WikiWhoops!

[LazyLion]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546944074954956.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The argument would be almost amusing if the potential consequences weren't so grave.

Last Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accused the Guardian newspaper—one of the five news organizations with which he collaborated in publishing edited versions of confidential U.S. State Department cables—of disclosing the password to his entire, unredacted cache of 250,000 cables. They are now freely available on the Internet. Not so, replied an indignant Guardian, which insisted it had been assured by Mr. Assange that "it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours."

We're (somewhat) inclined to believe the Guardian on this one, especially since Mr. Assange seems to have made up his mind long ago to release all the files anyway. He has now done so, and the damage is already being felt: On Friday, Australia's Attorney General confirmed that one of the cables gives away the name of an Australian intelligence officer. Expect many more covers blown, careers ruined, and lives placed in jeopardy before all this is over.

Then again, there's a saying about sleeping with dogs, and the Guardian's editors are responsible for trusting Mr. Assange that the password they published would be changed. The paper and its fellow Wikileaks collaborators have now issued a joint statement in which they say they are "united in condemning" the release of the unredacted cables. "The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone," they say. Maybe so. But they have been his witting—and unwitting—enablers, and the consequences of the latest disclosures rest on their shoulders, too.

Like I said all along... this guy is bad news and doesn't care about innocent people's lives being damaged in the process of his rise to fame.

 

[Fudzy]

Why did the Guardian publish the password? Irrespective of whether it was a temporary or permanent?

 

[grok]

Collateral damage, it happens.

 

[Geriatrix]

Why did the Guardian publish the password? Irrespective of whether it was a temporary or permanent?

+1
Big ****up though, wikileaks and the Guardian has lost major trust here.

 

[Fudzy]

+1
Big ****up though, wikileaks and the Guardian has lost major trust here.

I wouldn't trust Wikileaks to begin with, to trust means that they would not disclose something on request. Wikileaks by definition is very thin in this department.

 

[LazyLion]

I don't care who screwed up... the point is this info is out there now in unredacted format.
These idiots should never have been trusted with that info in the first place.

 

[hungrybeaver]

Finally. I was beginning to wonder if there was any truth to the 250k cables and if we'd ever see them.

 

[Hard Rain]

Shame, we’re to be concerned for the rats and assassins of the U.S. government? All these cables go to show is that to trust and work with the Americans is a double-edged sword...

 

[LazyLion]

Shame, we’re to be concerned for the rats and assassins of the U.S. government? All these cables go to show is that to trust and work with the Americans is a double-edged sword...

and that those who would seek to "expose them" are no better themselves.

 

[Fudzy]

and that those who would seek to "expose them" are no better themselves.

When did they say they were any better or worse?

 

[Greylor]

Shame, we’re to be concerned for the rats and assassins of the U.S. government? All these cables go to show is that to trust and work with the Americans is a double-edged sword...

 

[schumi]

Any one else think this was done deliberately for the publicity since the media seemed to be forgetting about them, now they back in the News.

 

[copacetic]

I don't care who screwed up... the point is this info is out there now in unredacted format.
These idiots should never have been trusted with that info in the first place.

And the American Government, who didn't exactly look after that info themselves particularly well?

 

[copacetic]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/02/wikileaks/index.html

A series of unintentional though negligent acts by multiple parties -- WikiLeaks, The Guardian's investigative reporter David Leigh, and Open Leaks' Daniel Domscheit-Berg -- has resulted in the publication of all 251,287 diplomatic cables, in unredacted form, leaked last year to WikiLeaks (allegedly by Bradley Manning). Der Spiegel (in English) has the best and most comprehensive step-by-step account of how this occurred.

This incident is unfortunate in the extreme for multiple reasons: it's possible that diplomatic sources identified in the cables (including whistleblowers and human rights activists) will be harmed; this will be used by enemies of transparency and WikiLeaks to disparage both and even fuel efforts to prosecute the group; it implicates a newspaper, The Guardian, that generally produces very good and responsible journalism; it likely increases political pressure to impose more severe punishment on Bradley Manning if he's found guilty of having leaked these cables; and it will completely obscure the already-ignored, important revelations of serious wrongdoing from these documents. It's a disaster from every angle. But as usual with any controversy involving WikiLeaks, there are numerous important points being willfully distorted that need clarification.

 

[Hard Rain]

And the American Government, who didn't exactly look after that info themselves particularly well?

Yes, copacetic, you see it's not a problem if hundreds of thousands (even millions) of U.S. government functionaries and bureaucrats can see all this so-called "classified" information. It's only a problem if us mundanes dare attempt to peek behind the curtain...

 

[DJ...]

A well orchestrated move is what this was. Now that the cables have been released in their entirety, Wikileaks' image is blown as much as the intelligence officers in the cables. It also serves the purpose of removing much of the leverage Wikileaks originally had. There was absolutely no reason to disclose the password, temporary or not...

 

[Fudzy]

A well orchestrated move is what this was. Now that the cables have been released in their entirety, Wikileaks' image is blown as much as the intelligence officers in the cables. It also serves the purpose of removing much of the leverage Wikileaks originally had. There was absolutely no reason to disclose the password, temporary or not...

Yeah releasing of the information has always been something Assange has bartered with in legal cases. Now let's see what happens to him in that sexual harrassment case.

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Yes, copacetic, you see it's not a problem if hundreds of thousands (even millions) of U.S. government functionaries and bureaucrats can see all this so-called "classified" information. It's only a problem if us mundanes dare attempt to peek behind the curtain...

Do you not get that it's the people who will now use the leaked information to kill other people? Are people so thick as to not grasp that fact ........ bloody hell you like to bleat the same old shyte don't you.

 

[copacetic]

Do you not get that it's the people who will now use the leaked information to kill other people? Are people so thick as to not grasp that fact ........ bloody hell you like to bleat the same old shyte don't you.

Let's not forget that Wikileaks offered the American government the chance to be part of the redaction process. They said no, and went on the attack, part of the reason things have gone so pear-shaped.

Wikileaks are definitely at fault here, no one is denying that, but there are other parties involved as well, least of all the USA, who allowed this info to be accessible to many thousands of people in the first place.

 

[Hard Rain]

Do you not get that it's the people who will now use the leaked information to kill other people?

The types of people you're talking about have no qualms about killing in any case. They're called the government. The fact that the American rats and assassins embolden or enable them is not withstanding.