Well, since its in the news again I guess I'll post some links and stuff
U.S. documents obtained by WikiLeaks posted despite site problem
US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomatic crisis
The US embassy cables are marked "Sipdis" – secret internet protocol distribution. They were compiled as part of a programme under which selected dispatches, considered moderately secret but suitable for sharing with other agencies, would be automatically loaded on to secure embassy websites, and linked with the military's Siprnet internet system. They are classified at various levels up to "secret noforn" [no foreigners]. More than 11,000 are marked secret, while around 9,000 of the cables are marked noforn. More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked "protect" or "strictly protect". Among literally scores of revelations which may cause uproar, some will be particularly dismaying in Britain. They include: Highly critical private remarks about David Cameron and George Osborne's "lack of depth", made by Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, to the US ambassador. A scornful analysis of UK "paranoia" over the US-UK so-called special relationship. It is suggested that "keeping HMGthe British government "off-balance" about itthe relationship might be a good idea. US shock at the rude behaviour of Prince Andrew when abroad. Secret US military missions flown from a UK base, which Britain alleged could involve torture. A plan to deceive the British parliament over the use of banned US weapons.
WikiLeaks embassy cables: download the key data and see how it breaks down
The WikiLeaks embassy cables release has produced a lot of stories but does it produce any useful data? We explain what it includes and how it breaks down - plus you can download the key data for every cable
WikiLeaks shows 21st-century secrets harder to keep
The diplomatic cables so far released by WikiLeaks might embarrass U.S. diplomats but probably won't shatter any international relationships. "This won't restrain dips' (diplomats) candor," Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British Ambassador to Washington DC, told Reuters. "But people will be looking at the security of electronic communications and archives. Paper would have been impossible to steal in these quantities." That's a lesson governments have been learning fast. British officials have been embarrassed several times by the loss of discs containing personal data for thousands of members of the general public, while experts say hackers have stolen truckloads of sensitive information from Western corporations. The real beneficiaries from the vast leak, Cox said, were historians, academics and students of international relations who now had a "great treasure trove" of primary evidence to go through. The volume of data is so vast that details may continue to be extracted from it for years to come.
Swedish prosecutors get OK to seek arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder
Swedish prosecutors won permission Thursday from a Stockholm court to seek an international arrest warrant for Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks website, whom they want to question about allegations of rape and other sexual offenses. The accusations stem from encounters that Assange, 39, had with two women during a visit to Sweden in August. Assange denies any unlawful conduct, saying that his relations with the women were consensual. But the Swedish Prosecution Authority said it wanted to bring Assange in for questioning and asked the district court in Stockholm to declare him detained in absentia. The declaration is a preliminary step to requesting an international arrest warrant for him, probably to be issued through Interpol.
Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels
The 251,287 cables, first acquired by WikiLeaks, were provided to The Times by an intermediary on the condition of anonymity. Many are unclassified, and none are marked “top secret,” the government’s most secure communications status. But some 11,000 are classified “secret,” 9,000 are labeled “noforn,” shorthand for material considered too delicate to be shared with any foreign government, and 4,000 are designated both secret and noforn. Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly protect.” The Times has withheld from articles and removed from documents it is posting online the names of some people who spoke privately to diplomats and might be at risk if they were publicly identified. The Times is also withholding some passages or entire cables whose disclosure could compromise American intelligence efforts.
U.S. Expands Role of Diplomats in Spying
The United States has expanded the role of American diplomats in collecting intelligence overseas and at the United Nations, ordering State Department personnel to gather the credit card and frequent-flier numbers, work schedules and other personal information of foreign dignitaries. Revealed in classified State Department cables, the directives, going back to 2008, appear to blur the traditional boundaries between statesmen and spies. The cables give a laundry list of instructions for how State Department employees can fulfill the demands of a “National Humint Collection Directive” in specific countries. (“Humint” is spy-world jargon for human intelligence collection.) One cable asks officers overseas to gather information about “office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cellphones, pagers and faxes,” as well as “internet and intranet ‘handles’, internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.”
NY Times' editorial explanatory note
New details on Google hack from WikiLeaks
China’s Politburo directed attack, one of many cyber espionage acts
Has WikiLeaks finally gone too far?
Still, where do you draw the line? Obviously, aggressive news outlets like the New York Times publish revelations every day that cause heartburn for U.S. officials -- often thanks to sources whose motivations may or may not be good ones. That's our job. Had FP gotten its hands on these cables, no doubt we would be publishing many of them (after doing proper due diligence and allowing the State Department to make its case). We're certainly going to comment on their contents. News is news. But is there a principle that says it's OK to publish one-off scoops, but not 250,000 -- or for that matter 2.7 million -- of them all at once? The former feels like journalism; the latter seems grotesque and irresponsible, more like "information vandalism," in the words of secrecy expert Steven Aftergood. And even if responsible papers like the New York Times have a chance to review and contextualize them, there's no way they can dot every i and cross every t in the time allotted. There's just too much.
British officials fear WikiLeaks will disrupt Iran policy
Officials involved in overseeing British policy in the region say that diplomatic materials compiled between 2008 and 2010 on Iran contained sensational information that could jeopardise efforts to disrupt the nuclear programme if unveiled on WikiLeaks. The UK has played a key role on breaking up one network of businessmen in Dubai who had been using the emirate as the "HQ of a worldwide spiders web" to supply equipment to Iran's banned nuclear programme. "Information was provided to the UAE authorities that was only procured by getting inside this group. It was a very successful effort of disruption carried out at some personal risk by our people," said one Whitehall official. "It would not be good for any of this to come out."
Recent Comments