The leaked campaign to attack WikiLeaks and its supporters

Soldato
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
5,342
Location
A house
There's a very strange episode being widely discussed the past couple of days involving numerous parties, including me, that I now want to comment on. The story, first reported by The Tech Herald, has been written about in numerous places (see Marcy Wheeler, Forbes, The Huffington Post, BoingBoing, Matt Yglesias, Reason, Tech Dirt, and others), so I'll provide just the summary.

Last week, Aaron Barr, a top executive at computer security firm HB Gary Federal, boasted to the Financial Times that his firm had infiltrated and begun to expose Anonymous, the group of pro-WikiLeaks hackers that had launched cyber attacks on companies terminating services to the whistleblowing site (such as Paypal, MasterCard, Visa, Amazon and others). In retaliation, Anonymous hacked into the email accounts of HB Gary, published 50,000 of their emails online, and also hacked Barr's Twitter and other online accounts.

Among the emails that were published was a report prepared by HB Gary -- in conjunction with several other top online security firms, including Palantir Technologies -- on how to destroy WikiLeaks. The emails indicated the report was part of a proposal to be submitted to Bank of America through its outside law firm, Hunton & Williams. News reports have indicated that WikiLeaks is planning to publish highly incriminating documents showing possible corruption and fraud at that bank, and The New York Times detailed last month how seriously top bank officials are taking that threat. The NYT article described that the bank's "counterespionage work" against WikiLeaks entailed constant briefings for top executives on the whistleblowing site, along with the hiring of "several top law firms" and Booz Allen (the long-time firm of former Bush DNI Adm. Michael McConnell and numerous other top intelligence and defense officials). The report prepared by these firms was designed to be part of the Bank of America's highly funded anti-WikiLeaks campaign.

The leaked report suggested numerous ways to destroy WikiLeaks, some of them likely illegal -- including planting fake documents with the group and then attacking them when published; "creat[ing] concern over the security" of the site; "cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters"; and a "media campaign to push the radical and reckless nature of wikileaks activities." Many of those proposals were also featured prongs of a secret 2008 Pentagon plan to destroy WikiLeaks.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns

Doesn't surprise me. People do not like having bad news published about them. Just a surprise to me its coming from the Bank of America, but when you think about it, they pretty much own America anyway.
 
assangevzuckerman.jpg
 
This weeks word of the week "redacted" never been mentioned before and will become common use for the next few months just because everyone wanting to sound like they know what they are talking about when this story broke dug out a thesaurus.

True story...
 
The only reason that Julian Assange still walks the streets is that he has done more to damage openness and whistle-blowers than BoA, the CIA, MI5, the IoD, Freemasonry or anyone else ever could; he is an embarrassment to humanity :mad:
 
That would be nicely ironic, wikileaks get taken down by an illegal act.

I will never understand why people think wikileaks is good. It's illegal and stupid and glad that they have pretty much destroyed themselves.
 
The only reason that Julian Assange still walks the streets is that he has done more to damage openness and whistle-blowers than BoA, the CIA, MI5, the IoD, Freemasonry or anyone else ever could; he is an embarrassment to humanity :mad:

that doesn't make sense to me. you say he only walks the streets because he's let info out, so that would mean if he hadn't let info out he'd not be walking the streets? :confused:
 
that doesn't make sense to me. you say he only walks the streets because he's let info out, so that would mean if he hadn't let info out he'd not be walking the streets? :confused:

I think if he was a more minor figure, he might of been imprisoned for the 'rape' that he committed?
 
I still have to admire the idiocy of the guardian journalist who published the password to the unredacted cables archive as a chapter heading in his book about the wikileaks cables...
 
That would be nicely ironic, wikileaks get taken down by an illegal act.

I will never understand why people think wikileaks is good. It's illegal and stupid and glad that they have pretty much destroyed themselves.

Explain why.

I find it necessary for someone to leak things, otherwise we wouldn't know what we were doing, the Iraq war for instance, what a load of **** from Blair and now we are all humiliated whenever he shows himself or speaks in the papers/news.

I really don't care if the "Unfortunate" truth is revealed about something we already knew about but simply didn't want to face it, Albeit Assange went on a power-trip which makes the group somewhat less credible, the underlying point is that we don't even notice a gift horse in the face any more and that is pathetic for a "liberal democracy".

I cant wait for a leak to prove the fear that we aren't democratic any more, i mean we all know our government cares more for Murdoch's laundry than solving problems in our nation.
 
That would be nicely ironic, wikileaks get taken down by an illegal act.

I will never understand why people think wikileaks is good. It's illegal and stupid and glad that they have pretty much destroyed themselves.

Because without accountability in Govt. you have tyranny.

The Govts. and Corporations all want your Information and Data, they want you 'To have nothing to hide..' they want you to feel like an outlaw or terrorist if you value your privacy and your rights, when they who SHOULD be publicly accountable want absolute secrecy. Cake and eat it.
 
Rubbish, it's an illegal act, not done for any benefit than self gratification and dangerous. There's no need for it. You can apply through freedom of information.
There are better and many other ways to keep governments in line.

What makes it worse is just a mass release of information with no screening and most of it containing nothing scandalous or underhanded.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom