The Wikileaks Question

[vanlose kid]

A major story brewing is the cruel, inhumane treatment - torture - to which Bradley Manning is being subjected: more to come shortly.


http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/ ... 7931935745

*

[The Hacktivist]

Hello to all. I have been following this thread as a non-registered member and just really wanted to register and chime in.

First I want to tell you that Wikileaks and Mr. Assange are the real deal. They are genuine, it is what you see and what you see is what you get.

I cannot tell you how I know this, now is not the time for a disclosure of identity on the internet but I will say this, Anonymous doesnt play games, when we get behind someone the homework has been done, the organization does not support fakes or 'psyops.' You are dealing with people who know how to find things out in short order, when they decide to take up a cause it is because the legwork has been done and identities and claims have been CONFIRMED without any doubt whatsoever.

I wish I could go in to more detail but youre just going to have to take my word for it at this time, perhaps later I can disclose more but at this time it is not a good time for that.

I certainly expect most of you will not take my word for it, but I wanted to say it anyway because it needs to be said, Wikileaks is real, Mr. Assange is genuine and there are many of us who are working very hard to protect him from those who wish to do him harm for doing what needed to be done a long time ago.


More later....



The Hacktivist-

[beeline]

^^^

I can't wait to hear more from you Mr./Mrs./Ms. Hacktivist

[justdrew]

inspiration from wikileaks is leading to other important leaks...

Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Ever wonder what Comcast's connections to the Internet look like? In the tradition of WikiLeaks, someone stumbled upon these graphs of their TATA links. For reference, TATA is the only other IP transit provider to Comcast after Level (3). Comcast is a customer of TATA and pays them to provide them with access to the Internet.

1 day graphs:

Image #1:
Image #1 (Alternate Site): http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=13-224638L&rand=6673&t=gif&m=12&y=2010&srv=img4

Image #2:
Image #2 (Alternate Site): http://www.glowfoto.com/static_image/13-205526L/4331/gif/12/2010/img6/glowfoto

Notice how those graphs flat-line at the top? That's because they're completely full for most of the day. If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable. This is how Comcast operates: They intentionally run their IP transit links so full that Content Providers have no other choice but to pay them (Comcast) for access. If you don't pay Comcast, your bits wont make it to their destination. Though they wont openly say that to anyone, the content providers who attempt to push bits towards their customers know it. Comcast customers however have no idea that they're being held hostage in order to extort money from content.

Another thing to notice is the ratio of inbound versus outbound. Since Comcast is primarily a broadband access network provider, they're going to have millions of eyeballs (users) downloading content. Comcast claims that a good network maintains a 1:1 with them, but that's simply not possible unless you had Comcast and another broadband access network talking to each other. In the attached graphs you can see the ratio is more along the lines of 5:1, which Comcast was complaining about with Level (3). The reality is that the ratio argument is bogus. Broadband access networks are naturally pull-heavy and it's being used as an excuse to call foul of Level (3) and other content heavy networks. But this shoulnd't surprise anyone, the ratio argument has been used for over a decade by many of the large telephone companies as an excuse to deny peering requests. Guess where most of Comcasts senior network executive people came from? Sprint and AT&T. Welcome to the new monopoly of the 21st century.

If you think the above graph is just a bad day or maybe a one off? Let us look at a 30 day graph...

Image #3:
Image #3 (Alternate Site): http://www.glowfoto.com/static_image/13-205958L/4767/gif/12/2010/img6/glowfoto

Comcast needs to be truthful with its customers, regulators and the public in general. The Level (3) incident only highlights the fact that Comcast is pinching content and backbone providers to force them to pay for uncongested access to Comcast customers. Otherwise, there's no way to send traffic to Comcast customers via the other paths on the Internet without hitting congested links.

Remember that this is not TATA's fault, Comcast is a CUSTOMER of TATA. TATA cannot force Comcast to upgrade its links, Comcast elects to simply not purchase enough capacity and lets them run full. When Comcast demanded that Level (3) pay them, the only choice Level (3) had was to give in or have its traffic (such as Netflix) routed via the congested TATA links. If Level (3) didn't agree to pay, that means Netflix and large portions of the Internet to browse would be simply unusable for the majority of the day for Comcast subscribers.

Love,
Backdoor Santa

[The Hacktivist]

I would also like to add that those in this thread and at other threads and forums who are accusing Mr Assange of being someone other than who and what he claims to be, are relying heavily on rightwing media/propaganda. Many if not all of the links from the poster named Alice here (no intention to call you out, just a quick and easy example) come directly from the rightwing fascist crowd whose intention it is to make Mr. Assange look bad and what he has done, criminal, so that they can create new legislation to not only prosecute him but further censor and shut down parts of the internet.

Be careful what you read and who you listen to...

[stefano]

if they really want to screw him (and they do) they could use the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in an attempt to make him hand over the password to the encrypted "insurance file". They have no way of stopping it from being released since it's already out there, but they will want to know what's in it, so that they can begin damage-limitation exercises in advance. If he refused to give up the password, he could potentially face a sentence of up to two years.

I've wondered about that too - that file has been public since at least July. With the processing power the US government has at its disposal I think that is enough time to have cracked the file? I mean I don't know much about encryption but I know they only allowed Verisign to market 128-bit SSL encryption once they had the ability to crack it. So I'd assume they know what's in the file, and that there is an ongoing debate on the subject of whether letting that surface should change their policy toward Assange.

Hacktivist - so Anonymous is an 'organisation' now is it?

