they were really a problem, Obama has an absurdly broad array of options, the most fast-acting of which would be to recognize WIkileaks as a terrorist organization. (What ELSE do you call a private group dedicated to breaking laws and changing the political direction of a country that they are not citizens of?) . OTOH, Assange is a big enough prick that it looks like all we have to do is wait, and he'll hang himself. (Yes, if you're mid-sex and she says stop, failing to do so *IS RAPE*.)

Re:Internet in prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446984)

See this FastCompany article [fastcompany.com] for more information about the smear campaign against Assange. This has PsyOps written all over it.

Re:Internet in prison (1)

Gorobei (127755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447048)

A mass murderer, assuming he's not in the US, is an international problem. We've left other countries to more or less mind their business since our country's founding. ("More or less" meaning that we largely negotiate and strongarm with whomever manages to act like a government in some cases, and when we don't do that we always regret it.)

Huh? A murderer is a problem for the nation he did the murders in. Or are you assuming two kinds of law: American and the magical non-American global law?

Wikileaks, however, is an organization that has come to directly target the operational security of the USA. It's not even journalism -- it's just "secrets are bad." There's hardly anything in the last three big releases that should be news to ANYONE. (War is hell in Iraq. War is hell in Afghanistan. What countries say in private isn't what they say in public.)

Ok, so you are saying the leaks are a non-issue? Oh, and when did "journalism" become the definition of freedom of speech?

OTOH, I wouldn't say that the federal government is SCARED of wikileaks. If they were really a problem, Obama has an absurdly broad array of options, the most fast-acting of which would be to recognize WIkileaks as a terrorist organization. (What ELSE do you call a private group dedicated to breaking laws and changing the political direction of a country that they are not citizens of?) . OTOH, Assange is a big enough prick that it looks like all we have to do is wait, and he'll hang himself. (Yes, if you're mid-sex and she says stop, failing to do so *IS RAPE*.)

Terrorism? wtf? Who is he causing to be terrified? Or do you define "terrorism" as "anything I don't like that doesn't seem to be against the law?"

Private Mirrors? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446600)

The replication is implemented by a rsync+ssh based push...

Can we make our own private backup via rsync pull?

I'd host it if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446614)

1. I had the speed
2. Didn't end up on every watchlist and eventually be blackbagged [mefeedia.com]

Re:I'd host it if.... (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446668)

As for #2, TOR should be enough to get around that. However this would make #1 much worse.

Re:I'd host it if.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446704)

1. I had the speed
2. Didn't end up on every watchlist and eventually be blackbagged [mefeedia.com]

So you say you'd host if you had the balls to do it and it does not interfere with your porn downloading.

Way to go man.

Re:I'd host it if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446734)

I needs my pr0n.

Re:I'd host it if.... (2)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446800)

We do, and we are hosting couple static mirrors for them...
Yeah, it might sound a bit risky but who knows.

We gave 2 static mirrors now... Who knows if we add say 60 more :)

Consider it carefully -- Re:I'd host it if.... (5, Informative)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446906)

While I am kinda rooting for wikileaks in this, I think anyone who is considering to sign up to think about this:

1. you give them shell access to your host
2. you grant access on the basis of a ssh public key, which you're getting from an unencrypted page. It could be anyone's and it could be coming from anywhere.

Consider the risks carefully before you sign up.

Wikileaks: please put some more thinking into your backup plans, even if you have to come up with them in emergency.

Coral Cache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446640)

They should also use Coral Cache : http://www.coralcdn.org/

Out of curiosity... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446648)

How large would a torrent file of everything they host be? Feasable?

Captcha: pipeline

Re:Out of curiosity... (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446702)

Considering there are torrents out there several hundred gigabytes in size, I'd say that a torrent is definitely feasible. If they're worried about leaking too much too quickly, they should encrypt it with a 2048 character encryption key so nobody can access it until they say so (or better yet, have a few torrents encrypted separately). Then if they get pulled, it wouldn't take much to get a pastebin put up somewhere with the decryption key(s).

