Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Why has no organisation actually killed the site already? If I was running secret services I had those servers hacked and blocked from the start...

---

Probably because the US is not the police state many claim it is. Besides, they've done the fine job of finding holes in our intelligence services which allows the US to find and punish those responsible. I imagine it's usually difficult to find out what information 'spies' can access so as to try and fix those security holes.

To add to the discussion here's a link to The Economist's articles Son of SAM and Don't go back. Both are good reads. Also here's an interview of theirs with Julian Assange

huh, apparently wikileaks being morally and intellectually bankrupt is old news:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008...rlock-wikilea/

Quote:

---

# By Noah Shachtman Email Author
# December 18, 2008 |
# 11:09 am

In July, 2005, I asked a member of a Baghdad-based military bomb squad about the radio-frequency jammers his team was using to cut off signals to Iraq’s remotely detonated explosives. His response: "I can’t even begin to say the first ******* thing about ‘em." A few days later, one of those jammers seemed to save me and him from getting blown up. Months after that, David Axe was thrown out of Iraq by the U.S. military, for a blog post which mentioned the Warlock family of jammers.

So I was more than a little surprised, when I saw that Wikileaks had posted a classified report, outlining how the Warlock Red and Warlock Green jammers work with — and interfere with — military communications systems. The report, dated 2004, gives specific information about how the jammers function, their radiated power and which frequencies they stop. That Baghdad bomb tech would’ve put his fist through a wall, if he saw it out in public.

Today, the leak isn’t quite so serious. Those Warlock Green and Warlock Red jammers have been largely — but not completely — superseded by newer models. And those newer models have largely wiped out the remotely detonated bomb threat in Iraq.

But still, the leaked report raises important questions about what information — if any — is too sensitive to disclose.

Steven Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists’ longtime advocate for open government, believes the site has gone too far. "Wikileaks says that it publishes restricted documents that are ‘of substantial political, diplomatic or ethical significance.’ Its publication makes sense only from the perspective that all secrecy is wrong and should be resisted. It’s not a perspective that I share."

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, not surprisingly, has a completely different take. "Wikileaks represents whistleblowers in the way that lawyers represent their clients — fairly and impartially. Our ‘job’ is to safely and impartially conduct the whistleblower’s message to the public, not to inject our own nationality or beliefs," he tells Danger Room.

---

The state is the people, so when the state is hiding something the people is hiding stuff from the people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

The state is the people, so when the state is hiding something the people is hiding stuff from the people?

---

This is the nature of representative government.