>implying you are organised

[DrVolin]

...whose intention it is to make Mr. Assange look bad and what he has done, criminal, so that they can create new legislation to not only prosecute him but further censor and shut down parts of the internet.

But think about what you are saying Hacktivist. If ' new legislation to...further censor and shut down parts of the internet' is the net results of Mr. Assange's actions, how can you not suspect that it is also the intended result? Whether intended by him or someone else is largely immaterial.

[barracuda]

Doctor, it sounds as if you're arguing against publishing secrets beacuse someone might get mad about it.

[justdrew]

...whose intention it is to make Mr. Assange look bad and what he has done, criminal, so that they can create new legislation to not only prosecute him but further censor and shut down parts of the internet.

But think about what you are saying Hacktivist. If ' new legislation to...further censor and shut down parts of the internet' is the net results of Mr. Assange's actions, how can you not suspect that it is also the intended result? Whether intended by him or someone else is largely immaterial.

but that is not the net result, nor will it be. Such legislation is already pending, it's already a fight we have no choice but to win, such legislation and intentions are already out there and have been for a long time.

[Sounder]

Thanks vanlose kid

This rings quite true...

He had come to understand the defining human struggle not as left versus right, or faith versus reason, but as individual versus institution. As a student of Kafka, Koestler, and Solzhenitsyn, he believed that truth, creativity, love, and compassion are corrupted by institutional hierarchies, and by “patronage networks”—one of his favorite expressions—that contort the human spirit. He sketched out a manifesto of sorts, titled “Conspiracy as Governance,” which sought to apply graph theory to politics. Assange wrote that illegitimate governance was by definition conspiratorial—the product of functionaries in “collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population.” He argued that, when a regime’s lines of internal communication are disrupted, the information flow among conspirators must dwindle, and that, as the flow approaches zero, the conspiracy dissolves. Leaks were an instrument of information warfare.

[slimmouse]

Hacktivist

How do you square what most here might conceive as naieve ( to put it mildly) Mr Assanges notion that 9/11 is a "false conspiracy", particularly in the light of what he uncovers on a regular basis about the nature of Govnts in general, and the USA perhaps in particular ?

[Simulist]

Hacktivist

How do you square what most here might conceive as naieve ( to put it mildly) Mr Assanges notion that 9/11 is a "false conspiracy", particularly in the light of what he uncovers on a regular basis about the nature of Govnts in general, and the USA perhaps in particular ?

That's an excellent question, Slimmouse.

It would be interesting — and most welcome — to hear a well-considered answer to that question.

[vanlose kid]

Thanks vanlose kid

This rings quite true...

He had come to understand the defining human struggle not as left versus right, or faith versus reason, but as individual versus institution. As a student of Kafka, Koestler, and Solzhenitsyn, he believed that truth, creativity, love, and compassion are corrupted by institutional hierarchies, and by “patronage networks”—one of his favorite expressions—that contort the human spirit. He sketched out a manifesto of sorts, titled “Conspiracy as Governance,” which sought to apply graph theory to politics. Assange wrote that illegitimate governance was by definition conspiratorial—the product of functionaries in “collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population.” He argued that, when a regime’s lines of internal communication are disrupted, the information flow among conspirators must dwindle, and that, as the flow approaches zero, the conspiracy dissolves. Leaks were an instrument of information warfare.

you're welcome sounder, thing is though, the article referenced in the New Yorker piece you quoted from has already been posted here (by Jack i think) plus most of his writing from IQ.org. what "funnies" me is that it seems most of the detractors are just that, detractors, in that they've decided at the outset that WL is a psyop and thus never take other things posted here into consideration.

one thing i'd like to note is the question of WL making use of MSM channels to raise publicity re the published cables. some of you may recall JA's reasons for putting WL up on Amazon: as a test. part of WL is to test media also. remember, for every cable or set of cables spun by the MSM, WL uploads the original. think about that for a moment. this is part of what JA calls scientific journalism. one the one hand you get the MSM account and fill-in or spin and on the other you have the source itself (it's not in some journalists notebook in a safe in the editors office or whatever). the trick is then that you as an individual can see for yourself how the cables have been covered, interpreted, spun, etc. how well or badly this is done tells you something about the MSM party doing it.

i believe that's a good thing, no matter how "trivial" some claim the cables are.

*

[vanlose kid]

a further note: part of the adverse media reaction to JA, even by the MSM parties who "cooperate" with WL (there was a "washing our hands of JA piece in the Guardian today) is as a reaction to the pressure that WL puts on them.

this also, i believe, is a good thing.

*

[AlicetheKurious]

...one thing i'd like to note is the question of WL making use of MSM channels to raise publicity re the published cables. some of you may recall JA's reasons for putting WL up on Amazon: as a test. part of WL is to test media also. remember, for every cable or set of cables spun by the MSM, WL uploads the original. think about that for a moment. this is part of what JA calls scientific journalism. one the one hand you get the MSM account and fill-in or spin and on the other you have the source itself (it's not in some journalists notebook in a safe in the editors office or whatever). the trick is then that you as an individual can see for yourself how the cables have been covered, interpreted, spun, etc. how well or badly this is done tells you something about the MSM party doing it.

i believe that's a good thing, no matter how "trivial" some claim the cables are.

*

I'm curious about that, because I've read that in fact the actual cables that describe Arab monarchs begging the US to attack Iran have not been uploaded to the Wikileaks, and the newspapers that wrote so extensively about them didn't publish the original cables either. Can anybody confirm the truth of that either way?