Re:Out of curiosity... (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446774)

Considering there are torrents out there several hundred gigabytes in size, I'd say that a torrent is definitely feasible. If they're worried about leaking too much too quickly, they should encrypt it with a 2048 character encryption key so nobody can access it until they say so (or better yet, have a few torrents encrypted separately). Then if they get pulled, it wouldn't take much to get a pastebin put up somewhere with the decryption key(s).

Apparently they have already [slashdot.org] done this [slashdot.org] .

Re:Out of curiosity... (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446910)

Oh well, great minds think alike.

Re:Out of curiosity... (1)

leehwtsohg (618675) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446998)

Actually, they should encrypt some with 64bit, some with 65 (is that possible?) some with 66, etc. Crackable, but slowly. This way, even if the key never gets out, eventually we'll know....

And because of different encryption strength, it will still get released slowly.

Re:Out of curiosity... (2)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446716)

Well the WikiLeak_insurance file is about 1.4GB https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance [thepiratebay.org]

but that is encripted and contains much more than their site, excluding the insurance file.

Other countries? (2)

steeleyeball (1890884) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446672)

They should do China, which is messing with the internet as much as anyone... China has more secrets. There should be no reason Governments should be afraid of the truth... unless they are selling their own people out.

Re:Other countries? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446756)

Somebody should leak information about China to them, then. Wikileaks aren't the ones actually leaking this, you know - they just act as a middle man to ensure anonymous leaking and widespread distribution.

Re:Other countries? (2)

Erikderzweite (1146485) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446786)

I have no information that they are withholding the leaks they have received about Chinese government, you?

No stopping the current information at least. (5, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446674)

Since it's already released. It's already been revealed at least in Swedish news, that part of the encrypted "insurance" file that's been distributed via BT, is the *full* cablegate archive -- remember that by far most haven't been released yet, at least not to non-news organizations. And that's part of that file, and then some unknown stuff too. So if anything would happen to these guys that would piss them off enough, they'd just release the keys and boom, thousands of users would have this data.

give keys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446690)

now watch this be a mass theft of keys given and another mass hacking.

Re:give keys? (3, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446764)

You don't give them your keys, you simply allow them to authenticate with their private key by adding their pubic key to your authorized keys list.

You control your server, so if you're paranoid take some precautions. Set up an account (or better yet, an accout on a new VM) specifically for this with limited permissions and access. If you're really paranoid, you obviously won't be doing this at all.

Coral Cache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446700)

Don't forget to use Coral Cache: http://www.coralcdn.org/

Why not just release everything? (1, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446752)

Ok from what I understand some intelligence person released this information to wikileaks, so why is wikileaks sitting on this info releasing it piecemeal? Why not just release everything at once to all of us. problem solved.

Re:Why not just release everything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446770)

They are giving people time to digest the facts.

Re:Why not just release everything? (2, Interesting)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446844)

Or buying time to make back-room deals with governments that may not want certain info to be published. You don't know Mr. Assange, just because you think he's on your side doesn't make it so.

Re:Why not just release everything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447022)

Even then, the differences between WL and your Government are that it doesn't squander your tax money and it doesn't kill you.

Re:Why not just release everything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446832)

They're redacting a lot of individual-identifying information from the cables as they go to minimise chance of people being killed over it, that has to be done manually (by human experts doing comparisons to already-published information in many different languages worldwide) and is a *lot* more work than just releasing everything. (the US federal government were contacted but refused to help with this redaction task a while back.)

Can you sing "Streisand effect is not about a nose (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446784)

Everybody now

Can you sing "The Streisand effect is not about a nose"

To the tune of the monty python song

"Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" :-)

I want to, so bad (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446790)

I want to, so bad...but the servers I admin are all in a lab with defense contracts. And I really don't want my boss to lose his job. So it would be a bad idea. Makes me wish I'd kept my home server around though.

FreeNet (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446808)

Once again ill say it. That is the perfect distribution method when you are being attacked by most of the free world.

Re:FreeNet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447084)

Freenet - It's not just for child porn anymore!

Meaningless Gesture (4, Insightful)

Alcoholic Synonymous (990318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446810)

The current leaks are out. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Syncing around the world will do no good if the centralized source synced against keeps vanishing and eventually stays vanished.

My point is, that the current damage is done. Yanking WikiLeaks offline is about preventing further damage, and when it finally does go for good, people will be left with a stagnant, yesterday's news version. A million mirrors of previously disclosed documents wont help future leaks get distributed, while the people mirroring the current ones are literally just stepping into harms way.

Re:Meaningless Gesture (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446852)

so far I don't see any damage done

Re:Meaningless Gesture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447036)

Syncing around the world will do no good if the centralized source synced against keeps vanishing and eventually stays vanished.

They're doing push rsync over ssh. The "centralized source" is some unknown number of PCs on the Internet which send new data to a hundred mirrors, probably using TOR so no one knows where it is. If you want to make it vanish first you have to find it.

Re:Meaningless Gesture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447060)

Syncing around the world will do no good if the centralized source synced against keeps vanishing and eventually stays vanished. My point is, that the current damage is done. Yanking WikiLeaks offline is about preventing further damage, and when it finally does go for good, people will be left with a stagnant, yesterday's news version.

Five major newspapers in five different countries have advance copies of the archive (and have agreed to follow the schedule and not try to scoop each other on stories of international relevance).

Additionally, a compressed copy of the cables would fit inside insurance.aes256, so it is quite possible that there are hundreds of thousands of copies of the full archive out there already. In the event of the other copies being successfully suppressed and the insurance key being released, it will be a lot harder to stop than the gigabyte-and-a-bit archive itself: I'd give it about 12 hours before someone's selling the decryption key on a t-shirt like they did with Blu-ray.

They really should call this... (5, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446822)

Operation Streisand!

The first real battle of the internet? (5, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446838)

Could this be the first real battle waged mostly in the digital world? Every free country is out to get this guy and prevent him from getting his word out. The outcome of this will speak volumes for the future for the concept of being able to speak your mind.

( yes, i know there is questions about legality of the data, but that isn't the real issue here )

Re:The first real battle of the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446880)

Ha! The US government will win this one. This will be as successful as the destruction of Napster. Look and see how successful the big guns were against the music pirates. There's literally zero music on the internet now and no music piracy!

Not the first real battle of the internet. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446972)

THIS was the first: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Meow_Wars

Booth is (1)

ourcraft (874165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447006)

Booth has been rotting for more than century, and as such is building this great country, building the soil of a land of plenty, as such he is certainly contributing, and many can not say the same.

As a US Citizen, (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446870)

So, being a US citizen here, and presently in the US, if I offer up a personal box, how much trouble am I in legally?

If I do get 'hauled in' what could I possibly be charged with?

Re:As a US Citizen, (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446946)

You can be charged with and imprisoned for illegally obtaining and possessing classified documents.

Re:As a US Citizen, (5, Interesting)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446966)

So, being a US citizen here, and presently in the US, if I offer up a personal box, how much trouble am I in legally?

If I do get 'hauled in' what could I possibly be charged with?

As someone who isn't a US politician, I'm not equipped to fully answer your question. They're the ones with the power. They're the ones whose wrongdoings are being revealed. That's a really grim combination. I'm guessing that you're in exactly as much trouble as they decide and you'll be charged with whatever they feel like. Probably treason or some trumped up terrorism charge.

Understand this: patriotism in the US now means supporting the government, not the constitution.

The only thing you can do to protect yourself is educate as many fellow citizens as possible and vote for anyone who isn't in favor of the idiocy going on. If there are no non-idiot candidates left, frankly it's time to rebel. But that's just my opinion.

Re:As a US Citizen, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447028)

Distribution of stolen classified documents?

They didn't magically declassify themselves because the information was stolen from the government.

However, I'm sure in all likelihood that it would be perfectly fine to mirror these documents in the US. I mean, who has ever been charged with trafficking in stolen items and it makes sense if the person distributing the goods wasn't the asshole who took them in the first place. Besides, if enough people do it there will simply be too many people to take to court. Obviously, this is why the RIAA/MPAA threw up their hands and walked away from people distributing their content through torrents. Seriously, that kind of lawsuit never makes the news and for good reason!

All in all, based on past examples I'm pretty sure it's a perfectly safe venture.

Are you an idiot?

TMI (2, Insightful)

mathimus1863 (1120437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446926)

Wikileaks behavior here is ridiculous, and I don't think we should be supporting them at this point. Trust me, I am all for exposing corruption and illegal behavior, but that's not what Wikileaks released. Every partnership, company, country, etc, must have the ability to have frank internal conversations about various relationship with others, that must be private. Examples:

Clinton instructing diplomats to spy on UN officials : RELEASE
Afghan corruption throughout military operations: RELEASE
Candid assessments about Karzai's leadership : DO NOT RELEASE
Name calling of the Prince of England : DO NOT RELEASE


These extra releases have done nothing but put many countries into very awkward diplomatic relationships, which does nothing to benefit "fighting corruption." Those kinds of releases are stupid and unecessary.

In this case, I think wikileaks went waaay too far. Assange just wanted to make history by releasing all of them, because nothing like this has ever become public before. On that note, despite my bitter disagreement with him, it is intensely interesting to see a complete cross-section of classified US diplomatic discussions and assessments, and related communications with otehr governments. Probably not worth the damage done to global "social" health, but I will read every word of it...

team up with pirate bay! (1)

lejerdemayn (823082) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446952)

why don't they just team up with the pirate bay for some distributed mirroring scheme? or ask them for the hosting, i'm sure those guys can handle some ddos?

Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446958)

...How about stopping the "we'll release a couple of records for 30 years unless you give us lots of money" horseshit and give out the files, unencrypted, to be mirrored everywhere for everybody to read? Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about?

never been happier to have my own server... (1)

MichaelKristopeit193 (1942468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446962)

how soon before someone on a shared hosting server installs the mirror code, and the FBI sweeps in and takes the whole server down?

Admin Courage (2)

Dangerous_Minds (1869682) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446964)

A simple checklist for admins when considering this: Do I... 1. support government transparency and general democracy? 2. own a web server and know a fair bit about security? 3. have balls of steel? If yes to all of the above, you too can be a proud owner of a Wikileaks mirror!

This is fantastic (5, Interesting)

frank_carmody (1551463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446968)

I live in Thailand and WikiLeaks is blocked here for some ridiculous reason. The more the 'authorities' around the world try to squeeze the balloon, the more it bubbles out somewhere else. So this is golden for me. The more they are forced to host their site in a non-conventional highly-distributed way, the easier it becomes for the people of Thailand to access it.

The files will be corrupted (1)

exentropy (1822632) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447002)

I think Wikileaks made a grave mistake here. They are trusting all their information to foreign hosts; if these external people corrupt the data, Wikileaks will lose its credibility and people will ignore it.

Re:The files will be corrupted (1)

HJED (1304957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447020)

Hence, requiring a ssh login.

If Assange is a douchebag, (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447052)

He is MY douchebag. He is the way i would want any douchebag to be like. I would share a flat with such a douchebag, at any given point.

As far as douchebags go, there were a lot of douchebags among the people who have pioneered this age of democracy that the power elite has made null and void.

Benjamin franklin used to strip naked and sit on a chair in the middle of a long corridor in his mansion, after opening the windows from both sides and ensuring that the corridor had good breeze.

Thomas paine was SO aggressive in his crusade against religion that, he set up a church of reason, and started a new religion.

i can go on and on.

in the list that can be made out of quirkiness, oddness, douchebagness of those people who now we see as pioneers of freedom or fighters of democracy, assanges alleged 'douchebagness' wouldnt even qualify in the top 100.

and it is as another poster had just commented: assange has done more than any western government did for freedom and democracy, since world war II.

our governments do not want us to know things they have done. this was supposed to be a democracy, in which people were in power, as 'we the people'. we have become 'them the people', who are herded.

wake up. wikileaks is what we have. assange and his team, are the ones doing it. support them. for your future and your children's.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...